I haven't read anything on a 5" deep, high resolution crt, from Samsung.

But, the crt IS high resolution and the new Flat Screen Tubes are about twice to three times heavier than the curved crt's.

Purity and convergence are more difficult to set properly.

pw

The CRT still has better picture and truer color display than an LCD or plasma.
Most high end computer graphics and CAD users still use a CRT for that reason.

The new "slim" Samsung 30 inch tv, using a crt, is 16 inches deep, and weighs 120 lb. It will retail for around 1000 dollars. The plant is located in Tiajuana, Mexico. Another Korean manufacturer, LG Electronics, is also developing similar crt display. These high resolution tv sets are said to compete with more expensive lcd and plasma display units, for about 1/2 the cost. Whether they will succeed in the marketplace remains to be seen. We will have to replace our conventional, non-digital tv sometime in the next few years, and I am leaning toward the Samsung slim crt, but I don't want to be the only person in town who owns an oddball tv set that would be impossible to get serviced, because it is considered obsolete.

I suspect the CRT will soon be dead or nearly so (as dead as, say, record players). There just are too many pluses to LCDs: the flexibility of putting a panel where you want it, the energy savings (direct and indirect because an LCD does not generate that much heat), the relative safety of a non-glass screen. CRTs may provide a more accurate color, but I don't think most TV buyers care about that.

TV buyers might not but computer user do.

I think TV viewers do care, too. In order for the CRT to become obsolete, it'll have to cease to have the best picture, be the longest lasting, and the best value for the money. As long as each of those facts remains true about it, it's hard to imagine it being obsolete.

If someone just invented the CRT right now and the only TVs anyone had ever seen previously were LCDs, you'd have to wonder whether people would now be saying, "Yeah, those new CRTs are heavier and deeper, but the picture looks so much better, the color is more true, and it's less expensive. How long until it replaces the LCD?"

The slim CRT will very likely breath new life into CRT sales. The cost/picture quality of a CRT compared to Plasma or LCD are going to be the easy selling points.

FYI the new slim CRT's also have lower power consumption than your typical CRT.

I will definetely be considering one for my next TV.

I still don't agree. You need only to look at the popularity of MP3s and cheapo DVD players to see that the vast majority of people are just fine with middling quality. Sure, there always will be those folks who need or want the best possible color reproduction/contrast/whatever (just as there are people who know the difference enough to spend four or five figures on a hi-fi and who choose from an array of expensive turntables). But I think most people will be much happier with the relative portability of an LCD screen compared to a CRT. There will be CRTs for those who must have them, but they'll be as hard to find as turntables -- not a mass-market item. JMHO, of course.

You need only to look at the popularity of MP3s and cheapo DVD players to see that the vast majority of people are just fine with middling quality.

I don't see this applying to mp3 players. The Apple iPod series has the largest share of the market, and iPods come at a considerable price premium over the average player.

FWIW, today's better LCD screens can be synched with color calibration software and hardware and deliver results almost any graphic designer would appreciate.

Steve O I guees I dont follow you. The SLIM CRT is a new animal compared to the large old CRT's. They will provide similiar sizes to LCD (a little deeper, and a little more weight) but will cost LESS and look BETTER. A typical Walmart consumer will see mostly the cost is LESS and buy. I agree that top quality isnt the most important issue however in this rare instance the picture will in fact be better. Of course time will tell on the actual selling prices of these units and with LCD manufacturing costs/retail prices dropping rapidly Slim CRT may not offer as much cost advantage as anticipated. That being said competition in the market only helps us consumers so I say rock on Samsung!

Plus, people may be fine with middling quality as long as it's cheaper. It might be hard to get everyone to pay more for something that, while it does offer certain advantages, is not in many other respects better than something else which is less costly.

I don't see this applying to mp3 players. The Apple iPod series has the largest share of the market, and iPods come at a considerable price premium over the average player.

That is true, but I really was talking about the music format itself. Most folks who deal with sound professionally will rightly tell you that MP3 is not a high-fidelity format. It sounds good, but it's not high-fidelity.

If they can manage to make a shallow CRT that offers the same sharp picture and color saturation as a "regular" CRT and do so at a price less expensive than an equivalent LCD/plasma, then I agree that they have a winner. But price it too high or make it much thicker/heavier than LCDs and I think it will be a much tougher sell.

So has anyone bought the Samsung slimfit? I think this message thread kind of died, but I'm considering the TV. Is it ok for viewing standard def. TV?

You might be referring to SED or Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Display technology. Like conventional CRTs, SEDs utilize the collision of electrons with a phosphor-coated screen to emit light. Electron emitters, which correspond to an electron gun in a CRT, are distributed in an amount equal to the number of pixels on the display. Since SEDs apply the same light emission theory as CRTs, they provide dynamic color expression, a sharp picture, and faster video response than LCDs and plasma displays. In addition, SEDs do not require electronic beam deflection, making possible screens of more than 40 inches in size that are only several centimeters thick.