Sony brass defends lack of features on low-end PS3

Sony is getting attention at E3, all right. It's just not the kind of attention the company was hoping for.<BR><BR> Story

 

[nadenf]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">They need more than just the milked out standard franchises. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>What like a completely revolutionary control system ?<BR><BR>Once people start playing sports/FPS with Wii using a XBox/PS3 controller is going to seem pretty archaic.<BR><BR>And how about the washed out francises for XBox .. how many Halos/MGS are we going to have ?

 

[sryan2k1]

The Xbox 360 (both versions) are capable of HDMI output, microsoft has said this, they have also said that it didn't make sense to release a HDMI A/V Pack for it since nothing would use it really (and analog is more then fine for 1080i games)<BR><BR>They also said in the future if the demand is there (Read: HD-DVD) they will release one

 

[Xenoterranos]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nick2000:<BR>I fail to see the problem. You are telling me that people who will drop 2 or 3 grands on a TV will not want to spend $100 more for the high end version of the PS3?<BR><BR>They would be cheap on the PS3 but spend gobs of money on the TV?<BR><BR>Now, if 1080i or 1080p would show up on $500 tv, then I could understand the complaint. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I paid $850 for my 30in CRT Panasonic HDTV with HDMI that supports up to 1080i. I will not pay almost as much as my tv for a console that won't be using it's biggest feature. I'll wait and get a next gen DVD player in a year or so for half that...For now I'll get the wii and wait for the Halo 3 special Edition 360.

 

[d_jedi]

Tell me.. what good is bundling an expensive Blu-ray disc player with the PS3 (reportedly the most expensive component..) if it won't be able to play Blu-ray content at more than DVD resolutions?<BR><BR>Hopefully, all goes well.. and the lack of HDMI on PS3s convinces the movie studios never to use the ICT. <BR><BR>But, it could also go the other way - and PS3 buyers could be paying for a Blu-ray player that they can never use to it's potential (a really expensive DVD player, essentially..)

 

[emice]

Ok, so the $499 won't have HDMI/digital out, but will it have analog component out? That might not be so bad if movie companies stick to not downgrading content for non-HDMI outputs, since component can do at least 1080i.

 

[SPOOFE]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Tell me.. what good is bundling an expensive Blu-ray disc player with the PS3 (reportedly the most expensive component..) if it won't be able to play Blu-ray content at more than DVD resolutions? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>The cynic in me wants to say it's because consumers don't care about ACTUAL quality, they care about PERCEIVED quality, and if they have some new super-snazzy techno-gizmo to brag about, they'll perceive it, all right.<BR><BR>Then there's the fact of a psychological quirk in human nature: If they spend a lot of effort or resources or time on something, they'll "project" value into that something, even if, objectively, that value isn't there.<BR><BR>Combine all this into the fact that Sony can probably sell people a plastic case full of dog poo and there'll be a market of fanwankers for it.

 

[DC]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by d_jedi:<BR>Tell me.. what good is bundling an expensive Blu-ray disc player with the PS3 (reportedly the most expensive component..) if it won't be able to play Blu-ray content at more than DVD resolutions?<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Far fetched: To read the media on wich games will be shipped?

 

[Josh Berry]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Alfonse:<BR>Do you honestly believe your PS3 is going to last you 3 years? This is a <I>Sony</I> product, remember? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I realize I may be in the minority, but I actually still have a day 1 PS2. I'd say it was easily worth the 300 I put down for it and I would consider trusting them again.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Alfonse:<BR>And Nintendo isn't known for abandoning its consoles. It stuck with GC for most of its life. And Microsoft has no real need to abandon 360, since PS3 isn't exactly superior hardware.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Correct me if I'm wrong, but the PS2 is the oldest of last gen, yes? Which system still has games coming out, again? I realize Paper Mario is supposed to be quite nice, but compare that with FFXII, God of War 2, Okami, etc. So far it seems to me that Sony is the only company that doesn't basically ditch a system once they have the replacement. <BR><BR><BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Alfonse:<BR>The "nunchuck" will be boxed in, and the classic controller probably will too. And I don't think anything, not even the FPS's, use the zapper. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Doesn't change the fact that you are still paying basically for the controller. Until it is shown that the Wii is indeed a substantial upgrade to the GameCube, you are basically paying a full system cost for a new controller. I think it is a great idea for this round. I just hope they don't continue the trend into the future.

 

[neffer]

http://www.firingsquad.com/features/playstation_3_failure/<BR><BR>GameTrailers Roundtable Videoafter Day One<BR>http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?type=wmv&id=10652<BR><BR>Notable quotes (paraphrasing):<BR>"gamers are asked to subsidize Sony's blu-ray"<BR>"Developers are saying 360 and PS3 are the same in terms of power"<BR><BR>E3 2006: Microsoft Recommends Wii<BR>Peter Moore tells people to pick up a Wii and a 360 instead of a PS3.<BR>by JKR<BR><BR>May 11, 2006 - You read it right. Peter Moore, a vice president for Microsoft, asked in a recent interview, "Tell me why you would buy a $600 PS3?" He went on to explain, "People are going to buy two [machines]. They're going to buy an Xbox and they're going to buy a Wii ... for the price of one PS3."<BR><BR>Microsoft seems to have decided to side with Nintendo in order to overthrow Sony's current lead in the videogame market. Whether the strategy will work or not remains to be seen. Though no official announcement has been made regarding the price of Wii at launch, it is expected to release for a significantly cheaper price than either the 360 or Playstation 3 consoles. Nintendo has stated many times that it does not wish to compete directly with Sony and Microsoft in the next generation war, opting to move into a new direction with Wii that will complement the other systems.<BR>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...AR2006051100612.html

 

[Bloodwine]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nick2000:<BR>I fail to see the problem.<BR>...[snip]...<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>The problem is that offering different versions of the same console is a bad idea. Consoles are supposed to be braindead simple. You are supposed to be assured that when you buy the console, that every game can be played on it. You are not supposed to worry about your hardware specs.<BR><BR>There are few exceptions, such as gimmick games that need light guns or other special controllers, but the core of the system should always be the same.<BR><BR>As soon as games come out that say "Only playable on the PS3 Gold Edition" or "Only playable on the Xbox360 Platinum Edition" or console games come with minimum requirements, the console industry will take a huge hit, because Joe Average won't like that one bit.<BR><BR>Also, if there are multiple versions of console hardware, be assured that 99% of the time the game will be coded to the lowest common denominator so that it is sure to run everywhere. That pretty much makes the upgraded versions a bit worthless.<BR><BR>I know it is not that bad yet, but this is the start of a trend. Hopefully it is a short-lived trend.<BR><BR>The gaming industry is overdue for a slump, despite the best efforts of the gaming industry to spur on a slump early 1980's style by their actions.

 

[neffer]

View image: http://www.ukresistance.co.uk/pics3/ps3liebackend.jpg <BR>the lies.... no dual screen goodness. remember that promise? meh, they said lots of things...<BR><BR>on another note, doesn't it seem like ps3 is helping to doom the bluray format? imagine you are a company making that 1000 dollar bluray player only to be undercut by a heavily subsidized ps3. that would just be uncool. then theres the hddvd already out at 499.<BR><BR>its not really a deal forcing consumers to gamble on a media format they really aren't excited about. normally people would wait 2-3 years and buy the damned players once they hit walmart at say 100-150 dollars. or less, look at the 50 dollar dvd players<BR><BR>not that gamers generally ahve the money to spend on expensive movie discs anyways. whats little jonny going to spend his allowance on. that 50 dollar game? or two movies that last maybe 5 hours combined. let alone after spending 600+ on a ps3... gamers ar echeap since gaming does eat large chunks out of ones entertainment budget.. 50 bucks at a time. its even worse this time as i've read ps3 games will be 70+ dollars on release.<BR><BR>i think the better deal will be 360 + wii as moore said. esp if the 360 has a price drop, thats just unbeatable.<BR><BR>as for not needing hdmi, its just disturbing knowing the movie studios will still have the option of turning on the resolution cripple flag..unlikely as that maybe.<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by InfernoBlade:<BR>My $400 Panasonic HDTV has HDMI, and displays 1080i. Neither are a high end feature. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR><BR>400 dollars? i'm guessing crt. tv's of that type claim to support hd. its more like hd ready edtv since there just aren't enough phosphor dots to resolve actual hd image, too big a dot pitch anyways.<BR><BR><BR>anyways sonys history of being anti consumer just rubs me wrong. think rootkit for one. sony music..sony films.. sony is the mpaa/riaa and you know what bs they are into. microsoft as shifty as they are atleast doesn't sue their customers.<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>Once people start playing sports/FPS with Wii using a XBox/PS3 controller is going to seem pretty archaic. <BR><BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR><BR>i think its more like the wii will also come out with a wireless conventional controller for things like fighting games and such. can't pretend one device does everything best, it might do many additional things rather poorly actually. lke you you technically could fly a flight sim with mouse and kb, but its obviously superior to buy a joystick. you could use a wii or mouse and kb to drive in racing sims, but its obviouslybetter to get a steering wheel etc.

 

[Enron]

This article reeks of the author not really knowing as much as he should before writing this kind of critique.<BR><BR>1. While many more expensive HDTVs sold now have HDMI, only a HANDFUL are capable of 1080p. 95% of sets are only capable of up to 1080i, which looks nowhere near as good as good 'ol 720p. So why buy a premium ps3 when there's a 95% chance your HDTV can't do 1080p?<BR><BR>2. The ICT has been dropped by two studios, and will be dropped by the others. And if its not, the "Downgrade" you get will likely be only from 1080p (which your set likely won't do anyway) or 1080i to 720p. Studios know that the vast majority of HDTVs in homes currently are NOT HDMI equipped. Why freeze out the majority of your market when your goal is to make as much profit as possible?<BR><BR>All this belly-aching over the ps3 is ridiculous. For 100 dollars more than the xbox360, you are getting the SAME THINGS that the premium360 offers PLUS a blu-ray drive on the "gimped" ps3. That's a good value when you consider a standalone Bludisc player is what, 700-1000 bucks?

 

[neffer]

thats assuming todays prices. the 360 will almost certainly drop in price by ps3 launch. its been out for half a year now. <BR><BR>as for value, you could strap a bluray player to a wii and charge 350 dollars for it. would it be a good deal? of course not. if you just want to play games its just money taken from your pocket for something you really aren't so hot about. its a forced gamble on a format that could become the next betamax. and its starting to become absurd when you have to say a console is a good deal compared to a stand alone video player costing 1k.

 

[uziq]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">All this belly-aching over the ps3 is ridiculous. For 100 dollars more than the xbox360, you are getting the SAME THINGS that the premium360 offers PLUS a blu-ray drive on the "gimped" ps3. That's a good value when you consider a standalone Bludisc player is what, 700-1000 bucks? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Bluray is crap, especially if it costs money. What Sony needs to do is offer a PS3 with a regular DVD drive. Xbox360's games fit on a DVD, so why can't PS3's?<BR><BR>If Bluray is the reason that the PS3 is going to cost so much, then I don't want it.

 

[Magua]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Alfonse:<BR>It's not that easy or simple. Sony still has their PS3 exclusive content: GT4 (possibly countered by Forza 2), MGS4, and FF13. That's a pretty powerful lineup, though not one that will be available at launch.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Actually, according to this article on Betanews.com, Microsoft played another trump card. GTA will be released on the 360 on day one...

 

[glamajamma]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tequilla:<BR>Excellent points. Playstation 3 and PS3 added together. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Not to mention searches for PS3 would only be for news where as Xbox 360 searches could actualy be for games/cheats/purchases/tactics/maps/etc etc. This would be more accurate when it hits the market.<BR><BR>I saw the Wii floor videos. The games look lame/old gen typical games, nothing to see there. I think some of the characters looked like they were off the first Mario 3D game. Nothing new, nothing fun. The Zelda demo looked painful.<BR><BR>I am poor. I will buy the PS3, never even considered the Xbox 360. I will start saving now.

 

[HappyBunny]

One thing I saw mentioned in one of the other threads (not sure if it is true) is that according to the Blu-Ray spec, a device can not be labeled a Blu-Ray player unless it has compliant digital video output. If this is the case, it seems like Sony is really shooting their marketing in the foot by removing that output on the low end model.

 

[L.M. Lloyd]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neffer:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by InfernoBlade:<BR>My $400 Panasonic HDTV has HDMI, and displays 1080i. Neither are a high end feature. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR><BR>400 dollars? i'm guessing crt. tv's of that type claim to support hd. its more like hd ready edtv since there just aren't enough phosphor dots to resolve actual hd image, too big a dot pitch anyways.<BR><BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Ummm... no real nice way to put this, but you are completely talking out your ass! ALL of the first 1080i HDTVs were CRT. To this day, if you want to spend tens of thousands of dollars on a professional studio HD monitor for the absolute best image and color, you are going to get a CRT. CRT monitors capable of displaying resolutions above HD were available for years before the first Plasma or desktop LCD were even on the market.<BR><BR>I don't really care if you want to make up a bunch of crap to feel good about your 360, but don't just start inventing bullshit that you think makes you sound like you are some sort of expert.

 

[MagusDarkFlame]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nadenf:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tequilla:<br>So who's checked out Google Trends yet? -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif -- </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>You really need to add the searches for PS3 and "playstation 3" so its hard to tell who is on top.<br><br>The best search is for Wii. Hmm I wonder when they came out with the name .. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>short and long names<br><br>somehow seems more relevant to use short handed names and extended for both as well as the revolution since wii dint exist in history<br><br>given approximate timings to accouchements and e3 such seems to make a lot more sense.<br><br>Despite the price tag i still see the ps3 and wii a more realistic purchasing option for me. <br>wii for party and social gaming and ps3 for rpgs and various imports.<br><br>in my opinion 360 still mainly appeals to a specific audience and that seems a bit too close for comfort between pc. <br>As a gamer price is really a mute point. (enthusiasts rarely take price as a serious factor) PC gaming has the price point beat by 500$ easy and is still popular amongst a select audience. The same audience that MS is catering to by releasing ports from xbox & 360 to PC.<br>Example:<br>kotor, fable, halo are all on pc with a bit of time next gen of those will be on pc as well.<br><br>Based on my interoperation of their press conferences and pushing for a closer environment between 360 and pc development ports will just be available sooner.<br><br><br><br>**<br>forgot url

 

[neffer]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by L.M. Lloyd:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neffer:<br> <blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by InfernoBlade:<br>My $400 Panasonic HDTV has HDMI, and displays 1080i. Neither are a high end feature. </div>
</blockquote> <br><br>400 dollars? i'm guessing crt. tv's of that type claim to support hd. its more like hd ready edtv since there just aren't enough phosphor dots to resolve actual hd image, too big a dot pitch anyways.<br><br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Ummm... no real nice way to put this, but you are completely talking out your ass! ALL of the first 1080i HDTVs were CRT. To this day, if you want to spend tens of thousands of dollars on a professional studio HD monitor for the absolute best image and color, you are going to get a CRT. CRT monitors capable of displaying resolutions above HD were available for years before the first Plasma or desktop LCD were even on the market.<br><br>I don't really care if you want to make up a bunch of crap to feel good about your 360, but don't just start inventing bullshit that you think makes you sound like you are some sort of expert. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>talking out of my ass? i was refering to the 400 dollar crt, not one worth tens of thousands by your own worlds. learn to read before you reply. of course you can have high resolution with crt, it just costs a goddamned lot as with everything else. cheap crts have very coarse dot pitch and won't resolve full hd, its just a matter of physical hardware reality. and its a goddamned good reason why you can't use cheap crt tv's as computer monitors unless you want to go blind. you aren't going to get super fine dot pitch sony or such for 400 dollars or anywhere near that price. read closer next time and save yourself a bit of typing.<br><br>anyways, the crowd voted with their feet-- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif --<br>http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/top/e306-clips-e3-morning-stampede-173469.php

 

[olo567]

http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/34579/122868.html<BR><BR>HDMI isn't really that important. I'd take a $100 drop, even if it means HDMI wouldn't be there. Component is more that sufficient, as that article shows.

 

[L.M. Lloyd]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neffer:<BR><BR>talking out of my ass? i was refering to the 400 dollar crt, not one worth tens of thousands by your own worlds. learn to read before you reply. of course you can have high resolution with crt, it just costs a goddamned lot as with everything else. cheap crts have very coarse dot pitch and won't resolve full hd, its just a matter of physical hardware reality. and its a goddamned good reason why you can't use cheap crt tv's as computer monitors unless you want to go blind. you aren't going to get super fine dot pitch sony or such for 400 dollars or anywhere near that price. read closer next time and save yourself a bit of typing.<BR><BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>In case you haven't noticed CRT technology has gotten really cheap these days. Last time I was at Fry's I saw a Toshiba CRT HDTV that did 1080i (and looked really nice) for $500. I don't find it hard at all to believe you can get one for $400. It only costs $200 for a Viewsonic monitor that does 1920x1440 @ 64Hz. That is with a 0.21mm horizontal dot pitch and 0.14mm vertical dot pitch.<BR><BR>I don't see any reason, aside from making stuff up that you though sounded good, that would cause you to say a $400 HDTV is "more like hd ready edtv since there just aren't enough phosphor dots to resolve actual hd image."

 

[neffer]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">e for $400. It only costs $200 for a Viewsonic monitor that does 1920x1440 @ 64Hz. That is with a 0.21mm horizontal dot pitch and 0.14mm vertical dot pitch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>theres a huge difference between crt computer monitors and tvs. tv's have dot pitches much higher than pc monitors, the only relatively cheap crt that has fine dotch pitch is the sony wide screen crt with super fine dot pitch and that costs double to triple the cheap crt. and even then its only able to resolve 1400 horizontal resolution. and later in the thread below its pointed out as a rather over enthusiastic stat even then, more like 1100. really cheap crts like the 400 dollar one have dot pitches much coarser, about the same as regular sdtv actually from just looking at the screen. this thread mentions the horizontal resolution. and how others are probalby half that resolution. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=469452<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">By comparison, the current 34W-inch XBR Hi-Scan monitor offers 847 lines of vertical resolution, while the new Super Fine Pitch model will offer 1,401 vertical lines.......<BR><BR><BR>There are 4 parameters that limit actual resolution on a direct view CRT:<BR><BR>1. Scanning frequency(its ability to light the pixels with the gun in a specified length of time.) 480i=15.75kHz, 480p=31.5kHz, 1080i/540p= 33.75kHz, and 720p=45kHz. As you can see 480p and 1080 are similar in required speed, 720p on the other hand is another pretty significant jump and very difficult to do on large format CRTs(its a lot of sheer line real estate for the gun to cover in 1/60th of a sec.<BR><BR>2. Shadow mask aperature count. Here's where things can get confusing. Sony use vertical slots and most other set manufacturers use individual holes. So techinically the Sonys have no vertical scan line limit imposed by the shadow mask. They do a have a horizontal limit in the number of vertical slits. Other sets are limited in both directions by the hole counts.<BR><BR>3. Beam spot size. The resolution of the set is limited by the size of the bean spot on the electron gun. The set can never have a finer resolution than this spot.<BR><BR>4. Phosphor triad count. The surface of the screen is coated with phosphor triads. Each one of these triads constitutes one pixel. Some set manufacturers try to argue that two different colors of the triad constitute a definable piece of info and would like just 2 colors to represent a pixel thereby increasing "actual resolution" by 50%. I personally dont buy that argument. Phosphor triad spacing is also called pitch(the distance seperating like colored pigments on the screen.) Typically triads are more dense at the center front of the screen because the beam spot is inherently smaller at this point and this is often where pitch is measured(cause thats as good as it gets on the screen.) You can divide the screen dimensions by the pitch to yield pixel approximtate screen resolution, but its usually lower than that because pitch increases towards the perimeter of the screen because the beam spot size increases(flashlight effect.)<BR><BR>Beam spot size and phosphor size are always nearly identical. So pitch is smaller at the center front of the screen and gets widerand/or taller at the edges.<BR><BR>I got my info on the Sony about a year ago and it was a word of mouth bit of info. IIRC I was told the pitch on the Sony was .68mm which is a landmark number in a large CRT and I recall being appropriately impressed. If the screen can actually resolve 1400 lines of horizontal resolution it would have to have .54mm pitch screenwide or probably .45mm at the center and tapering up to .6mm at the edges. Its a function of the way the CRT works that pixels cant be the same size screenwide especially on flat screen CRTs. The flat screen makes the flashlight effect worse. .54mm in itself would be an extraordinary number let alone what would actually be published at .45mm to actually pull off 1400lines horizontally.<BR><BR>Is that making sense?<BR><BR>Unfortunately the Sony isnt even trying to scale to 720p, it only scales HD to 1080i which it actually has LESS chance of doing in terms of actual screen resolution but is the only HD rate the set can muster scanning frequency-wise. It cant do 45kHz required to scan 720p and it cant physically resolve the pixels needed for 1080i, but it can do the 1080i scan rate. Kinda ironic eh?<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR><BR>its a dirty little secret that cheap crts just cannot resolve enough actual picture detail to really be called hdtv's even if they can take the input. <BR><BR>article from dans on this." Cheap High-rest TV:Forget it.<BR>http://www.dansdata.com/gz029.htm<BR>View image: http://www.dansdata.com/images/io026/pointer_close.jpg <BR>scroll down for explanation of phosphor dots and resolution View image: http://www.dansdata.com/images/753df/closeup320.jpg <BR>http://www.dansdata.com/753df.htm<BR><BR>look you can continue to believe that crt tvs somehow magically produce resolution because you think they are just large computer monitors all you want, its not going to make it true. they are different products built to different specifications.

 

[SPOOFE]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Last time I was at Fry's I saw a Toshiba CRT HDTV that did 1080i (and looked really nice) for $500. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I'm curious: Did it have an HDMI input?<BR><BR>neffer....<BR>That vid is hilarious.

 

[L.M. Lloyd]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SPOOFE:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Last time I was at Fry's I saw a Toshiba CRT HDTV that did 1080i (and looked really nice) for $500. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I'm curious: Did it have an HDMI input?<BR><BR>neffer....<BR>That vid is hilarious. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>No idea. I didn't look at the back of it.

 

[neffer]

another silly video, this time solid snake on ps3 price-- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif --<br>http://www.gametrailers.com/umwatcher.php?id=2806

 

[neffer]

much much longer wii line video.<BR>http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/profile/video_player.php?u...t&id=KnZnkTf_5bsMuTQ

 

[L.M. Lloyd]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neffer:<BR><BR>theres a huge difference between crt computer monitors and tvs. tv's have dot pitches much higher than pc monitors, the only relatively cheap crt that has fine dotch pitch is the sony wide screen crt with super fine dot pitch and that costs double to triple the cheap crt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>Ok, first off, if you are going to link to forums as your proof, you might try linking to something a little more recent than 2004. In case you haven't noticed we are pretty much halfway through 2006. Declarative statements about what products do and don't do made by some forum poster as of 2004 aren't really the most persuasive proof that products today couldn't possibly do something.<BR><BR>Secondly, you might want to fact check your links. It doesn't do much to prove your case when the links you use as evidence are riddled with factual errors. One of the links swears that the Toshiba 34HFX84 neither accepts nor can display 720p signals. I have one sitting right here, and that is just flat-out wrong. It accepts, and displays in native resolution 1080i, 720P, 480P. By the same token, the claim in the second link that VHS is only 320 X 240 is absolutely ridiculous! I used to do quite a few training videos that had to be distributed in 320 x 240 MPEG2, VHS, and S-VHS. There is no reasonable way you can claim that a 320 x 240 video is indistinguishable from a VHS tape. VHS is a lot closer to 540 x 400. Sure if you use a 2-head VCR that has never had the heads cleaned, and a cheap tape that has been recorded over about 50 times, you might get something closer to 320 x 240, but that is going way out of your way to make a worst case scenario.<BR><BR>Lastly, sure in the distant past there was a huge difference between CRT monitors and TVs. However, as production lines get consolidated to cut production costs, and the number of CRT manufacturers narrow to just a few companies, you are seeing more and more of the same technology being applied to all CRTs. That is why the average CRT computer monitor has actually gotten worse over the past few years, and CRT televisions have gotten better. They are meeting in the middle towards a product that can be made on a single assembly line. Soon, all you are going to see, outside of very expensive specialty products, is different packagings of the same tube in a given size for different markets.<BR><BR>You strike me as one of those guys who reads a lot of sales brochures, and decides he knows "The Truth" about technology, because he memorized all the numbers on the brochure. Let me fill you in on something. CRT has been depreciated by every vendor NOT because it is technically incapable of meeting the needs of HD signals, but because after years of hyping HD CRT products, people still weren't buying them. Consumers were not interested in buying a new TV just for higher resolution. Now bigger screens, and a 3" thick TV, that consumers could get excited about, and did. After years of lackluster CRT HD sales, people went out in droves to buy Plasm and LCD TVs, for no reason other than the form factor excited them. Since LCDs are cheaper to produce than CRTs, and since both LCDs and Plasmas take up less shelf space than CRTs, manufacturers were more than happy to oblige. There is a funny thing about how consumers view the world. They always think the newest thing is somehow the best thing. In reality, it is often the 50-year-old technology that has matured to the point where it is much better than they new technology. Of course, everyone wouldn't be constantly buying the newest thing if you said that.<BR><BR>Your belief that CRTs are somehow inferior to a digital display in the same price range is just misguided, and foolish. In fact until very recently (as in the products just coming out this year) digital displays represented lower quality for a higher price than CRT products. You, just like most Americans, liked the idea of a cool flat screen, so were more than happy to believe any claims about how much better they were than those stinky old CRTs, without ever once sitting down and doing an actual comparison. All you have to do is get a CRT, and a similarly sized and priced LCD next to each other, make sure they are both on reasonable settings, and it becomes immediately clear which one displays the higher-quality HD image. You can wave your hands and link to as many other people who agree with you as you want. You can ramble about your estimation of the dot pitch of a phosphor until you are blue in the face. What it all comes down to is image quality, and if you take a clean 1080i signal, you are going to have a hard time convincing anyone that a cheap modern CRT HDTV isn't reproducing a fine picture from that 1080i signal when you are sitting in front of it.

 

[L.M. Lloyd]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neffer:<BR><BR>theres a huge difference between crt computer monitors and tvs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Oh, and by the way, you are right that there is a huge difference between computer monitors and TVs, but an HDTV isn't a TV.<BR><BR>TVs have a rectangular pixel aspect ratio, and a fixed scan rate. HDTVs and computer monitors have a square pixel aspect ratio, and variable scan rates.<BR><BR>TVs are interlaced, computer monitors usually run progressive, but can also support interlaced, and HDTVs usually run interlaced, but can also support progressive.<BR><BR>In fact, the HDTV as we know it today (whether CRT, LCD or Plasma) is basically just a computer monitor. That is why they now can be used as computer monitors, what with the DVI and HDMI connections and all.

 

[NickN]

Maybe this is good news for people who don't care for DRM restrictions. It seems to me that Sony's game division is making it tough for Sony's motion picture division to ever enable ICT on their blue ray disks. Maybe this will also pressure other studios, especially if PS3 is a large percentage of the total blue ray population.

 

[neffer]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by L.M. Lloyd:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neffer:<BR><BR>theres a huge difference between crt computer monitors and tvs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Oh, and by the way, you are right that there is a huge difference between computer monitors and TVs, but an HDTV isn't a TV.<BR><BR>TVs have a rectangular pixel aspect ratio, and a fixed scan rate. HDTVs and computer monitors have a square pixel aspect ratio, and variable scan rates.<BR><BR>TVs are interlaced, computer monitors usually run progressive, but can also support interlaced, and HDTVs usually run interlaced, but can also support progressive.<BR><BR>In fact, the HDTV as we know it today (whether CRT, LCD or Plasma) is basically just a computer monitor. That is why they now can be used as computer monitors, what with the DVI and HDMI connections and all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>you type a lot to achieve nothing. you claim hdtv's are computer monitors since they have square pixels. did you even look this up? most plasmas are not square pixeled. sure they "should" be but they arent. but who cares, square pixels and variable scan rates aren't going to magically resolve full hdtv resolution when everything is else crude. and you just waste of alotta time trying to say crt tv's are just like pc monitors because if that were true the dot pitch would have dropped through the floor on crt tv's long ago and we would have bought them as computer monitors considering their better price to size ratio. crt is dying, the production for pc monitors is dying, lcd/plasma techs are ever increasing. you think theres going to be incredible investment in crt tech or production? you'd have to be a fool to think so. the reason for 2004 stil being valid? even in 2004 it was clear crt was dead tech with no future. crt tech hasn't changed recently..its a rather mature tech that is no longer being invested in. have you not noticed? apparently not. even your beloved toshiba had ditched crt completely. http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/21/toshiba-killing-crts-and-analog-tuners/<BR><BR>lol an hdtv isn't a tv? now you are just playing games. just dancing around the simple fact that crt tv's esp the cheap one originally mentioned have no possible way of resolving anywhere close to all of hdtv resolution.<BR><BR>as for the links, you didn't read closely did you? the vhs claim is interlaced, and he said roughly. which would make his claim 320x480i which is pretty close to vhs's actual real world resolution. as he said in the same paragraph one owuld have to capatue at higher resolution as to not miss the interlace detail. and the post said that the Toshiba 34HFX84 accepts 720p but downgrades it to 540p, not that it doesn't accept it at all. your reading comprehension is rather horrible.<BR><BR>and theres nothing about sales brochures in what i post. tv hdtv crt makers generally try to hide their specs as they are so very embarrassing. look you aren't going to get around the very well established facts on how crts work. with the coarse dot pitches and low specs of cheap crt hdtv's you simply cannot resolve pixel detail that cannnot be physically resolved by the hardware avaliable at that price. you don't even have to measure, you can eyeball the crudeness of the phosphore dots on cheap crts, its that obvious. sure its "possible" to create a crt tv with computer monitor like dot pitch i'm sure, but not at any price that is reasonable or viable, and its why its not being done. sony's fine dot pitch is as close as it gets, and it seems they are practically discontinueing it. you simply cannot ask for more pixels than something can give. i don't know why you are so defensive, perhaps you were under the delusion your little tv was a full hdtv and are now bent out of shape about finding out you've been had. <BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In fact, the HDTV as we know it today (whether CRT, LCD or Plasma) is basically just a computer monitor. That is why they now can be used as computer monitors, what with the DVI and HDMI connections and all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR><BR>no, computer monitors aren't interlaced no matter what you want to think. just try it ok. get that 400 dollarcrt hdtv to show 1920x1080 output from a video card and try to see per pixel detail. hell even small text will become an utter nightmare. and thats the basic issue,, they can't resolve the detail you claim they can, and you cannot prove they can. if they can't the "hdtv" label becomes a bit of a lie as i said and edtv becomes rather more honest and appropriate.<BR><BR>since we've posted this far lets look back at your original post that started all this. replying to my statement that 400 dollar crt hdtv is NOT capable of actual hdtv resolution you said this<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Ummm... no real nice way to put this, but you are completely talking out your ass! ALL of the first 1080i HDTVs were CRT. To this day, if you want to spend tens of thousands of dollars on a professional studio HD monitor for the absolute best image and color, you are going to get a CRT. CRT monitors capable of displaying resolutions above HD were available for years before the first Plasma or desktop LCD were even on the market.<BR><BR>I don't really care if you want to make up a bunch of crap to feel good about your 360, but don't just start inventing bullshit that you think makes you sound like you are some sort of expert. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR><BR>its still completely wrong and yhou've posted absolutely nothing that supports it. it doesn't matter if long ago crts where first to take the input from hd, we aren't even talking about whether those expensive first hdtvs were really capable of full hd. we are talking cheap current crt hdtv which are clearly unable to.<BR><BR>once again, being able to take input is not the same as being able to actually display said input in full glory. crt has essentially free downsampling in this matter. and 360? what i'm saying means the 400 dollar crt hdtv can't even resolve 720p, let alone 1080i. so wheres your point. that a tens of thousands of dollars you can get a crt tube built to pc monitor spec? its obviously not as you seem to talk about consumer crts as if they have the same abilities. as said in the original post, thats not what we are talking about. consumer crt tv is built to such a low spec it simply cant no matter what the brochure says. just get it through your thick skull that the simple fact is cheap crts can't resolve hdtv resolution fully, and if they were made to do so they would cost so much that they would be competing with plasmas and such, a battle they would lose with consumers. as i said, i maybe not an expert but i certainly know more than you. i get the feeling you've been making claims to people about your little 500 dollar toshiba "hdtv" that you just can't take back. perhaps you even paid full price when it came out. poor you. atleast you can pretend its an antique now that toshibas ditched the crt business.

 

[L.M. Lloyd]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neffer:<BR><BR>you type a lot to achieve nothing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Well that is obvious. You would have to be able to listen to something other than your own voice for my arguments to mean anything to you. None the less, I intend to set the record straight so that people don't make the mistake of taking you crazy statements as some sort of fact.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neffer:<BR>square pixels and variable scan rates aren't going to magically resolve full hdtv resolution when everything is else crude. and you just waste of alotta time trying to say crt tv's are just like pc monitors because if that were true the dot pitch would have dropped through the floor on crt tv's long ago and we would have bought them as computer monitors considering their better price to size ratio. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Ah, the classic circular argument of someone reinforcing their emotionally held belief. You start off saying that the fact that a $200 17" CRT can display over 1080 proves nothing, because TVs are nothing like CRT monitors. Then you end by saying that it would cost too much to use monitor technology on a TV. Are you even listening to yourself? You say that if TVs could display resolutions as high as monitors, we would use them, because they are cheaper. Have you looked at prices of CRT monitors recently? CRT monitors are CHEAPER not more expensive than TVs.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neffer:<BR><BR> crt is dying, the production for pc monitors is dying, lcd/plasma techs are ever increasing. you think theres going to be incredible investment in crt tech or production? you'd have to be a fool to think so. the reason for 2004 stil being valid? even in 2004 it was clear crt was dead tech with no future. crt tech hasn't changed recently..its a rather mature tech that is no longer being invested in. have you not noticed? apparently not. even your beloved toshiba had ditched crt completely. http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/21/toshiba-killing-crts-and-analog-tuners/<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>You really need to decide. Are you making a technical argument about what a CRT tube is, or isn't capable, or are you just saying that LCD and Plasma are cool, so who wants a stinky old CRT? What technology does, and doesn't get R&D money, is a function of what is selling. As I already addressed consumers prefer thin, flat, large HDTVs. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a CRT HDTV can display the advertised resolution or not. Maybe to you something being unpopular means that you should just be able to make up any crap you want to about it, like it was some nerd in high school, but that isn't an actual argument.<BR><BR>Oh, and if no one is investing in CRT, where do all these CRT products on the shelf keep coming form? Obviously someone is making them. The CRT fairy isn't just leaving them on store shelves at night. And if you think that the companies manufacturing CRTs have stopped even trying to make them cheaper and better because they are just stinky old CRTs, then you are as clueless about business as you are about video. As long as someone is making and selling a product, then they will be looking at ways to cut costs, and make the product more appealing.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neffer:<BR>lol an hdtv isn't a tv? now you are just playing games. just dancing around the simple fact that crt tv's esp the cheap one originally mentioned have no possible way of resolving anywhere close to all of hdtv resolution. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>So you keep saying. It would be a lot more convincing if you didn't keep demonstrating a wonderful combination of ignorance on the subject matter, and an obvious emotional bias.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neffer:<BR>as for the links, you didn't read closely did you? the vhs claim is interlaced, and he said roughly. which would make his claim 320x480i which is pretty close to vhs's actual real world resolution. as he said in the same paragraph one owuld have to capatue at higher resolution as to not miss the interlace detail. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I read the links, and just because they are wrong, doesn't mean that I didn't understand them. The fact that NTSC video is interlaced, doesn't mean that half the information ceases to exist. It is not my problem if you or the articles you link to don't know how to properly deinterlace video. NTSC is 720 x 486, and on a VHS tape you image is going to be somewhat under that, but nowhere near half that unless there is an equipment problem. bedsides that was hardly the only technical error on that page. The resolution given for DVD was out of left field, and across the board it showed a general misunderstanding of the differences between analog and digital video.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neffer:<BR>and the post said that the Toshiba 34HFX84 accepts 720p but downgrades it to 540p, not that it doesn't accept it at all. your reading comprehension is rather horrible. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>And that couldn't be more wrong. It takes 720p and displays it as 720p. The only place 540p even comes into the discussion, is that the user has a choice to either upscale standard NTSC to either 540p or 1080i. A 480p signal gets displayed at 480p (even through the component cables, which is another glaring factual error of this forum discussion you seem to put so much stock in), a 720p signal gets displayed as a 720p image. Everything else is converted to either 1080i or 540p based on the user setting. If you really think that some guy on the web who is saying that the Sony model is better knows more about the TV than someone who has owned one for a few years, then knock yourself out.<BR><BR>And no, my reading comprehension is just fine, your choice in sources is just even worse than your argument.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neffer:<BR>i don't know why you are so defensive, perhaps you were under the delusion your little tv was a full hdtv and are now bent out of shape about finding out you've been had. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Well, seeing as how I do HD production, and have a professional HD monitor that probably costs more than your car, plus a couple of LCDs, plus a couple of CRTs, it isn't really quite likely that I am upset because you set me straight. The reason I am bent out of shape is because unlike you, I have HD test patterns that I can put up on sets and actually see what they can and can't do. I don't have to base my opinion on what the guy at Best Buy told me to stroke my ego and get me to buy that crappy LCD TV. You, on the other hand have no first hand knowledge at all, and it pisses me off to see asshats like you shitting on other people's choices, just because you think your beautiful flat panel is so wonderful, and you think you have read some stuff on the net that was obviously over your head.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neffer:<BR><BR>no, computer monitors aren't interlaced no matter what you want to think. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>What a surprise, you aren't only ignorant and arrogant, but you are also obviously too young to remember interlaced computer display cards, and too inexperienced to have seen any stereoscopic displays. The vast majority of CRT monitors still support interlaced operation. Most video cards don't anymore, but the monitors still do. It is part of the VESA standard. That is how a stereoscopic display works, by offsetting the image on the second field.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neffer:<BR>just try it ok. get that 400 dollarcrt hdtv to show 1920x1080 output from a video card and try to see per pixel detail. hell even small text will become an utter nightmare. and thats the basic issue,, they can't resolve the detail you claim they can, and you cannot prove they can. if they can't the "hdtv" label becomes a bit of a lie as i said and edtv becomes rather more honest and appropriate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Funny, If I try it, like you suggest, with an actual HD test pattern, this CRT does a better job of resolving the pattern at 1080i than these cheap LCDs do. It doesn't have as much resolution as the reference monitor (of course) but it is respectable. I don't have any $400 CRTs around, but given that this Toshiba was around $2,000 three years ago, it doesn't seem at all unreasonable that there are cheaper sets out there now that can do it, given the way CRT prices have gone. Really, stop and think about it for a second (if you are able). Do you seriously believer that there hasn't been a single class action suit, if every CRT manufacturer on earth is, as you claim, just lying about their product? Oh, or do you think that only you, with your exhaustive research of Internet forums, are the only one who have put the pieces together and figured out this sinister conspiracy to fool the public? For that matter, do you even realize how long these HD standards have been around? Let me tell you, there were CRT 1080i sets out there when Plasma was still in a lab, and LCD was still only able to do 16-bit color.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neffer:<BR>its still completely wrong and you've posted absolutely nothing that supports it. it doesn't matter if long ago crts where first to take the input from hd, we aren't even talking about whether those expensive first hdtvs were really capable of full hd. we are talking cheap current crt hdtv which are clearly unable to. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Oh this is rich! You are claiming to have discovered that every CRT manufacturer on earth are lying about the capabilities of their products, and then say it must be true, because I can't prove it isn't. Sorry buddy, it doesn't work that way. It is not my burden to prove the absence of your supposed conspiracy. It is your burden to PROVE that all those 1080i HDTVs aren't really 1080i HDTVs, but really EDTVs or goblins, or whatever it is you are claiming they are.<BR><BR>I'm sorry if you were bitten by a CRT when you were a child, or that you think that the flatness of your TV is somehow an indication of the size of your manhood, or whatever you damage is, but that doesn't prove that you are right. You keep making all these claims and all the evidence you offer are links to forums that have major factual errors, and significant misunderstanding about video formats. If you need to shit on other people's TVs to make yourself feel like a big man, then I feel sorry for you, but don't fool yourself into thinking that we have to humor you in your insecurities.

 

[neffer]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>Ah, the classic circular argument of someone reinforcing their emotionally held belief. You start off saying that the fact that a $200 17" CRT can display over 1080 proves nothing, because TVs are nothing like CRT monitors. Then you end by saying that it would cost too much to use monitor technology on a TV. Are you even listening to yourself? You say that if TVs could display resolutions as high as monitors, we would use them, because they are cheaper. Have you looked at prices of CRT monitors recently? CRT monitors are CHEAPER not more expensive than TVs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>i see your delusions continue. somethings don't scale ok? if they built the tv's to the same spec sure they'd be able to resolve 1080p, but they aren't. tv's are cheaper because they are not viable in the market at the high end, so the ones that do hit the market are cheap cost cut low end low resolution junk. its just reality. i don't say that if they made high end crts wthat we would use them at all. they would probably cost as much or more than lcds/dlp/plasmas which are just more desirable. sure those have their issues, but they are constantly improving and have a long future ahead for them whereas crt is a old dead end technology. maybe a few video nerds would buy such tv's, but not enough to justify the investment.<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> <BR>You really need to decide. Are you making a technical argument about what a CRT tube is, or isn't capable, or are you just saying that LCD and Plasma are cool, so who wants a stinky old CRT? What technology does, and doesn't get R&D money, is a function of what is selling. As I already addressed consumers prefer thin, flat, large HDTVs. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a CRT HDTV can display the advertised resolution or not. Maybe to you something being unpopular means that you should just be able to make up any crap you want to about it, like it was some nerd in high school, but that isn't an actual argument. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>you are the one that needs to decide. you just can't admit that what it all boils down to is your cheap crt tv cannot resolve full hdtv resolution. that is what it comes down to. the fact that they are not desirable as flat screens is a different as separate issue. for the price a consumer is willing to pay, a crt is one that cannot display full resolution. lol you are one to talk about logic<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Oh, and if no one is investing in CRT, where do all these CRT products on the shelf keep coming form? Obviously someone is making them. The CRT fairy isn't just leaving them on store shelves at night. And if you think that the companies manufacturing CRTs have stopped even trying to make them cheaper and better because they are just stinky old CRTs, then you are as clueless about business as you are about video. As long as someone is making and selling a product, then they will be looking at ways to cut costs, and make the product more appealing.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR><BR>what crts on the shelf? all i see are cheap ones made in china with horribly crude dot pitch coarse resulting picture. as said big manufacturers like toshiba are pulling out of the market. the fact that they exist in the low end does not mean they also can resolve full hdtv images. the two things are completely unrelated. you talk about business lol..pretty sad you are not self aware. as you said.. CUT COSTS. consumers aren't going to pay for expensive crts because they are only viable as economy models. and as such there are prices to be paid when cutting costs, its called inferior technology/quality.<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> <BR>So you keep saying. It would be a lot more convincing if you didn't keep demonstrating a wonderful combination of ignorance on the subject matter, and an obvious emotional bias. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR><BR>you are one to talk, you can't even admit that low end hdtv's with their high dotpitch cannot physically resolve the full hdtv you claim they can. its just physical fact and you would rather believe in some kind of comforting fantasy magic that makes you feel good about buying your cheap crt hdtv.<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> <BR><BR>I read the links, and just because they are wrong, doesn't mean that I didn't understand them. The fact that NTSC video is interlaced, doesn't mean that half the information ceases to exist. It is not my problem if you or the articles you link to don't know how to properly deinterlace video. NTSC is 720 x 486, and on a VHS tape you image is going to be somewhat under that, but nowhere near half that unless there is an equipment problem. bedsides that was hardly the only technical error on that page. The resolution given for DVD was out of left field, and across the board it showed a general misunderstanding of the differences between analog and digital video. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR><BR>oh god, the man in the article was just giving a rough number for progressive equivalent. as for vhs, it has 240 lines of resolution. this is just a fact. you may have to capture at higher resolutions to take into account the imperfect nature of capturing analog video, but thats rather irrelevant to the sources original detail. and who cares really because its irrelevant to whether your cheap crt hdtv can fully resolve hdtv 1080i. you are dancing around the issue because you know you are wrong. theres nothing wrong with what he said about dvds at the time he wrote it at all, you are just smoking crack. as it says in the article <I>Big nasty secret: There does not exist a colour CRT tube, whether shadow mask or aperture grille, TV or computer monitor, that can clearly display all 1920 horizontal pixels of full-res HDTV.<BR><BR>There are plenty of computer monitors that can accept input resolutions of 1920 by whatever, or higher, but none of them have enough phosphor units to actually clearly display them. TV tubes aren't even in the race.</I> <BR><BR><BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> <BR>And that couldn't be more wrong. It takes 720p and displays it as 720p. The only place 540p even comes into the discussion, is that the user has a choice to either upscale standard NTSC to either 540p or 1080i. A 480p signal gets displayed at 480p (even through the component cables, which is another glaring factual error of this forum discussion you seem to put so much stock in), a 720p signal gets displayed as a 720p image. Everything else is converted to either 1080i or 540p based on the user setting. If you really think that some guy on the web who is saying that the Sony model is better knows more about the TV than someone who has owned one for a few years, then knock yourself out.<BR>And no, my reading comprehension is just fine, your choice in sources is just even worse than your argument.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR><BR>you know what? its irrelevant. the simple fact is no matter what silly setting you use your actual hardware cannot physically resolve the resolution setting that is applied. it will scan at the rate specified, but it will not resolve actual detail. so really, stop lying to yourself to feel better.<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> <BR>Well, seeing as how I do HD production, and have a professional HD monitor that probably costs more than your car, plus a couple of LCDs, plus a couple of CRTs, it isn't really quite likely that I am upset because you set me straight. The reason I am bent out of shape is because unlike you, I have HD test patterns that I can put up on sets and actually see what they can and can't do. I don't have to base my opinion on what the guy at Best Buy told me to stroke my ego and get me to buy that crappy LCD TV. You, on the other hand have no first hand knowledge at all, and it pisses me off to see asshats like you shitting on other people's choices, just because you think your beautiful flat panel is so wonderful, and you think you have read some stuff on the net that was obviously over your head. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR><BR>wow, thats hilarious, you do hd production yet you don't understand how tv's basically work? its not magic. and you can't get around basic realitys of how they function. and you make a lot of assumptions that have no basis. i know all about crts and their superior color rendition and contrast ratio, but it doesn't mean i'm frickin blind to the simple fact that low end crt hdtv's are NOT resolving full hdtv resolution simply by the fact of how they are built. get it through your thick skull.<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> <BR>What a surprise, you aren't only ignorant and arrogant, but you are also obviously too young to remember interlaced computer display cards, and too inexperienced to have seen any stereoscopic displays. The vast majority of CRT monitors still support interlaced operation. Most video cards don't anymore, but the monitors still do. It is part of the VESA standard. That is how a stereoscopic display works, by offsetting the image on the second field. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR><BR>once again, you want to go off on a tangent. playing word games on catagorizing monitors and tvs is irrelevant to the simple fact that a 400 dollar crt hdtv cannot resolve full hdtv resolution. you just keep ducking this. i simply don't care if old monitors were interlaced or black and white or green even. old ones even used composite input, but so what. its not the issue, and you are just playing games to get around the simple fact that you are wrong on the subject that started your little flame war.<BR><BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> <BR>Funny, If I try it, like you suggest, with an actual HD test pattern, this CRT does a better job of resolving the pattern at 1080i than these cheap LCDs do. It doesn't have as much resolution as the reference monitor (of course) but it is respectable. I don't have any $400 CRTs around, but given that this Toshiba was around $2,000 three years ago, it doesn't seem at all unreasonable that there are cheaper sets out there now that can do it, given the way CRT prices have gone. Really, stop and think about it for a second (if you are able). Do you seriously believer that there hasn't been a single class action suit, if every CRT manufacturer on earth is, as you claim, just lying about their product? Oh, or do you think that only you, with your exhaustive research of Internet forums, are the only one who have put the pieces together and figured out this sinister conspiracy to fool the public? For that matter, do you even realize how long these HD standards have been around? Let me tell you, there were CRT 1080i sets out there when Plasma was still in a lab, and LCD was still only able to do 16-bit color. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR><BR>you know what? i don't care if it does a "better job" at some other device. its about whether it can resolve the FULL RESOLUTION. you duck and weave and duck and weave because you cannot admit your wrong. you must be socially retarded because i said only what i said in my original post. i said nothing else about all this other nonsense you are generating in your own head. you have no idea what i think about lcd tvs and the rest, you've just been too busy talking to yourself apparently.<BR><BR>go ahead, go look at my original post. you've essentially already admitted you are wrong on resolution, and thatmakes all the rest of your typing is for nothing. <BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> <BR><BR>Oh this is rich! You are claiming to have discovered that every CRT manufacturer on earth are lying about the capabilities of their products, and then say it must be true, because I can't prove it isn't. Sorry buddy, it doesn't work that way. It is not my burden to prove the absence of your supposed conspiracy. It is your burden to PROVE that all those 1080i HDTVs aren't really 1080i HDTVs, but really EDTVs or goblins, or whatever it is you are claiming they are.<BR><BR>I'm sorry if you were bitten by a CRT when you were a child, or that you think that the flatness of your TV is somehow an indication of the size of your manhood, or whatever you damage is, but that doesn't prove that you are right. You keep making all these claims and all the evidence you offer are links to forums that have major factual errors, and significant misunderstanding about video formats. If you need to shit on other people's TVs to make yourself feel like a big man, then I feel sorry for you, but don't fool yourself into thinking that we have to humor you in your insecurities. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR><BR>once again you are ducking the issue at hand. a 400 dollar crt hdtv will not resolve full hdtv. all other issues YOU'VE brought up are extraneous and just total bullsh*t to cover your ass since you cannot admit that you are simply wrong.<BR><BR>conspiracy? i do remember you essentially saying that reading brochures is a poor way to attain knowledge. you think marketing is about nothing but the truth? you fool. its technically true such tv's can take hdtv input and display it. thats all thats required for the manufacturer to make their claims. the fact that they fall short of actually resolving full resolution is just something they don't like to mention. they don't really have to as none of their competitors for the same price can either, so whats the point of screaming about it. they aren't lying anymore than the edtv's and other tv's that can take hdtv signals but cannot resolve the full detail.<BR><BR>and you talk about manhood and all that good stuff. well see here. you've admited to spending 2000 dollars on an obsolete tv that now costs maybe 500 dollars if you can even find it. its such a dead end that its manufacturer has ditched the line completely. and now you are defending it to the end like some kind of deluded moron trying to make himself feel better about what he bought.<BR><BR>burden of proof? sonys fine pitch crt cannot resolve full hdtv. its superior to your tv. in fact its superior to any other crt tv in its price range made at that time. your tv therefore cannot possibly resolve full hdtv either. hows that logic. deal with it.<BR><BR>and once again you make assumptions you have no valid reason to make. sorry, you gotta stop talking with the voice in your head. the conversation ends with what is written on this page. deal with it.<BR><BR>have a read. these are not flat panel fanboys or crt haters. they just seem to know a lot more than you do. the one thing theres no doubt about is that 400 dollar crt hdtv's cannot resolve full hdtv resolution. your hdtv cannot, and even the consumer champ sony fine pitch can't.<BR>http://archive.avsforum.com/avs-vb/history/topic/469287-1.html

 

[L.M. Lloyd]

Are you only as old as LCD TVs or something, is that the problem? Have you never worked on a high resolution CRT in your life? Have you ever even seen a CRT, or just read about them?<BR><BR>You ramble and ramble, and ramble about dot pitch, and how it proves that it is physically impossible for a CRT to display 1080 on the screen. Now I'm not sure if you really know what dot pitch is, or if you are just incapable of doing math, but to display 1920 of horizontal resolution on a screen that is 28" wide, you only need .37mm horizontal dot pitch or smaller. You could do the 1280 of 720p on a TV with only a .555mm horizontal dot pitch. Both of those are almost twice the dot pitch of a CRT computer monitor. For a screen 18" wide, you need 23.8mm horizontal dot pitch for 1080, and only a .357mm horizontal dot pitch for 720. THAT is the cold hard reality of it. There is no figure there that is outside the physical capability of modern CRT manufacturing. All that leaves you is your bizarrely circular contention that CRTs suck because they can't do HD, and they can't do HD because they suck. All your vague references to dot pitch and ranting about how it proves your case are ill-informed pap, based on what you heard somewhere, and without even really understanding what you are saying. All your crap about how you have proof that they cannot physically do it, is just that, crap.<BR><BR>You keep saying that it is all about the dot pitch, yet even your own argument (if you can call it that) doesn't prove your case. All you have to support your case, is a posting on a site some three years ago, where some guy says that some salesman told him that his Sony had a .69mm horizontal dot pitch. From that you extrapolate this crazy idea that anyone selling or buying any CRT is lying if they say that they have a better dot pitch than what a salesman at some store told some guy that his TV had. Even the second factually inaccurate article you link to says that high quality SDTVs (that is SD) have a dot pitch of .4mm! Are you seriously expecting anyone to believe that HDTVs in 2006 have WORSE resolution than SDTVs in 2003?<BR><BR>That is psychotic! You go as far as to then claim that this post on this forum means that even a monitor with an advertised dot pitch of .21mm can't really display the advertised resolution. Face it, you decided to believe hearsay that made you feel all warm and fuzzy about your cutting edge flat-panel TV, and because you are unpleasant and petty person, you then use this half-understood hearsay as "proof" to shit on people you think are less than you because they bought a different TV. You are, in fact, so pathetic that you can't even understand that someone might be arguing with you because you are wrong, and instead project your own insecurities on them, and decide they must be arguing with you, because they also are less of a man than you based on their TV purchase.<BR><BR>You can hurl as many insults as you want at me, it doesn't change the fact that you are a sad little boy, talking out his ass about something he barely understands but he thinks makes him a big man. Dude, stop watching you wonderful TV, and spend the time getting some psychotherapy. You have some very serious issues, not even counting your stupidity.

 

[L.M. Lloyd]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neffer:<BR><BR>have a read. these are not flat panel fanboys or crt haters. they just seem to know a lot more than you do. the one thing theres no doubt about is that 400 dollar crt hdtv's cannot resolve full hdtv resolution. your hdtv cannot, and even the consumer champ sony fine pitch can't.<BR>http://archive.avsforum.com/avs-vb/history/topic/469287-1.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>Oh, and by the way, that site (which I have been aware of for years) is full of people like you who half-understand what they are talking about, and use these rationalizations and a healthy dose of conspiracy theory, to perpetuate all sorts of crazy ideas under the name of expertise. For the most part, they are the same exact kind of wackjobs that will try to tell you that you can really hear the difference in the exotic metals in their $2,000 RCA cable.<BR><BR>I can't count the number of times I have seen people on that site, as well as plenty of home theater magazines, claim all sorts of expertise all the while getting basic things like NTSC specs, and broadcast procedures and protocols entirely wrong. Those types of sites and magazines are for end users who want to feel like they know something, and the people who make a living selling them goods and services. For the most part you won't find production people, video engineers, or anyone with real hands-on experience producing video on those sites. That is hardly what I would call a reputable source of video information.

 

[neffer]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I can't count the number of times I have seen people on that site, as well as plenty of home theater magazines, claim all sorts of expertise all the while getting basic things like NTSC specs, and broadcast procedures and protocols entirely wrong. Those types of sites and magazines are for end users who want to feel like they know something, and the people who make a livi </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>i'm sorry, the concensus is that not even the high end sony fine pitch can resolve the full resolution. and so you can dance around all you want, that cost cut 400 dollar crt hdtv is just not going to resolve the full resolution of hdtv no matter what you type. they aren't improving quality, they are cutting costs, manufacturers are completely leaving the market in fact, you think they are spending r&d on this? you must be delusional. if there are not enough phosphor dots to resolve the detail, there are not enough phosphor dots the resolve the detail, no way around it. there is no conspiracy that is keeping crt hdtv's from being so mind blowingly good that everyone would clearly want one just seeing the stunning perfect images they supposedly create and its rather funny you'd bring up pseudo science, the link from dansdata, its a site in large part devoted to debunking such things.<BR><BR>and discounting avsforum? sorry, its a good source of information, anyone into video knows this. its not some crackpot at avsforum that puts out the sonys stats on resolution, its sony itself. and its the best of the lot in terms of resolution, meaning the rest can't hit the mark either let alone get close.

 

[Horatio]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">For the most part, they are the same exact kind of wackjobs that will try to tell you that you can really hear the difference in the exotic metals in their $2,000 RCA cable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Really? On AVS? When I was doing research for my home theater, I read tons of threads where the forum regulars made fun of people thinking that the $2k cables made any difference.

 

[L.M. Lloyd]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neffer:<BR>they aren't improving quality, they are cutting costs, manufacturers are completely leaving the market in fact, you think they are spending r&d on this? you must be delusional. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Really?<BR> What about this? <BR> And this? <BR><BR>Samsung and LG, not minor players in the electronics industry, are still putting R&D into CRT.

 

[neffer]

wow you keep digging and digging. note i've seen slim samsungs ok? i thought they were actually pretty neat when they were first announced but i also noticed the prices of cheap lcds plummeting. ever notice what they are investing r& d in? its not picture quality, its reducing the awful size of crt and perhaps the weight. in fact its rather stunning to see just how big the normal crts are beside the samsung in the showroom. the cheapest crts are the largest. but this doesn't get around the fact that they still look like garbage. the samsungs are not any better than the cheap crt hdtv's in image quality/dot pitch. and so theres no point bringing it up as it still means there is no 400 dollar crt hdtv that can resolve the full resolution of hdtv. not to mention seeing the samsung beside a super fine pitch sony crt shows the drastic difference in quality between the two. the sony almost looks like a computer monitor in terms of fine detail compared to the coarse sdtv like image of the samsung. and this is when even the sony can't resolve the full resolution of course. samsung is targeting a low end buyer, but perhaps not for long before lcds become good enough and cheap enough that they fill that gap too. the samsung just isn't goingto be cheap enough to compete. and its not as if samsung cares, samsungs got its own flat panel tvs too. don't think they won't drop crt when the time is right. its smaller yes, but still not flat. thats a sacrifice a consumer will take for perhaps half the price, but not if the difference becomes small. and its becoming really small. beyond 30" crt become several hundred pound monsters. competing with ever larger and ever cheaper flat panels will just become impossible. the industry is at a transition point and it won't be long before flat panel tv's become very good deals.

 

[L.M. Lloyd]

You go on and on about how CRTs are a dead end that no one is working on. You say I am delusional if I think anyone is putting R&D into CRTs. I show that CRTs are still being refined and developed by two major manufacturers, and then you essentially say "well who cares, it doesn't change anything."<BR><BR>Well, it certainly changes which of us appears to be delusional.<BR><BR>Then you go back to your weird ranting about how CRTs are fat, ugly, stupid, smell bad, and ate your little brother, or whatever your odd hatred of a type of imaging device is all about.<BR><BR>No one is arguing that CRTs are on their way out. For that matter, LCDs are really only a shoddy stop-gap until they can get OLED working at larger scales, and Plasma screens were an idea that looked really good on paper, but doesn't really turn out to be the best idea in the real world. None of that is the point.<BR><BR>The point is that you made several blanket statements about what CRT technology was, and wasn't, capable of and claimed (incorrectly) to have incontrovertible physical evidence that you were right.<BR><BR>I, unlike you, am not on some insane crusade to convince people my TV is the best TV on earth. It is a fucking TV! I just hate to see people like you making incorrect blanket claims. Hell, the guy you were responding to didn't even say he had a CRT. You just had to throw in some cheap shot at this guy's TV, and had to assume he had a CRT, because apparently you thought that was a good excuse to vent your disgust at the filth that is CRT infection in our world.<BR><BR>Seriously, anyone who has such an emotional hatred of a display technology really should think about getting some new hobbies or something.