21" CRT TV is the perfect spot for 480i

[tongshadow]

Does anyone else think so? I've owned many different sets from many brands, and one thing I noticed is just how sharp and clean 480i sources look on 21" TVs (with component inputs). 15" doesnt have enough resolution, so 480i doesnt even have the characteristic flickering (which also means detail is lost). 27" looks good, but has a softer picture and it's not as sharp as a 21" set. Both of my LG and Philips 27" sets have a similar picture, but the latter has better geometry and uses the same tube as the JVCs I'Art. None look as sharp as the Panasonic 21" TV.
The original Xbox only looks good on that set, and even with the disgusting flicker filter all the games look amazing, I'd say it's almost like a 480p picture minus the flickering (I have a 14L5, so I know what it looks like).

The specific set I'm using is this Panasonic flat glass:
https://i.imgur.com/dp15RT4.png

CRT TVs have many different models worldwide, unlike monitors, so it's hard to know whether or not we're getting similar experiences. Unless it's a popular model like the Sony FV310 series...

So, has anyone else noticed these differences in picture quality on different sizes?

[fernan1234]

15" doesnt have enough resolution, so 480i doesnt even have the characteristic flickering (which also means detail is lost).

That's probably true for all commercial TVs, but not for high end and professional monitors, like your 14L5 for example which is actually a 13'' tube but has enough resolution for SD pictures. You just have to sit closer to it than you would with a larger TV while viewing from a couch. Also the smaller the tube the less noticeable that interlace flicker is, even if the tube is very sharp.

I personally like CRTs on a desk, so any high resolution CRT from 15-19'' feels ideal to me, but when it comes to TVs a 21'' would probably be the best overall choice.

[thchardcore]

19 to 21 inch PC CRTs have generally been my favorites. I would not even bother with a true low res tube anymore. My E94 IBM looks twice as nice as my JVC TM-H1950. 480i flicker from a line doubler is hardly bothersome.

[tongshadow]

Yes, PVMs are amazing. But when it comes to consumer grade TV sets, it seems you're not really gaining much in the way of picture quality by going up in size, just more viewable area. Which is funny because there IS a noticeable gain going from 15" to 21".
Why is that? I can only surmise that larger sets have lower stripe pitch or coarser beam spot.

[Taiyaki]

20~21 are my favorites as well. I used to think 24 inch was the ideal and optimal size some years ago but I've changed and decided it's 20. Although 24 inch is great too, at least for single player with occasional 2 player use I find 20 inch is the sweet spot.

For what it's worth PVM/BVM 20 inch tubes are actually 19, and horizontally curved, so you're seeing more like 18 inches of visible image at best. Where as most of the later 20 inch consumer grade Trinitron tubes are actually 21 inch large and horizontally flat so you really get that real estate in full view. They do appear at least about a half size bigger in my estimate than pro monitor tubes.

[Mikey]

I find the bigger, more expensive CRT TVs had the best image, like the 32"-36" widescreen flat CRTs from the early 2000s.

The geometry could be a bit off in widescreen mode, but the image was certainly sharper. I think they just went all out on the tubes, which you can feel when you try to carry one.

As for the ideal size, the bigger the better. 60" 4:3 rear projection all the way. You won't have to lean in or squint, but you might turn your face away when explosions happen on screen.

[bigbadboaz]

You may be right about image quality, but size makes too much of a difference in overall impact for me to go down that low. 27" and up. I've been happy with 27s as a sweet spot for "portability" with some size, but give me a 32" or 35/6" setup and I'm there all day.

[tongshadow]

Understandable, some value screen real estate more and I agree that it's better for long couch gaming sessions. But the picture looks softer and the last thing 480i+flicker filter needs is a blurrier picture. I find that 240p looks fine, however.

[Taiyaki]

I find that from where I would sit (fairly close) 27 inch and up the scanlines get too thick with 240p combined with the fact it's harder to get great geometry the overall picture quality suffers. Just reviewing picture quality I find 20 and 24 inch models tend to give the most balanced and pleasing picture. Also from 27 inch and up it becomes much harder to work on internally due to the size imo. That being said there are advantages to the bigger models too, the chassis tends to be of better grade with less internal interference and design irregularities (although sometimes the bigger models have their own quirks so that's not always a given).

If you sit far enough away, or sit from a couch, or if you do mostly multiplayer or sit with multiple friends around the TV then I can definitely see great use for 27 inch and up.

[Bassa-Bassa]

Understandable, some value screen real estate more and I agree that it's better for long couch gaming sessions. But the picture looks softer and the last thing 480i+flicker filter needs is a blurrier picture. I find that 240p looks fine, however.

What I fail to understand is why you don't just use a PC CRT for 480p if you're concerned about blurriness, specially when you mention the Xbox instead of the PS2.

[tongshadow]

480p output looks oversharpened on 1.6 consoles, this is a known issue on these later revision consoles. Earlier consoles used a different video encoder and had no issues displaying any video modes.