Anyone still stubborn like me and prefer CRT over LCD?

[Lalakai]

still using my mitsubishi diamontron crt's. primary uses are gaming, photo editing and homework; at work use 21" crt for cad and gis. been looking at some lcd's but haven't found one yet that can duplicate the true colors, give me the response time, along with the sharpness i need. the "sed" looks more promising then the lcd's; hopefully i can keep my crt's alive until a viable alternative comes along (that doesn't cost an arm and a leg).

have to agree with the desk space issue and power consumption advantages of the lcd's, but i think alot of people jumped on that band wagon and now defend their actions rather then admit that it might not have been the best move.

 

[SparkyJJO]

I got a viewsonic vx2025wm, and now I can't stand CRTs. This one I'm using at work right now drives me nuts. I think part of it is though I'm used to widescreen and a standard 4:3 CRT is too narrow now

 

[archcommus]

Originally posted by: Lalakai
still using my mitsubishi diamontron crt's. primary uses are gaming, photo editing and homework; at work use 21" crt for cad and gis. been looking at some lcd's but haven't found one yet that can duplicate the true colors, give me the response time, along with the sharpness i need. the "sed" looks more promising then the lcd's; hopefully i can keep my crt's alive until a viable alternative comes along (that doesn't cost an arm and a leg).

have to agree with the desk space issue and power consumption advantages of the lcd's, but i think alot of people jumped on that band wagon and now defend their actions rather then admit that it might not have been the best move.

If you haven't noticed, LCD users are not defending their move, they're all saying once they moved to LCD they have never wanted to go back to CRT. They definitely are NOT thinking it was not the best move. I don't think there has been one poster in this thread that has said they bought an LCD, used it for awhile, and still preferred CRT. Perhaps the CRT users are the stubborn ones that won't give a good LCD a chance.

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: DLeRium
As nice as my $300+ Samsung Syncmaster 700NF was, it does not compare to my $400 Viewsonic VP191b. Sure the colors are nicer on the CRT, but the eyes like my LCD a lot better.

A lot of people get cheap@$$ LCDs at like the BF deals or like the cheap gaming ones liek the Viewsonic VX922/924, and sure they're fast but their colors suck. Even though I have a 6-bit LCD, the colors aren't that bad at all, and I'll tell you saturation is a lot better than those fast panels like hte 8ms Samsung 930B.

Yea my eyes hurt like hell with those gaming LCDs, and that's why it took a very expensive panel to satisfy my eyes.

Same goes with the Dell 2005 and 2405. People keep praising them. They're great monitors because there's no other 20" WS or 24" WS that matches up, but still Viewsonic's 19/20" professional line kills in quality. The dell monitors hurt my eyes ><.

So you basically paid a lot of money for a 6bit LCD and are claiming it's good quality? :roll:

I don't think I would pay $400 for a 6-bit LCD either (I paid about $250 for my 19" 8ms 6-bit), but saying he is in no position to call it good quality simply because it's 6-bit is silly and pompous of you. Maybe for him a 6-bit panel looks absolutely fine and the colors match his previouos CRTs. I know it does for me. If you need 8-bit, or no LCD at all, fine, but don't act as if it's ridiculous for him to call his display "good quality."

 

[OCNewbie]

My game of choice was/is Quake 2 at the time I tried out a 5ms LCD monitor. It sucked....ghosting and input lag, or one or the other. I found it VERY noticeable. I can tell the difference between 90 and 100 fps though, and many people say you're not supposed to see past 60 or something. So perhaps my eyes pick up more subtle differences than others.

I wanted to fall in love with my space-saving, cooler-running, etc., LCD, but I ended up returning it and I'm currently pleased with my 19" CRT.

 

[Stallion]

I still have my 21 inch CRT, I got it off here about 3 years ago. It was a refurb and some one was selling them for about $150 if I remember correctly.

Still works great and I would rather spend my money on other things now then a new LCD.

 

[exdeath]

Sony F500R 21" .22mm for me.

Best CRT ever made on this planet. For years I've been enjoying the same kind of sharp square flat stable image that everyone else only got to see after getting a LCD.

Only I've got 100 times the contrast and color range and no lag.

I think the biggest problem with the average person comparing LCD vs. CRT is that there is a wide range of quality in CRT's while most LCDs look about the same. Even a low end dirt cheap LCD will compare well to a high end expensive LCD. But a $50 new 17" shadow mask with misaligned convergence and poor focus and no controls to fix it doesn't come close to comparing to a $1800 new 21" Sony F series CRT after being properly calibrated. Nor does the best LCD come close for that matter.

 

[archcommus]

Originally posted by: exdeath
Sony F500R 21" .22mm for me.

Best CRT ever made on this planet. For years I've been enjoying the same kind of sharp square flat stable image that everyone else only got to see after getting a LCD.

Only I've got 100 times the contrast and color range and no lag.

I think the biggest problem with the average person comparing LCD vs. CRT is that there is a wide range of quality in CRT's while most LCDs look about the same. Even a low end dirt cheap LCD will compare well to a high end expensive LCD. But a $50 new 17" shadow mask with misaligned convergence and poor focus and no controls to fix it doesn't come close to comparing to a $1800 new 21" Sony F series CRT after being properly calibrated. Nor does the best LCD come close for that matter.

I agree the quality of CRTs can vary dramatically, but I've used the F series and another Trinitron monitors and I've got to see some pretty decent LCDs as well and I wholly disagree with your last statement there.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons
LCD and Plasma are dead: http://www.canon.com/technology/canon_tech/explanation/sed.html

Lemme know when I can pick up a 22" widescreen SED for ~$190.
Edit : With component, S-vid and composite inputs to boot!

 

[bluestrobe]

I still use all CRT's on my home computers. The one I'm typing on is a Gateway VX900 19" that?s slowly dying. I haven't made the move because I really can't afford to. My parents didn't pay for my college or give me a large allowance so bills come first before computers. Probably why I'm still on an AMD XP3000. I plan on the move to a 19" LCD when I can afford it. Otherwise my CRT does what I want it to do.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

Originally posted by: CFster

Originally posted by: mwmorph
I have 3 crts and 1 lcd. The lcd is relegated to the crappiest internet only machine.

1600x1200 on a 19" Dell Trinitron FTW.

LCDs really just piss me off. Low native resolutions my arse. I prefer the resoluton to be as high as possible.

1600x1200 on a 19" CRT.

Do you use a magnifying glass?

You don't need one if you know how to adjust windows for your high DPI resolution by adjusting the dpi settings in windows.

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.

its a stripe yes, but its still basically 3 colors. same concept still applies. http://www.dansdata.com/danletters088.htm never mind that you actually lose vertical resolution doing this so its really dodgy on the 1200 part anyways. question is how much sharing is going on to render these pixels, because cutting it so close just won't make it sharp. sure it can be done, but as i said, it won't be sharp. and in that case its not worth bothering with.

 

[w00t]

No, I don't regret buying an LCD probably one of the best choices I've made.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

Originally posted by: CFster

Originally posted by: mwmorph
I have 3 crts and 1 lcd. The lcd is relegated to the crappiest internet only machine.

1600x1200 on a 19" Dell Trinitron FTW.

LCDs really just piss me off. Low native resolutions my arse. I prefer the resoluton to be as high as possible.

1600x1200 on a 19" CRT.

Do you use a magnifying glass?

You don't need one if you know how to adjust windows for your high DPI resolution by adjusting the dpi settings in windows.

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.

its a stripe yes, but its still basically 3 colors. same concept still applies. http://www.dansdata.com/danletters088.htm never mind that you actually lose vertical resolution doing this so its really dodgy on the 1200 part anyways. question is how much sharing is going on to render these pixels, because cutting it so close just won't make it sharp. sure it can be done, but as i said, it won't be sharp. and in that case its not worth bothering with.

Dan's data had some really good logical explanations about shadowmask dot pitch, but he doesn't give a conclusive explanation for the aperture grill dot pitch. He even admitted that he doesn't know much about it in his article.
But let me ask you this.. have you even owned a high end modern aperture grill CRT before? I have one right in front of my next to my LCD right now. And I can tell you that when I have the brightness dimmed down at 2048x1536, it is per pixel sharper than my LCD. A one pixel thick line is hairline thin, much thinner than a one pixel line on an LCD.
So yes, it definitely resolves higher than 1600x1200. If my CRT wasn't so old, I don't even need to dim it down so much, from what I experienced on the brand new IBM P275 screen I used to have.

 

[Blain]

I've used a 19" LCD...
I prefer a good 21" CRT.

 

[spunkz]

might use one when they can do 100hz

 

[JungleMan1]

21" flat Triniton CRT here. Great unit overall, and superior to many (but not all) LCDs that I have used, but shows its age especially when it comes to interference with magnetic devices like speakers, screen geometry has never been quite right, etc. Also generates a LOT of heat, which is great in the winter but not in the summer.

I am sorta in the market for a couple of 20" or possibly even 24" widescreens once the prices drop, but that is more of a "I want to go back to dual monitors and it's impossible to fit two 21" CRTs on my desk" issue...

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Shoulda gotten in on the 22" WS Westinghouses @ BB on Black Friday. ~$190 a piece with no rebate, composite+S-vid+component+DVI+VGA inputs = t3h winnar!

 

[topslop1]

CRT's still win.

 

[Xyclone]

Hell no. I used to have a 19" Viewsonic CRT, but I now have a Dell 2005FPW and haven't looked back since.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Originally posted by: topslop1
CRT's still win.

I'd rather not claim that and say to each his own.

I don't mind the fixed native resolution of LCDs and find the space savings and ease on the eyes outweigh the limited contrast ratio, slower response times (primary : BenQ FP91G+ 8ms, WH 22W2 5ms) and color integrity (pretty sure both of mine are 6-bit panels). The lower power consumption and perfect geometry are nice bonuses.

Some are willing to put up with the higher power consumption, increased space usage, etc. for the inherent benefits of CRTs (contrast ratio, response time, etc.). Hey, whatever works for you (no patronization intended).

Let's not let too much of the egocentrism from the CPU and (esp.) Video forums spill over into here.

 

[Kalmah]

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: Kalmah
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.

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.

Ah man, I didn't even think about the colors. I'm so use to having every option there is on the crts that it never even crossed my mind. I allready told somebody that I wanted one with 8ms or less for x-mas.. and think she allready baught one. Man, if it's less than 24bit I'm not going to be happy.

 

[bearxor]

I bought a 37" Westinghouse HDTV and am wishing that I had considered a similar size CRT.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: fire400
I will buy an LCD and replace a CRT anyday.

LCD's are cheap enough to maintain in most living standards. For less than 200 dollars you can trash a CRT and setup an LCD in such a short period of time.

Dell Ultrasharp, DVI connected to a Matrox Parhelia or 3Dlabs Wildcat PCIx16. It's over for your CRT, OvAHh the counter technological prescriptions for living today's standards to dump yesterday's miserable space-wasting, energy wasteful, bulky-looking garbage out of the office...

Do you see HD... um CRT's? Do you see .. the possiblity of ... more dmg'd eyes from a CRT compared to an LCD? I don't see laptops with CRT's?

CRT
Crying-route-trend

LCD
What more can I say? ...Liquid Crystal Display?

What in the hell does that mean? Can anybody translate?

 

[JS80]

My eyes can't handle CRT

 

[rbV5]

I don't think it's stubborn to prefer CRT's, LCD's continue to be inferior to quality CRT's in many respects. If those specific points matter to you enough, you'll simply prefer CRT displays, and that I do.

LCD's offer many advantages to CRT's, so for the vast majority of todays users, LCD displays are the best way to go.

 

[Toastedlightly]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: fire400
I will buy an LCD and replace a CRT anyday.

LCD's are cheap enough to maintain in most living standards. For less than 200 dollars you can trash a CRT and setup an LCD in such a short period of time.

Dell Ultrasharp, DVI connected to a Matrox Parhelia or 3Dlabs Wildcat PCIx16. It's over for your CRT, OvAHh the counter technological prescriptions for living today's standards to dump yesterday's miserable space-wasting, energy wasteful, bulky-looking garbage out of the office...

Do you see HD... um CRT's? Do you see .. the possiblity of ... more dmg'd eyes from a CRT compared to an LCD? I don't see laptops with CRT's?

CRT
Crying-route-trend

LCD
What more can I say? ...Liquid Crystal Display?

What in the hell does that mean? Can anybody translate?

"I don't know what I am talking about"