"Flaws" in SD signal being noticeable on higher resolution displays vs CRT

[90sTV]

What exactly is meant by this expression? Wouldn't all of the detail from the SD signal, more or less, also be visible on an SD CRT?

Are people referring to scaling artifacts being introduced on higher resolution digital displays (which isn't actually a "flaw" in the original signal)? Or is it a matter of CRTs varying in terms of the horizontal detail it can display based on the grille pitch or whatever, whereas modern digital displays will show everything that is captured in that dimension?

[teodz1984]

Artifacting is more noticeable at higher resolution screens ...

Maybe your source has a low bitrate and resolution...

[orsetto]

What exactly is meant by this expression? Wouldn't all of the detail from the SD signal, more or less, also be visible on an SD CRT?

The "expression" usually refers to playback of VHS sources, but will frequently apply with SD broadcast/cable/satellite feeds as well.. This looks better on CRT than HDTV flat screen technology (LCD is worst, plasma fell somewhere between). There are several reasons why, nearly all of which also cause tremendous aggravation when we try to transfer VHS to digital archives. If you were to compare the same SD source via CRT, plasma, and LCD in the same room, you would likely notice differences.

Yes, to a large degree this stems from the necessary scaling employed by the HDTV, but that isn't the only reason. SD was primarily an analog format, based entirely around CRT technology with its field system and other ancient compromises. The CRT itself is very forgiving, and compensates for all manner of timing errors, origination glitches and whatnot that look like crap on a flatscreen. Plus, standard LCD overlays its own defects, like lagging and smearing, not seen with CRT or plasma. So LCD often doesn't reveal all the true picture detail from SD, while "low res" CRT does. A lot of people never notice any of this distinctly: they either don't care at all, and only marvel at the huge size of HDTV, or if they do notice its in a generic "eh, that looks like mush, switch to a HDTV channel".

The very best modern HDTV technology (OLED, etc) circles us back to the forgiving aspects of CRT, but is still too expensive. Eventually it will be mass market, and SD will be much more watchable again. Of course, by then hardly anyone will be watching SD material unless they have a collection of old VHS transfers (or an addiction to retro tv subchannels).

[_Al_]

Are people referring to scaling artifacts being introduced on higher resolution digital displays (which isn't actually a "flaw" in the original signal)?

That might be the case for interlaced footage.
CRT displays it in its form. But Nowadays TV's have to deinterlace it. Either by a hardware (firmware) in TV itself or some software application, app. That could differ drastically depending what it is used and how good it is. And if that is not done well, artifacts could be blown out of proportions of course. And also if some SD footage is broadcasted, then it could be sort of "be butchered" on their end before it gets to you.

[robjv1]

What exactly is meant by this expression? Wouldn't all of the detail from the SD signal, more or less, also be visible on an SD CRT?

The very best modern HDTV technology (OLED, etc) circles us back to the forgiving aspects of CRT, but is still too expensive. Eventually it will be mass market, and SD will be much more watchable again. Of course, by then hardly anyone will be watching SD material unless they have a collection of old VHS transfers (or an addiction to retro tv subchannels).

As totally silly as it is, this is precisely why I'm eyeballing a $2000 OLED TV right now -- so that I can retire my 36" bedroom CRT (that weighs 200 lbs) and watch my VHS footage in peace

[orsetto]

As totally silly as it is, this is precisely why I'm eyeballing a $2000 OLED TV right now -- so that I can retire my 36" bedroom CRT (that weighs 200 lbs) and watch my VHS footage in peace

Glad to see you checking in, robjv1! We missed ya!

[robjv1]

As totally silly as it is, this is precisely why I'm eyeballing a $2000 OLED TV right now -- so that I can retire my 36" bedroom CRT (that weighs 200 lbs) and watch my VHS footage in peace

Glad to see you checking in, robjv1! We missed ya!

Thank you sir! Glad to be back with you fine folks, I've missed it too. Had a long (but necessary) layoff on my projects and just getting back into the swing of things.

[mazinz]

What exactly is meant by this expression? Wouldn't all of the detail from the SD signal, more or less, also be visible on an SD CRT?

The "expression" usually refers to playback of VHS sources, but will frequently apply with SD broadcast/cable/satellite feeds as well.. This looks better on CRT than HDTV flat screen technology (LCD is worst, plasma fell somewhere between). There are several reasons why, nearly all of which also cause tremendous aggravation when we try to transfer VHS to digital archives. If you were to compare the same SD source via CRT, plasma, and LCD in the same room, you would likely notice differences.

Yes, to a large degree this stems from the necessary scaling employed by the HDTV, but that isn't the only reason. SD was primarily an analog format, based entirely around CRT technology with its field system and other ancient compromises. The CRT itself is very forgiving, and compensates for all manner of timing errors, origination glitches and whatnot that look like crap on a flatscreen. Plus, standard LCD overlays its own defects, like lagging and smearing, not seen with CRT or plasma. So LCD often doesn't reveal all the true picture detail from SD, while "low res" CRT does. A lot of people never notice any of this distinctly: they either don't care at all, and only marvel at the huge size of HDTV, or if they do notice its in a generic "eh, that looks like mush, switch to a HDTV channel".

The very best modern HDTV technology (OLED, etc) circles us back to the forgiving aspects of CRT, but is still too expensive. Eventually it will be mass market, and SD will be much more watchable again. Of course, by then hardly anyone will be watching SD material unless they have a collection of old VHS transfers (or an addiction to retro tv subchannels).

You have no idea how happy I am that you wrote up this wonderful piece. Now when I have to go through the hassle of explaining why I still have and prefer my crts, I can just point them to your reply above

[lordsmurf]

Sony LCDs don't smear like most others. That's why I have one.

And I still use a JVC 36" CRT as well.

@robjv1, you've been missed on another site too.

[KarMa]

Scaling an SD signal to 1080p is going to introduce some loss, scalers which are hardware based.