Here's what I do. I have an HD TV (for Seahawks games, and the rare TV show I actually want to watch, and PBS) in one room. But no cable. It has a Roku and Apple TV, but that's besides the point. The US Government required all local stations to output HD signals a few years ago. So, if you go buy a cheap antennae, you can pick up HD local TV - entirely for free. I pay for internet, but not for TV. I get that over the air. And the picture, Shot, is amazing. It's nearly 3-dimensional looking. If you have an antennae on top of your house that you can jack into, you're freaking super lucky.With HD televisions, if you don't have digital cable then you actually are better off using a CRT in terms of quality.
Hi sorry for the late reply,Shot97 wrote:I can see your point with your everyday world. If, for example, you still used a CRT or a record player you would not consider that item as retro because it's in daily use. For me I things don't have to be useless to be considered retro. I can own an item, understand its uses, still want to use them, but also understand the majority of people no longer find use in them. I still use CRTs for things that were developed on them because for me they have a use, the picture looks better on the thing it was designed to be used on. I still listen to vinyl records because there actually is plenty of evidence that analog music recording has better frequency response, but beyond that, it's the artistic merit of the device. Nice and big cover art and lyric pages, the "warmth" of the sound, and indeed, even things that many would find fault with like an odd crack becomes a part of the experience, an experience that is unique to that medium.
With photography there's also plenty of evidence digital is nowhere near the quality of the stuff I play with like 35mm slide film, and of course there are much better quality film than even 35mm. It's amazing that you can take something 35mm's in size and blow that up to fit an enormous screen in a movie theater and it looks brilliant. That's analog, that's the chemicals. But again, does not need to be technically superior to digital, it has every artistic right to exist for the rest of time because it's unique. You give the same photographer a digital camera and a film camera and that same person will get images that are simply different even if it's the same shot of the same thing.
I love old LED and LCD games. Those Tiger Electronic games are pretty awesome in my mind as well. Pinball games have always felt retro to me, even if it's a brand new machine just going up to one and playing it is retro. Much like buying a brand new vinyl record (More of them sold now that since the 80's) feels retro even if I do see its benefits. I'm still aware of the culture, it's good to be aware that way you can know if something you find use in will soon be unavailable because of others who refuse to see its uses. I understand the flickering eye strain thing, for some reason that's never been a huge problem with me with the CRTs, although it has always been a huge problem with florescent lighting, which I can't stand. I'll proudly be burning tungsten bulbs for as long as I can get a hold of them, and I've got a stockpile for when I can't. My eyes have more problems with modern LCD displays lit by florescent tubes. They operate at 60hz or lower, where as many CRT monitors can go much higher than that which reduces eye strain. LEDs do not cause the eyestrain but they also do not accurately reproduce the full light spectrum like the sun or a tungsten or halogen light bulb would. The problem with new things is it's all about money. Very rarely does something come along that completly one ups what it's replacing in every single possible way. In fact it can often times be much worse but they'll do their best to convince you otherwise, like CDs.
The audio reproduction of a compact disc has always been terrible, but the worst CD player and the best CD player always sounded the same, which was better than the worst record player. But the best record player always destroyed the CD. But the record companies wanted everyone to switch, a CD cost them less than 5 cents to make and it's new so some CDs could cost you 40 bucks. Money is king. They wanted records to die. Feels good though because digital is what ended up killing record companies not so long after! Personally I've always loved environmentalists who went on about tungsten bulbs being bad but were perfectly fine with banning certain types of them in favor of mercury florescent bulbs that require proper disposal, which nobody does... Mercury bulbs, in the trash, breaking, releasing one of the worst things possible into the atmosphere... Good job there!
With film, I mean I wouldn't want to take a bath in the chemicals but there's nothing bad for the environment as long as it's used properly. The current film chemical processes anybody could do in their own house in a closet with running water. There used to be other processes like with Kodachrome film. Only Kodak themselves could develop that stuff because it was a complicated mess of chemicals...However, even they pretty much just had it running through machines in an automated process by the end of it. Easy for them and they only stopped using it because the chemicals were more expensive and they can't figure out how to sell stuff and make money off of it.
I'd recommend reading up on Kodachrome though if you're into fascinating uses of technology. The thing about Kodachrome which made it so unbelievable with quality (nothing can touch it) is that for every picture you took the film essentially took 3 shots of the same thing. There were 3 "layers" to the film and each recorded a black and white image. It was during processing that those 3 images were taken separately and red was added to one layer, blue to another, and green to the last. When combined it would give you the true color image. There is simply nothing film or digital that can come close to recording color in that way. I miss that stuff. To this day most Hollywood companies record the "master" copy of whatever film or TV show or anything on film, even if it was recorded digitally or from VHS or whatever... Film is the only proven archival method, and digital, despite being advertised as lasting forever, in reality most pictures taken in the last 15 years are going to be lost to hard drive crashes or upgrades or whatever. It's a sad thing in terms of preserving history.
I see benefits in digital, I use it as well. My only issues have ever been with people who stop seeing benefits in film... With HD televisions, if you don't have digital cable then you actually are better off using a CRT in terms of quality. That's something nobody selling a TV is ever going to want to tell you, but it's the damn cold hard truth. Over 65% of American's are still using basic cable which means resolutions less than 480p, which means everything they watch would look better on a CRT television not an HD one. HD is great if you have HD resolution but it's beyond terrible when you do not, yet many convince themselves it is, probably to justify the purchase. And of course CRTs are and were capable of displaying HD resolutions themselves, meaning an LCD HD television is more for those with eye strain issues or wanting to save space, but those cathode ray tubes, much like Kodachrome, did the red/green/blue separately, it's something nice indeed to me, especially when playing old systems.
I have a few videos on my YouTube channel where I mess around with old Mattel Electronics LED games from the 70's, those things are pretty cool to spend a few minutes of your time with in my eyes.