CRT Clarity????

[slick2004]

is there anything available that has the clarity of a CRT? Im still using a 19" CRT to play games because the LCD monitors just arent that clear and sharp. would a 120hz make a difference? im using a GTX 570 so its not my card thats the problem

 

[sandorski]

Depending on what CRT you have and its' condition, no LCD will give you the same quality. That said, you might be surprised how much your display has deteriorated since being New. When I replaced my Diamondtron with my current LCD, I noticed the weakness of this LCD right away, but I also noticed that my Diamondtron had also many weaknesses due to age, like Dimming, but also blurring.

Some Panel types are as good in some respects, but every Panel Type has some weakness compared to CRT. However, you'd be surprised just how little you'll care within a few days, even with just a decent TN Panel. Just the Display size alone makes the trade off worth it.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

yes, 120Hz LCD panels come close to CRT motion clarity, but at a cost of image quality

input lag and motion clarity on my BenQ XL2410T are good enough to where I no longer have any desire to pursue a CRT such as the Sony FW900.

 

[taltamir]

Plasma is a direct suceccesor of the CRT.

A CRT (Cathode Ray Tube) display has a Cathode Ray Tube emitting a stream of electrons, 4 electromagnets near its opening bend the stream to make it run across a phosphorous layer (just under the glass) to emit light.
A plasma has the same phosphorous layer, but split up into pixels, where each pixel has its own "micro-pit" which generates an electron stream fort hat pixel alone. this makes it thin compared to the bulky CRTs. Plasma is a direct evolution of CRT and is superior to it in every way.

LCD on the other hand uses a white backlight and a light polorizing layer of liquid crystals, said LCD layer block off light except the colors you want to let through. The color is determined by their twist, which is determined by the electric current currently running through them. The way polarization works results in low viewing angles, the time it takes the liquid crystals to change color when you change the voltage running through them causes the ghosting, and the fact you have a powerful backlight causes the crappy blacks.

So if you find LCDs unacceptable then you should get a plasma. Personally I have no issue with LCDs, and much prefer them over CRT due to lack of flickering and a perfectly rectangular image (CRTs never produce a straight image, you have to fiddle with the various bending and its never just right)

 

[VirtualLarry]

The color is determined by their twist

Pretty sure that they apply a layer of some sort of color to each pixel, it's not the "twist" of the crystal that determines the color, they are pre-applied.

The "twist" determines the opacity of each pixel, not the color.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

theoretically plasmas would be just as good as CRT for motion clarity, but its all moot if they don't have 0 input lag and cannot accept greater than 60Hz input

if you know of any such plasma screens I would love to know about them

 

[taltamir]

Pretty sure that they apply a layer of some sort of color to each pixel, it's not the "twist" of the crystal that determines the color, they are pre-applied.

The "twist" determines the opacity of each pixel, not the color.

What you say sounds much more sensible and correct. Most likely I was misinformed. Reviewing the metadata on my memory for that, I believe I got it from data put forth by a manufacturer for consumers... and that is really written by their marketing departments which tend to know jack and come up with nonsense like "OLEDs produce better color because they are organic and organics produce more natural colors". (I faced palmed when I saw that argument put forth... and yes it was really used by a samsung representative at a tech convension).

theoretically plasmas would be just as good as CRT for motion clarity, but its all moot if they don't have 0 input lag and cannot accept greater than 60Hz input

if you know of any such plasma screens I would love to know about them

Those would be advertised as "3D capable" plasma displays. The current way of doing 3d is sending alternating right eye and left eye images to the display, the display is completely ignorant of the content actually being 3d, which is handled entirely by the thing sending the signal to the display (your computer or bluray player). Such alternate eye method is very very stressful. However if you use 120Hz display (effective 60Hz, because alternating per eye) it is much less crappy. Thus only true 120Hz displays are "3d dispalys". Or at least, that is how it works in LCDs... I am going to look for verification it is how they go about labeling plasma as well.

I would like to point out that there is no such thing as 0 input lag. Also the word input lag is typically horribly misused but that is another matter altogether.

PS. beware of the subfield drive Hz figure. A 600Hz subfield drive means that each pixel is refreshed by the elecron generating pit 600 times per second, this prevents the flicker you would get with a CRT which only refreshes at your "refresh rate". However, the plasma is still running 60Hz, so it is only getting 60 frames per second from the input device, and then repeats each of those 10 times to prevent flickering.

 

[Mark R]

Pretty sure that they apply a layer of some sort of color to each pixel, it's not the "twist" of the crystal that determines the color, they are pre-applied.

The "twist" determines the opacity of each pixel, not the color.

That's correct. There are permanent red, green and blue filters applied over each sub-pixel. The problem with this is that this throws away 66% of the light generated by the back light.

An interesting development to increase image brightness and reduce power consumption is to make each pixel out of 4 sub-pixels, red, green, blue and white (unfiltered), which is starting to appear in some new LCD TVs. This scheme reduces the amount of light 'wastage' to 50%.

 

[OVerLoRDI]

(CRTs never produce a straight image, you have to fiddle with the various bending and its never just right)

This is my biggest beef with CRTs. I have an FW900, and mostly just live with the geometry not being perfect, but for movies and especially games, the color, the true blacks, and the smooth motion of a CRT cannot be beat.

For text, LCDs are the way to go. Also like taltamir mentioned, unless you grab a monster like an FW900, the screen real estate you get with a CRT is pathetic compared to a LCD.

 

[Fallengod]

For many of the above reasons, and lack of refresh rates, I also still rock a Viewsonic 19" CRT. This thing was like $600 back in 1999 or whenever it is we bought it.

 

[taltamir]

found some...
I first found this site: http://www.3dmovielist.com/3dhdtvs.html
And using it found plasma displays that take 120 FPS input like
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-VIER.../dp/B004M8SBPW
That is the smallest one with 1080p. The ones by samsung and LG use a crappy resolution so you want to avoid them.

 

[Arkadrel]

is there anything available that has the clarity of a CRT? Im still using a 19" CRT to play games because the LCD monitors just arent that clear and sharp. would a 120hz make a difference? im using a GTX 570 so its not my card thats the problem

Huh?

Usually LCD have better image quality... sharper/more crisp images.
The problem with LCDs ect, is low refresh hz, input lag, ghosting....
(which a CRT doesnt suffer from nearly as much).

If you want a 2ms responce time LCD monitor, with LOW lag-input, little/no ghosting, and able to run 120hz..... yes monitors like that are around, but they usually cost like 300-400$+.

 

[C1]

Ya, in the same way I was locked into a Gateway 2000 19" crt that I couldnt let go. It was tough. Great PIX for just about anything from movies to photo work and I do lots and lots of both. (Also there is so much trash made LCD on the market now days.)

I sort of accidentally/unintentionally/serendipitously picked up a DELL 1800FP LCD (church sale) and that changed things. I was able eventually to confidently transition to that 18.1" IPS monitor. (Remember that a 19" crt is really approx 18"). Once transitioned, I gave up the Gateway as it was just too heavy/bulky.

So if you have doubts, I would recommend picking up a used 1800FP to aid weaning yourself from crt. Everyone loves this LCD. Check out some reviewer comments:

http://www.overstock.com/Electronics...r-reviews.html

You should still be able to pick up a nice used one inexpensively here:
http://www.agreatserver.com/cgi/search.pl?S=DELL+1800FP&C=80053

Once you get enough confidence in LCD then you will be able to permanently abandon your antiquated crt.

 

[toyota]

C1, its 2011 so I doubt anybody would want a 1280x1024 monitor. and for gamers that's is the worst possible aspect ratio.

 

[C1]

The recommendation is to begin replacement of the current 19" crt which is an effective 18" screen area. And so what do you think the current useful resolution of 19" crt is supposed to be? And what is the ratio?

Alright fine then. What's the problem? Simply buy a 24". 27" or 30" crt then.

 

[toyota]

The recommendation is to begin replacement of the current 19" crt which is an effective 18" screen area. And so what do you think the current useful resolution of 19" crt is supposed to be? And what is the ratio?

Alright fine then. What's the problem? Simply buy a 24". 27" or 30" crt then.

what? a 19 inch(18 viewable) CRT is 4:3 so that is slightly more viewing area in a game than a 5:4 screen. plus I am pretty sure that CRT did 1600x1200 which is much nicer than 1280x1024.

MOST people will get 1920x1080/1200 monitors today and would have no desire for that abomination of an aspect ratio that is 5:4.

 

[pw38]

Plasma is a direct suceccesor of the CRT.

A CRT (Cathode Ray Tube) display has a Cathode Ray Tube emitting a stream of electrons, 4 electromagnets near its opening bend the stream to make it run across a phosphorous layer (just under the glass) to emit light.
A plasma has the same phosphorous layer, but split up into pixels, where each pixel has its own "micro-pit" which generates an electron stream fort hat pixel alone. this makes it thin compared to the bulky CRTs. Plasma is a direct evolution of CRT and is superior to it in every way.

LCD on the other hand uses a white backlight and a light polorizing layer of liquid crystals, said LCD layer block off light except the colors you want to let through. The color is determined by their twist, which is determined by the electric current currently running through them. The way polarization works results in low viewing angles, the time it takes the liquid crystals to change color when you change the voltage running through them causes the ghosting, and the fact you have a powerful backlight causes the crappy blacks.

So if you find LCDs unacceptable then you should get a plasma. Personally I have no issue with LCDs, and much prefer them over CRT due to lack of flickering and a perfectly rectangular image (CRTs never produce a straight image, you have to fiddle with the various bending and its never just right)

Actually plasmas are the spiritual successors to CRTs, not their direct successors. Lawsuits made sure we won't ever get the direct successor to the CRT, i.e SED.

As a grossly simplified explanation a plasma works by the energy transfer from vaporized mercury being bombarded by electrons from an electrode embedded within a dielectric. The resultant release of energy in the ultraviolet excites the ionized gases which in turn react with the painted phosphor, thus releasing the energy in both the visible and the infrared (hence why a plasma screen is fairly warm to the touch). The only real comparative property between a plasma and a CRT is the phosphor layer, and even then there's enough differences where it's a stretch to say the two technologies have much in common. Consumer grade CRTs had bad geometry issues at the corners, something that doesn't plague plasmas. As a bit of a history lesson the first theory on the plasma tv dates back to around 1936. A Hungarian engineer, whom I can't remember atm, formulated the principle of the flat panel plasma. Can you imagine if the idea had been explored sooner? lol

I do agree though that if you enjoy the qualities of a CRT a plasma screen is the next best choice. Black levels, color reproduction, and motion are all more identifiable with the older CRT than the LCD (or LED). I use a plasma as my computer monitor and wouldn't ever go with an LCD. I don't find an LCD picture pleasing at all. My opinion of course.

 

[NoQuarter]

I use a plasma as my computer monitor and wouldn't ever go with an LCD. I don't find an LCD picture pleasing at all. My opinion of course.

What size of plasma do you use? I was trying to find a smaller one to use as a computer gaming monitor but couldn't find anything under like 37"..

 

[Throckmorton]

is there anything available that has the clarity of a CRT? Im still using a 19" CRT to play games because the LCD monitors just arent that clear and sharp. would a 120hz make a difference? im using a GTX 570 so its not my card thats the problem

What? An LCD is 100% sharp. A pixel is a pixel is a pixel. Not so with a CRT...

 

[bunnyfubbles]

I would like to point out that there is no such thing as 0 input lag. Also the word input lag is typically horribly misused but that is another matter altogether.

sorry if I didn't say "negligible", typing 0 was faster, I guess I was wrong to assume you'd understand what I meant (so we're clear, I'm talking negligible by CRT standards as a measuring reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_lag, http://www.flatpanelshd.com/focus.php?subaction=showfull&id=1229335064)

HDTVs are notorious for introducing heaps of extra input lag from all their internal processing meant to improve image quality, although the last time I actually kept track of HDTVs many if not most of them seemed to come with some sort of "game mode" that would turn off such features in order to improve input response

did a little bit of research and came up a bit disappointed though:

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/review.php?subaction=showfull&id=1300800238

it seems like the Panasonic plasmas (like the one you linked to on amazon) are amongst the fastest HDTVs when it comes to input lag with their 2011 lineup weighing in around 18-25 ms (for reference a Dell U3011 is around 24ms input lag and not exactly known for being a fast monitor and my BenQ XL2410T was measured as 0 from this same site)

so while things have definitely improved from when I last kept track of HDTVs (average was something ridiculous like 60ms and good were only in the 30ms range) it seems pretty evident that HDTVs are still firmly being engineered first and foremost as a TV and not a monitor.

Another potential hurdle to look into seems to be that most if not all these new TVs use HDMI 1.4 for the input source. I know for sure my GTX580's HDMI port is 1.3a compatible and I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that it would support 1.4 for 3D, but I'm not in a hurry to run out and buy a TV only to discover it won't work easily. I'm very content with my PC monitors so far, a Dell U2711 and BenQ XL2410T, but the idea of plasma's theoretical capability certainly has me curious. I'm confident the 2D motion clarity would be there, but ultimately not curious enough to plop down $800+ as its obvious the thing could never replace my BenQ for competitive play due to the input lag.

The recommendation is to begin replacement of the current 19" crt which is an effective 18" screen area. And so what do you think the current useful resolution of 19" crt is supposed to be? And what is the ratio?

Alright fine then. What's the problem? Simply buy a 24". 27" or 30" crt then.

you pretty much completely failed to understand the OP's desires

he's not looking for some sort of gradual transition from one format to the other in terms of work environment, he wants motion clarity, something LCD technology is inherently inferior for due to pixel response time being an order of magnitude slower

recommending an older LCD is ridiculous for two major reasons:

1. its older LCD tech so pixel response time is bound to be much slower than newer LCDs

2. its definitely not going to be faster than 60Hz

Again, motion clarity is all about moving images being butter smoothness (high frame rate, of which 60Hz limits us to 60fps, "good enough" but not ideal) and crystal clear (not blurry which LCD inherently suffers from). A CRT @ 100Hz will be just as good if not better than a current 120Hz when it comes to motion clarity.

What? An LCD is 100% sharp. A pixel is a pixel is a pixel. Not so with a CRT...

again, he's talking about motion clarity. Take a window full of text and quickly drag it around a screen. The text in motion will be unreadable at a much slower speed on LCD vs. CRT.

What size of plasma do you use? I was trying to find a smaller one to use as a computer gaming monitor but couldn't find anything under like 37"..

the technology behind plasma displays makes it impractical to produce for sizes lower than ~40" (the smallest models I regularly see are 42")

 

[pw38]

What size of plasma do you use? I was trying to find a smaller one to use as a computer gaming monitor but couldn't find anything under like 37"..

Because of costs associated with scaling the technology down enough to be viable at sizes below 37" you won't find any. I use a 50" and am upgrading to either the 59" or 64" D6500. From my seating distance (7' ish) the picture is clear, color accurate, and well contrasted. Sure the resolution isn't what the top 30" monitors are but I don't sit 2 feet away either so it's a wash to me.

 

[slick2004]

any recommendations for a 22"-24" LCD 120hz??, have they invented a widesceen CRT yet???

 

[bunnyfubbles]

If you want CRT speed you'll need to go for something like the BenQ XL2410T or LG W2363D. IIRC the LG is being discontinued and there's supposed to be a newer model to replace it, but I haven't exactly gone out of my way to keep track after I settled on the XL2410T for myself.

as far as "invented widescreen CRT", they've had those years and years ago, but CRTs have been discontinued for years and years as well...

the most famous would be the Sony FW900, expect to pay well over $400 for a used one, although more likely in the $800+ range for one in guaranteed good condition

 

[OVerLoRDI]

the most famous would be the Sony FW900, expect to pay well over $400 for a used one, although more likely in the $800+ range for one in guaranteed good condition

Yep. Also, calibrating it is a pain and takes a lot of patience and resourcefulness. My FW900 is not my primary monitor, I use LCDs for text, web browsing, and similar activities. The FW900 is not a great text CRT due to its dot pitch. Movies and games are full of win on it though.

 

[Arkadrel]

any recommendations for a 22"-24" LCD 120hz??, have they invented a widesceen CRT yet???

Acer GD245HQ

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Acer-GD245HQ.../dp/B00322VJC6


Its about ~277£ --> 456$


http://www.digitalversus.com/acer-gd245hq-p357_7352_38.html

very responcive LCD, this is a gameing monitor (very little lag-input, ghosting ect).
Its 120hz and can do the 3D stuff too if u want.