Re: Re: SWMBO caught me off guard!

["Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> I agree that the image quaility of the good CRT can be better than the
> best LCD/Plasma but they are two completely different ways of
> displaying the image. The issue with the flat panels is that they are
> to good at displaying what the receive, hence you give it an image
> that has passed through a high compression digital encoder and it will
> show you the inadequancies to the transmission standard rather than
> the screen.

Yes and no.  If you pass an analog signal to an LCD it will have to use an
internal encoder to convert that to digital for display.  Some LCD and
plasma units have better encoders than others.  A CRT, on the other hand,
will display what it's been passed without touching it.  So a CRT with a
sharp dot pitch may well be MUCH better at showing a picture than a digital
display.  It's all relative and not as simple as CRT being better or worse
than LCD/plasma.

> Some of the lower use Sky channels and freeview channels
> are appauling. But it is the compression rate of the MPEG standard
> rather than the panel itself

Yes, if the head-end chooses bad encoding options then it won't matter much
what display you use.

> With respect to the blurring of the image I agree that this is a
> problem with LCDs and Plasma and why I said in my original post that
> they are not so good for sport as their responce rate is to slow.

Blurring based on motion is one thing, artifacts caused by a crappy
internal
encoder are another.