• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

CRT vs LCD

D

deveraux

Senior member
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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Why are they better for your eyes
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top