CRT vs LCD

[deveraux]

Ok guys, I know that this topic has probably been done to death. But honestly, has LCD technology gone far enough that it can match CRT performance? The best LCD I have seen so far comes with a 700:1 contrast ratio and 8 ms response time. However, is there any site that I can go to, to find out what are the corresponding figures for a CRT monitor?

Thanks!

 

[jpeyton]

CRTs have very low response times, maybe a millisecond or two. Their contrast ratios and brightness are also very high.

I think each has their advantages. CRTs offer more flexibility concerning resolutions and refresh rates, they offer better black levels, better response times, and they are less expensive.

However, newer LCDs also offer little or no ghosting, great color reproduction (maybe not professional level *yet*) and more than adequate contrast ratios and brightness. One thing that I am absolutely crazy about is convergence and focus, two ares where LCDs are dead perfect, but CRTs can often lack in.

Black levels can still use some improvement in some LCDs, but overall, I use LCDs daily for everything from gaming to productivity, and I don't miss my CRT at all.

And my eyes aren't going blind staring at a CRT anymore LCDs are much better for your eyes.

 

[Maverick2002]

AFAIK LCD contrast ratio is far superior to CRT. The only reason people still use CRTs (including myself) is cost and better color reproduction. LCDs now have a low enough pixel refresh rate that ghosting is all but gone.

EDIT: + what the guy above said.

 

[everman]

I have a new lcd (2001fp) sitting next to a very nice Sony Trinitron FD. The lcd looks much better to me, though they both look great.

 

[MetalMat]

LCD = $$
CRT = $

 

[Tab]

It all depends on what you're using it for. As far as color reproduction goes, CRTs rule.

 

[bigal40]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
CRTs have very low response times, maybe a millisecond or two. Their contrast ratios and brightness are also very high.

I think each has their advantages. CRTs offer more flexibility concerning resolutions and refresh rates, they offer better black levels, better response times, and they are less expensive.

However, newer LCDs also offer little or no ghosting, great color reproduction (maybe not professional level *yet*) and more than adequate contrast ratios and brightness. One thing that I am absolutely crazy about is convergence and focus, two ares where LCDs are dead perfect, but CRTs can often lack in.

Black levels can still use some improvement in some LCDs, but overall, I use LCDs daily for everything from gaming to productivity, and I don't miss my CRT at all.

And my eyes aren't going blind staring at a CRT anymore LCDs are much better for your eyes.

Why are they better for your eyes

 

[jpeyton]

Pulled from HP's website:

But LCD monitors are not just better for your desk, they?re better for you and your health. Staring at a CRT bombards you with the radiation of three electron beams that are continually refreshing the entire screen 60 to 85 times each second. There?s a reason that so many people have radiation shields for their monitors!

And although your brain doesn?t register the constant refreshing, your eyes do, and they have to work harder to absorb the information. LCD monitors don?t refresh in this way. Pixels are constantly on or off, which greatly reduces eye fatigue and strain. Finally, an LCD monitor weighs 20 to 25 pounds less than a CRT, saving your back when you need to move it.