Do "roundie" color sets make a better picture than later sets?

[dtvmcdonald]

Originally Posted by etype2

I looked at the three sets of two images on that thread. If I understand correctly, the photos on the left are from the CT-100 and the clearer photos on the right are from the Sony LCD? Or am I wrong?
.

You are wrong.
The clearer photos are photos made with a Canon 7D camera. They
have not been through video. The comparison is beween the original
and images of the CT100. As I said, the CT100s are adjusted so that
when I am looking at the photos of the CT100 on the same Dell monitor,
the images on the monitor look exactly like the CT100. Thus,
the comparison on YOUR computer is also exactly the same difference
between the original and the CT100.

I post images of the same Dorothy scene. These are made with the same camera. This is a dvd, not a Blu-ray. It is output as NTSC and
modulated on a B-T agile modulator. Both sets look at NTSC
true VSB, cut off at 4.2 MHz an -1.25 MHz.

The sharp one is my Sony Bravia 45 inch LCD and the other two
are the CT100. The camera and processing was set for
no sharpening, no noise reduction, no contrast enhancement,
and 5250K. The camera was defocused to smear out the dot structure.
They were 1/6 second exposures, the f-number was set to compensate for
brightness difference. One CT100 image was changed
in one way: the color temp slider in Photoshop was moved to 4850K.
This makes it look bluer. This is probably a better representation of a by eye comparison; apparently the camera, set for non-auto color temp, is being fooled by phosphor differences.

http://www.videokarma.org/attachment...1&d=1428624485

http://www.videokarma.org/attachment...1&d=1428624485

http://www.videokarma.org/attachment...1&d=1428624485

[DaveWM]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...90491159,d.b2w

I have some pretty good shots from the oz on this video

[NowhereMan 1966]

Originally Posted by rca2000

I Have a LOT of 1970's set. Just acquired a 1973 TS-938 Quasar set from Doug a couple of weeks back. It is the one with the SMPS_-WAAYYY before those became "common". Last one I had was in 1988 maybe 89....till now.

1980' sets...a FEW interest me...but not a lot of them. I have one of the RCA CTC-133 sets with that "square tube" from 86 I think, and a couple of the non-dimensia CTC 131 sets. But the Zenith sets from that era do NOT interest me that much.. Most had the 9-160 chassis, or 9-181 or 214 module till maybe 1985 or so...and those do NOT interest me. Shitty flys, Hot chassis, a LOT of wires connecting boards. The tubes were often pretty good though. After those came the 9-516 chassis --cold, but STILL a LOT of long wires running everywhere...

I also have a NAP 25C8 set--from 1987 or so. Good tube--think it works.

But a LOT of 1980's set had hot chassis....and that is a turn OFF for me.

I have one of those 9-181's from 1982 and in fact I'm watching MeTV right now. She does show her age a little bit, the pic goes a bit red for a little bit and then stays good for months. Still, she is a trooper and my favorite set.

I think I read somewhere the roundies used a rare Earth element to produce reds in better quality, yittrium, IIRC but they switched over to something else when the rectangular sets came out and the phosphor leaned more towards a red/orange.

BTW, I'm in Ohio now, had to move with the death of my mother. I'm close to Wheeling, WV. It's just me and two cats, my 15 year old is running around like a kitten.

[etype2]

Originally Posted by dtvmcdonald

You are wrong.
The clearer photos are photos made with a Canon 7D camera. They
have not been through video. The comparison is beween the original
and images of the CT100. As I said, the CT100s are adjusted so that
when I am looking at the photos of the CT100 on the same Dell monitor,
the images on the monitor look exactly like the CT100. Thus,
the comparison on YOUR computer is also exactly the same difference
between the original and the CT100.

I post images of the same Dorothy scene. These are made with the same camera. This is a dvd, not a Blu-ray. It is output as NTSC and
modulated on a B-T agile modulator. Both sets look at NTSC
true VSB, cut off at 4.2 MHz an -1.25 MHz.

The sharp one is my Sony Bravia 45 inch LCD and the other two
are the CT100. The camera and processing was set for
no sharpening, no noise reduction, no contrast enhancement,
and 5250K. The camera was defocused to smear out the dot structure.
They were 1/6 second exposures, the f-number was set to compensate for
brightness difference. One CT100 image was changed
in one way: the color temp slider in Photoshop was moved to 4850K.
This makes it look bluer. This is probably a better representation of a by eye comparison; apparently the camera, set for non-auto color temp, is being fooled by phosphor differences.

http://www.videokarma.org/attachment...1&d=1428624485

http://www.videokarma.org/attachment...1&d=1428624485

http://www.videokarma.org/attachment...1&d=1428624485

To give you my perspective, I am viewing your images on an iPad Air with 2048x1536 resolution, 108% sRGB/Rec.709 color gamut, just slightly blue white at 7041 K. (6500K the standard)

Comments: Image on left looks too blue, looks like 9500 to 11000 K. I see image processing going on in the background.

Image in the center looks the most satisfying, well saturated, but slightly warm.

Image on the right looks like you added a blue filter.

Why did you not set the camera to auto exposure and why did you defocus? I think you would have a truer representation of the images. Yes, the pixel structure would be noticeable on the CRT. Don't we want to see the brightness differences?

May I ask the age of the Sony and was it calibrated to Rec.709? Was your CT-100 calibrated?

Thank you for posting the images, very nice set and images.

[etype2]

Originally Posted by DaveWM

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...90491159,d.b2w

I have some pretty good shots from the oz on this video

I enjoyed your video. The village scenes looked outstanding.

[tvcollector]

For the love of god, can someone please compare something that is more modern instead of always using a "Wizard of Oz" for a screen shot? I've seen so many screenshots of that movie, probably every frame of that damn movie.. The wizard of oz was redone in color back in the early days of color TV, so of course you're going to be able to compare roundie verses flatscreen a little easier.. Maybe something from the 2000s that's not cartoonish..

[dtvmcdonald]

Originally Posted by etype2

Image in the center looks the most satisfying, well saturated, but slightly warm.

Image on the right looks like you added a blue filter.

Why did you not set the camera to auto exposure and why did you defocus? .

I DID add blue filter to the one on the right. The filter I added would
correct 4850K to 5250K. I probably should have used 6000K. I will redo.

Why not auto exposure? Because then the comparison would not be real.
This is VERY important ... if you use autoexposure it will automatically change
the color temperature setting.

Why defocus? This is very important! Its perfectly possible to
focus accurately. This means, using my camera, that the camera
resolves the individual color dots or rectangles. To get accurate color
rendition you then have to set the camera exposure so that the brightest
dots do not overload the sensor. This results in a VERY dark image!
So if you don't defocus the camera you have do the defocus
in Photoshop if you want the whole screen in one image 900 pixels
high or less so it can be posted on Videokarma. I have posted pics
of my CT-100 showing the dots clearly.

The Sony is two years old and is calibrated as best I can to about 6000K,
just using a test DVD. The Sony is identically calibrated at least
by intent.

Getting good pictures of color TVs is not easy! It is very much not a matter
of using auto settings on a camera!

[DaveWM]

Originally Posted by etype2

I enjoyed your video. The village scenes looked outstanding.

I liked the blues in the village scenes, they really were vibrant.
also the yellows on the marching soldiers were particularly good, I often have trouble getting those correct.

[etype2]

Originally Posted by dtvmcdonald

I DID add blue filter to the one on the right. The filter I added would
correct 4850K to 5250K. I probably should have used 6000K. I will redo.

Why not auto exposure? Because then the comparison would not be real.
This is VERY important ... if you use autoexposure it will automatically change
the color temperature setting.

Why defocus? This is very important! Its perfectly possible to
focus accurately. This means, using my camera, that the camera
resolves the individual color dots or rectangles. To get accurate color
rendition you then have to set the camera exposure so that the brightest
dots do not overload the sensor. This results in a VERY dark image!
So if you don't defocus the camera you have do the defocus
in Photoshop if you want the whole screen in one image 900 pixels
high or less so it can be posted on Videokarma. I have posted pics
of my CT-100 showing the dots clearly.

The Sony is two years old and is calibrated as best I can to about 6000K,
just using a test DVD. The Sony is identically calibrated at least
by intent.

Getting good pictures of color TVs is not easy! It is very much not a matter
of using auto settings on a camera!

I feel it is just the opposite. I have been taking screenshots since the first Trinitron was introduced in 1968. I was so impressed with its picture quality that I was compelled to try and capture some of those images. In those days, all analogue and a crap shoot compared to digital imaging.

I try and make the room as dark as possible and then fill the image sensor with just the screen of the TV. Then the sensor is reading the light of the TV image only. I use auto settings and don't try and manipulate anything with Photoshop. Excuse me if I say this, but to me if you manipulate a photo, you are changing it up from what the camera sees. I read that you wanted to compensate because the color pixels seem to fool the camera.

If you use the same camera, the same dark room levels and use the same auto settings, to me that is the fairest way to create comparison digital screenshots. No manipulation to alter the captures.

[etype2]

Originally Posted by DaveWM

I liked the blues in the village scenes, they really were vibrant.
also the yellows on the marching soldiers were particularly good, I often have trouble getting those correct.

Even in the video, the vibrancy shows. You said it was a new CRT.

[DaveWM]

it came with a 21CYP22, but alas one of the filaments was open with that (the operating guns test GREAT argh).

I has a 21FBP22, the kind with the greenish face. I am holding on to the grey face 21CYP22 in hopes of someday getting it rebuilt.

[dtvmcdonald]

Originally Posted by etype2

I feel it is just the opposite.
I try and make the room as dark as possible and then fill the image sensor with just the screen of the TV. Then the sensor is reading the light of the TV image only. I use auto settings and don't try and manipulate anything with Photoshop. Excuse me if I say this, but to me if you manipulate a photo, you are changing it up from what the camera sees. I read that you wanted to compensate because the color pixels seem to fool the camera.
.

One simply can't get away with full auto using a Canon 7D. The focus will
be pin sharp and the autoexposure will be correct on average, so that
the individual brightest color dots will be very highly overexposed. This
totally ruins the color. You absolutely must either defocus or
use manual exposure to way way underexpose.

[dtvmcdonald]

I reprocessed the Bravia photo to 6500K in Camera Raw. This
is extremely close to what a camera auto color temperature would have done
(Camera Rawhttp: tells you that).

//www.videokarma.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=186496&stc=1&d=1428689 351

[old_tv_nut]

Originally Posted by dtvmcdonald

One simply can't get away with full auto using a Canon 7D. The focus will
be pin sharp and the autoexposure will be correct on average, so that
the individual brightest color dots will be very highly overexposed. This
totally ruins the color. You absolutely must either defocus or
use manual exposure to way way underexpose.

True. It was/is also true with photographing monochrome sets where the scan lines are distinctly resolvable with black in between. As a kid, I tried taking some shots off the TV screen, and was always disappointed. Much later I realized what was happening. The bright lines were overexposed, resulting in the image contrast being compressed when the average was normal. A similar situation applies with photographing the night sky, where either bright stars will clip or many dim stars will not be recorded.

[old_tv_nut]

Originally Posted by tvcollector

For the love of god, can someone please compare something that is more modern instead of always using a "Wizard of Oz" for a screen shot? I've seen so many screenshots of that movie, probably every frame of that damn movie.. The wizard of oz was redone in color back in the early days of color TV, so of course you're going to be able to compare roundie verses flatscreen a little easier.. Maybe something from the 2000s that's not cartoonish..

Do you have any suggestions? I really don't see what's wrong with using The Wizard of Oz - can't think of any particular thing that would be obviously superior, but if you have something in mind, please tell us.