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

[etype2]

"I guess I'm the "op" that has been mentioned. I'm not sure what to say about the static concerning quoting me. I certainly don't mind. Frankly I didn't get what the problem was. Perhaps something was deleted. I don't know, but it didn't seem to make much sense.

Anyway, it seems that my thread drummed up a lot of interesting points of view and took off rather well here on page 7. I didn't really mean to compare to the flats and stuff that are to me apples to oranges. I really meant a comparison to later c.r.t. sets. I do agree though with at least one post that I read that the new stuff really doesn't look all that great. As far as a theater experience goes, I would rather take a night out to a theater than invest in one for my home...."




Your thread did receive much commentary. If I may say, in your original question, you did not limit the roundie comparison to later CRT sets. I believe you said in part:

.....

"I have always sort of liked having a working "roundie" color set around for decades now, but i'm not sure why really. I personally think that they can make as decent a picture as most anything else I have seen, but I also think that the flat screens everyone has gone nuts over don't look that great really. Or not great enough for me to spend the money that they at least once commanded at retail.

So this may be interesting. Do they actually make a better picture in any kind of way than later sets, or is it all nostalgia?"

I thought you were including flat panels in the comparison. As a fan of both technology's, I commented.

[andy]

...

[DaveWM]

not owning a flat screen, I am somewhat ignorant to how they look, but for what I have seen while traveling.

I did notice that the quality of the image seems to have something to do with if there is an "HD" program on. if the show was not 'HD" it looked horrible.

Does that mean that if I watch old programs they will not be in "HD" sorry just a bit out of step with new tech.

[dtvmcdonald]

Non-HD does not necessarily look horrible on an HD set.

It depends on two things: how well the line interpolation is done,
especially if it is only done once (i.e. 480i->1080i is much better than
480->720p->1080i), and most importantly whether the signal
purveyor CARES about the signal quality. They often assign far far too
few bit to upconverted 480i. Comcast it simply terrible for this.

Watch a really good DVD being sure it is converted
only once.

[Electronic M]

Originally Posted by DaveWM

not owning a flat screen, I am somewhat ignorant to how they look, but for what I have seen while traveling.

I did notice that the quality of the image seems to have something to do with if there is an "HD" program on. if the show was not 'HD" it looked horrible.

Does that mean that if I watch old programs they will not be in "HD" sorry just a bit out of step with new tech.

Depends on the show and the source. Shows that were originally recorded directly to and preserved on film are being re-telecined with HD cameras allowing HD versions to be released, but shows that survived only on tape or kinnescope (filming a monitor to record the show) are hard limited to non-HD resolution.

Filmed shows still can be non-HD if they have yet to be re-telecined in HD or the studio is using an old recording of a SD-telecine or the feed has been down converted to NTSC.

Quality of NTSC presentation on flat screens can be a bit of a crap shoot depending on the model and available settings.

[ChrisW6ATV]

Originally Posted by Fairlane500skyliner

I've always thought that if you have a problem with the resolution of your television, you're probably sitting too close.

The whole point of higher resolutions in newer displays IS to sit closer. Of course, it is all personal preferences. To me, the ideal screen size is where you have to move your eyes to see the whole screen, where the screen takes up the majority of your field of vision. The width of the screen should be nearly the same as the distance from the screen to your eyes, or at least 75% of that distance, for a good movie-type experience. A casual, "the TV set is on in the background of regular life"-type experience may be OK with a smaller screen, or one that is further away, I imagine.

[etype2]

To expand on the resolution vs. seating distance. For 1080P, the general rule of thumb is to sit 1.6 times the diagonal measurement of your screen, away from the screen. This is all up to interpretation by various recommended standards.

For a 70 inch HD set, this would be about 110 inches or 9.2 feet.

It has been said that the recommended minimum size of a UHD 4K set should be 75 inches or more to realize, in a practical living room environment, the benefits of UHD. UHD requires that one sit much closer to benifit from the resolution increase.

When comparing a 21 inch roundie, a flat panel, be it HD or UHD will give the viewer a much more emersive movie like viewing experience. This assumes the flat panel is properly set up in the viewing room. Your eyes will track the moving images on the larger screen, left and right, similar to a movie theater. Instead of being focused on a fixed point, you will be much more engaged with a larger screen and you may not fall asleep. :-)

[Tubejunke]

Originally Posted by etype2

"I guess I'm the "op" that has been mentioned. I'm not sure what to say about the static concerning quoting me. I certainly don't mind. Frankly I didn't get what the problem was. Perhaps something was deleted. I don't know, but it didn't seem to make much sense.

Anyway, it seems that my thread drummed up a lot of interesting points of view and took off rather well here on page 7. I didn't really mean to compare to the flats and stuff that are to me apples to oranges. I really meant a comparison to later c.r.t. sets. I do agree though with at least one post that I read that the new stuff really doesn't look all that great. As far as a theater experience goes, I would rather take a night out to a theater than invest in one for my home...."




Your thread did receive much commentary. If I may say, in your original question, you did not limit the roundie comparison to later CRT sets. I believe you said in part:

.....

"I have always sort of liked having a working "roundie" color set around for decades now, but I'm not sure why really. I personally think that they can make as decent a picture as most anything else I have seen, but I also think that the flat screens everyone has gone nuts over don't look that great really. Or not great enough for me to spend the money that they at least once commanded at retail.

So this may be interesting. Do they actually make a better picture in any kind of way than later sets, or is it all nostalgia?"

I thought you were including flat panels in the comparison. As a fan of both technology's, I commented.

Man, you are right. I didn't specifically limit anything really. Mostly, I wondered about the mystique of the "roundie" more than anything. What is it that makes them so special to people. I love them, but I don't really know why. I do think that the old crts made some really great and lifelike color, but I would like them if they didn't. In recent years people seem to have gone bonkers over them, so I thought it would be an interesting thread which it turned out to be.

If anyone chose to compare to the flats; that's fine with me. Really, I can't tell if someone got flamed for something that they said or what, but I see some anonymity that I don't understand. As the "OP" I say speak whatever is on your mind that is relevant to the topic. So if you are talking television, I guess you are within the confines of relevancy.

I really hope that nobody got insulted here. The thread seems to have moved on just fine. So enjoy it everyone...

[etype2]

Originally Posted by Tubejunke

Man, you are right. I didn't specifically limit anything really. Mostly, I wondered about the mystique of the "roundie" more than anything. What is it that makes them so special to people. I love them, but I don't really know why. I do think that the old crts made some really great and lifelike color, but I would like them if they didn't. In recent years people seem to have gone bonkers over them, so I thought it would be an interesting thread which it turned out to be.

If anyone chose to compare to the flats; that's fine with me. Really, I can't tell if someone got flamed for something that they said or what, but I see some anonymity that I don't understand. As the "OP" I say speak whatever is on your mind that is relevant to the topic. So if you are talking television, I guess you are within the confines of relevancy.

I really hope that nobody got insulted here. The thread seems to have moved on just fine. So enjoy it everyone...

All is good. I like the roundies for the same reason you do. I have two.

[dieseljeep]

Originally Posted by DaveWM

1st time I recall seeing a color tv, think it was a roundie, saw a BW show (typical of the time, not a lot of color programming).

it was so badly converged I could see the color fringing all over the place on a BW image, I was just a kid, and thought so this is color tv? was not impressed.

It was in early 1955, my brother and I went to the downtown Milwaukee Boston Store to see color TV. It was Saturday morning and there was nothing on in color at the time. The set was a 19" Motorola, where the B/W picture was rather green and the purity wasn't that great. All the B/W sets, that were on at the time, the picture was so much better.

[etype2]

Originally Posted by dieseljeep

It was in early 1955, my brother and I went to the downtown Milwaukee Boston Store to see color TV. It was Saturday morning and there was nothing on in color at the time. The set was a 19" Motorola, where the B/W picture was rather green and the purity wasn't that great. All the B/W sets, that were on at the time, the picture was so much better.

It's ironic you say that. I bought my first color set in 1966 at that very same Boston store. I worked across the street on 4th and Wisconsin Ave. On my lunch hours, would go to the 6th floor of Boston store and look at all the color sets.

In the 50's, saw early color TV.

[dieseljeep]

Originally Posted by etype2

It's ironic you say that. I bought my first color set in 1966 at that very same Boston store. I worked across the street on 4th and Wisconsin Ave. On my lunch hours, would go to the 6th floor of Boston store and look at all the color sets.

In the 50's, saw early color TV.

Was that the time when Boston Store sold just Magnavox, or before?
They became a "Magnavox Salon" sometime in the early-to-mid 60's.

[etype2]

Originally Posted by dieseljeep

Was that the time when Boston Store sold just Magnavox, or before?
They became a "Magnavox Salon" sometime in the early-to-mid 60's.

IIRC, the downtown Boston store in 1965 and 1966 sold various brands of color TV. Why?, I started work fresh out of high school in Jan. 1965. I worked across the street from Boston store. Was at that location until 1972. I was on the hunt for a color set. I'd grab a quick sandwich and drink, then walk across the street and look at the different color sets on my lunch hour at Boston store.

I also spent a lot of time at Gimbels at Southgate shopping center looking at various color sets. I remember the Maggie's there and quite a few brands of color sets. I think Schuster's had a good display of color sets also.

PS. I have a Boston store advertisement from the Milwaukee Journal dated May, 1967 advertising the RCA color sets. It's on my website.

[Sandy G]

Again, I think it goes back to an issue of AGE. For me, having a Color TV as a kid was sorta short-hand for "Being RICH"... Roundies often as not were in EXPENSIVE cabinets, w/fancy record players & radios. Their owners always took care of them, I guess that's one reason so many still survive today. But now, you buy an expensive TV & its sorta "Meh..."Just an ugly black/dark grey billboard looking thing, NO pizazz, no fabulous cabinetry to telegraph to visitors, "This guy who bought me is WEALTHY, has WONDERFUL taste in things, etc... You would be WELL-ADVISED to emulate him..." That's ANOTHER part of the mystique of my Porthole Zenith, I think-Having ANY TV was still a Big Deal in 1949/'50, & having a ZENITH kinda marked you as a "Heavy-hitter"...

[dieseljeep]

Originally Posted by etype2

IIRC, the downtown Boston store in 1965 and 1966 sold various brands of color TV. Why?, I started work fresh out of high school in Jan. 1965. I worked across the street from Boston store. Was at that location until 1972. I was on the hunt for a color set. I'd grab a quick sandwich and drink, then walk across the street and look at the different color sets on my lunch hour at Boston store.

I also spent a lot of time at Gimbels at Southgate shopping center looking at various color sets. I remember the Maggie's there and quite a few brands of color sets. I think Schuster's had a good display of color sets also.

PS. I have a Boston store advertisement from the Milwaukee Journal dated May, 1967 advertising the RCA color sets. It's on my website.

I didn't know the time line when Boston Store became just a Magnavox dealer.
BTW, what make set, did you buy there?