High Definition CRT Television

[shredder]

High Definition CRT television? I heard of one Philips CRT TV way back in about 2007 that was supposed to be high-def cost 22K). But what would be the use of having a high definition TV that does not support HDMI? It would be like that Panasonic entry level 32" LCD TV (Panasonic-TH-L32C8) that does not support HDMI. Only people who have no clue and only want a cheap 32" LCD TV buy this model. Only later when they realize the potential offered by HDMI they regret and try to sell it off for cheap.
PS: Does anyone know of any gramaphone that outputs digital quality music?? That would be something wouldn't it?

 

[sanjay0864]

HD = 1,920x1,080 Pixels ( at whatever Hz)

Which brand sold CRT TV's at this resolution in India ?

I have only seen computer displays with such resolutions !

Actually all the major brands sold HD CRT TVs, either direct view or CRT based rear projection TVs in India. I remember distinctly models from atleast the following companies: Philips, Sony, Pioneer, Toshiba, Panasonic, Hitachi & Samsung.

Philips actually sold a TV with a display resolution of 1080p, but limited to accepting 1080i/720p because it didn't have HDMI or DVI, only component. It also had 100hz scanning so it was popularly known as the 100hz TV

I have the TV you speak of, even today. It is a 55" Rear projection TV, which I bought 'eight' years ago for Rs. 175,000/- . You are right about most of the specifications, except that it cannot accept a 720p signal. It accepts upto 1080i signals but the only progressive signal it accepts, is 480p/576p and that too only via the component input. Although, it does have 100Hz scanning, it was not known as the 100Hz TV, instead it was called a 'HD Ready' TV. I happen to also have what you refer to as a 100Hz TV, but that one is not HD and can only accept and display upto 480p/576p signals. Finally, you are right that this TV does not have HDMI or DVI, but as a matter of fact, Philips did introduce models later that had a DVI input, but not in India.

 

[sanjay0864]

PS: Does anyone know of any gramaphone that outputs digital quality music??

'Digital quality' is a misnomer. What exactly is 'digital' quality. Is there a fixed standard or refrence chart for this 'digital' quality that is so very used and abused now a days. Although, 'Digital' does offer immense potential for quality, something being 'digital' in itself, guarantees no particular level of quality. As a matter of fact, 'digital' if used incorrectly or not done right, gives you far inferior quality than 'digital'. A fact proven day in and day out, by the TV channels in India, by DTH operators, by VCD/DVD/BD producers in India. The fact is, that TV picture quality was far superior in the days of analog, than it is now with digital. Please don't consider the failure of your local cable operator to give you a good quality analog TV signal as a true reflection of the quality that we used to get when the channels were all being beamed in analog. I once even saw an ad, for a digital refrigerator. Go figure.

 

[sandip_d]

You are right about most of the specifications, except that it cannot accept a 720p signal.

I have a different experience with my Philips 29PT8836 HD Ready CRT. The Philips product information for PT298836/94 mentions following Supported Display resolutions. 480p(60Hz),720p(50,60Hz),1080i(60Hz) & 1080p(60Hz).
http://www.p4c.philips.com/files/2/29pt8836_94/29pt8836_94_pss_aen.pdf

The requirement now is a source capable of outputting 1080p via component. When these TVs were launced, how many DVD/Blu ray players were capable of outputting 1080p via component? So the limitations are with source not the display. Over the years, I have come across only one source which is capable of outputting 1080p via component & that is Oppo 983H. There may be others but I dont know.

OPPO DV-983H 1080p Up-Converting Universal DVD Player with VRS by Anchor Bay Video Processing and 7.1CH Audio

The first thing I did when I got hold of Oppo 983H, I connected it to Philips PT298836 via component, inserted a DVD and watched it for all the resolutions outputed by Oppo i.e. 576p/720p/1080i/1080p. The TV displayed all resolutions including 1080p effortlessly. The picture quality was absolutely stunner at 1080p. That cleared all doubts in my mind regarding ability of Philips PT298836 in accepting and displaying 1080p content.

 

[sulivan]

Hello,
I am looking for a High Definition CRT television. Is this available in India? if yes which are the models I can look for?

Check this out:

I own the younger sibling, the popular 100Hz TV from philips. Absolutely stunning performance.

 

[psychotropic]

hey sanjay, i am not talking about the 55" rear projection TV. I am talking about the 29" regular CRT TV which had a 1080p display, but only component in (and 1080i) and it had 100hz scanning. Here's a review of it on techenclave Tech2.com India > Philips 29PT8836/94 CRT HDTV > Reviews > HiFi & TV > CRT

Actually all the major brands sold HD CRT TVs, either direct view or CRT based rear projection TVs in India. I remember distinctly models from atleast the following companies: Philips, Sony, Pioneer, Toshiba, Panasonic, Hitachi & Samsung.

I have the TV you speak of, even today. It is a 55" Rear projection TV, which I bought 'eight' years ago for Rs. 175,000/- . You are right about most of the specifications, except that it cannot accept a 720p signal. It accepts upto 1080i signals but the only progressive signal it accepts, is 480p/576p and that too only via the component input. Although, it does have 100Hz scanning, it was not known as the 100Hz TV, instead it was called a 'HD Ready' TV. I happen to also have what you refer to as a 100Hz TV, but that one is not HD and can only accept and display upto 480p/576p signals. Finally, you are right that this TV does not have HDMI or DVI, but as a matter of fact, Philips did introduce models later that had a DVI input, but not in India.

 

[nirrej]

But what would be the use of having a high definition TV that does not support HDMI? It would be like that Panasonic entry level 32" LCD TV (Panasonic-TH-L32C8) that does not support HDMI. Only people who have no clue and only want a cheap 32" LCD TV buy this model. Only later when they realize the potential offered by HDMI they regret and try to sell it off for cheap.

The Samsung model featured in one of the previous posts has 2 HDMI inputs!!

 

[gobble]

I have a different experience with my Philips 29PT8836 HD Ready CRT. The Philips product information for PT298836/94 mentions following Supported Display resolutions. 480p(60Hz),720p(50,60Hz),1080i(60Hz) & 1080p(60Hz).
http://www.p4c.philips.com/files/2/29pt8836_94/29pt8836_94_pss_aen.pdf

The requirement now is a source capable of outputting 1080p via component. When these TVs were launced, how many DVD/Blu ray players were capable of outputting 1080p via component? So the limitations are with source not the display. Over the years, I have come across only one source which is capable of outputting 1080p via component & that is Oppo 983H. There may be others but I dont know.

OPPO DV-983H 1080p Up-Converting Universal DVD Player with VRS by Anchor Bay Video Processing and 7.1CH Audio

The first thing I did when I got hold of Oppo 983H, I connected it to Philips PT298836 via component, inserted a DVD and watched it for all the resolutions outputed by Oppo i.e. 576p/720p/1080i/1080p. The TV displayed all resolutions including 1080p effortlessly. The picture quality was absolutely stunner at 1080p. That cleared all doubts in my mind regarding ability of Philips PT298836 in accepting and displaying 1080p content.

Alas! I dilly-dallied on purchasing this and when I wanted to buy it was no longer available!!

Lucky you!!

Cheers

 

[kksunil]

Gobble/Deba, Do CRT has any advantage over LCD?

I thought LCD is always better for your eyes & less radiation. I may be wrong. The only reason i changed by regular CRT with HD-LCD is because my kid always watch TV standing very close to screen...

 

[gobble]

Gobble/Deba, Do CRT has any advantage over LCD?

I thought LCD is always better for your eyes & less radiation. I may be wrong. The only reason i changed by regular CRT with HD-LCD is because my kid always watch TV standing very close to screen...

PQ is better with CRT as explained earlier in this thread. I observed that too.
Please work actively to stop this habit with your child asap!!

Regards

 

[Bangalore123]

my kid always watch TV standing very close to screen...

Thats because the PQ is good.

 

[shredder]

I once even saw an ad, for a digital refrigerator. Go figure.

Still figuring... bcos I also once saw an ad for a digital stove

 

[Bangalore123]

I once even saw an ad, for a digital refrigerator. Go figure.

Still figuring... bcos I also once saw an ad for a digital stove

shredder you need to take a break

 

[shredder]

The fact is, that TV picture quality was far superior in the days of analog, than it is now with digital. Please don't consider the failure of your local cable operator to give you a good quality analog TV signal as a true reflection of the quality that we used to get when the channels were all being beamed in analog.

So you are saying that Doordarshan was clearer than picture quality given by Sun HD? Don't tell me you never had to go to the roof/balcony and fiddle with the antenna in the good old days of pure analog???

 

[shredder]

shredder you need to take a break

one break coming up

 

[sanjay0864]

The fact is, that TV picture quality was far superior in the days of analog, than it is now with digital. Please don't consider the failure of your local cable operator to give you a good quality analog TV signal as a true reflection of the quality that we used to get when the channels were all being beamed in analog.

So you are saying that Doordarshan was clearer than picture quality given by Sun HD? Don't tell me you never had to go to the roof/balcony and fiddle with the antenna in the good old days of pure analog???

Ofcourse you cannot compare SD to HD, but believe you me, the analog reception from Doordarshan was definately far superior to the over compressed, pixelated and 'artifact' riddled digital picture from any of the DTH companies. In any case, my comments were regarding the comparison between the analog and didital beaming of channels from satellites. I used to have my own dish and analog set-top box and you would not believe how much superior the picture quality used to be compared to the crap we get from these DTH companies.

Don't tell me you never had to go to the roof/balcony and fiddle with the antenna in the good old days of pure analog???

Nope, I never did or to be more precise, I very rarely ever did. In fact, I never ever had to fiddle with the antenna as much as the number of times we have to call the DTH company for various problems.

 

[psychotropic]

analog and digital suffer from different sets of defects, in any signal transmission. It's difficult to make a blanket statement that one is better than the other. On the one hand the fact is that what digital is trying to do is emulate an analog signal using sampling, and you can argue that analog is therefore superior, because it is the full picture, and not just samples. On the other hand there is nyquist shannon and so on which say that if there is a good enough sampling rate, your digital signal is indistinguishable from analog. Analog signals are also prone to noise, while digital signals are prone to digital artefacts.

It's like those Coffee Bite ads, 'the argument continues'

 

[sanjay0864]

analog and digital suffer from different sets of defects, in any signal transmission. It's difficult to make a blanket statement that one is better than the other.

The discussion was never about whether analog is better or digital. In fact, this argument is rendered redundant, simply because were it not for 'digital' and the compression it allows, many advancements in audio/video would never have been possible, this includes the commercialization of HD. The simple point I was trying to make, is that 'diigtal' by in itself does not guarantee any particular level of quality and is totally dependent on how well you use and implement the 'digital' signal. This is why I stated that the term 'digital quality' is a misnomer and actually defines nothing.

 

[psychotropic]

for a change, sanjayji, i am completely in agreement with you.

The discussion was never about whether analog is better or digital. In fact, this argument is rendered redundant, simply because were it not for 'digital' and the compression it allows, many advancements in audio/video would never have been possible, this includes the commercialization of HD. The simple point I was trying to make, is that 'diigtal' by in itself does not guarantee any particular level of quality and is totally dependent on how well you use and implement the 'digital' signal. This is why I stated that the term 'digital quality' is a misnomer and actually defines nothing.

 

[SynthSmith]

Well,
Here is a Panasonic 29" 1080i TV - TX-29F350M
Flat TV | Panasonic Singapore