BurnItDwn
Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 26,353
- 1,862
- 126
I have a 24inch LCD and a pair of 19inch CRTs on my main desk at home. I use all three monitors, and they all are fine for me.
That being said, one of the 19inch CRTs is hooked up to my server, so it doesn't get much use as I usually just ssh into it.
The other 19inch CRT is my secondary display on my main rig, and it's on and in use whenever I'm on that PC.
CRT certainly has some benefits to it, better black levels, quicker "refresh" times, and higher pixel density, MUCH better at multiple modes
A good LCD though, has some benefits as well, generally less eyestrain (at least for me), true "flat" surface, lighter, lower power usage, less heat generation, no visible flicker ever at any resolution
I appreciate my CRTs, but I really really like my 24inch Acer LCD.
That being said, one of the 19inch CRTs is hooked up to my server, so it doesn't get much use as I usually just ssh into it.
The other 19inch CRT is my secondary display on my main rig, and it's on and in use whenever I'm on that PC.
CRT certainly has some benefits to it, better black levels, quicker "refresh" times, and higher pixel density, MUCH better at multiple modes
A good LCD though, has some benefits as well, generally less eyestrain (at least for me), true "flat" surface, lighter, lower power usage, less heat generation, no visible flicker ever at any resolution
I appreciate my CRTs, but I really really like my 24inch Acer LCD.
I lifted my 62" DLP onto the stand by myself... the only issue was finding a way to wrap my arms around it.
GuitarDaddy
Lifer
- Nov 9, 2004
- 11,465
- 1
- 0
I have 3 CRT's and 3 LCD's at home (all LCD's at work). I've spent most of my career looking at monitors all day long, and the LCD's are just so much easier on the eyes. I used to come home almost everyday with a headache from staring at a CRT, I get none of that with LCD's.
I will say that it takes some tinkering to get the brightness and color settings to your likings with an LCD, but once you do it's great. And LCD's have improved greatly over the past 2-3 years. The newer high quality LCD panels are superior to CRT's in every way IMHO.
I will say that it takes some tinkering to get the brightness and color settings to your likings with an LCD, but once you do it's great. And LCD's have improved greatly over the past 2-3 years. The newer high quality LCD panels are superior to CRT's in every way IMHO.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
Originally posted by: virtualgames0
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: virtualgames0
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
well its pointless because you are kidding yourself, there aren't enough phosphor dots on a 19" to resolve that resolution crisply. so you live with slightly unclear image quality for more "resolution".
as for crts that last a long time... they fade over time, and image quality goes away
You would be wrong on that too. If you do the calculations, you'll find that it does.
A 19" has a 14.4" width. 14.4" is 366mm. The horizontal pitch of the screen is .21mm. Divide 366mm by .21mm, and you'll find that there is 1741 dots horizontally, easily accomodating a width of 1600 pixels.
um no, you need more than a single phosphor dot to resolve a pixel, let alone clearly. pixels are not directly equal to phosphor dots. http://www.dansdata.com/gz029.htm http://www.dansdata.com/753df.htm he states 1.25 dots per pixels is minimum, and you don't even have that. its fuzz city, i know, i used to do that because 1600x1200 was so cool!! never mind that i had to alter font sizes to compensate for the lack of real clarity,there wasn't any real detail advantage over a more reasonable resolution.
Don't cite articles if you don't even know what they're talking about. 1.25 only applies to shadowmasks as the three phospor dots require additional space to fit a square pixel. Aperture grills, like the one on his 19" dell trinitron, uses straight lines, thus it does not have this problem.
Clarity has a lot to do with output signal and video bandwidth too. If you overload the RAMDAC by using a ridiculously high resolution and refresh rate, you'll cap the bandwidth, thus degrading quality. I experience this all the time when I use an insanely high refresh rate/resolution on my CRT. 1600x1200@100Hz looks noticeably fuzzier than the same resolution at 85Hz.
apperature grills may use a different phosphor dot pattern but the same general rule applies. theres no magic there, if there are still too many pixels fighting over avaliable phosphor dots you will loose clarity. theres a difference between actual sharpness and what someone trying to run 1600x1200 because he's trying to get his money's worth tolerates.
yhelothar
Lifer
- Dec 11, 2002
- 18,409
- 39
- 91
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: virtualgames0
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: virtualgames0
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
well its pointless because you are kidding yourself, there aren't enough phosphor dots on a 19" to resolve that resolution crisply. so you live with slightly unclear image quality for more "resolution".
as for crts that last a long time... they fade over time, and image quality goes away
You would be wrong on that too. If you do the calculations, you'll find that it does.
A 19" has a 14.4" width. 14.4" is 366mm. The horizontal pitch of the screen is .21mm. Divide 366mm by .21mm, and you'll find that there is 1741 dots horizontally, easily accomodating a width of 1600 pixels.
um no, you need more than a single phosphor dot to resolve a pixel, let alone clearly. pixels are not directly equal to phosphor dots. http://www.dansdata.com/gz029.htm http://www.dansdata.com/753df.htm he states 1.25 dots per pixels is minimum, and you don't even have that. its fuzz city, i know, i used to do that because 1600x1200 was so cool!! never mind that i had to alter font sizes to compensate for the lack of real clarity,there wasn't any real detail advantage over a more reasonable resolution.
Don't cite articles if you don't even know what they're talking about. 1.25 only applies to shadowmasks as the three phospor dots require additional space to fit a square pixel. Aperture grills, like the one on his 19" dell trinitron, uses straight lines, thus it does not have this problem.
Clarity has a lot to do with output signal and video bandwidth too. If you overload the RAMDAC by using a ridiculously high resolution and refresh rate, you'll cap the bandwidth, thus degrading quality. I experience this all the time when I use an insanely high refresh rate/resolution on my CRT. 1600x1200@100Hz looks noticeably fuzzier than the same resolution at 85Hz.
apperature grills may use a different phosphor dot pattern but the same general rule applies. theres no magic there, if there are still too many pixels fighting over avaliable phosphor dots you will loose clarity. theres a difference between actual sharpness and what someone trying to run 1600x1200 because he's trying to get his money's worth tolerates.
Stop saying phospor dots. Aperture grills don't have phosphor dots. They have vertical lines going straight down the screen.
A combination of three lines, R G and B, take up .21mm, which is smaller than what 1600x1200 throws as it as I proved mathematically.
His monitor can crisply display that resolution given that it's not too worn out or doesn't have the brightness/contrast blasted up. Probably the biggest thing that has to do with aperture grill sharpness and clarity is brightness and contrast.
A CRT reproduced better colors than my earlier LCDs (Samsung 710t and ViewSonic VP930b), but the NEC 20WMGX2 blows it away in every category for my use. Uniformity is excellent, blacks are 0.20 nits, barely an issue even in a completely dark room, and pitch-black-looking in a well-lit room.
Kalmah
Diamond Member
- Oct 2, 2003
- 3,692
- 1
- 76
I've always used crt monitors because of gaming.. But I've been looking for an lcd these last few weeks. Trying to find one that is at least 19' that has a response time of 5 or less. Preferably widescreen. Hopefully I'm not making a bad decision. But I'm tired of not having any desk-space and the crt produces too much heat. The entire house can be cool but anywhere within 10 feet of the montor can make you break a sweat.
My crt has been doing some strange things lately anyways. I can see what appears to be a magnetic field outlined behind the colors on the screen.
My crt has been doing some strange things lately anyways. I can see what appears to be a magnetic field outlined behind the colors on the screen.
I Feel exactly the same way.
While I like my 20" Dell widescreen I've never seen an LCD that could match my previous 19" Sony and 21" Sun CRTs. If you don't factor in desk space high-end CRTs still make for a superior display.
Looking at that pic I agree and I used to be a big CRT > LCD person until my Compaq P1220 (Mitsubishi Diamondtron tube) died. I got a Dell 2001FP to replace it but the ghosting bothered me so I got another 22" Diamondtron tube just to game on. Know what? Side by side the CRT looked washed out compared to the LCD. The CRT is in my closet now. Wasted $250 on that move...
Kaido
Elite Member & Kitchen Overlord
- Feb 14, 2004
- 51,603
- 7,254
- 136
After switching to my 20.1" widescreen Dell 2005fpw, I now prefer LCDs. They are much easier on the eyes. I don't know if an LCD can ever match a CRT in terms of color though; no LCD I've ever seen has completely been able to match gray levels in a CRT.
Or if you're not blind.... Ever heard of those IBM laptops with the 15" screen and 1600X1200 resolution? yeah...
The only things CRTs have over LCDs is maybe slightly better color reproduction in comparison to 6-bit panels, and no lag of any kind. But both are already perfectly fine in LCDs, and once you use one you won't want to go back. Especially with a DVI connection, everything is just EXACT, no sizing the display, no "shaping' the display, everything is pixel for pixel perfect, and it is so much easier on your eyes.
Even if you've used them and still say you prefer CRT, just wait until you get one for yourself and use it daily - you won't want to go back. If you still want to go back to CRT after that, you must be a graphic artist or something.
Even if you've used them and still say you prefer CRT, just wait until you get one for yourself and use it daily - you won't want to go back. If you still want to go back to CRT after that, you must be a graphic artist or something.
If you get an LCD with a low ms timing, you may regret it. LCDs with low ms timings may seem appealing but problem is, they've got terrible colors since they're 6bit monitors.
Monitors less than 8ms or 16ms are generally (can't remember) 6bit, if you get an LCD, get an 8bit monitor.
A 6bit LCD is only 262K colors while an 8bit is 16.7 million colors. The 6bit LCD may say it has 16.2 million colors, but that is only through dithering so it's not represening the true colors correctly, therefore it's BAD.
Just get an 8bit monitor, if you still don't know why, look it up.
yhelothar
Lifer
- Dec 11, 2002
- 18,409
- 39
- 91
Originally posted by: Robor
Looking at that pic I agree and I used to be a big CRT > LCD person until my Compaq P1220 (Mitsubishi Diamondtron tube) died. I got a Dell 2001FP to replace it but the ghosting bothered me so I got another 22" Diamondtron tube just to game on. Know what? Side by side the CRT looked washed out compared to the LCD. The CRT is in my closet now. Wasted $250 on that move...
There must've either been a lot of glare in your room, or you had the brightness settings on too high.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter