Is there a place for old tech in the 21st Century?

[Gazjam]

For years ( Too many) I used a Trinitron type CRT screen for design work.
Big bulky things admittedly, especially so in the necessary to needs larger sizes.
Switch over to Flat screens was met with serious complaints from most all colleagues in our profession..pretty well from the start.
There was advantage in that one could fit flat 2 screens side by side though.

However accuracy and simple line detail presentation of the Old tech Trinitron designs was (is) wayyy better.
Definitely more life in the crt images, but that was secondary to the fine detail losses.
This despite ALL claims to massively 'improved' resolution numbers.
Fairly simple proof in simply viewing the two types.. side by side.
Curiously new/young designers, who had never used a Decent CRT, have no experience of what or if, of any of this.
Simply another 'in my day' babble.
.

Hmnn...
Appreciate what your saying (First job used a Sony Pro monitor for running AutoCad release 9 with a digitising tablet...old man alert!) so I've also been there "back in the day" and taking all relevent points on board....sometimes though nostalga aint what it used to be.

Honestly, much happier using my current CAD multi 4K monitor setup, some things do change to be more convenient, but sometimes there is genuine progression.

[Lodgesound]

As a piece of engineering, and 'old tech', that is just simply stunning! £75k? That's just mental...

As you say, the little screen is well cool. Now, even though I'm observing the colours through a modern computer screen, I can still tell by looking at them how much richer and warmer they look, compared with the colder and 'acid-toned' variety, produced by today's equipment

Perhaps Stewart knows where I'm coming from here?

Marco.

Hi Marco - yes see where you are coming from. The overall quality of full bandwidth PAL as we used to see throughout Television Centre particularly in the VT recording areas was at the time second to none - always very warm, rich and even having passed through a transmission chain in a well fed reception area did look absolutely stunning.

The VTR's as you see in the picture were capable of recording the full bandwidth of the composite signal which was 5.5 MHz - their analogue response to tape of these signals was flat. On replay their Timebase Correctors would stabilise the image to within 3nS of timing so even several generations down which was required sometimes for editing the quality was nothing less than excellent.

The BBC had a policy of only ever transmitting MASTER tapes. No safety copies were made as only trained engineering staff ever handled them or the machines.

[Marco]

Hi Stewart,

Thanks for that. So cutting through the 'tech speak', which flies straight over my heard, and to summarise, there's a genuine reason why I'm seeing what I'm seeing, in terms of the colour thing I described earlier?

Marco.

[Marco]

For years ( Too many) I used a Trinitron type CRT screen for design work.
Big bulky things admittedly, especially so in the necessary to needs larger sizes.
Switch over to Flat screens was met with serious complaints from most all colleagues in our profession..pretty well from the start.
There was advantage in that one could fit flat 2 screens side by side though.

However accuracy and simple line detail presentation of the Old tech Trinitron designs was (is) wayyy better.
Definitely more life in the crt images, but that was secondary to the fine detail losses.
This despite ALL claims to massively 'improved' resolution numbers.

Excellent, mate. Thanks for outlining your experiences in this area, which also align with mine. As ever, with most things in life, rarely is anything newer automatically better than its predecessor in every area. There are always compromises to be had

Marco.

[lurcher]

This is insane, no one has said anything that agreers with you Marco, all they have both said is that CRT's are capable of very good results (which no one is disagreeing with). They have carefully (I suspect) avoided the issue of how you can see those good results from the CRT when you are using a LCD to view the picture, which type of display you are saying is not capable of those good results. Ignoring all the other stages that picture may have gone through before it gets posted as a jpeg on the net and makes it to your laptop.

[Marco]

"Insane" or not, Nick, it's my opinion, and for good reason, so please respect it. Danillo also shares some of my experiences. John agreed with me earlier, too. I'll wait until Stewart returns to answer my question, thanks, before assessing things further.

Marco.

[Gazjam]

*Edited for reasons of having said something silly and OTT, my fault.

[Marco]

Gary, that's extremely patronising, so I suggest that you delete those remarks, or I will.

What happened to the let's just 'agree to disagree' we settled on earlier? Was it all just hot air? Obviously, as far as you're concerned, it was. I won't be forced into agreeing with something I fundamentally disagree with, simply because my opinion differs from that of the so-called 'experts'!

Marco.

[lurcher]

Can I just check, just what your opinion is as I am getting a bit lost?

Is it that LED's are incapable of producing as good results as CRT's? Or that some LED's have a worst display than some CRT's and vice versa?

If the second, then I dont think anyone is disagreeing with you. if its the former then if you can see the difference on your laptop then your observation is contradicting your assertion. I am not questioning your opinion or your observation, I am questioning the chain of logic you seem to be using to align your opinion with your reported observation.

[Virtual-Symmetry]