Are there any other die hard CRT fans here?

[taltamir]

Living in the north I have rather cold winters. Very cold to be more to the point. So with the heat output of the CRt I have, being the FW900, I save some money on my monthly heating bill by not needing one room heated as much.

That is not how physics work. You don't save any money on heating. The CRT heats up your room more, but it also takes more power to do so, the AC will thus take less power, in an amount equal to it, That does mean that you are not "wasting" extra power with the CRT (aka, your cost of electricity is the same). It is also a reason why people who need to cool their house typically waste 3 times the amount actually consumed (due to the inefficiency of cooling air).

Of course, this isn't taking into account efficiencies. I am sure your AC / Space heater is much more efficient per watt in generating heat. I don't know how the CRT compares to the LCD in terms of efficiency, only in consumption. Remember, not all the power used is converted to heat.

 

[alkemyst]

a top shelf CRT is worlds better than any top LCD.

The problem is those that live in a room at 'mom and dads' house, small apartment, don't run a/c, etc don't have the real estate to afford the luxury of a CRT.

My desk is 3' deep, I live in a decent sized home with a room dedicated to just my PC and books, and I can afford to run the A/C.

If I were to go LCD of any kind it would require a heck of a unit.

I'd buy a 24" wide CRT today if I knew it would come perfect. It took about a half dozen shipments before I got a good 21" shipped to me.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
a top shelf CRT is worlds better than any top LCD.

Depends what you are using the monitor for. Do you actually believe that a SONY XBR series LCD running Blu-Ray produces inferior image quality than the best SONY WEGA CRT tube? :Q For regular TV viewing a CRT is vastly superior than any HDTV, but the minute you compare HD feed on a proper LCD to a CRT, it's apples to oranges. Also, it was very convenient for you to fail to mention that CRTs fade in brightness by half in about 2 years from purchase.

The problem is those that live in a room at 'mom and dads' house, small apartment, don't run a/c, etc don't have the real estate to afford the luxury of a CRT.

If we had the perfect replacement for everything, life would be too easy ah. People just love to grab on to any advantage of an old product they were using all their life because it's human nature to resent change.

Let me give you 2 common examples everyone can relate to:

#1 Fluorescent vs. Incandescent light bulb

You can make an argument that the 100W incandescent light bulb produces superior/brighter lighting than a fluorescent one you can pick up at a local IKEA. But for that 1 disadvantage, fluorescent bulbs have an average useful lifespan of 8 to 15 times that of incandescent, they save 2000 times their own weight in greenhouse gases and for a given light output, CFLs use between one fifth and one third of the power of equivalent incandescent lamps. (wikipedia) There is no question that from a performance perspective of light output I prefer the incandescent bulbs for home use. Having said that the advantages of fluorescent bulbs have far superseded those of the tungsten neanderthal.

#2 Corded vs. Wireless technology (internet, cell phone, etc.)

There is little argument that corded means of transporting data provide infinitely superior dependability, reliability and perhaps speed whether in a form of a home line over cell phones which can often lose reception, get interference or for internet speed. But for practical terms wireless technology has surpassed wired technology for most of us using laptops, cell phones, PDAs, etc. Now of course I can sit here all day and argue that I'd much rather have the corded reliability but that's not progress.

So although my comparisons of these examples are probably misguided in terms of comparing CRT to an LCD, the "market forces" have made the decision for us (and by us), clearly adopting LCDs to CRTs. To claim that CRTs are superior to LCDs in one area is understandable but like the fluorescent light bulb, LCDs and LED screens have made CRTs obsolete - there is 0 doubt about it.

The "typical" American Car guy says: You cannot have a proper sports car with a V6 engine. Even if you made a 6-cylinder engine superior to Corvette's V8 to put into the Corvette, its hardcore followers are just so stuck in their ways that its would be nearly impossible to convince them of actual inferiority of their V8 engine since they'll always cling to any one advantage such as a better exhaust note, claiming that this 1 advantage is more important to them than what the 6 cylinder engine would offer as a whole.

Having a choice is great though so not to knock your preference. I guess my point for this rant is that you can generally find something positive about anything really. But the determination with which PC gamers tend to exaggerate the advantage of CRT's refresh rates and black levels sometimes makes one think that LCDs are completely unacceptable for usage. I guess CRT users also shy away from watching youtube videos because the dot pitch and resolution do not meet their *standards*.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
a top shelf CRT is worlds better than any top LCD.

The problem is those that live in a room at 'mom and dads' house, small apartment, don't run a/c, etc don't have the real estate to afford the luxury of a CRT.

My desk is 3' deep, I live in a decent sized home with a room dedicated to just my PC and books, and I can afford to run the A/C.

If I were to go LCD of any kind it would require a heck of a unit.

I'd buy a 24" wide CRT today if I knew it would come perfect. It took about a half dozen shipments before I got a good 21" shipped to me.

Not true,I just used very recently my ex- 22"CRT I gave to my brother,I still prefer the crispness of LCDs,CRTs are just blurry compared to LCD in DVI mode,I won't bother meantioning inferior geometry etc....as we know CRTs IQ also get worst over time,LCDs well only thing to normally worry about over time is the lamp.

Desk space is not a factor for me but yes I'll take small footprint ie LCD over a bulky CRT anytime,I still have nightmare's of reboxing some new CRTs (that had faults) and believe me when you don't live on the ground floor with no lift(elevator) its no joke.

Anyway each to their own,I know which one I prefer.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
#1 Fluorescent vs. Incandescent light bulb

You can make an argument that the 100W incandescent light bulb produces superior/brighter lighting than a fluorescent one you can pick up at a local IKEA. But for that 1 disadvantage, fluorescent bulbs have an average useful lifespan of 8 to 15 times that of incandescent, they save 2000 times their own weight in greenhouse gases and for a given light output, CFLs use between one fifth and one third of the power of equivalent incandescent lamps. (wikipedia) There is no question that from a performance perspective of light output I prefer the incandescent bulbs for home use. Having said that the advantages of fluorescent bulbs have far superseded those of the tungsten neanderthal.

#2 Corded vs. Wireless technology (internet, cell phone, etc.)

There is little argument that corded means of transporting data provide infinitely superior dependability, reliability and perhaps speed whether in a form of a home line over cell phones which can often lose reception, get interference or for internet speed. But for practical terms wireless technology has surpassed wired technology for most of us using laptops, cell phones, PDAs, etc. Now of course I can sit here all day and argue that I'd much rather have the corded reliability but that's not progress.

So although my comparisons of these examples are probably misguided in terms of comparing CRT to an LCD, the "market forces" have made the decision for us (and by us), clearly adopting LCDs to CRTs. To claim that CRTs are superior to LCDs in one area is understandable but like the fluorescent light bulb, LCDs and LED screens have made CRTs obsolete - there is 0 doubt about it.

The "typical" American Car guy says: You cannot have a proper sports car with a V6 engine. Even if you made a 6-cylinder engine superior to Corvette's V8 to put into the Corvette, its hardcore followers are just so stuck in their ways that its would be nearly impossible to convince them of actual inferiority of their V8 engine since they'll always cling to any one advantage such as a better exhaust note, claiming that this 1 advantage is more important to them than what the 6 cylinder engine would offer as a whole.

Having a choice is great though so not to knock your preference. I guess my point for this rant is that you can generally find something positive about anything really. But the determination with which PC gamers tend to exaggerate the advantage of CRT's refresh rates and black levels sometimes makes one think that LCDs are completely unacceptable for usage. I guess CRT users also shy away from watching youtube videos because the dot pitch and resolution do not meet their *standards*.

you mucked this up by including things that have no relation as well as declaring it's the naming not the performance that matters. You also added greenpeace bullshit in there too.

I was talking performance and quality...not anything else.

TV viewing is more 'relaxed' for the most part than anything graphics related on a PC....


All that said most wouldn't know the best from the worst as they would not have the screen set up right to begin with nor really care other than thinking they bought the best.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

you mucked this up by including things that have no relation

Well to be fair just like the LCD, both wireless technology and fluorescent bulb have serious advantages over the previous technology standard. My point is that just like an LCD they have disadvantages over the technology they replaced - but just like an LCD, their advantages easily outweigh the disadvantages.

as well as declaring it's the naming not the performance that matters. You also added greenpeace bullshit in there too.

How is performance/watt or "clean" performance bullshit? Also I am not sure what you mean to me resorting to "naming not the performance that matters." Let me guess the idea behind Intel's team to introduce performance enhancements to Nehalem only if every additional 1% increase in energy consumption produced at least 2% performance gain is "too greenpeace" for you too? I bet you'd rather have the best possible performance at any cost.

I was talking performance and quality...not anything else.

LCDs have superior contrast, reproduction of whites, screen resolution (2560x1600 for top models), double or triple the screen size, lower power consumption per area of output, space efficiency, weight per screen size, etc.

TV viewing is more 'relaxed' for the most part than anything graphics related on a PC....

Ok so you are saying that the image quality difference between a top LCD and a top CRT while playing say Crysis is more dramatic than the difference between watching a non-HD signal (CRT) vs. HD signal (LCD) because TV watching is more 'relaxed'? You say you are more picky about PC performance but you fail to mention how resolution and refresh rate on a PC still can't overcome the massive immersion factor of gaming on a larger LCD. Somehow my gut tells me more people prefer size over resolution - how many people as a % would consider watching '300' on a home TV over a movie theater or prefer gaming on a 21 inch monitor over a 42 or a 46 inch one? So why wouldn't the same person enjoy playing Crysis where the weapons actually resemble their size in real life?

All that said most wouldn't know the best from the worst as they would not have the screen set up right to begin with nor really care other than thinking they bought the best.

Of course not, which is why the digital camera replaced conventional film camera, HDTVs replaced non-HDTVs, PS3 and 360 support 720P output, DVDs replaced VHS....the improved image quality to the human eye had nothing to do with these movements. I guess the marketing teams for these products did an amazing job.

 

[alkemyst]

at gaming resolutions the CRT will smoke the LCD. For HDTV on a large screen CRT would still win if it EXISTED. I can go up to about 2600x1300 at 75Hz. I game at 1600x1200 at 85Hz.

The OP was referring to non-movie use. Even he caveated the original post.

For top of line digital recording something like the Genesis = film quality. It's a million dollar video cam. You are diffusing the debate though with these side arguments.

 

[tno]

Originally posted by: shangshang
BTW, can you see anything on a 21" at 2048x resolution???? I swear, my 21" Sony Trinitron was a blur at that resolution and my eyes would go blind in 10 minutes trying to read text at that resolution on a 21" CRT. The highest resolution that I could use and not go blind is 1600x1200 on a 21" CRT, and even then, my eyes still go watery after 5-6 hours of continuous ussage.

I am currently seated about three feet from my monitor, running at 20x15, and typing this with the fonts set at 10 and have no trouble seeing anything. I also happen to have a windowed instance of wow doing amazing things at just short that rez (i play windowed so i can keep doing other things, and I have some old fashioned west wing on my 2nd monitor (a 19" CRT).

Well, guys, I'm stepping out of this thread. It was a fun "time-machine" thread, but I'm leaving yall it's pretty useless to keep debating. Those who insist on CRT will not be convinced to get an LCD (and not sure why they ask to be convinced), and those who have moved on to LCD will never go back to LCDs.

We didn't ask to be convinced and it's not a matter of being convinced or not. We recognize the benefits of LCDs in our price range (cheap), they have a narrow footprint and fidelity of geometry. That's not enough for us, especially considering the bad, we like good looking images and get them from high quality CRTs. We also recognize the benefits of high quality LCDs (the ones out of our price range), they have all the other benefits as well as better image quality, but the cons (the price and image quality sacrifice) is still too much, mostly the cost for most of us. Lastly, we understand the benefits of future LCD tech (high contrast LED backlights, better panels, OLED, etc.), and when all these things come together in a cheap form factor, or when one of us strikes it rich, we'll look into getting a quality LCD. Till then, there's a game to play, and man, it looks good.

 

[tno]

But if screen size is all that matters then we should all make shadow puppets on a big wall using a bright flashlight. Image quality matters! I can't stress this enough. Panel size means nothing if the blacks are grey, the colors are washed out and the edges of the screen are discolored.

And, as I said above, I'm typing this at 20x15, I have been working on this computer for a few hours now and I don't have any trouble seeing the letters, nor do I have a headache. Find a really good CRT, and give it a shot. You'll love it.

Originally posted by: taltamir
the fallacy is yours, not mine. Because you think a 30 inch LCD is equal to a 19.3 inch (21 inch claimed) CRT because they reach similar pixel counts.

Its not that a 30 inch has greater power consumption then a 19 inch (real, 21 claimed) CRT because they have the same number of pixels.
But that 19 inch LCD is superior to a 19 inch CRT in power consumption and inferior to it in pixel amount.

I rarely ran CRTs at maximum resolution because text became far too small to read.
linux, unix, mac, and windows type operating systems (which is all of them... BSD and solaris are types of unix, etc), all without exception can not properly scale to allow you to run a higher resolution with larger text. Text bleeds out of boxes, web pages get distorted, etc.
Now, I personally got used to the native resolutions in LCDs, but most people I know run below native (again, for text size) on LCDs.
So I find a lower dot pitch / higher resolution on a small screen detrimental, not beneficial.

If screen size meant squat, then people would have enjoyed a movie more on a computer monitor instead of tv, tv instead of threatre, and theatre instead of imax. Now there are other factors that might make watching at home more convenient, but I am talking about the video experience. (aka, the movies look better there, but I prefer to watch at home for other reasons).

In reality it is the other way around. Screen size comes first, resolution second. It might be different for YOU, but if that is the case you are the extremely rare exception.
PS. best gaming experience I ever had was a sanyo Z2 displaying on a white wall... 150 inch of pure awesomeness... only 720p resolution, but best gaming ever.

 

[tno]

Originally posted by: bangmal
Unless there is a 21'' 2048x1536 LCD that you can compare, it is very cheap of you to use something does not exist(2048x1536 LCD) to "prove" your point, can you go cheaper?

His point, as has been stated before, is that the two products you should be comparing should be either, the products originally sold at similar price points (30" LCDs vs 21" CRTs with good tubes outputting 20x15), or products that can be comparably priced today (17-19" TN LCDs vs those same CRTs now nice and cheap on the used market). That's his point. That's my point.

And your point is moot.

 

[tno]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: bangmal

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Um, because it's true?

The 30? LCDs that are required to beat 2048x1536 CRTs in terms of pixel count often have comparable (or higher) power consumption and/or heat generation. Using the argument ?LCDs use less power? is often a fallacy.

Unless there is a 21'' 2048x1536 LCD that you can compare, it is very cheap of you to use something does not exist(2048x1536 LCD) to "prove" your point, can you go cheaper?

By following your logic,
how about comparing an 8'' LCD screen with 1280x1024 to a 15'' CRT with the same resolution? 15'' CRT is required to beat 1280x1024 LCDs in terms of pixel count.
which consumes less power?

that is much better phrased then what I was going for. Awesome point bangmal...

If a 21 inch CRT beats a 30 or 40 inch LCD in power consumption (because we are going by resolution)
Then an 8 inch LCD beats a 15 inch CRT much much harder (again, same resolution).

Ofcourse the entire comparison is ludicrous.
Nice one bangmal

No. Not nice.

 

[tno]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: taltamir

Because you think a 30 inch LCD is equal to a 19.3 inch (21 inch claimed) CRT because they reach similar pixel counts.

No, I never said that. What I said was it takes a 30" LCD to beat a 2048x1536 CRT in terms of pixel count. I also said comparing a 1920x1200x60Hz LCD to a 2048x1536x80Hz CRT in terms of power consumption is flawed because the LCD has less pixels and is doing vastly less work.

But that 19 inch LCD is superior to a 19 inch CRT in power consumption and inferior to it in pixel amount.

It might be "superior" but that's because it's doing vastly less work. If I take a Mini and a Ferrari to a race track I can say the Mini uses less fuel but when the performance results are in the Mini will be left in the dust.

If screen size meant squat, then people would have enjoyed a movie more on a computer monitor instead of tv, tv instead of threatre, and theatre instead of imax.

But IMAX has a much bigger resolution than regular theater so you?re backing my stance without even realizing it. People like IMAX because for lack of a better term, it?s doing more work than regular theater.

Likewise, are you going to claim theater is superior to IMAX because it uses less power? Of course not, because IMAX is doing a hell of a lot more work than regular theater, just like a 2048x1536x80 HZ CRT compared to a 1920x1200x60 Hz LCD.

This was a good response. Fantastic. Thanks.

 

[alkemyst]

Many think trinitron = all trinitrons...

Many went cheap on their CRT's and then went all out on their LCD's (whether a TV or a monitor).

I have both LCD and CRT's at the office, I am using a 21" CPM-G500 there as well.

I do plan on eventually going LCD (definitely going this way for a TV soon) for my monitor as soon as the 24"+ get better.

 

[tno]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Living in the north I have rather cold winters. Very cold to be more to the point. So with the heat output of the CRt I have, being the FW900, I save some money on my monthly heating bill by not needing one room heated as much.

That is not how physics work. You don't save any money on heating. The CRT heats up your room more, but it also takes more power to do so, the AC will thus take less power, in an amount equal to it, That does mean that you are not "wasting" extra power with the CRT (aka, your cost of electricity is the same). It is also a reason why people who need to cool their house typically waste 3 times the amount actually consumed (due to the inefficiency of cooling air).

Of course, this isn't taking into account efficiencies. I am sure your AC / Space heater is much more efficient per watt in generating heat. I don't know how the CRT compares to the LCD in terms of efficiency, only in consumption. Remember, not all the power used is converted to heat.

But if he's getting dual use of the monitor then it's power draw is effectively halved, with half its power going to the utility of the monitor and half going to the utility of a heater. With that you might in fact find the monitor portion uses much less power than your LCD. More importantly, I think the other guy was kidding, and you bit pretty hard.

 

[tno]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: alkemyst
a top shelf CRT is worlds better than any top LCD.

Depends what you are using the monitor for. Do you actually believe that a SONY XBR series LCD running Blu-Ray produces inferior image quality than the best SONY WEGA CRT tube? :Q For regular TV viewing a CRT is vastly superior than any HDTV, but the minute you compare HD feed on a proper LCD to a CRT, it's apples to oranges. Also, it was very convenient for you to fail to mention that CRTs fade in brightness by half in about 2 years from purchase.

Yes, I do believe that. I run at a rescue squad that features a very nice XBR LCD and we have played high quality HD content from a computer on it. I have a nice FD Trinitron set. The image from the LCD is blurry and is absolutely disgusting from closer than five feet. Now, yes, this is not its intended purpose, these large LCDs are meant to be watched from across the room. But that makes the image quality thing easier. Plus, the blacks are inky grey and the slow refresh rate means that when compression artifact is evident it is amplified ten fold by smearing as well as blocking. My CRT, on the other hand, looks great from across the room, or from a foot away, the colors are amazing, the blacks are dark as night and I have never seen a bit of motion blur. Sure, it's heavy, and big and has a small geometry problem, but it isn't dimmer than when I bought it and if it's apples to oranges that your seeing, then those oranges must be some damned impressive oranges.

If we had the perfect replacement for everything, life would be too easy ah. People just love to grab on to any advantage of an old product they were using all their life because it's human nature to resent change.

I agree with you, but, with the exception of the wired vs wireless debate, these are not actually either/or arguments. When Blu-Ray and HD-DVD were fight it out, everyone assumed HD-DVD would win because it had so many corporate backers. Then Blu-Ray started to take hold and has since won. But does that mean that we should all now give up and buy a Blu-Ray player? No! There's a dark horse on the horizon, and that's internet content. Similarly, there's another great option aside from incandescent or CFL. LED light bulb replacements are right around the corner with even more improvements over CFLs in both light quality and power efficiency. And, in the LCD vs CRT debate there is still another player. OLED and other tech is coming down the pipe. That tech could really blow away the image quality of both our current competitors. And it could do that at incredibly low prices.

So, my point is, market forces don't always predict the best product, and if/when my tube monitors and TVs start to give out and I need a replacement, I will keep my eyes peeled for another great CRT, because that represents the best image quality I can get. And once I have exhausted those options I will look into what LCD tech is around.

Having a choice is great though so not to knock your preference. I guess my point for this rant is that you can generally find something positive about anything really. But the determination with which PC gamers tend to exaggerate the advantage of CRT's refresh rates and black levels sometimes makes one think that LCDs are completely unacceptable for usage. I guess CRT users also shy away from watching youtube videos because the dot pitch and resolution do not meet their *standards*.

LCDs have their use and purpose. I don't exaggerate my claims that my monitor has incredible blacks, an unbeatable refresh rate and generally fantastic image quality. I do consider an LCD a poor replacement for my CRT. But do I use them? Sure, when that's what's available. A cheap LCD usually beats the pants of a crap CRT, so yeah. But I think what you were getting at is this, am I an image quality snob? Yeah? Yeah. I am. I cringe when I see compression artifact. I flinch when I see motion blur. And the slight curve in the geometry of my TV drives me nuts, see I can even pick on CRTs. But just because I have a high standard for image quality doesn't mean that I am exaggerating.

 

[tno]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
at gaming resolutions the CRT will smoke the LCD. For HDTV on a large screen CRT would still win if it EXISTED. I can go up to about 2600x1300 at 75Hz. I game at 1600x1200 at 85Hz.

The OP was referring to non-movie use. Even he caveated the original post.

For top of line digital recording something like the Genesis = film quality. It's a million dollar video cam. You are diffusing the debate though with these side arguments.

What kind of screen do you have? The FW900? 26x13, that's something I'd like to see. And a 34" CRT HDTV does look phenomenal. I've got one to prove it.

 

[tno]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
Many think trinitron = all trinitrons...

Many went cheap on their CRT's and then went all out on their LCD's (whether a TV or a monitor).

I have both LCD and CRT's at the office, I am using a 21" CPM-G500 there as well.

I do plan on eventually going LCD (definitely going this way for a TV soon) for my monitor as soon as the 24"+ get better.

If you can afford the space, seriously consider a used tube TV. 36XBR900's, the best TV's Sony has ever made can be had for as little as $300.

 

[CP5670]

Not true,I just used very recently my ex- 22"CRT I gave to my brother,I still prefer the crispness of LCDs,CRTs are just blurry compared to LCD in DVI mode,I won't bother meantioning inferior geometry etc

There are a few CRTs that actually do these things right. There was always an element of luck involved in getting them though, even when they were in production. The blurriness and bad geometry are due to the atrocious QC they had on most models (including most of the flagship lines), not an inherent limitation of the technology.

Many think trinitron = all trinitrons...

Yes, there are a lot of crap trinitrons out there that are nothing like the best ones. The single worst monitor I've ever seen of any kind was a particular Sun 21" Trinitron unit where I used to work.

 

[taltamir]

tno, is there really a need to make five posts in a row, then four more posts in a row?
Can't you condense them a little bit using the edit function?

 

[tno]

Originally posted by: taltamir
tno, is there really a need to make five posts in a row, then four more posts in a row?
Can't you condense them a little bit using the edit function?

I don't have time to constantly monitor the forums whenever someone replies. When I do go back and check the threads that interest me, however, I do like to reply to particular posts and find that the most convenient way is to use the quote function. Would you have preferred it if instead of five replies I had posted one terribly long one?

 

[taltamir]

you use the quote function, then you copy what it quoted, close that window, open an edit of the existing post, and paste it at the end.

 

[Dravic]

Do you actually believe that a SONY XBR series LCD running Blu-Ray produces inferior image quality than the best SONY WEGA CRT tube? :Q For regular TV viewing a CRT is vastly superior than any HDTV, but the minute you compare HD feed on a proper LCD to a CRT, it's apples to oranges.

The LCD will show a more crisp STILL (an even slow) images then the CRT. Game textures on and LCD and plasma look great. If only they didn?t move?
The LCD will have better geometry.
The LCD will take up less space (depth), and produce less heat for equivalent size.


The CRT will have better blacks.
The CRT will display fast action better.
The CRT will not have false contouring. The same kind of color banding effect we PC gamers got rid of a decade ago.
The CRT wont have pixel dancing while the pure digital (LCD and plasma) display freaks out while it try show parquet floors, tweed anchor jackets, or anything with high contrasting adjacent pixels next to each other.


My CRT is 5years old and looks great.. then again I know who to take care of my equipment (focus point maintenance, dust cleaning, etc?), line conditioner for power spike and lows..

I?m just hoping my HD tv?s last until OLED or equivalent technology produces a real successor to a CRT picture. Manufactures went to LCD technology because it was cheaper to make, not because it was better. Nobody produced larger then 42? CRT?s because they were heavy as heck, and cost too much to make/ship.

You?d be hard pressed to find any video buff that wouldn?t take an equivalent sized CRT over an LCD.

 

[tno]

Originally posted by: taltamir
you use the quote function, then you copy what it quoted, close that window, open an edit of the existing post, and paste it at the end.

I get how to do it. I'm asking if the long post is what you prefer?

 

[TheNiceGuy]

I have the CRT in my sig, and am very happy with it. I bought it in 2004, used and really old, but it has worked perfectly since. Its just made really well. I think it was made originaly for commercial use, and cost like $3000 new. In 2004 there were tons of them used here, as well as simular Mitsubishis (I live in Japan). With shipping, it was around $100.
It's a 22" screan, with max 80HZ refresh, and 1600 x1200 resolution. Tons of options for picture calibration.
I simply don't want to pay for a LCD or plasma screen that will approach the quality I have now.
It is big and heavy, but that's not something I care about.
Anyway, really happy with it, and will buy another one in a second if this one dies.

 

[taltamir]

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2070583&enterthread=y
rule #5.

I don't know of any forum, anywhere where it is not against the rules. Forum rules tend to follow the same lines on the internet. I actually guessed it was one of the anand's rules simply because its a rule anywhere else.
This is one you can bend a bit with impunity, but groups of 5 posts at a time completely tramples on it, not bends it.

Speaking of rule 5... "Multiple quick nef posts", what is a quick NEF post?


@TheNiceGuy : I will take your 3000$ CRT over my LCD any day of the week... no wait, id sell it for over 2000+, buy an LCD for a reasonable price, and prepay a lease on a car or something with the rest.