CRT VS LCD: The pros of each.

[Keeir]

CRT has better color reproduction.

Not so true anymore. A good quality LCD panel after it has been calibrated will do very well at color reproduction. 5 years ago, CRTs had significantly better color reproduction out of the box... but these days, I am not sure that is even true anymore.

CRT doesn?t ghost.

Do you mean "smear" or leave an after image? CRTs can leave after images when transitioning from a very bright color to a very dark color. It is noticable? Not unless you set up a test and really look for it. TN panels potentially are even better than CRTs when going from bright to dark...



A strength of CRTs is that they tend to have even color spectrums. Many LCDs will create color banding... even the best.

You might want to break the "LCD is smaller" into two categories...

LCD is Thinner - Has to do with Deskspace
LCD wieghs less - Has to do with Portability

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: VIAN
That transparent thing would still be a problem not due to contrast, because it the coating. The contrast hasn't changed, but the coating has.

I also notice sort of like blotches only when playing dark games. If you move on the screen, there is something on the screen that stays static over the pixels. Could be a defect I don't know.

Yeah I vaguely do know what you're talking about and I have no clue what causes it. I guess it's not just me that notices it? I think it's the distance between pixels. Not the size of the pixels (not dot pitch)-but the distance between them. The screen door thing...

 

[xtknight]

Keeir- excellent points. Yes, the 4ms. TN FP91V+'s crystals on white over black text beat the Mitsu DiamondPro's phosphors for movement. (However, the CRT still beat it on other more varied color movement.) That must mean the LCD reached a response time of less than 800 microseconds (CRT) combined rise and fall. That's damn good.

Here's living proof: http://www.behardware.com/news/imprimer/7813/
However there is a second test the LCD is quite a bit slower at that they didn't bother to mention but it's deep inside the LCD reviews somewhere if you really want to see it.

Here it is here:
http://www.behardware.com/articles/594-...ng-syncmaster-770p-pva-6ms-1500-1.html

Color filter-less LCDs and next-gen Overdrive will bridge what's rest of the response time gap.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Pictures were taken at low speed, 1/100 second for the CRT to avoid scanning frequency disturbance (monitor?s frequency is 100 Hz) and 1/1000 for the LCD.

And you are using this as an example..... why? That has to be the single poorest example of pointing anything out that I have seen in some time. If we make the CRT shutter stay open for ten times as long we can get results that look almost as bad as an LCD.

LCDs still need to improve an enormous amount to compete with pretty much any technology here or on the horizon.

A good quality LCD panel after it has been calibrated will do very well at color reproduction.

Not until contrast is increaded by an order of magnitude or so, at least not to the human eye.

 

[touchmyichi]

these threads annoy me.

I think this has been reiterated so many times. So please, either get an LCD because of its sharper text and space saving or get a CRT because of the faster response times and to save a lot of money.

But really, just try both mediums yourself and decide which you like better and if LCD is worth the extra money for you then go for it.

 

[pkme2]

Haven't had an problems with durability yet with my LCDs and CRTs. Have to admit that my CRTs are twice the age of my LCDs (6 vs 3) but I haven't noticed any drop off or problems with my LCDs. I use my LCDs heavily everyday now and still able to focus and work with no apparent eyestrain.
Tried both for a long time and for newbies, I recommend the LCDs.

 

[VIAN]

TN panels potentially are even better than CRTs when going from bright to dark...

Well, this could be because the CRT has better contrast than LCDs.

 

[videopho]

Some of you may not realize this that if you live in sunbelt states like I do. LCD is a big deal since it uses much less power than its crt counterpart (size to size) and radiates much less heat back into the air. Therfore it costs less to run AC unit in your house Not to mention my house utility electric rate has jumped up at least 30% since a year ago:disgust:

 

[Keeir]

Not until contrast is increaded by an order of magnitude or so, at least not to the human eye.

Ummm... that was already addressed with the better contrast line

If we look at colors in the sRGB space with brightness from 0 to 200 lets say, many Eizo monitors and Samsung panels... heck some AU panels as well will produce very accurate colors in the sRGB space from around 1-5 to 200. The CRTs do have an advantage from 0 to 1-5, but thats a narrow band of colors, I wouldn't say a CRT is better at reproducing colors. They have much better blacks, yes, but other colors can be worse than LCDs. This is especially true of the sub 1000 dollar monitors you can actually purchase today.

And you are using this as an example..... why? That has to be the single poorest example of pointing anything out that I have seen in some time. If we make the CRT shutter stay open for ten times as long we can get results that look almost as bad as an LCD.

Again, this is probably a case of looking at a bad quality monitor, but over a year ago I noticed that screen savers on the IBM E74 CRTs do indeed blur. I have never noticed the effect in a game or using the desktop or anything else. I think the "CRT doesn't ghost" should be maybe "CRT has dramatically better response"

Well, this could be because the CRT has better contrast than LCDs.

No... actually this should be a fairly well known occurance (not an "issue"). I was a little surprized by that behardware.com article that xtknight linked to...they are amazed at the effect. Because of how CRTs work, transitioning from ON to OFF is the inherit slow speed. Simple statistical variance for the excited phosphorus atoms even outside of variance in production... This doesn't happen outside of ON to OFF, as ON to ON will coverup the relatively few number of atoms which are still exiting thier previous excited state. TN monitors with overdrive can close the polarizer very fast and constantly.

LCD isn't as bulky.

This just doesn't cover it... For example the SED technology will not be "bulky", but will generally be heavier than LCDs. Something can be slim and dense at the same time! or conversly, be very big dimensionally and very light. Unfortunaly, CRTs are both large in all dimensions(for their viewable areas) and heavy.



And lastly, LCDs tend to start very quickly and generally are next to perfect right from the start.

 

[SamzAthlon]

I recently got the Viewsonic VX924 19" LCD. Coming from a a guy who used CRT's religously....

This LCD has the industry's first 3ms response time which means zero ghosting or trails on the screen. I used to have a 19" Sony CRT and was reluctant in getting an LCD cus I am a serious hardcore gamer. After hearing all the myths about how lcds are anti-gaming I was a no no on LCD. However, this LCD has seriously changed my perspective on LCD technology. The colors and brightness are absolutely stunning and the refresh rate goes up to 85hz at 1280x1024 resolution. Also, the 3ms response time is unprecedented! Viewsonic outdid themselves and had gamers in mind when they deisgned this LCD monitor.

If you're looking for an LCD get the Viewsonic VX924. trust me you wont be dissapointed! I cant get enough of playing BF2 on this display.

You can check out the specs at the viewsonic website. They also give you 3 years warrantly along with brightspot warranty/exchange.

 

[CP5670]

I've seen the VX924 and noticed a fair bit of ghosting on it, but that particular monitor's stated response time is known to be very inflated, more than most LCDs. It's actually slower than some 8ms LCDs. Although the contrast is pretty good by LCD standards.

If we look at colors in the sRGB space with brightness from 0 to 200 lets say, many Eizo monitors and Samsung panels... heck some AU panels as well will produce very accurate colors in the sRGB space from around 1-5 to 200. The CRTs do have an advantage from 0 to 1-5, but thats a narrow band of colors, I wouldn't say a CRT is better at reproducing colors. They have much better blacks, yes, but other colors can be worse than LCDs. This is especially true of the sub 1000 dollar monitors you can actually purchase today.

There do exist LCDs that can beat CRTs in color accuracy, but those are the 10-bit ones with LED backlights that cost over $3000. The standard 8-bit consumer ones with CCFL backlights aren't comparable. The CRTs you can still purchase today are almost all low end models anyway. A little over a year ago, you could get high end CRTs that were very close to today's LED LCDs in color accuracy (and had way better contrast) for about $700.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: CP5670
There do exist LCDs that can beat CRTs in color accuracy, but those are the 10-bit ones with LED backlights that cost over $3000. The standard 8-bit consumer ones with CCFL backlights aren't comparable.

Not really...
Take a look at this 770P. I think it's $600 or so.

http://www.behardware.com/articles/594-...ng-syncmaster-770p-pva-6ms-1500-1.html

The colors look neck-and-neck to me?

Edit: oops sorry I was looking at the Belinea, but the 770P is pretty close too. The Belinea is ~$353.

 

[JRW]

Originally posted by: SamzAthlon
I recently got the Viewsonic VX924 19" LCD. Coming from a a guy who used CRT's religously....

This LCD has the industry's first 3ms response time which means zero ghosting or trails on the screen. I used to have a 19" Sony CRT and was reluctant in getting an LCD cus I am a serious hardcore gamer. After hearing all the myths about how lcds are anti-gaming I was a no no on LCD. However, this LCD has seriously changed my perspective on LCD technology. The colors and brightness are absolutely stunning and the refresh rate goes up to 85hz at 1280x1024 resolution. Also, the 3ms response time is unprecedented! Viewsonic outdid themselves and had gamers in mind when they deisgned this LCD monitor.

If you're looking for an LCD get the Viewsonic VX924. trust me you wont be dissapointed! I cant get enough of playing BF2 on this display.

You can check out the specs at the viewsonic website. They also give you 3 years warrantly along with brightspot warranty/exchange.

I've heard this monitor has misleading response time specs, a few people were complaining about it on another forum and then I saw someone post this review, Not exactly 3ms after all

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: JRW

Originally posted by: SamzAthlon
I recently got the Viewsonic VX924 19" LCD. Coming from a a guy who used CRT's religously....

This LCD has the industry's first 3ms response time which means zero ghosting or trails on the screen. I used to have a 19" Sony CRT and was reluctant in getting an LCD cus I am a serious hardcore gamer. After hearing all the myths about how lcds are anti-gaming I was a no no on LCD. However, this LCD has seriously changed my perspective on LCD technology. The colors and brightness are absolutely stunning and the refresh rate goes up to 85hz at 1280x1024 resolution. Also, the 3ms response time is unprecedented! Viewsonic outdid themselves and had gamers in mind when they deisgned this LCD monitor.

If you're looking for an LCD get the Viewsonic VX924. trust me you wont be dissapointed! I cant get enough of playing BF2 on this display.

You can check out the specs at the viewsonic website. They also give you 3 years warrantly along with brightspot warranty/exchange.

I've heard this monitor has misleading response time specs, a few people were complaining about it on another forum and then I saw someone post this review, Not exactly 3ms after all

ive read that all panels faster than 12ms are pretty much falsified. Because the crystal will spin right by the correct color and have to spin back to be correct.

All panels out there are still 12-16ms for true color accuracy.

 

[SamzAthlon]

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: CP5670
There do exist LCDs that can beat CRTs in color accuracy, but those are the 10-bit ones with LED backlights that cost over $3000. The standard 8-bit consumer ones with CCFL backlights aren't comparable.

Not really...
Take a look at this 770P. I think it's $600 or so.

http://www.behardware.com/articles/594-...ng-syncmaster-770p-pva-6ms-1500-1.html

The colors look neck-and-neck to me?

Edit: oops sorry I was looking at the Belinea, but the 770P is pretty close too. The Belinea is ~$353.

Yeah true

 

[SamzAthlon]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: JRW

Originally posted by: SamzAthlon
I recently got the Viewsonic VX924 19" LCD. Coming from a a guy who used CRT's religously....

This LCD has the industry's first 3ms response time which means zero ghosting or trails on the screen. I used to have a 19" Sony CRT and was reluctant in getting an LCD cus I am a serious hardcore gamer. After hearing all the myths about how lcds are anti-gaming I was a no no on LCD. However, this LCD has seriously changed my perspective on LCD technology. The colors and brightness are absolutely stunning and the refresh rate goes up to 85hz at 1280x1024 resolution. Also, the 3ms response time is unprecedented! Viewsonic outdid themselves and had gamers in mind when they deisgned this LCD monitor.

If you're looking for an LCD get the Viewsonic VX924. trust me you wont be dissapointed! I cant get enough of playing BF2 on this display.

You can check out the specs at the viewsonic website. They also give you 3 years warrantly along with brightspot warranty/exchange.

I've heard this monitor has misleading response time specs, a few people were complaining about it on another forum and then I saw someone post this review, Not exactly 3ms after all

ive read that all panels faster than 12ms are pretty much falsified. Because the crystal will spin right by the correct color and have to spin back to be correct.

All panels out there are still 12-16ms for true color accuracy.

Yeah we all hear rumors here and there. Its wiser to trust actual facts rather than what people say.[/quote]

 

[CP5670]

Originally posted by: xtknight
Not really...
Take a look at this 770P. I think it's $600 or so.

http://www.behardware.com/articles/594-...ng-syncmaster-770p-pva-6ms-1500-1.html

The colors look neck-and-neck to me?

Edit: oops sorry I was looking at the Belinea, but the 770P is pretty close too. The Belinea is ~$353.

It looks like they are testing the color gamut ranges there, but I was actually referring to the color banding. Every consumer LCD I have seen has this weird banding with certain types of gradients that look smooth on CRTs. It's particularly bad on 6-bit panels but shows up even on 8-bit ones and is pretty noticeable in dark games with shadows and the like. I think the fact that it doesn't appear on CRTs has something to do with the gamma correction that's automatically applied by them and some of the 10-bit LED LCDs advertise having smooth CRT-like gradients due to the extra precision, so I'm guessing that only these LCDs get rid of it altogether.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: SamzAthlon

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: JRW

Originally posted by: SamzAthlon
I recently got the Viewsonic VX924 19" LCD. Coming from a a guy who used CRT's religously....

This LCD has the industry's first 3ms response time which means zero ghosting or trails on the screen. I used to have a 19" Sony CRT and was reluctant in getting an LCD cus I am a serious hardcore gamer. After hearing all the myths about how lcds are anti-gaming I was a no no on LCD. However, this LCD has seriously changed my perspective on LCD technology. The colors and brightness are absolutely stunning and the refresh rate goes up to 85hz at 1280x1024 resolution. Also, the 3ms response time is unprecedented! Viewsonic outdid themselves and had gamers in mind when they deisgned this LCD monitor.

If you're looking for an LCD get the Viewsonic VX924. trust me you wont be dissapointed! I cant get enough of playing BF2 on this display.

You can check out the specs at the viewsonic website. They also give you 3 years warrantly along with brightspot warranty/exchange.

I've heard this monitor has misleading response time specs, a few people were complaining about it on another forum and then I saw someone post this review, Not exactly 3ms after all

ive read that all panels faster than 12ms are pretty much falsified. Because the crystal will spin right by the correct color and have to spin back to be correct.

All panels out there are still 12-16ms for true color accuracy.

Yeah we all hear rumors here and there. Its wiser to trust actual facts rather than what people say.

[/quote]

ill have to find the review and link it, it wasnt some guy at circuit city or some crap.

 

[Acanthus]

Anandtechs Syncmaster 915N Review

We are a bit skeptical about how low response times can go ? realistically. You may recall from reading some of our other display articles that LCDs are measured by two major ?response times? quantities: TrTf (Time rising, Time falling - sometimes called average) and GTG (Gray to Gray). Originally, all displays were all marketed by their TrTf response times and nothing more. It then occurred to certain manufacturers that while TrTf times were very low, the transient time from certain degrees of the liquid crystal were slower than others. This spawned the whole gray-to-gray measurement, which was really nothing but an average time of many different transient measurements. Occasionally, some manufacturers just find it acceptable enough to list one half of the TrTf time as we have seen in recent reviews. Unfortunately, those not aware of how displays are marketed fall as easy prey to the ?lower? advertised specifications. With the already liberal interpretations of luminance and contrast ratio, it?s probably about time for VESA to start cracking down again. But that?s not what we came here to talk about today?

Just to rehash - we don?t have a lot of faith in advertised response times. If there are significant response time differences, there is usually a hit in performance somewhere else, like luminance or contrast ratio. It becomes easy to fall prey to benchmarks that measure response times in only certain scenarios, which is why all of our reviews use comprehensive real world comparisons between all of our displays to set the playing field level.

Anandtechs 19" LCD roundup

Response Time: Response time is an unusual preference and always a trade off. Typical response time (TrTf - Time rising, Time falling) refers to the time that it takes the LCD subpixel to twist from the fully "on" position to the fully "off" position and then back again. Response time has absolutely nothing to do with framerate. Pixel response times are independent of each other, and it does not take the entire screen 25ms to refresh if a monitor is labeled as a 25ms response time LCD. The time that it takes the LCD to go from black to white may be 15ms while the time that it takes the LCD to go from black back to white may be 10ms. Furthermore, your monitor is generally rendering a color that is not on end of the color spectrum. The time that it takes your LCD subpixel to twist from one half of a tone to another may be more or less than 15ms. The TrTf response time is normally a pretty useless measurement - but it makes for an easy specification in which to market LCDs.

The second method in measuring response time is "gray-to-gray" (GTG) response time. The measurement of GTG response time is actually more useful to LCD buyers, but it is harder to convey and is usually just conveyed as one number (which is incorrect). Gray to Gray response time refers to the time that it takes for a pixel to twist from some arbitrary position to another. On a 6-bit LCD, that's the time it takes the subpixel to twist from 1 of 64 different positions to one of the other 63 positions. GTG response times are useful if the manufacturer expresses the average of all the GTG response times, but that is rarely the case.

 

[Keeir]

Originally posted by: CP5670

Originally posted by: xtknight
Not really...
Take a look at this 770P. I think it's $600 or so.

http://www.behardware.com/articles/594-...ng-syncmaster-770p-pva-6ms-1500-1.html

The colors look neck-and-neck to me?

Edit: oops sorry I was looking at the Belinea, but the 770P is pretty close too. The Belinea is ~$353.

It looks like they are testing the color gamut ranges there, but I was actually referring to the color banding. Every consumer LCD I have seen has this weird banding with certain types of gradients that look smooth on CRTs. It's particularly bad on 6-bit panels but shows up even on 8-bit ones and is pretty noticeable in dark games with shadows and the like. I think the fact that it doesn't appear on CRTs has something to do with the gamma correction that's automatically applied by them and some of the 10-bit LED LCDs advertise having smooth CRT-like gradients due to the extra precision, so I'm guessing that only these LCDs get rid of it altogether.

LCDs get color banding because ever pixel is discrete with a definate value. Thus, no matter the resolution or color depth there will be a finate line which color changes OneColor-Black-SecondColor. CRTs don't have this limitation. This is also why text will never appear as "sharp" on a CRT as on a LCD.

However, "color reproduction" I take to mean the fundamental ability to reproduce the correct color when asked. Many 6-bit panels, when properly calibrated, can produce the colors such that normal human can't tell the difference. Many 8-bit panels can reproduce the color such that professional photograph humans can't tell the difference. 10-bit panels pf course do even better. I think Eizo has monitors for less than 1000 with less than 200 brightness and next to perfect color reproduction. I should say that Eizo at least seems to feel they are superior models... and I have yet to have them straight out lie to me. I don't know of a CRT for less than 1000 that can beat those Eizo's (especially not a "new" CRT).



Mark it like it is... CRTs have better color gradients not CRTs have better color reproduction

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Pictures were taken at low speed, 1/100 second for the CRT to avoid scanning frequency disturbance (monitor?s frequency is 100 Hz) and 1/1000 for the LCD.

And you are using this as an example..... why? That has to be the single poorest example of pointing anything out that I have seen in some time. If we make the CRT shutter stay open for ten times as long we can get results that look almost as bad as an LCD.

Could you explain in layman's terms what's wrong with that response time test? What's being overexaggerated here? The CRT should be better, or the LCD should be better, or one should be worse, or what?

I could see my old $99 eMachines (I know) 17" shadow mask CRT ghost/leave trails easily using the dxdiag 2D test with the bouncing square. It's really easy to see. "You'd have to be blind" not to.

 

[Fallengod]

I dunno but, ive had my 19" viewsonic PS790 for like 6 years... I still love it. Great colors, great refresh rates.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Could you explain in layman's terms what's wrong with that response time test? What's being overexaggerated here? The CRT should be better, or the LCD should be better, or one should be worse, or what?

You ever take pictures with 35mm film? Assuming you have, you know that if you want to take pictures of fast moving objects you use 400 speed film over 100 speed film as if you don't you will just get a bunch of blurs. What they did with their test is in essence use 1000 speed film to view the LCD(keep blurring to an absolute minimum) while slowing it down to 100 speed for the CRT(blur at near maximum, or perhaps it is the maximum depending on the camera they were using).

It would be akin to benching a video card running Quake2 against a different video card running Quake4 and directly compare the results. Obviously anyone who did that with any sort of seriousness about comparison should be discounted right away as they clearly have an agenda and are trying to promote it or are too ignorant to know what they are doing.

 

[xtknight]

Damn...maybe I should e-mail them about that. I really loved that site for LCD reviews. THG/X-Bit also have good reviews but not in quantity. I don't think AT takes pictures of the blurring either. If it's too good to be true it usually is. Somehow I didn't think a 4ms. (inflated) LCD was going to reach the 800us of the CRT.