Are there any other die hard CRT fans here?

[taltamir]

1. Yes, CRTs display blacks better, doing 1 thing better does not make them superior product.
4. I haven't had a dead pixel in a while, and if i had I would return the monitor for a refund. That's called shopping smart. I wouldn't buy a CRT in a store that told me "oh yea, it might come with some cracks in the glass, and you have to have 8 cracks or more to replace it". If you let yourself be saddled with dead pixels it is YOUR fault.

Anyways... so yea, CRTs have some minor benefits, LCDs have tons of benefits that far outweight them.

 

[cessation]

Originally posted by: taltamir
1. Yes, CRTs display blacks better, doing 1 thing better does not make them superior product.
4. I haven't had a dead pixel in a while, and if i had I would return the monitor for a refund. That's called shopping smart. I wouldn't buy a CRT in a store that told me "oh yea, it might come with some cracks in the glass, and you have to have 8 cracks or more to replace it". If you let yourself be saddled with dead pixels it is YOUR fault.

Anyways... so yea, CRTs have some minor benefits, LCDs have tons of benefits that far outweight them.

First I listed more than one thing and they aren't minor (to me anyway). There's other reasons than what I posted, just look at BFG10K's post.

Second I've heard of people getting dead pixels "after" they bought it, sometimes long after they bought it. Also you can't check for them when buying online and some stores such as newegg have bad policies for returning LCD monitors but that would be your fault for buying it there.

 

[Clauzii]

The only three benefits I see for LCD is footprint, geomitry and MAYBE power usage.
Using non-native resolutions look like sh.. on 99% of LCDs out there.

Btw. I like to be able to point my finger ON the screen sometimes. Do it too hard and a LCD willl f... up. With CRTs: Wipe it off

Using Samsung SyncMaster 997DF and a cheap Diffusion 19": No LCDs come close! Period.

 

[ss284]

If you game, a CRT is always going to be better due to the 60hz refresh rate on LCDs and input lag.

LCDs aren't vastly superior to CRTs.

 

[rogue1979]

My biggest gripe about an LCD is native resolution.

Like I said earlier, I play a few older classic games that only support 1024 x 768.

Non-native resolution is distorted, or the other choice is having a black border around
your screen and missing a serious chunk of viewing space.

Also when I play a first shooter game I like to choose a lower resolution (usually 1152 x 864)
so that I can target at extreme distances. Using a higher resolution even on a larger monitor
(within reason) makes distance targets too small. There are a few games that I like to use 1600 x 1200.

With a CRT the choice is mine, anything works fine. Not with an LCD! I could never use
a piece of equipment that limits my preferences in one if my favorite pastimes.

I couldn't imagine being forced to use one resolution!

I have owned a nice 19" LCD. I used it about one week and then gave it to my daughter.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: rogue1979

Originally posted by: shangshang


You also said you can have up to 5-6 people crowding to watch a movie on a 19" monitor?? Man, that's ghetto.

I have a large screen TV with surround sound.

Sometimes my kids have friends over and they bring a DVD. The want to watch their own movie or show, I don't get what's "ghetto" about that. Point is with a CRT everybody could pull up a chair within a few feet and still be more than close enough. Granted, some of them would be at an angle. But you know, with a CRT that's not a problem....

Most LCD TVs over 26" are VA or IPS panels, meaning they will be bright from basically any angle without a problem. TN panels will never make it in this market unless they improve.

 

[evolucion8]

I'm still using a CRT and I love it's color accuracy, deep blacks and high refresh rate, I don't like it's heat dissipation, bulkyness and high power consumption. The only LCD that I would buy are the ones who comes with IPS or better (If organic LED will ever debut) that looks the same or better than my CRT, I don't see that coming soon yet, I don't like LCD with TN panels which have horrible color reproduction, pathettic black levels, mediocre viewing angle, slow refresh rate color banding, 6-bit panels LCD, they make me laugh.

 

[Thandurin]

Right now I'm using a Sony FW900 24" Widescreen which is awesome though I would rather have an LCD if I could find an affordable non-TN 24". The FW900 is a monster and takes up half my desk.

 

[CP5670]

Both technologies have different pros and cons depending on your usage patterns and how sensitive you are to various factors. There are considerable tradeoffs with everything in the display market right now, and it's going to remain that way until OLED monitors are available. Best to ignore the numerous fanboys on either side of the fence who claim otherwise.

I prefer CRTs, or rather my particular CRT, because of its high refresh rates (which means higher framerates, not just reduced flickering), no motion blur, multiple resolutions, superior black levels (particularly important for dark room gamers like me), no banding or dithering on dark gradients and no screen door effects. All of these factors are demonstrable and provable in tests. The LCD motion blur is especially noticeable in space sims and other games with smooth panning motions, more than most FPSs.

LCDs have much bigger screens available, higher brightness, smaller desk footprints, often maintain a more consistent image over long periods of time, and in most cases have better sharpness and geometry. The absolute best CRTs can match LCDs in the last two aspects, but the quality control on them was always poor and you will see some slight defect or another on most units, even among the top flagship models. Another thing about LCDs is that the low end or midrange monitors are reasonably decent and are still good for office work, while with CRTs, anything less than the top end models is usually crap.

Note that the larger LCDs need powerful backlights and there isn't any improvement in power usage/heat output over a CRT when you look at the 24" or greater LCDs, which includes pretty much all of the good ones.

The main thing I don't like about CRTs is the screen sizes. Mine is 20" (the actual viewable size) and the largest they come in is the 22.5" of the FW900, while 26" or greater LCDs are becoming common. 20" looks kind of small these days and I would definitely like to have a larger screen, but I don't want to deal with all the other tradeoffs involved.

 

[RussianSensation]

I have a brand new 2008 Dell laptop and its 14 inch LCD is about the worst LCD screen I have come across in the last 5 years. My average Westinghouse LCD is so far superior in color, contrast abd black levels that every day when I come home from work back to my computer monitor I am just shocked at how poor the laptop's LCD is. The interesting thing is that my Westy's black levels are actually poor compared to a 2006+ panasonic plasma.

My point is if you are going to compare a 15 inch LCD on a laptop to a larger sized good quality CRT, then a CRT might be superior. But you have to make sure the laptop's LCD is at least somewhat decent. Now try comparing LCD of Sony's 46 inch XBR5 TVs or any good quality desktop LCD and you'll quickly realize that not LCDs are created equal.

Having said that CRTs do have some advantage such as being able to vary resolutions and they have higher refresh rates, with quicker response times. However, I wouldnt' want to play any game at 1024x768, otherwise I'd just get a console. Therefore, LCD's inability to properly scale resolutions is a non-issue to me. Secondly, I cant' tell the difference between 60 frames and 72 frames so the extra refresh rate on a CRT isn't an advantage imo. If a CRT could do say 120 frames, then yes I would consider that a tangible improvement. Add the additional power consumption and small screen sizes and a CRT is obsolete tech for me (I had a 19 inch Viewsonic for 6 years prior to the Westy and I didn't know what I was missing until I upgraded).

If you really enjoy watching movies, despite all the advantages of a 21-24 CRT, I find it hard to believe that any CRT is comparable to a modern 37 inch LCD for movie watching. I am not even talking about a good quality 42-46 inch LCD or Plasmas (although these are basically unusuable for PCs).

 

[CP5670]

Secondly, I cant' tell the difference between 60 frames and 72 frames so the extra refresh rate on a CRT isn't an advantage imo. If a CRT could do say 120 frames, then yes I would consider that a tangible improvement.

I use 120hz at 1600x1200 and 85hz at 2048x1536. I can easily make out the framerate improvement over 60hz in either case, and most games over a year old or so can maintain such framerates on modern hardware.

Even with LCDs, there are a handful of 1280x1024 ones that do 75hz properly without skipping frames, and this noticeably improves the motion quality. I can tell the difference right away even by just moving the mouse around in Windows. I would like to see higher resolutions LCDs that do 75hz, through the use of dual link DVI if needed.

 

[shangshang]

CRTs biggest problem is their FOOTPRINT. This is THE biggest factor for MOST people when they're comparing CRTs and LCDs. How can anyone seriously make a comparison between the two,... listing the pros and cons for the two... and then lightly brush off the FOOTPRINT factor?! Unless you have a desk that is 2 square meter, any 21"+ CRTs will eat up at least half your desk. I have an average sized desk, and when I had my 21" Sony CRT, I had to HANG the back half of the CRT to the side of the desk so that I could get some space on my desk. And because I hung the CRT to the side of the desk, this mean that I'm always looking at it at an angle because I could not look at it straight on. And I could not hang it off the back the desk because this would mean that I had to pull the desk outward to make room for the back, and this would mean I'm losing space in my room.

Ugh.... how can anyone ignore this FOOTPRINT factor?

With the same desk, I can fit a 20" 4:3 LCD, and a 24" widescreen LCD on it... and have NO part of either monitor hang off the desk. I have the Dell professional LCDs so they are non-TN panels and I'm pretty happy with it. I do see some black/gray banding on them in games compared to the Sony CRT, but in non-gaming situation, like web browsing and text editing, the LCDs are superior to the Sony CRT because color contrast and text clarity are superior on the LCDs. And although people make a big deal about viewing angle on LCDs, I have no problem with this because 99% it will be just me sitting in front of my computer.

Let's see here, do I want 2 LCDs on my desk that'll give me more desk and screen real estate? or do I want a chunky 21" CRT that'll give me less in both categories? Not a tough decision for me! The thing that I don't understand is.. the pro-CRT peeps always like to point out some of weaknesses of LCDs that are not important in 99% of the situation, like viewing angle, but yet they totally gleam over the biggest weakness of CRT, footprint.

Now if I spend over half of my computing life playin games and I have the real estate in my room, then sure... I'll remount my 21" Sony. LOL in term of volumetric size, my Sony is about as big as those old HP laser printer from the 80s, and just as heavy. I wish my walls were a meter thick so I could recess the 21" Sony into them, that would be kinda cool

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: cessation

Originally posted by: taltamir
1. Yes, CRTs display blacks better, doing 1 thing better does not make them superior product.
4. I haven't had a dead pixel in a while, and if i had I would return the monitor for a refund. That's called shopping smart. I wouldn't buy a CRT in a store that told me "oh yea, it might come with some cracks in the glass, and you have to have 8 cracks or more to replace it". If you let yourself be saddled with dead pixels it is YOUR fault.

Anyways... so yea, CRTs have some minor benefits, LCDs have tons of benefits that far outweight them.

First I listed more than one thing and they aren't minor (to me anyway). There's other reasons than what I posted, just look at BFG10K's post.

Second I've heard of people getting dead pixels "after" they bought it, sometimes long after they bought it. Also you can't check for them when buying online and some stores such as newegg have bad policies for returning LCD monitors but that would be your fault for buying it there.

Yes... a dead pixel a year after you bought the monitor (what happens when LCD experience hardware failure) is much worse (not) then a complete failure after a year (what happens when a CRT experiences a hardware failure).

LCDs are massively more power efficient. Much smaller footprint. Much CHEAPER per square inch of screen, much lighter, have no flicker, require no adjustment of screen "shape" since it is always perfect (which has the negative side effect of native resolutions, I have NEVER seen a perfectly rectangular CRT image), do not require degaussing, do not emit gamma radiation (free electrons), do not have "shakes", do not overscan, do not underscan, and can easily be made much much bigger sizes (How many 50 inch CRT monitors are there?)...

On the other hands, the backlight tends to fade, non native resolutions don't work as well, blacks tend to not be as black, etc.

Overall, LCDs are better.

EDIT: Oh yea... viewing angle... because several people are looking at the monitor at once... oh wait, they are NOT. It is a MONITOR, not a TV. If I wanna play a co op game, there is the wonderful invention called the internet. (back in the day I Would play hot seat games... where a CRT does score a point due to viewing angle). But for TV usage, display angel is a HUGE drawback...

 

[shangshang]

I'm just curious for those who say they have an 8 year old CRTs and still working "great". Are you serious??? I find this extreme hard to believe. Most likely if a CRT is 8 years old, and it was a "top of line" CRT when you bought it,... then it's probably a variant of the Sony Trinitron tube with aperture grill technology. And most of these tube should show fading colors and fuzzy text by now, especially at 1600x1200 resolution or higher. This is my personal experience at home because I own such top of the line Sony and paid well over $1200 when I bought it. But it's not just my home experience with these Trinitron tube. At work, my company has about 500 of these 21" Trinitron tubes, plus much much more tubes at the 19" and 17" sizes... all of them purchases some 6-8 years ago (when Trinitron was a must have for professionals)... and today slowly but surely, ALL of them are starting to show significant fades in colors and decreased text clarity... they now look fuzzy... ALL of them. Each day, I there are alawys 1-2 users throwing out their Trinitron tube as they have upgraded to a Dell 24". LOL when I walk down the cubicle isles at work each day, it's almost like walking down memory lane for me because each day I would see all these Trinitron tubes being thrown out of their cubicles... that must have cost anywhere from $400-$1200 each depending on size.... when they were purchased, and now people can't wait to get rid of them.

Do people actually buy used CRTs on Craigslist? Because if there are buyers.... hmmm!

So those of you who still have a "great" working Trinitron tube, you are either exaggerating the truth or you're on borrowed time.

 

[evolucion8]

8 years is a little too much, my previous Viewsonic CRT was 6 years old and I couldn't bear it's fuzzy text which wouldn't get fixed adjusting some settings inside near the PCB. The first time I noticed it, I could fix the lack of focus on text, but 2 years later I couldn't, time to dump it. Still working on my brother's in law PC, still don't know how he can use it since the text is fuzzy, not blurry though.

 

[nevbie]

I use both CRT and LCD, mainly because input lag makes my LP2065 unsuitable for fast paced games. I prefer it for slower games though. Though the anti-glare can be seen as a negative feature.

The weaknesses I can agree LCDs have: Input lag, native resolution "only" and perhaps response time, though that might not be problem anymore.

I just hope there will be a new superior display tech before I'm forced to buy the next monitor. But that's what everyone wants, I guess.

 

[ajaidevsingh]

i use a 22' CRT 1080P for gameing and a LCD 19' for internet, etc...

 

[Dravic]

i was a long time CRT holdout, but I found a solution...

8-bit non TN panels fast enough for no ghosting.. good with dithering and no false contouring.. (soyo 24" from office max before the TN switch over was $249, and the old asus 19" that was on newegg was $200)


until LCD and plasma TV's fix those issue i wont be giving up me CRT HD tv's (LG 30" crt, and a 57" hitachi rear projection) . I love the sharpness of the images, but cant deal with the false contouring. Nothing kills a movie like banding...

 

[RockinZ28]

Most of the people that believe CRT's sucked and LCD's are vastly superior probably upgraded from a 17" 1024X768 monitor or similar. LCD's have indeed come a long way, but a quality CRT still has plenty of benefits.
Have had the Mitsubishi 22" Diamond Pro 2070SB, same as the NEC version, since 2003. 1600x1200 @ 100hz and 2048x1536 @ 85hz is pretty sweet, and I play fast paced FPS games in leagues, so it is useful.

 

[CreasianDevaili]

I am still waiting to hear someone who actually owned a solid FW900 and says that aside from weight that a LCD within the same price range is vastly superior.

Does anyone here think that we who own the FW900 lugged all 92 lbs of it up stairs because we want to be stubborn? The monitor just rocks for everything. Xbox 360 looks insane on it.

I would even pay 800usd to get a monitor that could give me the same quality in gaming, movies, and maya. Find me one brand new that is of high quality parts, not low grade, and we can talk.

I am purchasing another fw900 for the wife because she loves it so much. No eye strain, no flicker that I can see at 90hz 1920x1200, and the heat isnt bad at all.

LCDs have their benefits. I would love to have a LCD. However I dont have 2000usd to pay for it to get the panel i want with the requirements I want as well. Not my fault that the majority of consumers, albiet not here as we are anal about these things, buy TN panels like butter at inflated prices making anything better outright robbery. Companies are not going to invest in anything better when the profit margins off tn panels are just sweet as a apple right now.

 

[imported_jasonnovak]

I really like my 21" CRT ... I'd take a 24" widescreen if I could find one locally. Size isn't an issue for me ... it's not like I store stuff behind my monitor. I tested out someone's 22" widescreen for a couple of days but I didn't like it. Colors and black levels weren't as good, viewing angle wasn't as good, a solid color screen would change shade from the top to the bottom due to the angle, and I'd constantly have to adjust it as I changed positions. Screen didn't look as sharp ... it seems like most screens this size has a .28 DPI ... my CRT is only .22 DPI which leaves a bigger gap between pixels and makes the things look blockier. Biggest issue is I always change resolutions, and the native resolution of most monitors is too small for me to use all day, and using anything but native resolution on a LCD looks like crap. Only real disadvantages for me are the weight, but it's not like I move it around, and the power usage.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: evolucion8
8 years is a little too much, my previous Viewsonic CRT was 6 years old and I couldn't bear it's fuzzy text which wouldn't get fixed adjusting some settings inside near the PCB. The first time I noticed it, I could fix the lack of focus on text, but 2 years later I couldn't, time to dump it. Still working on my brother's in law PC, still don't know how he can use it since the text is fuzzy, not blurry though.

that was when I dumped my high end CRT... in the years since, an older LCD exhibited a few dead pixels and backlight fading, but it was still perfectly useable, unlike an old CRT. (which is why I sold them instead of trashing them).

8-bit non TN panels fast enough for no ghosting.. good with dithering and no false contouring.. (soyo 24" from office max before the TN switch over was $249, and the old asus 19" that was on newegg was $200)

Waiting for a solution? you just listed them. Sure they are expensive. But 700$+ for a quality large LCD isn't too bad.

 

[cessation]

Originally posted by: taltamir
Yes... a dead pixel a year after you bought the monitor (what happens when LCD experience hardware failure) is much worse (not) then a complete failure after a year (what happens when a CRT experiences a hardware failure).

How often does that happen to CRTs? That doesn't seem to be typical or didn't while they were popular and that is considered a defect. That means that you can return it for long as warranty is good which would be years if you bought the right CRT. With dead pixels it's not considered a defect so the warranty is meaningless for that.

Originally posted by: taltamir
LCDs are massively more power efficient.
Much smaller footprint.

That's nice, but I would rather have quality over stuff like that.

Originally posted by: taltamirhave no flicker, require no adjustment of screen "shape" since it is always perfect

With a high refresh rate I never noticed flicker on a CRT. With CRTs at least it looks good when it's adjusted and you aren't stuck with one resolution like LCDs (unless you want it to look like crap).[/quote]

Originally posted by: taltamirdo not require degaussing, do not emit gamma radiation (free electrons), do not have "shakes", do not overscan, do not underscan

Seems like you're just grasping for straws there, I doubt many people had big problems with any of that.

Originally posted by: taltamir
EDIT: Oh yea... viewing angle... because several people are looking at the monitor at once... oh wait, they are NOT. It is a MONITOR, not a TV. If I wanna play a co op game, there is the wonderful invention called the internet. (back in the day I Would play hot seat games... where a CRT does score a point due to viewing angle). But for TV usage, display angel is a HUGE drawback...

You make it sound simple, like you have to move your head FAR off to the left or right etc to cause the color to look bad. That's far from the truth especially on TN panels. If you don't keep your head EXACTLY in one spot the color will change(with TN panels), maybe that doesn't mean much to you but it's garbage to me. Obviously you didn't read what I said about s-pva panels either.

 

[taltamir]

why do you keep comparing TN panels, the cheapest of the cheap in LCD technology, to 1200$ CRTs like the trinitrons?

yea, the TN panels do suffer from that and other problems... but they make up for it by being half the cost of a quality panel (per square inch) which is even less then half the cost of a quality CRT per square inch...

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: taltamir

LCDs are massively more power efficient.

Actually the bigger ones get quite close and even exceed the power consumption of CRTs.

why do you keep comparing TN panels, the cheapest of the cheap in LCD technology, to 1200$ CRTs like the trinitrons?

He isn't. Back in the day large CRTs were vastly cheaper than LCDs.

That's why when LCD uptake become popular the industry went backwards in resolution and screen size standards as droves of people picked up 17? 1280x1024 devices as they were the only ones cheap enough.

As for now, $499 for a 21" CRT that does 2048x1536 @ 80 Hz and has a .20 mm dot pitch:

http://www.viewsonic.com/produ.../graphicseries/g225fb/

Show me any modern LCD that costs less and matches (or exceeds) all of those specs.