HDTV in mainstream media: NYT gets it wrong, St. Paul Pioneer Press gets it right
by Richard Lawler 
posted Dec 10th 2005 at 5:36PM
One day, two newspaper articles about high definition TV. Unfortunately, while reading this New York Times article, it immediately jumped out at me that they were playing into the common misperception that tube televisions are not high definition, and flat panel displays are."That means you should ignore any unit that says EDTV, standard definition or flat- tube TV. It's old technology." = OH NO YOU DIDN'T.
Now where did I put that soap box, because I have some street corner sermonizing to do.
Yes, CRT's are old technology, but they're old technology that works.
If you're looking for a TV of 36" or less and don't want to spend a
bundle they are probably your best option. Granted, the article is
buying for the future, saying 15-20 years, but seriously, who is buying
their TV with an eye to 20 years in the future? CRT's still have better
image quality than that provided by LCD's, if it's good enough for Itagaki,
it is good enough for me. The only knock against the old cathode ray
tube is space and heft, and if you're willing to give up space in your
living room for space in the wallet (like extra money to buy a surround
system and get a really good experience), I wouldn't blame you. Newer
slim-CRT's give back some of the space, but may cost a bit more.
The Times unfortunately is sending out customers who may not be fully informed on their choices and spend more than they have to. They spend the rest of the article going on only about DLP, LCD and plasma technologies, all of which make for excellent TV's, but not necessarily the best for everyone. They also pay lipservice to 1080p sets, but make no mention of the current lack of 1080p content or that some TV's advertise the resolution but do not accept it as an input.
In contrast, the Pioneer Press provides a pretty balanced look at all technologies available and their pros and cons. It's not especially in depth, but it gives a good base for people who might be confused about what they have heard so far.
"Picture-tube TVs are like sets of decades past, but with wide-format "letterbox" screens and improved image quality. The advantage: Because they are on the way out, they're cheaper. The disadvantage: They are bulky, and because of their heft, screen sizes typically don't exceed 34 inches.
But CRTs "look as good as anything we sell," said Ben Steenson, a TV expert at Ultimate Electronics in Roseville. "You get phenomenal contrast and good color. This is the most refined TV technology. It's been around for 80 years.""
I hold no grudge against the NYT, but I hope to avoid any HDBeat readers having their holiday experience ruined by a cousin claiming their tube set isn't a real HDTV, or worse, opening a gift wrapped 1024x768 "HD"TV. That would be worse than another pair of wool socks. Point your most generous aunt to our holiday buying guide, or one of our previous guides to ensure a great time for all.
The Times unfortunately is sending out customers who may not be fully informed on their choices and spend more than they have to. They spend the rest of the article going on only about DLP, LCD and plasma technologies, all of which make for excellent TV's, but not necessarily the best for everyone. They also pay lipservice to 1080p sets, but make no mention of the current lack of 1080p content or that some TV's advertise the resolution but do not accept it as an input.
In contrast, the Pioneer Press provides a pretty balanced look at all technologies available and their pros and cons. It's not especially in depth, but it gives a good base for people who might be confused about what they have heard so far.
"Picture-tube TVs are like sets of decades past, but with wide-format "letterbox" screens and improved image quality. The advantage: Because they are on the way out, they're cheaper. The disadvantage: They are bulky, and because of their heft, screen sizes typically don't exceed 34 inches.
But CRTs "look as good as anything we sell," said Ben Steenson, a TV expert at Ultimate Electronics in Roseville. "You get phenomenal contrast and good color. This is the most refined TV technology. It's been around for 80 years.""
I hold no grudge against the NYT, but I hope to avoid any HDBeat readers having their holiday experience ruined by a cousin claiming their tube set isn't a real HDTV, or worse, opening a gift wrapped 1024x768 "HD"TV. That would be worse than another pair of wool socks. Point your most generous aunt to our holiday buying guide, or one of our previous guides to ensure a great time for all.
- Choosing the right size
- Buying extended warranties
- HDTVs for the Xbox 360
- Daily programming for your HDTV along with our pick every day
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
derrick @ Dec 10th 2005 6:13PM
I also read the above article he didn't say CRT isn't HDTV he said that it old technolgy. Personally you have to take into account NY times reader aren't your everyday Joe Blow(NY Post,Daily News) Times reader will probably opt for newer products before others.Article is definately slanted but actually incorrect.
Wilbur Pan @ Dec 10th 2005 6:29PM
Um, if we are going to get on our high horse about spreading misinformation, youre also going to have to drop your 1024x768 isnt real HDTV campaign. Nowhere on the ATSC website nor on the federal government's DTV website is there a regulation regarding horizontal resolution in the HDTV standard. Now, for a 16:9 screen it's easy to do the math and come up with 1280x720 or 1920x1080 assuming square pixels, but, again, nowhere on the government's website can I find a reference to this. I can't find any reference to square pixels, either. The only reference I've found so far is defining vertical resolution.
The feds ONLY define HDTV by vertical lines of resolution, with 720 being the minimum. Therefore, 42" plasmas with 1024x768 resolution can be said to fit the HDTV standard, even though one could argue that a 42" screen with 1280x720 resolution might give you a superior picture.
I am not arguing as to whether higher pixel density or square pixels are advantageous for a good picture -- I've been an advocate of square pixels since the first Macintosh computer came out, and I do believe that higher pixel densities=better picture.
SMPTE does refer to resolutions of 1280x720 and 1920x1080 in their standard. However, this is not echoed in the ATSC standard. The reason this is significant is because SMPTE is a trade organization. They can set standards, but they are not legally binding. If the feds set a standard, then that is legally binding.
In fact, the ATSC standard, there is a reference to SMPTE and other trade standards that explicitly states that they are not required by the ATSC standard. In Section 9, Possible Video Inputs, it says:
========
9. POSSIBLE VIDEO INPUTS
While not required by this standard, there are certain television production standards, shown in Table A1, that define video formats that relate to compression formats specified by this standard.
Table A1 Standardized Video Input Formats
Video Standard Active Lines Active Samples/ Line
SMPTE 274M 1080 1920
SMPTE 296M 720 1280
ITU-R BT.601-4 483 720
The compression formats may be derived from one or more appropriate video input formats. It may be anticipated that additional video production standards will be developed in the future that extend the number of possible input formats.
========
This section acknowledges the presence of external standards that are not required by the feds at this point in time. I think this is the loophole that allows an HDTV with a resolution of 1024x768 to be sold as an HDTV. Whether you think that is an HDTV worth buying is a separate issue.
Ray Morris @ Dec 10th 2005 10:29PM
I do agree, a CRT definatly makes a better picture than LCD, DLP, plasma and projection TVs. There's a Circuit City right next to where I work and, at times I stop in for what's up. Those flat TVs are nice for less space but you got to be directly in front of the sets or you loose brightness, contrast, color. Standing close to them, they are totaly unimpressive. Projecting an image on 'smoked' glass (plastic?) is poor and grainy. You still see a screendoor effect on many of them, and the picture's not really that big. They say the burn-out is rather quick too, (though I've never seen the comparison of lifetime hours with CRTs). They don't have as fast a response as CRT, thus the 'ghosting'. I would prefer an HDTV CRT but I don't see them ever being very big for a while, if ever. I'd take the 'bulky tube' HDTV sooner than the flat screens any day. Our SDTV 36" CRT didn't blow yet (after 10 years), and we also use an SXGA projector making a 120" picture (could you imaging the price of a plasma screen at that size?) for our DVDs. I hope CRTs will be around for more than 20 years!
Isewise @ Dec 10th 2005 11:39PM
I really think this is terrible. I see a time in our future were if you're not "in the know" about the new technologies, you're completely lost. I work at the library and I help people with simple tasks on the computer like using Microsoft Word and browsing on the internet. It really doesnt help the consumer if the information that we recieve is bad, half-true, or completely false. So many people fall into the traps of salesmen at retail electronic stores because they aren't well informed. Sad times