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 what do some of you think the attraction is to these sets. I know some will be people who were kids when these were new and it was a BIG deal to have any color TV. So they will say they have fond memories of those days. As for me; I am almost 46 and there were certainly a lot of those sets around and remained in use until I was well into my teen years, but in my life most families had a color TV. For us screen size could be impressive and remote control was impressive, and projection sets with wall screens were impressive (or the later huge single unit projection sets).

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? Maybe simply the love and interest in vintage tube type electronics as a lost science as is a bit of the case with me as well. Waddaya think?:scratch2:

I can't quite put my finger on it.....but there is SOMETHING about a roundie set. Particularly the Zeniths. I have watched enough shown on them to KNOW...there just look "different". I have seen things on a well working 25MC33 zenith..that just looked "out of this world" in picture quality !! (of course--this was over 30 years ago).

Maybe it is THIS. (just my opinion)...

Keep in mind...the gun structure of round color tubes is MUCH larger than rect. tubes. ESPECIALLY in-line ones. In FACT..ONE gun from a 21FBP22 or such....is LARGER--than all THREE guns physically of a mini-neck in line tube !!

This of course would seem to mean there would be a BIGGER--STRONGER beam to the phospor--which would seem to light it "better". Not necessairly brighter...just more vivid and lifelike.

Of course...NONE of this may be right..just my opinion and observations.

I would LOVE to see someone figure out some way...to show an HD program on a roundie tube. I just WONDER what that would look like?

Interesting ideas! Good to start the show with a Zenith fan. Mine is a Zenith 5111. I have posted before about every thread seeming to be RCA related, but was told and now have seen that there isn't as much to say about Zeniths' as the need far less repair. However, I have also heard that the RCA supposedly had superior picture quality. That I don't know and it's off topic anyway.

I'm an Italian guy, here the color television began in 1977, before this year only transmission tests was made in color. We are born with the rectangular television and almost never we had roundie screens (except few Zenith roundie sets that were imported in first seventies years in Florence because a famous italian technician transmitted a french station coming from the french coast). In 1983 I began to repair tv sets and I already had a great passion for tube color tv sets, and they were really rare, because almost all the tv sets at work were already solid state.

For me the roundie color sets give pictures exactly as the rectangular screen, but they are so "vintage" that they are more and more interesting that every other set!. I have a great plasma screen in living room, but if I should choose to have only a tv set in my home, I'd prefer to watch television on my Zenith Parkhurst (25MC33) that I keep in another dining room! And yet I had it only in 2006 through an ebay auction.
Before the digital television I kept a lot of old tv sets also from the 70-80 years, because they were more usable with their perfected remote controls. Now that all is flattened by the use of digital decoders, I keep only very fine tv sets and the roundies are for me the better expression of the historic color television.

The roundie sets are simply more handsome tv sets! :yes:

The roundie sets were made at a time when color tv was a premium product and it shows in the build quality. Most roundies have metal crt bezels and control panels where later sets started using all plastic. I like Zenith for the hand wired chassis which seems to hold up far better with tube technology, no pc boards cooked with tube heat. I have a 25MC33 Zenith and the picture quality is very impressive. If I could only have one color tv a Zenith roundie would be my choice. The flesh tones on a Zenith seem to be warmer with more emphasis on red. Many RCA sets I have seen tend to be heavy on green. Zenith builds a better tv but I think RCA has nicer cabinet styles.

Great thread - I submit that because the gun arrangement, convergence, deflection, shadow mask and screen are round and without pincushion correction in particular, there are few compromises to overcome.

A perfectly set up roundie has fewer possible geometric distortions which result in near-perfect purity and convergence. Few rectangular delta-gun sets produced mid-1960s through the end of the 1970s could converged without some issues at the corners.

When I started high school in 1978, I wanted a round-screen color set as a semi-daily watcher.
What I had was an RCA Nordholm(?) GG643 with a CTC 16XL chassis and a Channel Master rebuilt 21FJP22 that was already going weak on red.
(RCA's tended toward cyan for sure, Compucat)
I brought this TV into high school shop to follow Carl Babcoke's Tab RCA Color Service Manual book to do color set-up with the equipment I did not have at home.
I rejuvenated the CRT to near equal emission and cut-off, then carefully followed the purity and convergence methods in the book, likely copied from RCA factroy info.
After a week or so of repeated set-up adjustments, I brought it home and I swear it looked as good as my parents' 1971 Zenith 23V" console, which was hard to beat.

I saw many a Zenith roundie working beautifully and ocasionally had to fix one but I never HAD one for myself until getting a Zenith 5304 - ch.24MC32 (thanks again, Tim) last year.

I think the roundies were better till the black matrix tubes
( chromacolor etc ). Still there is something about the roundie.
A perfect one in a dark room & older content just look "right".

Another thing about roundies is most were clones & when right
they all came close in pix. Latter sets were rarely clones &
the pix quality varied a LOT brand to brand. Also the wear out
time varied. Some sets after a while just had so many little
problems you couldnt money wise make them like new.
Up til the 70's RCA & Zenith were the high end sets.
Middle sets were Maggies & Sylvanias. Low end was GE, Emerson
& most store brands. Time has proven that, just see what
has survived

73 Zeno:smoke:

The Roundies were from the era where the dealer was sposed to come to yr house & "Set it Up". If you got the guy who typically installed fridges, you might not have had as good of a picture as the TV was capable of delivering. I remember seeing a LOT of Roundies back then that the convergence left a lot to be desired. Another problem was that you could be depending on the signal quality of yr own antenna. Here in Greater Bugtussle, we were at least 50 miles away from the nearest TV station, so that was going against us, along w/ the problems of being in "The Mountains".

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.

I like the rectangularies too for certain programs but i love the roundies especially when watching period correct shows like all the early color broadcasts.
i lost my '64 rca home entertainment center , the antionette with remote control and no uhf. Ctc15 low hours, It was awesome with a new crt from hawkeye i spent like 700 on that crt. The knife is still slowly twisting in my mind's gut over that loss. :tears::drool::tears::no::sigh::tears: it'll likely drive me to :smoke::tears:

The green phosphor was originally "greener", but not as bright as the newer phosphors (these being more yellowish). Which makes for a smaller range of displayable colors.

One thing some more modern sets had was better chroma-luma separation, using a comb filter. This reduced the high frequency luma from contaminating the chroma (crawling rainbows on referee's shirts). A roundie with the old phosphor fed by an S-video source (and modified to accept the S-video) should look very good.

The roundies seem to have more depth to the picture and the colors. Most sets were not set up properly when they were delivered, and I think that caused lots of people to not be impressed with color television. You could take an RCA CTC16XL set and do a complete IF and color alignment, and with a rare earth crt and proper setup get a picture that you could almost walk off into. It was second to none when done right. This was true of lots of the roundies. I never liked the Zenith crt's because they used a orange/red phospher. Pure reds were not as nice in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, the Zenith sets did make a good picture and I certianly would not turn one down. I own 2 of them. My 1964 model Zenith works great. I like period programing on the roundie. Thats the way it was intended to be seen in my opinion.

This would describe for my Zenith 25MC33 set--from late 1981---1982. I watched a LOT of shows on it...and it looked VERY impressive !!

I've never seen a roundie in person so I can't compare.

As long as the picture doesn't look totally crappy I don't really care. Also, electronics from the 70s were still commonly used by most people I grew up around, so I guess that's where my preferences came from.

Either someone collects what I do or that part of history would be forever lost.

I've never seen a roundie in person so I can't compare.

As long as the picture doesn't look totally crappy I don't really care. Also, electronics from the 70s were still commonly used by most people I grew up around, so I guess that's where my preferences came from.

Either someone collects what I do or that part of history would be forever lost.

1970s sets are well worth collecting. Quality did not start to take a serious drop until the 1980s although some '80s were well built such as the Sony's.

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 only two 1980s sets now, the Electrohome that is identical to one we had when I was a kid, and the Zenith console with the 9-516... I guess I got a decent one there.

Really cool that this thread took off. A lot of great facts and opinions. One thing I saw more than once was people saying that they liked watching programming as old as the sets on their sets. I think that there is something to that as I have long thought that they really did a great job with color programming in the early years, or we'll say the 60s to be more specific. I think to a degree that quality dropped off in the 70s and improved again somewhere in the 80s. I've seen a lot of 70s sit-coms where the video quality is lousy; probably that more than the actual color. But check out something like Dragnet, Bewitched or other 60s shows and the video quality and color are spectacular no matter what set you are using.

We ended up talking about set build quality of later years such as the 80s when things became pretty iffy and remained that way or frankly evolved into garbage all the way up to today's flats. Your age sort of dictates what is "old" to you I think, so to me an 80s set is just another TV set. I say this because although I have absolutely no desire to start filling up my already cluttered electronics home/warehouse with 80s sets or much of anything else frankly. I have enough to keep me entertained for the duration I think! LOL! In my defense, most of my sets are older than me! :)

I do have an example of how well sets COULD be made (if desired) by the 80s. It's a 19" Panasonic that only says Compufocus on the front. This set was given to me years ago by someone who can justify the upgrade and discard mentality. I'm here to tell ya that the thing often plays around the clock! I work swing shifts and got into the nasty habit of sleeping with a TV on so I don't hear my neighbors' dog collections and lawn mowing addictions during the day when I need to sleep. I know; I can't expect the world to stop so I can sleep. But I keep waiting for SOMETHING, anything to go wrong with such a heavily used set. Not a thing so far. Bright and perfectly converged picture, the works.

Point being is I think electronics engineering reached a plateau of sorts by that time and they could build almost bulletproof sets. Of course we have seen that achievement turn 360 deg. and most of the industry turned to what I call planned obsolescence and/or failure just to keep us buying more. So only a few years ago you could still find one CRT model set at Wallyworld and going back into the 90s a set MAY last 5 years before the tube was shot.

Man, a lot of good things have gone away since the days of the "roundie." Not just things, but ways of thinking as well. I'm glad we are here on VK sort of keeping the torch lit!

Roundie sets don't put off better pictures than the solid state stuff from the late 1970s and early 80s or the current stuff... Roundie and tube stuff in general also wasn't as reliable.. I can say some of these 70s, 80s sets put off a better picture than some of these cheapo flat screens produced today... Now putting a roundie set side by side with a current flat screen depending on the image the sets are viewing I would say it can be comparable and may even look better with certain images..

Not knocking the roundies as I love to collect them and think they are neat, but they don't produce as good as a pic as the newer solid state stuff and current stuff.. I notice with roundie sets, a dark screen with a bright image in the middle effects the whole screen next to the bright image image.. A dark screen with white words you'll see the screen is darker next to them.. I don't know what you call that, but I think the resolution is not as high as when they started to make solid state stuff, with a VHS or Beta tape you'll notice at the end of a movie with credits you'll see the same effect on any TV..

I notice with roundie sets or even the early rectangle sets, Video tape does not look good on them, either a big bend on the screen and/or a black bar running across the screen

I look at old color programing from the 60s and even early 70s on any TV and notice the colors aren't as vibrant and very dull seeing how that was the technology at the time.. You take a color roundie and hook it to current television programing, I would say that the set is viewing current programing nicely compared to what it was viewing in 1965.. I wonder why that is, maybe the video cameras they were using in production in those times weren't great?

This Hitachi set from 1981 here in the pic below, I use as my daily set, I bought it back somewhere around 2010, and I have been running it pretty much non stop and it's still going.. Tho it's starting to show signs of problems.. When brightness is turn down a little one side of the screen is brighter than the other side, and it has snapped and popped a few times.. But hey 5 years of non stop running, I doubt a new set could handle that...

http://vintageelectronics.betamaxcollectors.com/images/hitachitelevisionsetmodelct1900a_1.jpg

I notice with roundie sets or even the early rectangle sets, Video tape does not look good on them, either a big bend on the screen and/or a black bar running across the screen
They can't handle the lousy sync produced by a VCR. A time base corrector would take care of the problem.

Plasma's have the closest picture characteristics as the crt, deep blacks no angle degradation truer color reproduction and no pixilating like the lcd's/leds.

I think that the picture can be more pleasing because the video levels aren't driven so hard as to diminish the color quality. I guess today's viewer's would disagree, but then most of them don't understand what an acceptable picture should look like

To fix the shading you just need to replace the filter cap on the
200 V line. Usually a 4.7mfd use a 450 V. One of the most
common problems on ANY color TV.

73 Zeno:smoke:


This Hitachi set from 1981 here in the pic below, I use as my daily set, I bought it back somewhere around 2010, and I have been running it pretty much non stop and it's still going.. Tho it's starting to show signs of problems.. When brightness is turn down a little one side of the screen is brighter than the other side, and it has snapped and popped a few times.. But hey 5 years of non stop running, I doubt a new set could handle that...

http://vintageelectronics.betamaxcollectors.com/images/hitachitelevisionsetmodelct1900a_1.jpg

...

My late friends girlfriends dad had a RCA 25 incher from the early 1960's that had beautiful color on it and this was in 1980's when I was watching it.
The set had a long life.

My parents had a Motorola -Quasar 19 inch set in the early 1970's which i still have here that put out awesome bright color then.I got to restore it someday.

The Quasar had it issues with its plug in modules getting loose and intermitting connections.

One thing with modern flat screens is that they use excessive "coring" (a form of noise reduction, where small variations are suppressed, but allowing large amplitude variations go thru. Makes people's faces look cartoonish. And most of these sets don't let you turn this coring off. So this is a reason why I've used CRT VGA computer monitors for HDTV display (assumes the ATSC tuner has an analog VGA (RGB) output) I've set to 1080i. And a reason why old TV sets may look better than the modern flat screens.

I grew up in the late 40's and 50's. I saw early color in stores and relatives homes in the mid 50's. We did not have a color set until I started working and at 18, purchased our first color set, a 1966 RCA CTC 19 Danish modern consolette. It was a rectangular set. In the 50's we would go the movie theater and watch beautiful Technicolor movies in a rectangular format.

IMHO a roundie was a technology compromise utill rectangular color tubes could be made. If we are used to watching movies in the theater in the rectangular format, we should be watching color movies in the home on a rectangular TV. I did not like the fact that the images were cut off at the corners on a roundie.

In the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's, beautiful filmed Technicolor shows were broadcast such as Bonaza and Columbo. There is just something about the warmth and depth of a Technicolor movie that is lacking in today's programs. Most of us remember seeing those shows on roundies. That is why we have a fondness, it's the nostalgia. We remember our first experiences with color television and it was usually on a roundie and it was great!

Unlike the past, most kids grow up with color TV from the time they first turn a set on. It has become mainstream, not a big deal. If you grew up before color TV was invented and lived for 9, 10-18 years with black and white, it was a big deal to have your first color set.

I do not agree that a properly adjusted color roundie looks better than a properly adjusted flat screen. I did an experiment. You may remember Ed Reitan's screenshot of Dorthty from the Wizard of Oz. It was taken off a CBS field sequential color set which at the time was considered to have better color than RCA. Last year, Turner Classic channel rebroadcasted that movie and I took a screenshot of the exact same frame as Ed's photo from my 70 inch calibrated flat screen. There is no comparison. If you compare image to image from a more modern properly adjusted 1964 RCA CTC15 roundie to my 70 inch calibrated flat screen, there is no comparison.

You're seeing the transition from film to video tape. Most shows from the 60's and earlier were all shot on film, so they looked great. That's also why they have been able to sell HD copies of shows like Star Trek. HD masters exist for all those shows. It's too bad they haven't released more of them.

Shows like All in the Family were shot on tape using not so great tube cameras and early VTRs.

I have noticed that All In The Family, Sanford & Son, Maude, etc from that era all have pale color. I thought is was just because these shows are so old now the master recordings were worn out but I guess it was the video tape. Cheers and Taxi which were shot with film still look great and of course the '60s Classic shows still look good.

One thing with modern flat screens is that they use excessive "coring" (a form of noise reduction, where small variations are suppressed, but allowing large amplitude variations go thru. Makes people's faces look cartoonish. And most of these sets don't let you turn this coring off. So this is a reason why I've used CRT VGA computer monitors for HDTV display (assumes the ATSC tuner has an analog VGA (RGB) output) I've set to 1080i. And a reason why old TV sets may look better than the modern flat screens.

So that is why low end flat screens always look cartoonish. Even our Panasonic plasma has a shimmering cast on some scenes similar to a CRT with low emission. Plasma is the closest to CRT but is not perfect.

...

I would LOVE to see someone figure out some way...to show an HD program on a roundie tube. I just WONDER what that would look like?

Here you go. Look at post#8 on this page.

http://www.videokarma.org/showthread.php?t=262853

Most of us remember seeing those shows on roundies. That is why we have a fondness, it's the nostalgia. We remember our first experiences with color television and it was usually on a roundie and it was great!

I am guessing that the writer is referring to this topic in relation to his specific age group. With that I would agree, but I'm not positive that's what he means. It actually backs up one of the possibilities I mentioned in starting this thread of why the specific "roundie" color set has such a big fan base. The age group that saw all of this come along could easily want a piece of a fond old memory around. Inversely, I mentioned I think in a second post that most of my sets are older than I am. So, being a kid in the 70s, my memories of these sets were just that they were just another set. Or later junk... yep.

By the time I took my high school electronics training in the early 80s. our donation area in the classroom was well populated with them. However, even then I remember specifically wanting to work on those just because they seemed more interesting than the other almost as old rectangulars which I had no interest in. I still think there is more to this than nostalgia really. I mean how many people want their first touch tone phone or cell phone back? Or their first computer for that matter. I think a lot of us have some training in electronics and simply enjoy the challenge of getting an old TV or radio going again and preserving it for whatever reason. That would sort of explain me, but I have never been able to explain even to myself the love of TV and radio in some cases much older than I am. It just comes naturally.....:thmbsp:

I wasn't around when roundie CRTs were being made, I really wasn't even around when vacuum tube sets were being produced, everything was pretty much solid state when I was born in Feb of 1978.. My mother had a cheap B/W tube set when I was a baby, it's in a picture somewhere I believe.. But she said I use to go in the back of the set and mess with the knobs.. I may have even broke the set LOL.. But there is something about roundie and old sets I really like.. I like them from the beginning to the early 80s, when they started to become digital, I didn't care for them... I do like some of the early digital Zeniths with the digital tuners and green display readout, which I have one of those sets.. But I remember always wanting a color roundie as far back to the late 1990s when I got my first B/W roundie I believe from that guy that owns this site: http://www.vintagetvsets.com/ pretty sure it was this site or maybe someone related to it, I remember viewing that site in 1998, or 99.. It really looks no different.. But it was a guy out of Long Island New York.. I never recall ever seeing a color roundie working as a kid, and all TVs I saw in the junk back in the 80s were early rectangular sets.. Web surfing in the late 1990s and seeing actual pictures of color roundies actually made me want one, and it was only up until about 3 years ago until I saw one operating in person...

IMHO a roundie was a technology compromise utill rectangular color tubes could be made. If we are used to watching movies in the theater in the rectangular format, we should be watching color movies in the home on a rectangular TV. I did not like the fact that the images were cut off at the corners on a roundie.

Unlike the past, most kids grow up with color TV from the time they first turn a set on. It has become mainstream, not a big deal. If you grew up before color TV was invented and lived for 9, 10-18 years with black and white, it was a big deal to have your first color set.
I'm guessing that rectangular delta-gun sets were a technology compromise as well considering that the gun setup doesn't fully cooperate with the screen geometry. The smaller tubes must have been easier to design inline-gun systems for; I noticed that many 19" screen table sets got inline tubes before larger-screen consoles.

We always had a color set when I was growing up, but I didn't have access to it most of the time (now the Electrohome is totally mine, haha). I had a small B&W set which I hated, so it was still a big deal to me to get my first color set. I wouldn't want that particular model back though, they were becoming BPC by the time that was made.

I am guessing that the writer is referring to this topic in relation to his specific age group. With that I would agree, but I'm not positive that's what he means. It actually backs up one of the possibilities I mentioned in starting this thread of why the specific "roundie" color set has such a big fan base. The age group that saw all of this come along could easily want a piece of a fond old memory around. :

You are right, it's about the age group before color TV was invented. Let me respond. Yes that is exactly what I mean, it's nostalgia for me. As I tried to explain, at the time I was a bit younger than the core group of guys who were able to buy their first color sets in 1954, 1955, 1956 etc. I was not able to buy my first color set until almost 19. That means it was 1966 when I purchased my first color set. At the time, I thought roundies were old fashioned. Who would want one when the new rectangular tubes were just coming out and the roundies cut off the corners of the image! To a buyer like me at that time, roundies were being phased out.

Two years ago, I was able to find the exact same color set as the one I purchased in 1966. Even the same cabinet. I had long ago disposed of it as junk, but now at my age, I searched until I found the same exact set. It was not that I thought it was superior, just the nostalgia of possessing the first color set you owned. After that, I really wanted to find an RCA CTC 5 to go back as far possible to the very first sets. On the way to that search, I found a beautiful 1964 RCA CTC 15 roundie.

To put it another way, for me, it's similar to wanting to find a 1963 Pontiac GTO, the very first muscle car and I was just old enough to drive and wanted one badly. That car is not a better car then today's car, but it's all about the nostalgia.

From reading these forums over the years, I think most here, get enjoyment from the challange of repairing these old sets. I'm not good at repair, so always try to find good working examples. Been lucky so far, takes patience. Love the nostalgia.

As to the micro televisions I collect, that's another story. :-)

I do not agree that a properly adjusted color roundie looks better than a properly adjusted flat screen. I did an experiment. You may remember Ed Reitan's screenshot of Dorthty from the Wizard of Oz. ... If you compare image to image from a more modern properly adjusted 1964 RCA CTC15 roundie to my 70 inch calibrated flat screen, there is no comparison.

I've done this comparison between Oz from a DVD through a first class
B-T agile modulator into both a 55 inch LCD and my CT-100.

There is a comparison. The colors are exceedingly close. The LCD
has, in its normal settings, excessive contrast for film, while
the CT-100 is correct. This can be adjusted out on the LCD set.
The resolution is not exactly the same. The overall resolution is similar,
but the LCD has "sharpening" halos on it, the
CT-100 none, and the LCD has a tad more real
resolution. But very close.

I've done this comparison between Oz from a DVD through a first class
B-T agile modulator into both a 55 inch LCD and my CT-100.

There is a comparison. The colors are exceedingly close. The LCD
has, in its normal settings, excessive contrast for film, while
the CT-100 is correct. This can be adjusted out on the LCD set.
The resolution is not exactly the same. The overall resolution is similar,
but the LCD has "sharpening" halos on it, the
CT-100 none, and the LCD has a tad more real
resolution. But very close.

I would love to see screenshots of your comparison test. I think I remember the thread. I could go back and look. I have read in these forums that the CT-100 was possibly the only set that had color phospers that accurately met strict colors standards of that era and up to this day. That means the RCA CT-100 would be considered a high end set of its era and most certainly a better challenge then the field sequential set or the CTC-15. Can the LCD used in your test be considered high end? We're both sets calibrated to the current standard? Today's LCD sets are capable of reproducing a wider spectrum of colors then the current standard. Coming soon, the 4K BluRay group is currently working out the final standards for the new 4K format. LCD manufactures are working to achieve most if not all of the advanced image and color standards of this new format.

My test was comparing Ed Reitan's screenshot to the identical frame captured off my high end Sharp 70 inch calibrated LCD. My LCD model is now three years old. I could post unretouched photos to show what I mean when I say there is no comparison. I can do the same comparison test using a recently adjusted RCA CTC-15 with the LCD. The delta dot structure is much more noticeable on the CTC-15 than the Quatron pixel structure which has 25% more pixels than a standard LCD. It is not as bright. My CTC-15 was adjusted by a retired RCA color technician, but not professionally calibrated. Still the colors do look very accurate.

When the two screenshots of an identical frame are captured from the RCA CTC-15 and the LCD, there is just no comparison in terms of brightness and resolution. The controls for this test are that both sets are in almost total darkness, only the screen light is imaged and captured and the camera is set on auto exposure.

Seeing "Colored TV" was a BIG DEAL when I was a tadpole.. Nobody had one here in Greater Bugtussle, you had to go to the "Big City" to see one, usually in a store. We had some relatives who had one, in Kingsport, & once we went up there to see it, on a Sunday afternoon. There was a football game on, & the men kept goin' on & on about how GREAT it was, but I just didn't see it. It was a green-painted metal cased RCA set, a roundie, & I guess it was 1964, '65 or so.

ok,heres my take on the question.i saw the picture on the first color sets.the 15 inch models and i was amazed.the 19 and 21 inch sets were bigger but the picture wasnt better.still.to a youngster,amazing.nothing exciting for a few years and then the coming of the zenith color sets.never had i seen a picture so bright,clear,sharp and colorful.truly,the finest picture on a roundie.rca later released the ctc15 which was very close to the zeniths in quality.the rectangulars came out and though the picture was good,just didnt stand up to the aforementioned sets.the next huge improvement was the zenith chromacolor sets.whether hybrid or solid state,those sets are still acclaimed as the best ever.the coming of the great sylvanias,hybrid and solid state with the famous 25vdmp22 crt was the very last hurrah for the delta gun sets.all in all,the zenith roundie in my opinion was the most beautiful picture i had ever saw on a crt set.maybe it was the era or maybe it was just my youth but that set was exciting.

It was NOT just you....I still have fond memories of my 25MC33, seeing shows like "the spy who loved me" 2001", Dark star", Caddyshack", Airport 79" Coma", "You only live twice"...along with a LOT of mission impossible episodes and such. ... and MANY others--for about a year--on that wonderful set. It was OTA only, and only a few channels. BUT what we had ...just looked SOOO good !!

Zenith claimed they "had something different and special" in their roundie set--from the 29JC20 on...IMHO....they DEFINITELY did !!

Age group does have something to do with it.. But there are people like me that are one of the younger that like the old sets before our time..

I am guessing that the writer is referring to this topic in relation to his specific age group. With that I would agree, but I'm not positive that's what he means. It actually backs up one of the possibilities I mentioned in starting this thread of why the specific "roundie" color set has such a big fan base. The age group that saw all of this come along could easily want a piece of a fond old memory around. Inversely, I mentioned I think in a second post that most of my sets are older than I am. So, being a kid in the 70s, my memories of these sets were just that they were just another set. Or later junk... yep.

By the time I took my high school electronics training in the early 80s. our donation area in the classroom was well populated with them. However, even then I remember specifically wanting to work on those just because they seemed more interesting than the other almost as old rectangulars which I had no interest in. I still think there is more to this than nostalgia really. I mean how many people want their first touch tone phone or cell phone back? Or their first computer for that matter. I think a lot of us have some training in electronics and simply enjoy the challenge of getting an old TV or radio going again and preserving it for whatever reason. That would sort of explain me, but I have never been able to explain even to myself the love of TV and radio in some cases much older than I am. It just comes naturally.....:thmbsp:

I feel the exact same way. I always gravitated toward the vintage stuff especially tube electronics as it always seemed more interesting. Another thing is that vintage tv and radio do not become functionally obsolete unlike early computers and cellphones. My first cellphone was a Motorola brick in 1993 and it was analog so if I had it today It could never be used as the networks are all digital now. My first computer I bought new was a Packard Bell 486 SX20 with 2mb of ram. Today I bet it would not even load this forum page but my 1965 Zentih Roundie and my 1949 Motorola 9VT1 can still receive the current programming, even Netflix with the digital converter and Roku boxes to which they are connected. Not to mention my 1937 Philco 610 radio can still pick up Coast To Coast AM every night.

It was NOT just you....I still have fond memories of my 25MC33, seeing shows like "the spy who loved me" 2001", Dark star", Caddyshack", Airport 79" Coma", "You only live twice"...along with a LOT of mission impossible episodes and such. ... and MANY others--for about a year--on that wonderful set. It was OTA only, and only a few channels. BUT what we had ...just looked SOOO good !!

Zenith claimed they "had something different and special" in their roundie set--from the 29JC20 on...IMHO....they DEFINITELY did !!

I know what you mean abouth the 25MC33 sets. I have one and the picture is stunning. Everything I watch on it looks great. It is really fun to watch Mad Men on it as roundies were often featured in that show. The build quality on the Zeniths is excellent and it makes me feel as if the set can las for decades more with good care. I just can't see any flat panel lasting as long. I was always fascinated by round screen sets the first one I ever saw was a Zenith color roundie back in 1974 as a kid and I never forgot it.

To fix the shading you just need to replace the filter cap on the
200 V line. Usually a 4.7mfd use a 450 V. One of the most
common problems on ANY color TV.

73 Zeno:smoke:

Zeno is that the video out screen decoupler? I see a 2uf on the 160v line that feeds the video out screen (ctc-12)

Zeno is that the video out screen decoupler? I see a 2uf on the 160v line that feeds the video out screen (ctc-12)

Dave - I think Zeno is referring to TVCollector's early 80s Toshiba. Saw one with jail-bars on a left half of screen and it was a 22uf 160 volt cap that filtered the sweep-derived G2 supply on the CRT socket board.

The cap you mentioned in a CTC12 (and earlier chassis) is bypass on the 6AW8/6LF8 screen grid and causes weak sync in borderline cases:yes:

ah, I see.

I have been chasing an issue where some brightness like a title in white causes a drop in overall screen brightness. Some how I got Zeno response tied up with that.

I THINK what people are refering to is what is known as the "200 volt cap". It is in the bias supply to the CRT cathodes. Nearly always--it is a flyback-derived supply--on solid state sets. Even BW sets have this cap--including the 1M30T20--it is called the 120 volt supply--and derived from the flyabck.

It will be from a 2.2 UF to a possible 33UF, Usually 250 volts or more--but some late 70's to 90's sets tied that cap to the B+ supply --so it only sees the increase from the flyback on it.

Occasionally--this cap is on the CRT board--but usually on the chassis, and often near the flyback.

I decided to look carefully again at the color rendition of my CT-100.
It was not as good as I remembered. I could adjust the hue control to get
mid-scale violets/magentas or yellows/oranges right, but not both.

I took the top off with the intent to tweek. But doing the critical
adjustments is impossible without pulling the chassis partly out. Too
little clearance with the CRT. So I said, just do a check on
all my normal test patterns from a USB key on the Blu-Ray and
leave it at that. Success! the problem was not the hue control!
It was "color" ... there is just zero way to set both hue and color
correctly without a proper static color bars pattern and the Digital
Video Essentials color filters or equivalent. Near perfect match
between big TV, computer monitor, and CT-100 on a slide show
(with color temperatures on LCDs set to match CT-100). Back
to OTA and still a great match.

Moral: don't complain about color rendition without setting color bars right.
Ideally you want 75% brightness 100% saturated bars. I have
special tests I made up (and posted) that allow you to use either blue
or red bars (or green ones if you have a proper dichroic filter better than
the plastic ones) but blue alone is OK if the room
is truly dark.

Let me clarify.
I was referring to tvcollectors 1981 Hitachi with a shading problem.
The problem is so common I will go over it for those with less experience.
This is an ALMOST ALWAYS tutorial.
All solid state sets use 200 V to run the 3 color outputs.
The 200V comes from
1) a secondary flyback winding ( most common)
2) OR not commonly off the primary & is stacked off the 130V.
there are 2 caps involved in this case.

Symptoms are any or all of the following.
To bright
Jail bars
Brighter on left than right
Retrace lines.
Streaking
Poor color
HV shut down ( from too much beam current)

How to find the cap.
Find the 3 color outputs, usually on the CRT board.
Each has a 1 or 2 watt resistor ( 18K + or - ) off the collectors.
The other ends join together, thats the 200V.
Follow the wire from that point back to the chassis.
You will find the cap at the cathode of a diode.
Sometimes there is a coil or low value resistor in series with
everything.
Of course if you cant find it post the model & chassis & one
of us will look it up.

BTW some sets cam in with another problem but just didnt
look right. It was this cap just starting to go. I always loved this
problem, a gravy job that put steaks on the table & beer in
the frig:beer:

73 Zeno:smoke:

Here is a comparison. First photo is from Ed Reitan's CBS field sequential television. Correction: Photography from the screen of John Folsom's 1950 CBS Labs RX-43 CBS Color Receiver as seen on Ed Reitan's website.

http://www.visions4.net/journal/wp-content/uploads/image64.jpg

Second photo is from a 70 inch 2012 Sharp Quatron LCD.

http://www.visions4.net/journal/wp-content/uploads/image65.jpg

dtvmcdonald,

Would it be possible for you to post the identical screenshot of Dorothy as seen on your CT-100?

Added: ... Or anyone else that owns a CT-100. Would love to see a comparison screenshot of the identical frame of Dorothy on your CT-100.

Here is a comparison. First photo is from Ed Reitan's CBS field sequential television. Correction: Photography from the screen of John Folsom's 1950 CBS Labs RX-43 CBS Color Receiver as seen on Ed Reitan's website.

Second photo is from a 70 inch 2012 Sharp Quatron LCD.


There are several different video releases of the Wizard of Oz (it's been discussed on VK before) , and there are wild chroma and general picture quality differences between them. The TBS banner at the bottom of that one shot makes me think those two photos were NOT taken from the same video source.

If you took that flatscreen screen shot, and ED did not take his from the same broadcast, then you are likely comparing apples to oranges, rather than apples to apples.

Thanks for info zeno.. I'll look into that one of these days..

There are several different video releases of the Wizard of Oz (it's been discussed on VK before) , and there are wild chroma and general picture quality differences between them. The TBS banner at the bottom of that one shot makes me think those two photos were NOT taken from the same video source.

If you took that flatscreen screen shot, and ED did not take his from the same broadcast, then you are likely comparing apples to oranges, rather than apples to apples.

Yes. If you re-read my post, I explained where the two images came from.

The author of this thread said this 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."

I disagree that flat panels don't look great, that is why I posted the roundie screenshot and my screenshot.

I would love to see comparison screenshots of the same exact frame from owners of the CT-100 or any other roundie posted here. My screenshot is from a Direct TV satellite transmission. I suspect other screenshots will look better or worse then my shot, depending on the source.

BTW, I like roundies, too. :-)

I don't go around check flat screens often, but IIRC there was something about fast movement that did not look right to me. Maybe that is not the case anymore, but like I said I cant remember the last time I looked at one long enough to know if it was still the same.

The best comparison is the one I did between an original on my computer
screen (i.e. no TV in between) and my CT-100:

http://www.videokarma.org/showthread.php?t=262176&page=6

This is not a screen shot of the computer. Its the original. The
camera image of the CT-100 was tweeked in Photoshop with
the computer monitor sitting om the CT-100 until the images
on the CT-100 and the computer were identical except for brightness.

This is a test of TV resolution, color, and contrast. What you see
on YOUR computer is an accurate report on the DIFFERENCE between
the original as seen on the computer and the image on the TV.

I don't go around check flat screens often, but IIRC there was something about fast movement that did not look right to me. Maybe that is not the case anymore, but like I said I cant remember the last time I looked at one long enough to know if it was still the same.

Your right. LCD panels have suffered from slow response time and viewing angles. Most of the early problems have been overcome in the newest, better quality panels, but to some degree those problems still persist.

I'm thinking about image quality, ie, color rendition and resolution as compared to the old roundies. Don't get me wrong, I have already said that I'm a fan of roundies. I have two so far and looking for a few more.

Yes. If you re-read my post, I explained where the two images came from.

The author of this thread said this 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."

I disagree that flat panels don't look great, that is why I posted the roundie screenshot and my screenshot.

I would love to see comparison screenshots of the same exact frame from owners of the CT-100 or any other roundie posted here. My screenshot is from a Direct TV satellite transmission. I suspect other screenshots will look better or worse then my shot, depending on the source.



I just noticed another thing wrong in your comparison the 'roundy' picture is a field sequential set. Field sequential sets are scarce as hens teeth, and are a completely different (and less adjustable) process of color image generation (monochrome CRT with a color wheel spinning in in front of it) than a normal color CRT, and I'd dare say fall outside the most peoples definition of a roundy color set.

I wish I had time to re-read everything, but I don't. :tongue:

I personally strongly dislike flatscreen sets. Non-Gaussian image elements don't look right to me (a certain softness and cross fade from picture element to picture element makes an image look better), I don't like (makes my eyes tired) the flashing nature of image refresh in a flat screen (versus the soft fade of a CRT), and don't get me started on viewing angle limitations of flat screens and all the maladies digital video has built in to it. If I ever go HD I'm getting an HD CRT set.

The best comparison is the one I did between an original on my computer
screen (i.e. no TV in between) and my CT-100:

http://www.videokarma.org/showthread.php?t=262176&page=6

This is not a screen shot of the computer. Its the original. The
camera image of the CT-100 was tweeked in Photoshop with
the computer monitor sitting om the CT-100 until the images
on the CT-100 and the computer were identical except for brightness.

This is a test of TV resolution, color, and contrast. What you see
on YOUR computer is an accurate report on the DIFFERENCE between
the original as seen on the computer and the image on the TV.

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?

As to the screen shot I posted, if anyone has the DVD of the Wizard of Oz, the frame is at the 43 minute mark, just before Dorothy meets the scarecrow. You could take a screenshot on your roundie and post it here for comparison purposes.

I just noticed another thing wrong in your comparison the 'roundy' picture is a field sequential set. Field sequential sets are scarce as hens teeth, and are a completely different (and less adjustable) process of color image generation (monochrome CRT with a color wheel spinning in in front of it) than a normal color CRT, and I'd dare say fall outside the most peoples definition of a roundy color set.

I wish I had time to re-read everything, but I don't. :tongue:

I personally strongly dislike flatscreen sets. Non-Gaussian image elements don't look right to me (a certain softness and cross fade from picture element to picture element makes an image look better), I don't like (makes my eyes tired) the flashing nature of image refresh in a flat screen (versus the soft fade of a CRT), and don't get me started on viewing angle limitations of flat screens and all the maladies digital video has built in to it. If I ever go HD I'm getting an HD CRT set.

You are not telling me anything I don't know. I already said it was a field sequential set and that a better comparison would be to compare a CT-100 or other "modern" roundie from the 60's and sorry, if you don't read through my posts, then I have to respond.

Good luck with your future HD CRT.

I found this tread: http://www.videokarma.org/showthread.php?t=257997&highlight=Wizard+of+oz+screenshots

Beautiful screenshots on a CT-55. The first photo is of Dorothy from Oz on a roundie.

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.php?attachmentid=186481&stc=1&d=1428624485

http://www.videokarma.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=186482&stc=1&d=1428624485

http://www.videokarma.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=186483&stc=1&d=1428624485

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=video&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCsQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DlJU eUH8bTW4&ei=GSgnVfCPIcixsAWPgYHoAQ&usg=AFQjCNFKGgBkZ33YivG75-na-awJ5jBtWA&sig2=3UGhzoNnB_wKf_5YKt2_hA&bvm=bv.90491159,d.b2w

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

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.

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.php?attachmentid=186481&stc=1&d=1428624485

http://www.videokarma.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=186482&stc=1&d=1428624485

http://www.videokarma.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=186483&stc=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.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=video&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCsQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DlJU eUH8bTW4&ei=GSgnVfCPIcixsAWPgYHoAQ&usg=AFQjCNFKGgBkZ33YivG75-na-awJ5jBtWA&sig2=3UGhzoNnB_wKf_5YKt2_hA&bvm=bv.90491159,d.b2w

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

I enjoyed your video. The village scenes looked outstanding.

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..

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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=1428689351

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.

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.

To my eye this image is much better then the first Sony image. It still looks blue. I'd guess about 7700 to 8000K. It definitely does not look to be 6500K. I still see the basket weave artifacts in the background. Is the Sony generating the artifacts? My iPad is measured at 7041K and could be showing the image bluer then it is.

I have been watching ISF calibrated television images since the late 90's. I am used to seeing proper color temperature.

Call me crazy, but I like using Disneys Bolt. The simulated backdrops, vibrant but balanced colors. Real good.

I think you see it right. The Sony was set for one step too cool.

The weave pattern is caused because I did not quite blur out all the
pixel pattern of either set since I wanted as much detail as possible.
The Sony is not generating the artifact.

Its possible to do it right but a pain!

The CT-100 CAN generate moire artifacts because the focus is
so good that lines can be narrower than the pixel pitch. However,
its not showing in these pics.

The wizard of oz was redone in color back in the early days of color TV,

Negative, the WOO was always in color, Three Strip Technicolor in fact.

It has been restored in later years using modern technology to get the most out of it but it's always been a color film.

... I don't like (makes my eyes tired) the flashing nature of image refresh in a flat screen (versus the soft fade of a CRT),

I'm afraid you have it backwards. Flat screen sets (particularly LCDs) display each image continuously; CRTs flash due to the persistence of the phosphor being (sort of) exponential. (Actually, phosphors typically have a main decay that is very rapid compared to field scan rate, but also have an extended low-level tail-off that can produce visible smear of bright objects against a black background; but the major effect by far is the fast drop-off.) Hence, in 50 Hz countries, flicker was always visible on CRTs, not so on LCDs. This characteristic of LCDs also caused smeared motion, alleviated in recent models by going to 120 Hz or 240 Hz refresh rates.
Plasma TVs and micromirror devices get their gray scale by duty cycle modulation, which can cause some artifacts when there is motion present or when the eyeball scans across the image quickly.

...
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.


Phosphor history has been discussed in several threads here, but rather than searching for all that (you can do it), let me summarize:

Earliest regularly used phosphor set - 15GP22 - had a very inefficient red, a medium efficiency green (P1 oscilloscope green, in other words, the NTSC spec, not as yellow as current phosphors), and the NTSC blue, which was more cyan and less deep violet blue than today's phosphors. RCA and NTSC would have liked a deeper blue, but there was a problem with copper contamination that prevented using a deep sulfide blue - copper would turn it green.

The first really major change in phosphors was the all-sulfide tubes in the early 60's. These are the ones you see with a greenish face. This included a deeper-blue zinc sulfide phosphor (silver activated) since the copper problems had been solved, and a zinc sulfide green (copper activated) that was yellower than "NTSC green" and therefore brighter, and a zinc cadmium-sulfide red that was much brighter than the old red, but was slightly more orange at low current and still more orange at high current.

The next innovations were rare earth reds, which came very close to NTSC red. Note that NTSC red is actually somewhat on the orange side. For example, traffic signal red is outside the NTSC gamut. First was a vanadate red, then europium oxy-sulfide, which became the defacto red for a long time. From this point on, the differences in color renditions in different sets had more to do with different designs of the color matrix to compensate for the yellower green and deeper blue than it had to do with differences in phosphor primary colors. (There were some tubes that added a bit of cadmium to the green, making it even more yellowish and still brighter. In the 70's cadmium was removed due to environmental concerns.)

PAL, and later HDTV, came in after this phosphor set was established, so the color matrixing could be done at the camera on linear signals (where it should be), instead of the approximations in the receiver that NTSC set makers had been fooling with for years. This phosphor set was standardized in several very similar color specs for different applications until they were combined into the specs now used for HDTV and still camera sRGB.

Flat panels are now being designed (and a few produced) that can produce a greater color gamut, some equaling the old NTSC gamut or more, and specs are being developed for extended color gamut signals to drive these displays correctly.

Edit: Yes, yttrium was somewhere in the red phosphor work too, I've forgotten the exact sequence.

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.

Anything more modern, a choice made by a user.. There's plenty of movies made within the last 10 years or so.. If it were up to me, Id probably do screen shots of current television programing, maybe The Ellen DeGeneres Show for example..

Negative, the WOO was always in color, Three Strip Technicolor in fact.

It has been restored in later years using modern technology to get the most out of it but it's always been a color film.


MOST of it anyway...after the "house explodes".

Anything more modern, a choice made by a user.. There's plenty of movies made within the last 10 years or so.. If it were up to me, Id probably do screen shots of current television programing, maybe The Ellen DeGeneres Show for example..

Live stuff would be OK, but using WOO allows us to go back to previous posts with something comparable. Recent movies are definitely a bad idea. Their color is always adjusted to fit the director's artistic vision, usually in ways that restrict the color palette and give a general tint to the color balance. (More often than not, this is a restriction to the cyan/orange axis, with an over-all bluish caste, as making everything green or magenta would just look weird.) I get as sick of seeing this overdone as you do of seeing WOO.

Yttrium has nothing to do with color. Its also not a rare earth,
but rather one slot up in the periodic table from the rare earths.
It has 3+ ions as do the rare earths and it has a similar size,
so it makes a great matrix for doping with rare earths.

Live stuff would be OK, but using WOO allows us to go back to previous posts with something comparable. Recent movies are definitely a bad idea. Their color is always adjusted to fit the director's artistic vision, usually in ways that restrict the color palette and give a general tint to the color balance. (More often than not, this is a restriction to the cyan/orange axis, with an over-all bluish caste, as making everything green or magenta would just look weird.) I get as sick of seeing this overdone as you do of seeing WOO.

I was looking at new movies last night looking for nice scenes to use,
mainly the Tolkien and Harry Potter ones. There are few scenes that
don't have seriously manipulated color, except some at the
start of LOTR.

In LOTR Fellowship of the Ring, near the end are scenes where they
are floating down the river Anduin. And these scenes are seriously green:
blue-green water and lots of greenish backgrounds. That's on my Sony.
On the CT-100, when set so color bars and Dorothy's face look perfect,
the darker areas, green on the Sony, are blue instead. This is visible
also in the white parts of Dorothy's collar, which are blue instead of
gray. I though this might be caused by a wrong I gain, so I checked ...
nope, that's not it. Could it be a bad resistor in the blue color matrix?
I was sure that I had them right when I set it up, but only checked
saturated color bars.

Fifth Element may have some good scenes.

On the CT-100, when set so color bars and Dorothy's face look perfect,
the darker areas, green on the Sony, are blue instead.

A couple of years ago I noticed the same problem with my CT-100 in a background that changed from red to green behind Rita Hayworth in the 1944 3-strip film 'Cover Girl'. It's relatively early in the film when she's in make-up. Some guys carry no-seam behind her that changes abruptly to green. My CT-100 changed from red to blue.

The fix was a very exacting recalibration of the quadrature transformer.

Pete

Yttrium has nothing to do with color. Its also not a rare earth,
but rather one slot up in the periodic table from the rare earths.
It has 3+ ions as do the rare earths and it has a similar size,
so it makes a great matrix for doping with rare earths.

Thanks - had no time to look it up and refresh my memory.

Folks, post your best roundie screenshots. I will in kind, try to post comparable screenshots from my calibrated Sharp Quatron 70 inch LCD. If you are unbiased, it could be interesting :-)

Folks, post your best roundie screenshots. I will in kind, try to post comparable screenshots from my calibrated Sharp Quatron 70 inch LCD. If you are unbiased, it could be interesting :-)

That's a bit unfair comparing to HD, I think the OP meant later CRT sets?

That's a bit unfair comparing to HD, I think the OP meant later CRT sets?

Okay. That's fine, don't want to create controversey. The tread creator wanted to know why folks liked roundies and went on to say that he didn't think flat panels were that great compared to roundies or that is the impression I got.

I like the latest technology in flat panels and I also appreciate the nostalgia of the roundies. IMHO, the best quality color television that exists today, is produced by 4K OLED flat panel television.

It is possible to demonstrate HD to a certain extent via a digital converter box on a roundie with a screenshot. A roundie then, is displaying a digital HD signal, limited by its technology. A flat panel can better display an HD image. If one says that a flat panel is not great in comparison to a roundie, I question that.

like I said....there is just somethinhg "different" about roundies--at least Zenith roundies. I can't put my finger on it.....but I N OW I am NOT alone in feeling this way.

I wouldn't turn one down. Besides, I think I got the roundie adapter with my Sencore CR70 (socket 8? It's a big one).

It is possible to demonstrate HD to a certain extent via a digital converter box on a roundie with a screenshot. A roundie then, is displaying a digital HD signal, limited by its technology. A flat panel can better display an HD image. If one says that a flat panel is not great in comparison to a roundie, I question that.

Unless you want to neglect resolution, the only fair comparison of an NTSC set and a HD set is feeding both NTSC a resolution signal.

Ultimately horizontal scanlines and signal bandwidth are nearly as concrete a limit on resolution in the analog domain as pixel count is in the digital domain, and unless we start modifying our sets beyond factory specs (at least that is possible and somewhat more practical for a CRT display) those limits are fixed quantities.

"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? Maybe simply the love and interest in vintage tube type electronics as a lost science as is a bit of the case with me as well. Waddaya think?
______________"

That was the last part of his question. IMHO, in terms of ultimate picture quality, flat panels are superior to roundies. Yes, LCD flat panels had problems, but most of those problems have been eliminated. With my calibrated Sharp Quatron which has 25% more pixels than a regular LCD, I can't see the pixels unless I put my eyes on top of the screen. I see no scan lines. I get a 16x9 screen format which means I can see 100% of the image content with pixel by pixel image mapping. I get HD and now 4K resolution, not to mention the theater like experience from a 70 inch widescreen. I plan on going larger with the next set. For me, those advantages out weigh the nostalgia of the roundie, but I still like the roundies for the memories of my first color experiences in the 50's and my first color set in 1966.

I think the movie, "Finding Nemo" would be a great candidate for a vintage TV set. For sure, it would get our sons and grandsons glued to the screen :thmbsp:.

But that is just my 2¢ and for sure, there will be those who disagree! ;)

I found out why my CT-100 was generating blue water and costumes on LOTR
when my big Sony was generating bluish green. The Sony is simply wrong.

I tried watching numerous OTA TV channels broadcasting movies and
low-key scenes, especially from police dramas. They showed the same effect
at the Warm 2 setting I was using on the Sony to get a low color temperature.
Night scenes outdoors are, by convention on TV, blue, not green. They showed
up green, all of them. Changing the TV to "Neutral" made them blue. It appears
that on my TV calibration is per color temp setting and I only calibrated "neutral".

"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? Maybe simply the love and interest in vintage tube type electronics as a lost science as is a bit of the case with me as well. Waddaya think?
______________"

That was the last part of his question. IMHO, in terms of ultimate picture quality, flat panels are superior to roundies. Yes, LCD flat panels had problems, but most of those problems have been eliminated. With my calibrated Sharp Quatron which has 25% more pixels than a regular LCD, I can't see the pixels unless I put my eyes on top of the screen. I see no scan lines. I get a 16x9 screen format which means I can see 100% of the image content with pixel by pixel image mapping. I get HD and now 4K resolution, not to mention the theater like experience from a 70 inch widescreen. I plan on going larger with the next set. For me, those advantages out weigh the nostalgia of the roundie, but I still like the roundies for the memories of my first color experiences in the 50's and my first color set in 1966.

I don't understand all the hype about HD, Ultra HD etc. In computer monitors where I'm positioned close to the device and need to read small text, yes. In smartphones where I need to be able to view content clearly on a tiny screen, yes. On televisions where I'm sitting metres away, not really. I've always thought that if you have a problem with the resolution of your television, you're probably sitting too close.

Even with glasses, I can't see any difference between a SD television and a "Super Mega Ultra HD++" television from a good viewing distance, certainly not enough of a difference to make me dump my reliable old 80's Samsung and run out to buy one. :dunno: The only problems I've ever had were trying to read sports scores on a tiny 14" portable, which has since taken place in the attic.

Just my two cents.

[QUOTE=Electronic M;3131250]Unless you want to neglect resolution, the only fair comparison of an NTSC set and a HD set is feeding both NTSC a resolution signal."

This could be done by taking a screenshot of a standard definition signal still broadcasting on some channels on a flat panel set.

The question posed was "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? Maybe simply the love and interest in vintage tube type electronics as a lost science as is a bit of the case with me as well. Waddaya think?
______________"

So if you ask to take the HD resolution advantage away from the flat panel in comparison testing screenshots, that would be unfair.

Fifth Element may have some good scenes.In another thread, I believe someone said that this scene from Fifth Element is a favorite of TV salesmen:

http://antiqueradio.org/art/temp/leeloo.jpg

Salesmen may have different goals than engineers, of course.

Phil Nelson

[QUOTE=Electronic M;3131250]Unless you want to neglect resolution, the only fair comparison of an NTSC set and a HD set is feeding both NTSC a resolution signal."

This could be done by taking a screenshot of a standard definition signal still broadcasting on some channels on a flat panel set.

The question posed was "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? Maybe simply the love and interest in vintage tube type electronics as a lost science as is a bit of the case with me as well. Waddaya think?
______________"

So if you ask to take the HD resolution advantage away from the flat panel in comparison testing screenshots, that would be unfair.

Perhaps we should let the OP weigh in rather than quoting him and acting as him in his stead.

[QUOTE=etype2;3131276]

Perhaps we should let the OP weigh in rather than quoting him and acting as him in his stead.



First of all, this is the full quote of his question:

"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 what do some of you think the attraction is to these sets. I know some will be people who were kids when these were new and it was a BIG deal to have any color TV. So they will say they have fond memories of those days. As for me; I am almost 46 and there were certainly a lot of those sets around and remained in use until I was well into my teen years, but in my life most families had a color TV. For us screen size could be impressive and remote control was impressive, and projection sets with wall screens were impressive (or the later huge single unit projection sets).

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? Maybe simply the love and interest in vintage tube type electronics as a lost science as is a bit of the case with me as well. Waddaya think?"

Last I heard, this is America, we have free speech. Anybody on this forum has the right to quote another. I have read the rules when signing up to speak on this forum and in the five years that I have been here, I have conducted myself in a gentleman maner.

This thread asked for opinions on his question. I have posted my opinion. You are entitled to your opinion as am I. You cannot stop me from expressing my opinion. It is called debate. If I get out of line, an Administrator can step in.

Touchy ain't we?

Even though I've never seen a roundie in person, I know I'd rather pay for one of those than a flat panel. Another advantage of roundies is that they're not constantly increasing in size and resolution, so there will be no psychological need to swipe the plastic every few months to replace them. ;)

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....

"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.

...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :-)

"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...:D

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...:D


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

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. :sigh:

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. :sigh:

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.

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. :sigh:

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. :sigh:

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.

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"...

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? :scratch2:

I didn't know the time line when Boston Store became just a Magnavox dealer.
BTW, what make set, did you buy there? :scratch2:

This one.

http://www.visions4.net/journal/wp-content/uploads/image57.jpg


A 1966 RCA Bremanger 19 inch CTC-19. Was one of the first rectangular sets. Got rid of it decades ago. Two years ago, found the exact same set on EBay. It needs me to install the replacement CRT I got from ETF.

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"...

That is probably the thing I miss most about the older sets is the furniture style cabinets. There is something so beautiful about a round tube TV in a stylish cabinet that brings elegance to a room. Even the plastic wood grain cabinets were nice. One everything went to all black or silver, the style was lost. Large black flat panels just look strange in an otherwise tastefully decorated room.

That is probably the thing I miss most about the older sets is the furniture style cabinets. There is something so beautiful about a round tube TV in a stylish cabinet that brings elegance to a room. Even the plastic wood grain cabinets were nice. One everything went to all black or silver, the style was lost. Large black flat panels just look strange in an otherwise tastefully decorated room.
I could not agree more. The screen sizes for color were all the same from 1955-65 and, as if to make up for that, tastes in home furnishings were more diverse.

The screen sizes for color were all the same from 1955-65

I thought that they made something like a 15" and the 21" from the get go and dropped the 15" somewhere in the 50s. They continued with the 21" until the "roundie" end somewhere around 1967. I think a few manufacturers put out round tube sets for a few years more as budget sets to use up surplus tubes.

Someone check me on this....:scratch2:

The 15" model was made for only one year, so you are both right.

The 15" was out long before the 21", but by the time consumer sets were made there was little time before the (short lived) 19" and early 21" types came out.