"Snapper" <snapper1@y7mail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:94uvb4tsttgm1g0gjnhgr6ssk20vkj00ap@yarwho.com ...
> GDS wrote...
>
>> *If* (better f*cking not!) my TV was to die tomorrow I'd replace it with the biggest
>> and
>> best CRT within my budget. Whilst my friends 52" Bravia looks awesome(!!!) playing
>> 'Call
>
> One of the advantages of a flat panel display is that it doesn't take up the
> room (depth) that a traditional CRT does.
I completely agree, and for me it would have the added advantage of becoming the computer
monitor so I'd free up a whole corner worth of computer desk.
>> of Duty 4' I prefer my lame 100Hz CRT for movies. Well that's not entirely true, I
>> couldn't justify the purchase price for the very slight increase in quality.
>
> Are you saying that a HiDef screen only has a marginal increase in picture
> quality over a 100 hz TV? What about the flat panel displays that are 100 hz?
I thought all flat panels were 100hz? But no, I'm saying HD screens only seem look their
best when whatever is being displayed is CGI. The few live action BluRay movies I've been
able to compare have only a marginal increase in quality.
>> I'd be on it in a heart beat, the simple truth is LCD is average and Plasma is costly
>> to
>> run, projection on the other hand can be kinda tops, but it's a bit too dedicated for
>> me
>
> Has anyone actually measured power usage and compared LCDs, plasmas and CRT
> displays? I've heard or read conflicting stories. Perhaps I should take a tong
> tester home and measure the power usage of my plasma.
There's little difference between that of CRT and LCD these days, plasma still sticks out
though
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-...content;rb_mtx
> As for projectors three mates have them. I'm not impressed. For starters, like a
> picture theatre it needs to be isolated from ambient light. And the colors all
> seemed to be wishy-washy to me. Like the projector globe wasn't bright enough or
> something.
Yep, I agree, that's why I mentioned the dedication required.
G.