Large CRT TVs

DIMIDEAS

Active member
Joined
18 Aug 2022
Messages
29 (0.27/day)
Anyone think that these large CRT TVs are scary?

I think so. I'd say 32" and over is a "Hellavison". Hellavison is the nickname I give larger CRT TVs. I don't think they made direct view CRTs any larger than 40 inches

1662348398361.png

1662348431401.png


1662348468165.png

h








I prefer small to medium sized tubes since they have better picture quality. Mainly because the lines weren't as big. They also aren't as a paint to move as medium and small sized ones are. I'm assuming small CRT TVs lasted longer than these, since it meant less surface area needed to be scanned. The sound quality on larger CRT TVs sounded "glassy", it made everything sound like it was coming from a fishbowl.
 

Retro

Founder
Staff member
Joined
4 Jun 2021
Messages
2,074 (3.77/day)
I'd say they're bulky, take up a lot of space and tend to dominate a room, but I've never found them scary.

I'm so glad for modern display technology and its sharp pictures. I was very aware even then just how unclear / blurry the picture was as it was the broadcast signal itself that was like that. The CRT computer monitors showing computer images that came later were lovely and sharp, especially the mono screens.
 

Arantor

Well-known member
Staff member
Joined
24 May 2022
Messages
730 (3.74/day)
Ahhh can’t beat an old game on a proper CRT though - modern monitors do fantastic reproduction but the art of the old games was designed on and for CRTs and I miss that look and feel.
 

DIMIDEAS

Active member
Joined
18 Aug 2022
Messages
29 (0.27/day)
. I was very aware even then just how unclear / blurry the picture was as it was the broadcast signal itself that was like that.

CRT computer monitors had sharper quality than the ones used for TVs.

HD CRT TVs had excellent color accuracy but text still wasn't as clean as flat panels.
 

Retro

Founder
Staff member
Joined
4 Jun 2021
Messages
2,074 (3.77/day)
Sure, but the broadcast signal still had low bandwidth and hence a blurred picture. You can still see it on old content from the 90s etc on modern TVs.
 

Retro

Founder
Staff member
Joined
4 Jun 2021
Messages
2,074 (3.77/day)
Ahhh can’t beat an old game on a proper CRT though - modern monitors do fantastic reproduction but the art of the old games was designed on and for CRTs and I miss that look and feel.
I remember playing Half-Life 2 on a TV for exactly that look and feel. All that blurriness gave it more of an "arcade" quality somehow.
 

DIMIDEAS

Active member
Joined
18 Aug 2022
Messages
29 (0.27/day)
Sure, but the broadcast signal still had low bandwidth and hence a blurred picture. You can still see it on old content from the 90s etc on modern TVs.

Most of the 90s still had that blurry and hazy picture that was present throughout the 70s and 80s. It wasn't until around 1997 or '98 when the picture quality in most shows became more vibrant and lost that hazy effect. Shows from that point on resembled a 480p YouTube video until most networks finally made the switch to HD around 2009.

Even today, streaming has better picture and sound quality than broadcast does. Because of this, shows that have came out since about 2016 look indistinguishable from today.
 

Retro

Founder
Staff member
Joined
4 Jun 2021
Messages
2,074 (3.77/day)
It's true that video quality improved in the 90s, but it was still blurred as that bandwidth was just too low. Heck, even today's HD picture isn't all that sharp when you look a bit more closely. It should be better than that, but clearly, the bandwidth has been reduced / more compression to squeeze in more channels at the expense of picture quality. Finally, at UHD ("4K")* the picture looks nice and clear, but it's still not as good as it should be: compare HD & UHD pictures generated by your PC compared to broadcast TV and the difference becomes obvious.

*UHD and 4K are often used interchangeably, but they're not the same resolution, there being a slight difference. Basically, TVs and monitors are UHD while cinema is 4K, the slightly higher resolution one. Notice how Sky correctly refer to UHD everywhere rather than 4K.
 

live627

Well-known member
Joined
12 Jul 2022
Messages
60 (0.41/day)
I'm so glad for modern display technology and its sharp pictures.
Only at native resolution. I have a 1440p monitor precisely so that games that max out at HD (1280 x 720, NOT full HD) can display clearly because of that sweet, sweet 4:1 pixel ratio.

Anyone think that these large CRT TVs are scary?
My ears do. Coil whine? No thanks. Also, heavy as all hell. Even boulders weigh less and can be transported via a wheel barrow. 🤣
 

Retro

Founder
Staff member
Joined
4 Jun 2021
Messages
2,074 (3.77/day)
Only at native resolution. I have a 1440p monitor precisely so that games that max out at HD (1280 x 720, NOT full HD) can display clearly because of that sweet, sweet 4:1 pixel ratio.
Right, couple of things there.

If the monitor isn't being driven at its native resolution, then you can't expect optimal performance, so that's not a demerit. Even colour CRTs have it, except with the blurriness of the picture, it naturally smooths it out so it's not so obvious. Mono CRTs have a more or less continuous phosphor coating, so this doesn't apply to them.

It's not just about having an exact ratio either, since almost all monitors will antialias the picture when a non-native signal is recieved, making it look like blurry crap. So, your 4:1 example will look blurry because of this. A few years ago, NVIDIA introduced a feature in their driver called integer scaling which is specifically designed to prevent this antialiasing from occurring, hence making the picture look fantastic in all its pixelated glory. This doesn't work on older card models though, unfortunately.

Secondly, the same picture will make any non-native resolution look good. Wanna display 1680x1050 on a 1920x1080 monitor? No problem, you just see a natively mapped picture in the middle of the screen. It will of course look smaller than native, with a thick black border all round it, but will otherwise be just as sharp and screen elements will be the same size as a native picture. Yes, I've tried it.

More magic happens if displaying quarter full HD, 960x540: the picture fills the screen and looks perfectly rendered, with screen elements now looking 4 times the size and very blocky. Of course, desktop real estate is also a quarter, feeling very cramped.
 

DIMIDEAS

Active member
Joined
18 Aug 2022
Messages
29 (0.27/day)
If the monitor isn't being driven at its native resolution, then you can't expect optimal performance, so that's not a demerit. Even colour CRTs have it, except with the blurriness of the picture, it naturally smooths it out so it's not so obvious

CRT TVs have the best image quality when performing at it's highest resolution.

I had a CRT rear projection TV from 2002 and the colors on the component inputs seemed to be the most accurate when set to 1080i.
 

DIMIDEAS

Active member
Joined
18 Aug 2022
Messages
29 (0.27/day)
Saw a rather basic CRT on Visual Alchemy LLC:


This one was from 2004, but only has a coaxial input. My aunt had the 2002 version of this TV, and it had composite, component, and scart. This must be a cheaper one.
 

Retro

Founder
Staff member
Joined
4 Jun 2021
Messages
2,074 (3.77/day)
Back in the 80s, I had a white Ferguson 12" black and white TV that was basic like that. Had just the antenna input, plus a radio style rotary dial tuner that drifted all the time, too. A pretty rubbish TV, I was glad to get rid of it several years later by giving it away to a friend.
 

Arantor

Well-known member
Staff member
Joined
24 May 2022
Messages
730 (3.74/day)
I had a colour Ferguson in the early 1990s, probably about 15”, as a display for my Spectrum and later my Amiga. Didn’t wobbly off signal much if I recall. Just did it’s job, no fuss.
 
Top Bottom