Finally got an HD CRT

[John Mitchell]

Originally Posted by Jiri Bakala

I am yet to see a TV in an average house that's set up properly...:-) Or a movie projector at a multiplex...

Hope there's no projectionists here - they pride themselves on technical know-how and I think they might just take offence at that!

Jiri - are you saying your eyes are better than the professional setup gear they use at cinema? Or are you just saying that the print quality on a lot of films is lousy - we get a lot of used prints over in Australia (I'd agree with that)?

[John Jackman]

Originally Posted by Paul Mogg

The Sony PHM-14M8U CRT you mention only has 600 lines of resolution in 16:9 mode.

Paul, TV lines on CRTs are measured in a horizontal area equal to the vertical measurement -- so 600 lines on a 16:9 monitor would resolve slightly over 1000 lines horizontally.

Many people are hopping up and down about cheap LCD monitors, I haven't seen a single one under $1500 that looks right, period.

[Jiri Bakala]

Originally Posted by John Mitchell

Jiri - are you saying your eyes are better than the professional setup gear they use at cinema? Or are you just saying that the print quality on a lot of films is lousy - we get a lot of used prints over in Australia (I'd agree with that)?

No, no, I don't claim my eyes being better than the gear, it's just that often the multiplexes are automated and unsupervised and as a result the images look lausy. The other day I saw a movie that was supposed to be anamorphic and they run it without the anamorphic adaptor - squeezed! And no operator to be found. As for the setup, it's nice to have the gear as long as the operators are trained in using it.

[Nate Weaver]

Originally Posted by John Jackman

Paul, TV lines on CRTs are measured in a horizontal area equal to the vertical measurement -- so 600 lines on a 16:9 monitor would resolve slightly over 1000 lines horizontally.

Many people are hopping up and down about cheap LCD monitors, I haven't seen a single one under $1500 that looks right, period.

The advertised pitch on my CRT is .25, the pitch on my 20" ACD is .258.

Even though the CRT doesn't show ALL the resolution recorded, it's dang close. Close enough I can see my biggest focus bugaboo, the iris diffraction.

[John Mitchell]

Originally Posted by Jiri Bakala

No, no, I don't claim my eyes being better than the gear, it's just that often the multiplexes are automated and unsupervised and as a result the images look lausy. The other day I saw a movie that was supposed to be anamorphic and they run it without the anamorphic adaptor - squeezed! And no operator to be found. As for the setup, it's nice to have the gear as long as the operators are trained in using it.

Just having some fun Jiri - I put myself through a year at Uni ushering at a cinema complex, then scored a job with the cinema company in advertising. Anyway met a few projectionists (admittedly most of them old school), and technically they were great. In Aus I think the unions put a stop to too much automation..

Putting a movie up without the anamorphic lens is inexcusable and I hope the manager gave you a book of free tickets or something.

[Jiri Bakala]

Well, John, I was there with my wife and I didn't want to make a big fuss about it...so, yes we got a pair of free tickets. Young kids, what can you ask for, the manager was about 24...

[John Mitchell]

Originally Posted by Jiri Bakala

Well, John, I was there with my wife and I didn't want to make a big fuss about it...so, yes we got a pair of free tickets. Young kids, what can you ask for, the manager was about 24...

Poor show indeed. When I saw Bewitched, I complained about the quality of the print (not to mention the focus on some of the shots - can't really blame the cinema for that) - grainy, dirty and unacceptable. The manager gave me 3 x double passes which I considered fair recompense.

[Tony Goodman]

[QUOTE=Nate Weaver]So I finally got an HD monitor for my edit rig and for field work.

I can't stress enough how much better a real CRT makes HD100 footage look...or conversely, how unkind a high-res computer LCD is to the camera. I suppose one could make an argument that most people buying HD for their living rooms are buying LCDs or plasmas, but somehow that seems to be different.

In a related question, the monitor I bought only takes 1080i, not 720p. The 1080i upconvert on the camera works ONLY for tape playback, not live output. Is there a reasonably priced converter anybody knows of?

(720p into the monitor works, but is shifted to the right about 10-20%. Black/grey bar on left, clipped image on right. Maybe there's a timing adjustment I can use internally?)

Just thought I 'd let everyone know what I use with my Edius NX board and HD100, for anyone editing/shooting on a skinny budget.
I have a Samsung SyncMaster 730mw. http://product.samsung.com/cgi-bin/n...prod_id=MH17WS It has a lot of unwanted stuff like TV/radio tuner but does have the following: Component :Composite: RGB: Another set of RCA audio in: DVI(HDCP): DVI/PC in audio: is 1280/768 resolution and cost me UK£350. Usually about the same in US dollars (You guys really have it good on price!)
I am not trechnically minded so I do not know how it stacks up that way but it gives a true (IMHO) HD reproduction through the Component inputs. Enough for me to work with anyway. The only down side is that you cannot set up colour bars in the same way you could with a CRT monitor.
I use it only in post but could be OK on location if you have power supply ( it is free standing)

Cheers

Tony

[Matt Davis]

The single biggest issue between CRT and LCD, *especially* when considering HDV footage from something like the Z1, is the interlaced nature of the footage.

Only CRTs are interlaced. An LCD monitor will either throw away half the fields, resulting in a soft image (half the veritical rez), or the wildly more expensive ones will do a proper deinterlace which only chucks away a quarter of the rez. Either way, you ain't seeing what the camera recorded, and the footage may be better than you think - but only when displayed on a CRT.

This is where products like the HDLink can be useful - the very fancy hardware is there to sort out fields and LUTs and the like, plus all the squeezing and zooming required to get from the native rez to the screen rez.

IMHO, an editor needs a crt like a cameraman needs a tripod.

[Graeme Nattress]

But if only editors had CRTs, who realistic would that be. BTW, decent projectors don't throw away any rez. They convert 60i to 60p and just play back the frames twice as fast. There's no rez lost at all, and remember 60i only has 70% of the vertical rez of 60p due to filtering.

Graeme

[Matt Davis]

Originally Posted by Graeme Nattress

But if only editors had CRTs, how realistic would that be

:-D

You caught me wearing the wrong hat today!

And you make a good point about HIGH QUALITY projectors, which - like the good LCD screens with special hardware - cost a lot of money. Lots and lots of money. Far more money than a JVC HD CRT monitor.

If it's for shooting, how about the latest version of DVrack? I believe they've got an LCD LUT control so you can sort of tune up the laptop's screen to give you a little more of a clue, AND you get a waveform monitor too.

[John Mitchell]

Originally Posted by Matt Daviss

Only CRTs are interlaced.

AFAIK CRT's don't have to be interlaced - CRT projectors aren't, are they? Technically I think CRT's need special circuitry to display interlaced images, and there's no reason why they can't scan the whole screen in a single progressive frame.

CRT computer monitors scan in a progrssive fashion, but unfortunately they do not use the right phosphours for TV.

[Graeme Nattress]

Sure CRTs can be progressive, but their characteristics make them the most suitable type for interlaced display.

Graeme

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Originally Posted by John Mitchell

I 100% agree with Nate on the CRT v LCD equation. On CRT's we see true blacks and that is by far the most important factor, we are talking contrast ratios above 20,000:1 on a decent CRT.

BY contrast (ahem excuse the pun) some of the LCD's mentioned in this thread can manage only 350:1 and 700:1. This manifests as burnt out highlights, muddy blacks and a lack of smooth transition between light and dark. However you can check focus and composition on them. It really comes down to whether you intend your final output to be film, in which case I'd go for CRT over LCD every time.

Anyway my $0.02.

I would agree. I'm working on a HD large screen project and needed to view material at at least 720p and wanted 1080p. I considered the Dell and other LCDs but contrast and response times were a real concern. Unfornunately, a CRT that fully resolves 1080p lines and displays it nicely being fed 24fps from AE.is not an option that I've found at any reasonable price if at all (never could find one of the $5K plus HD monitors locally to view.

1080p projecters start at $20k and go up (Sony does have a new "low cost model" at $10k coming in a couple of months.

My "budget" solution was to keep my $600 Calibrated NEC CRT computer monitor, my $500 JVC Broadcast monitor (resolve around 600 lines) and add a Panasonic AE900U LCD projector as my second PC monitor (on a A/B switch to conserve the bulb). Native 720p, amazing contrast that's measured at around 1800:1 but uses faster than frame rate Dynamic Iris to boost to contrast to 5000:1 or so.

Black levels, with the right screen, are very good (not CRT deep) but shadow detail is outstanding. Image looks stunning. Got a projector for $2200 and screen for $500.

Plus you can pick up from the editing bay and drop in the living room for great Home Theater.

[Steve House]

A thought to consider in the LCD/CRT debate, put forth by our own DSE, is unless you are shooting for theatrical release, most of the final audience who will see HD footage as HD, be it broadcast or DVD, will be watching on LCD panel or Plasma display TVs rather than CRTs. Thus when colour correcting, etc, what you see when editing and previewing on an LCD panel is going to be closer to what the audience sees than if you used a CRT.