Are gaming LCD displays the best choice for everyone?

[Geomagick]

On the whole I would still go for a large flat CRT. However in recent years the improvement in the abilites of LCD displays coupled to their reduction in price means that for most users now LCD's are more practical and economical in the long run.

A good 8 bit panel will suit most peoples needs.

 

[Muscles]

People who say LCD's cause less eye strain just don't know how to properly configure a CRT monitor. This has also been covered many times in other larger threads.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: ProviaFan
LCDs still need work in the color calibration department. Eizo is pretty much there already with their 10 bit panels, but when I can get a 21.3" Samsung for the price of a 17" Eizo, it shouldn't be hard to guess what I'll choose, given that although Photoshop is a good part of my leisure time, I'm no prepress professional (and don't have that budget, either).

hmm...I don't think that's 10-bit color. Rather a 10-bit gamma lookup table. It still helps the image, though. Samsung also has one of those coming out soon.

 

[AndyD2k]

no regrets with my dell 2001fp

 

[fierydemise]

Based on my experiences with LCDs (Apple Cinema Display, and Dell 2005) and CRTs (NEC FE991) heres my comparison
LCDs
Far better ergonomics (smaller, lighter, ect.)
Less power usage
Better for the environment
Perfect Geometry
Plug and Play (no need for costant adjustments)

CRTs
Cheaper (although LCDs are coming down in price)
Better Color reproduction (although LCDs are getting better)
No Ghosting (although LCDs are getting better)
True Black (CRTs will always have the advantage)

I left out eyestrain and brightness because that is a matter of personal preference

Looking at this you see that LCDs are getting better and by the time CRTs are completely phased out (in a few years) LCDs will be as good in everything they are inferior in now.

 

[edmundoab]

some still prefer the CRT,
a big and good one. Never go wrong.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: nitromullet
Since when was linking to another thread in AT forums to a post that shares the same opinion as yourself considered proof of anything?

Quite frankly this LCD vs. CRT debate is nonsense. Give it a year or two and you won't even be able to find a CRT anymore. While CRT's may be preferred by some for whatever reasons, the market has dictated that LCD's will replace them. I think the reasons for this are obvious once you have worked with an LCD for an extended period of time. I used to really like my 21" sony CRT at work, but ever since I got my Dell 2005FPW, its lack of clarity and the refresh flicker (which I used to not notice) bugs me more and more.

I will never go back to CRT by choice...

Im more or less holding out as long as my Viewsonic P95f+ will take me. I almost jumped on the 2405FPW but i keep thinking OLEDs are just around the corner, and i usually keep displays for a LONG time, so im being prudent.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: ProviaFan
LCDs still need work in the color calibration department. Eizo is pretty much there already with their 10 bit panels, but when I can get a 21.3" Samsung for the price of a 17" Eizo, it shouldn't be hard to guess what I'll choose, given that although Photoshop is a good part of my leisure time, I'm no prepress professional (and don't have that budget, either).

hmm...I don't think that's 10-bit color. Rather a 10-bit gamma lookup table. It still helps the image, though. Samsung also has one of those coming out soon.

Yes, absolutely. It's much better doing that in the monitor than doing it on the video card and causing banding. Still, I'd like to be able to pass 10 bits per channel to the monitor (a la Matrox Parhelia) digitally, but we'd need OS, video, and monitor support for that, and I doubt it will happen any time soon (if at all). 🙁

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Muscles

Originally posted by: Acanthus
In my opinion, a quality CRT is still better than LCDs for gaming.

LCDs are superior for pretty much everything else, with the exception of 6bit panels which have less accurate color, which would make them less than ideal for movie and photo editing, and other professional work that requires much detail.

It amazes me how many times this topic has been covered especially on this forum alone yet people still post without doing a simple search. What's worse is guys like I quoted above posting information that is completely false.

Higher end CRT's are superior to LCD's especially in regards to gaming. PERIOD!

The only advantages LCD monitors have are:
A) Save space
B) Generate less heat

Yeah, thats how I feel too, you could include "weigh less" with "save space".

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: southpawuni

Originally posted by: Acanthus
In my opinion, a quality CRT is still better than LCDs for gaming.

LCDs are superior for pretty much everything else, with the exception of 6bit panels which have less accurate color, which would make them less than ideal for movie and photo editing, and other professional work that requires much detail.

This guy is right. Not the guy who posted after.

There are MANY more advantages to LCDs over CRTs besides heat/space. Morons.

Try, for instance..

Environmentally friendly
USE LESS ENERGY
Always perfect geometry
LCDs are now being recommended to graphic professionals as equal to CRTs (certain models, check THG)
Rotate easy to 90degrees
Have DVI+Cleartype advantages for text
Lightweight

Thats just 2seconds of thought on the subject. Prices are coming down, but if you were to ask most people with a widescreen LCD (widescreen gaming is not only for LCDs, but they seem to be really taking off in the LCD sector), they would take the advantages of a LCD over a CRT anyway.
The only problem could be price for a young kid. Most of us with jobs can afford the jump from $100 to a $400 screen.. and its worth it without doubt.


I'm not going to argue with you "muscles", your 2 points about the advantages of LCDs were so short sighted and lacking in the true qualities of LCDs that you pretty much discredited yourself from the get-go.

You made a good point about geometry..but wtf..how is "they are no being recommended to graphic pros" an advantage? I still find that hard to believe. They still arent up there with CRTs in terms of color, TMK.

I also agree about being able to rotate, comes in handy sometime.

But the environmentally friendly/use less energy/emits less heat/lightweight/space saving IMO is just one. None of those affect the actual image quality of the monitor, which MANY would argue, is the most important factor. I have an LCD, for those very reasons, but that is only because I don't have the space to have a CRT, and I move around a bit (college).

 

[ponyo]

Originally posted by: Muscles
People who say LCD's cause less eye strain just don't know how to properly configure a CRT monitor. This has also been covered many times in other larger threads.

You can spend a million years configuring and fine tuning your CRT. You'll still never get the crisp, sharp text at 1600x1200 or above with your CRT. I don't know about you but fuzzy text gives me eye strain. Even though my CRTs display good text at 1600x1200, it's still inferior to my LCDs. Even my Shadowmask CRT can't match the text at 1600x1200.

 

[konakona]

Originally posted by: Naustica

Originally posted by: Muscles
People who say LCD's cause less eye strain just don't know how to properly configure a CRT monitor. This has also been covered many times in other larger threads.

You can spend a million years configuring and fine tuning your CRT. You'll still never get the crisp, sharp text at 1600x1200 or above with your CRT. I don't know about you but fuzzy text gives me eye strain. Even though my CRTs display good text at 1600x1200, it's still inferior to my LCDs. Even my Shadowmask CRT can't match the text at 1600x1200.

so thats where the difference is between you and me. to me the computer is an entertainment rig first and foremost, and CRT is clearly superior at that as i see it. i never liked the idea of going 1600x1200 or havnt seen any need for it, even though my monitor is quite big measuring up at 22''. maybe i am just weird, but 1280x960 is just fine for what i do 🙂

 

[Muscles]

Originally posted by: Naustica

Originally posted by: Muscles
People who say LCD's cause less eye strain just don't know how to properly configure a CRT monitor. This has also been covered many times in other larger threads.

You can spend a million years configuring and fine tuning your CRT. You'll still never get the crisp, sharp text at 1600x1200 or above with your CRT. I don't know about you but fuzzy text gives me eye strain. Even though my CRTs display good text at 1600x1200, it's still inferior to my LCDs. Even my Shadowmask CRT can't match the text at 1600x1200.

Well I have had 20/20 vision all my life and I've done nothing but stare at CRT monitors 8+ hours a day the last 10+ years or so and never experienced "eye strain or headaches." Furthermore, the CRT's I own are all in a desktop resolution of 1600x1200 and I don't see anything the least bit fuzzy. All I see is beauty. Not to mention how amazingly fluid everything is in crazy First person shooters at 150 hz at 150 frames per second 🙂 Something LCD's can only dream of doing.

 

[xtknight]

I just plugged in my old CRT for comparing it against my LCD. Well, not only was the thing broken (probably after not using it for a year), but I got a headache within minutes of sitting in front of it. The OSD works and all but there's absolutely no image. Even then there must still be some radiation that's causing my headache...I've found consistent results with this.

 

[frx218]

LCDs are sleek and sexy but pricey and they haven?t matured completely.

CRTs fit my budget much better.

 

[ponyo]

Originally posted by: Muscles

Originally posted by: Naustica

Originally posted by: Muscles
People who say LCD's cause less eye strain just don't know how to properly configure a CRT monitor. This has also been covered many times in other larger threads.

You can spend a million years configuring and fine tuning your CRT. You'll still never get the crisp, sharp text at 1600x1200 or above with your CRT. I don't know about you but fuzzy text gives me eye strain. Even though my CRTs display good text at 1600x1200, it's still inferior to my LCDs. Even my Shadowmask CRT can't match the text at 1600x1200.

Well I have had 20/20 vision all my life and I've done nothing but stare at CRT monitors 8+ hours a day the last 10+ years or so and never experienced "eye strain or headaches." Furthermore, the CRT's I own are all in a desktop resolution of 1600x1200 and I don't see anything the least bit fuzzy. All I see is beauty. Not to mention how amazingly fluid everything is in crazy First person shooters at 150 hz at 150 frames per second 🙂 Something LCD's can only dream of doing.

So you're saying your CRT has crisper and sharper text at 1600x1200 than your LCD?

 

[Regs]

My desk fits my desktop quite nicely. Thank you.

LCD's are not as crisp as CRT's yet. Aspect ratios, viewing angels, and contrast values all are inferior in my opinion on LCDs. Response times and ghosting issues were just the tip of the iceberg (the most noticeable issue that has been recently solved). Plus the problems that may accure running outside an LCDs native resolution.

Like they said above, they save space, easier on the eyes, and generate less heat. Of course, you would have to be penguin to care how much heat it gives off, but it's a fact worth mentioning.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Regs
LCD's are not as crisp as CRT's yet.

A top-end CRT on a Matrox video card comes close to a good LCD on DVI.

Aspect ratios,

Where did you pull that one from? They all have square pixels, just like any CRT (unless you're one of those strange types that runs 1280x1024 on a 4:3 CRT and prefers the distortion), but you get your choice of shape: widescreen, rectangular (4:3) and closer-to-square (5:4). What's wrong with that?

viewing angels, and contrast values all are inferior in my opinion on LCDs. Response times and ghosting issues were just the tip of the iceberg (the most noticeable issue that has been recently solved). Plus the problems that may accure running outside an LCDs native resolution.

Some of those things are still issues for some people, that I do not deny. I just felt compelled to reply to contradict some of the misinformation you threw up in the first part of your post.