CRT vs the newer tech

[jacatone]

I keep my old Sony crt tv's because when I play video rips like avi, mkv, wmv using a WD media extender the picture quality is DVD. While lcd, led tv's they look washed out and dupey. Why is that?

[orsetto]

Lower-def sources like compressed rips will look better on CRT because CRT is analog tech optimized for standard def input. Modern LCD screen tech is is digital, with all the rigidity that entails: brutally unforgiving of anything less than full HDTV material.

Some LCD tv screens are better at displaying standard def than others: you have to shop around (all TVs today are LED-backlit, and are simply called LCD). Find a store that will let you hook up your media player on a slow day, and check a few different brands/models. Don't assume all sizes of a given brand will use the same screen tech: they don't. The 32" may be good with SD while the 42" might be terrible, or vice-versa, and the largest is weirdly sometimes best (my friend's new 65" Sony does remarkably well with her small low-res files).

Of course, you might just have a collection of poorly made rips. Quality varies tremendously depending on who did the coding: I've seen 600mb SD rips that look incredible, and 3Gb HD rips that look like VHS.

[pandy]

LCD is source for polarized light - my personal reception is "like plastic", side to this LCD is very sharp/digital where CRT is more analogue (pixel on CRT is more like Gaussian shaped than rectangular).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse_%28signal_processing%29#Gaussian_pulse

[jacatone]

Thanks. Trying out different flat screens with my media extender is a good idea. Never thought of that.

[johnmeyer]

I have four CRTs that I still use, including a fairly high-end Sony Wega. I like CRT displays.

However ...

I have to disagree that they look better when playing SD content. This is especially true for DVDs. For my Sony Wega (35") I have a component (RGB) connection, i.e., the "best" connection for analog CRT displays. For my LED LCD display (Samsung) I also have a component connection from a DVD player that can up-res, and also an HDMI connection from my XBox 360, which can also play DVDs. In other words, I have the choice of which DVD player to use, and which connection to use.

Bottom line: the quality of the DVD movies on my LED LCD is better in every respect: it is sharper, more detailed, has better contrast, more faithful colors (no NTSC color issues), etc. In addition, the 24p content (when playing movies) plays natively, so I eliminate the judder from pulldown fields.

If you have contrast issues, I suspect you are using a composite (yellow connector) connection into your newer LED LCD. Don't do that.

[jagabo]

While lcd, led tv's they look washed out

That describes a poor black level. Either because the TV can't produce full black (no LCD based TV can, but some are better than others) or because it's not set up properly. Or your player is set up improperly, or the video itself has bad levels.

[johnmeyer]

While lcd, led tv's they look washed out

That describes a poor black level. Either because the TV can't produce full black (no LCD based TV can, but some are better than others) or because it's not set up properly. Or your player is set up improperly, or the video itself has bad levels.

Good point. To add to that thought, you probably need to use different setup parameters for each source (i.e., the contrast, color, etc.).

[JVRaines]

In addition to image quality, there is the question of motion. Interlaced video looks "right" on a CRT in a way that can never happen on a progressive display.

[pandy]

In addition to image quality, there is the question of motion. Interlaced video looks "right" on a CRT in a way that can never happen on a progressive display.

You can emulate interlace display like CRT on progressive display...