2405fpw lcd vs this refurbed Sony CRT

[Madellga]

One thing tough. The ghosting depends a lot on the monitor. I have the 2405 and see no problems with it (FPS, RTS runs great).

 

[Keeir]

As long as we have links...

check out This

a good side by side comparison of a limited number of LCD and CRTs... albiet in French

 

[CP5670]

Most arguments used here are not correct. The contrast one, nobody mentions that CRT screens have issues with reflection, which doesn't happen with LCDs.

Instead of writting an article, I will provide you the following link:

http://www.behardware.com/art/imprimer/511/

Interesting link. Most of that information is quite accurate, but some things are less so. Their color vibrancy comparison is pointless, as they didn't activate the superbright mode that was one of the big selling features of that and other CRTs with the Superbright Diamondtron tube, while the sharpness comparison leads me to think that they either got a bad one (contrary to what they say, the newer Sony and Mitsubishi CRTs are great products in theory but had extremely inconsistent quality towards the end, with way too many duds out there) or hadn't adjusted the focus controls on the side correctly. I've actually tried taking a magnifying glass to my monitor and it looks far better than that at almost every resolution.

The glare aspect is indeed something that LCDs win out on and is worth mentioning, but in practice it's less of an issue unless the monitor is directly facing a light or an open window. It shows up more in photographs due to the flash than in reality. Still something to keep in mind though. In general, the lighting conditions you will be using any monitor in (LCD or CRT) will generally make quite a huge difference in the image quality, with a darker room making things look better.

This is all a bit off topic though, as I doubt the OP is going to care about gaming with the Intel graphics chip he is using.

 

[JRW]

I did my own CRT vs. LCD side by side comparison (dual monitor) and ended up sending the LCD back for various reasons, the main reasons being poor black levels and motion blur during movement plus the dithering effect (Banding of colors).

Couple shots I took with both monitors:

Sony 21" G520P ($800 retail) & 20" Dell 2001FP side by side shot - I dont know about you but the "Black level deepness from the eye" looks pretty weak on the LCD side there, I had the LCD set on 0 brightness in that shot, my camera settings DID exagerate the contrast wich makes the overall image quality itself look worse than it would in person, but you can get an idea of black level differances ..it was even worse at night (pic) with all the lights off.

Couple more closeup shots with better camera settings, again note black level differances and overall sharpness between the two, speaking of wich ..the sharpness claim on the first article doesnt seem right at all, Text clarity is VERY good on both my G520P @ 1600x1200 and FW900 @ 1680x1050 and games look very sharp, however i've never used a Diamond Pro CRT.. The LCD *did* have the better text output but that was the only positive thing I could say about it, I never actualy had problems reading text on my CRTs anyhow.

Sony G520P CRT pic

Dell 2001FP LCD pic

The issue with CRT glare has never been a problem for me either ..thats what the window blinds in my room are for! 😉

Im just going to keep using my FW900 until SED based PC monitors come out ,in case anyone doesnt know what SED is heres a recent article on it.

SED is basicly CRT technology redesigned to be slimmer and more energy efficient as well as having even further improved image quality.

"SED seems to be the natural son of TFT and CRT monitors. It combines the thinness of the first and the qualities of the second and improves them. Like cathode-ray tube TVs, SED technology is based on the collision of electrons and phosphoric monitor to emit light"

 

[gtx4u]

Originally posted by: Insomniak
LCD > CRT in every aspect except resolution flexibility.

LCD 4 lyfe.

LCD suck in contrast ratio and it has ghosting blurry artifacts during gaming (response time LOL) and u have to be "sitting at the right angle to view it properly" and they're expensive almost 80% higher priced than CRT, so they're not all that.

 

[gtx4u]

Originally posted by: Madellga
One thing tough. The ghosting depends a lot on the monitor. I have the 2405 and see no problems with it (FPS, RTS runs great).

A LCD moniter with good response time means lots of $$$$$$$$$$ at least 400~900 dollars depending on the size, in ur case a 2405 it will cost 850 dollars, u think the average game would buy for that kind of a price?

 

[CP5670]

JRW, what kind of camera do you have? I have this Sony DSC-P120 model (it's not exactly high end, but decent) but can't seem to get proper photos of my monitor, which always come out fuzzy and glared, although I haven't really had time to play with the settings.

 

[AmdInside]

Originally posted by: Insomniak
LCD > CRT in every aspect except resolution flexibility.

LCD 4 lyfe.

Actually, CRT is better, at least for professional photographers. You get more gaumet and better color reproduction (LCD's are to bright and you can't always tell how an image will come out in print). I do own a Dell 2405FPW but if I had room for a 24" new CRT, or even a 21", I definately would. I really like LaCie's professional CRT monitors.

 

[JRW]

Originally posted by: CP5670
JRW, what kind of camera do you have? I have this Sony DSC-P120 model (it's not exactly high end, but decent) but can't seem to get proper photos of my monitor, which always come out fuzzy and glared, although I haven't really had time to play with the settings.

I'm using a Canon G6 cam, The key is to use Manual settings ..If I use Auto mode when taking monitor shots they always come out way overbright or blury (or both) ,Also have to have a really steady hand or use a Tripod for best results ..I still cant get perfect shots but im getting better at it .. Dont use a flash (of course) and try using a aperture (F setting) of 2.9 , 1/16 shutter speed and ISO 50 as a starting point and see if it helps.

 

[Sunrise089]

I think resolution scaling really is getting short-changed in this discussion. For those with SLI or a 7800GTX, and who buy a new high end card every year, I'm sure they are very happy with their LCDs, but there are others who see their display investment needing to last 4-5 years, or several graphics card cycles. For myself the idea that I would have to purchase a new top-end graphics card to support a 21"+ LCD's native resolution much more often than I would the scaleable resolution on a CRT is a dealbreaker. Because I need a display that a video card can run new games on for more than a year, I would be forced to choose between something like a Dell 1905FP or a Sony FW900, and in that comparison I think the Sony is the clear winner - and cheaper as well.

 

[Madellga]

Originally posted by: Sunrise089
I think resolution scaling really is getting short-changed in this discussion. For those with SLI or a 7800GTX, and who buy a new high end card every year, I'm sure they are very happy with their LCDs, but there are others who see their display investment needing to last 4-5 years, or several graphics card cycles. For myself the idea that I would have to purchase a new top-end graphics card to support a 21"+ LCD's native resolution much more often than I would the scaleable resolution on a CRT is a dealbreaker. Because I need a display that a video card can run new games on for more than a year, I would be forced to choose between something like a Dell 1905FP or a Sony FW900, and in that comparison I think the Sony is the clear winner - and cheaper as well.

You don't need to change your card every year once you get a good one. I think the Nvidia's 7800 or ATI's X1800 series will do great paired with a 2405 for a couple of years.

You don't need to upgrade to such cards if you have a smaller monitor or run 1280x1024 in a CRT. We live in a age where the monitor resolution can be the limite, not the GPU processing power.

Even so, you cannot use today a Geforce 3 in a CRT monitor to run the latest games, for example. It won't work or you will have to use 640x480, which will not look good on the FW900 or Dell or anything else.

A card will not last 4-5 years. I would say 2.5 years at best.

 

[CP5670]

Originally posted by: JRW
I'm using a Canon G6 cam, The key is to use Manual settings ..If I use Auto mode when taking monitor shots they always come out way overbright or blury (or both) ,Also have to have a really steady hand or use a Tripod for best results ..I still cant get perfect shots but im getting better at it .. Dont use a flash (of course) and try using a aperture (F setting) of 2.9 , 1/16 shutter speed and ISO 50 as a starting point and see if it helps.

Thanks for the info. I have seen those settings on mine but didn't really know what they should be set to for this kind of thing. I have a pile of books on a table opposite to the one with the computer on it, so I can probably just put the camera on that to make it perfectly still.

 

[UltraWide]

if you get the dock/port replicator from Dell then you can get DVI out from the dock. Use this DVI to connect to the 2405FPW and you have crisp digital connection all around.

I would stay away from CRTs if you deal with text, if all you do is game, then CRT might not bad a bad choice, but like others mentioned CRTs are a relic of the past.