CRT's vs LCD...yes I'm serious.

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: CP5670

A couple ms here and there of input lag, average difference in screen refresh, and color to color response time don't blow your level of immersion near as much as looking at a tiny little square window in a ginormous device that looks like something out of the 60s.

This is only your opinion. Those issues do blow the immersion to me.

I sit fairly close to my monitor when playing games, which compensates for the smaller size to some extent.

Sitting with your face in your monitor, which is basically a strobe light anyway, is not an optimal solution IMO.

Dude it's time to see the writing on the wall for technologies like CRT, AGP, dot matrix printers, etc..


This LCD is up to virtually any task with an enormous amount of screen real-estate, excellent contrast, color reproduction, uniformity and pixel response. If you're looking for that "ultimate computer upgrade", come February '07, the good elves at Dell will have a new present for you.

If you have never played new PC games like FEAR, Oblivion or Command & Conquer 3 at 2560 x 1600 you haven?t really seen what the game can look like.

Do you think anyone these days is saying "Well, there's 2ms input lag, so you're better off looking at a little square"? No.

 

[CP5670]

the biggest issue with CRT is that noone is developing them anymore. LCDs just keep on getting better while CRTs are standing still.
Not only that, very few companies still manufacture CRTs.

You're right that good CRTs have been phased out of the market, but LCDs aren't really getting better and have not seen any substantial improvements for almost two years now. If anything, the high end models are being crowded out and are being replaced by cheap TNs at most sizes. The discontinuation of the 20WMGX2, which is still one of the best all-purpose LCDs around, is a case in point.

I don't think we will be seeing any big changes on the display front until OLED monitors come out in 2010.

Sitting with your face in your monitor, which is basically a strobe light anyway, is not an optimal solution IMO.

Dude it's time to see the writing on the wall for technologies like CRT, AGP, dot matrix printers, etc..

What exactly are you trying to demonstrate again?

Motion blur, blacks that look gray or blue (far more noticeable in a dark room than a well lit one, which is how I generally play games), input lag, low framerates, screen door effects and dead pixels do not make for an optimal solution either. There are no optimal solutions right now. You have to deal with significant tradeoffs either way. Which set of characteristics is more important to you is purely a matter of opinion and depends on your personal tastes.

It is really not that difficult to comprehend.

 

[Lithan]

I have great framerates, no dead pixels and my blacks are spot on. Input lag is not noticable. SDE is only viewable at EXTREMELY low reso's... Like 800x600 and lower (this is as per web... I've never run that low a reso or heard of such a thing before). Seems all your compromises that LCD owners must make only apply to people with 5+ year old and/or crappy quality LCD's or guys with bad luck (dead pixels) who arent willing to raise hell and get the problem remedied.

Would I take a CRT over one of these ghosting, washed out, jagged LCD's you preach against? In a second. But Id also take a CRT over a kick in the crotch, that doesn't make it the best option. A quality LCD is far superior in so many ways, and color reproduction, which is of debatable/no use for almost all home users, seems the only actual compromise.

 

[CP5670]

I have great framerates, no dead pixels and my blacks are spot on. Input lag is not noticable. SDE is only viewable at EXTREMELY low reso's... Like 800x600 and lower (this is as per web... I've never run that low a reso or heard of such a thing before).

You know, this sounds very much like something you would hear from all those "blind people" you mentioned earlier.

Obviously, the shortcomings I brought up are not significant factors for you, which is great. That does not mean that they don't exist on current LCDs (which is demonstrably false) or are not noticeable to anyone (also false, as seen by the responses in this thread).

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: CP5670

I have great framerates, no dead pixels and my blacks are spot on. Input lag is not noticable. SDE is only viewable at EXTREMELY low reso's... Like 800x600 and lower (this is as per web... I've never run that low a reso or heard of such a thing before).

You know, this sounds very much like something you would hear from all those "blind people" you mentioned earlier.

Obviously, the shortcomings I brought up are not significant factors for you, which is great. That does not mean that they don't exist on current LCDs (which is demonstrably false) or are not noticeable to anyone (also false, as seen by the responses in this thread).

There's no real argument here. If I put my 3007 up, you put your CRT up, only condition the monitor has to be used and not sold, 999,999/1,000,000 people would choose the 3007.

We both know it. If people cared about CRTs anymore, they would still be for sale.

All this "It's just like the BetaMax! The superior technology was phased out!" stuff is just conspiracy theory.

CRTs have some small advantages, but their huge deficits made them obsolete years ago.

Your arguments ask us to believe everyone in the world, including the hardware review sites, are all stupid and just don't realize CRTs are better.

 

[Lithan]

Uhh, no. My screen produces better black as a background than it displays when it's OFF. Learn that not every LCD is the same as the $49.99 after MIR PoS you look at before making generalizations about LCD's.

 

[BFG10K]

Seems all your compromises that LCD owners must make only apply to people with 5+ year old and/or crappy quality LCD's or guys with bad luck (dead pixels) who arent willing to raise hell and get the problem remedied.

Uh-huh, and how about the 3008, one of the newest and most expensive panels available?

http://www.behardware.com/arti.../dell-3008wfp-hc.html?

They had problems with homogeneity, black levels, ghosting and input lag. But of course that's meaningless since Lithan has a magic 2005 that is perfect in every way and doesn't have such issues. :roll:

Uhh, no. My screen produces better black as a background than it displays when it's OFF. Learn that not every LCD is the same as the $49.99 after MIR PoS you look at before making generalizations about LCD's.

Learn that every LCD has a backlight and hence cannot produce true blacks.

Learn that ghosting and input lag are measurable and provable and that you claim not to see either doesn't doesn?t prove anything.

Learn that even the biggest and most expensive LCDs have similar issues as the problems are inherent to the technology.

Again that you claim not to have issues doesn?t mean they don?t exist.

 

[CP5670]

Your arguments ask us to believe everyone in the world, including the hardware review sites, are all stupid and just don't realize CRTs are better.

Actually, I didn't say that at all, since "better" means nothing by itself. Better at what?

If you still haven't figured it out, I am saying that both technologies have different advantages, and which factors are more important is up to the individual buyer. Your or my opinion on that is as good as anyone else's.

Uhh, no. My screen produces better black as a background than it displays when it's OFF.

Words fail me. :laugh:

You really should learn how an LCD works before posting further in here.

 

[DuallyX]

For everything but text, still gotta vote CRT. I've still got my old 23" Sony Widescreen CRT, and it's a joy for my photo work, gaming, etc.

 

[nRollo]

This is all a moot point.

1. You can't buy a good CRT anymore, only crappy ones.

2. The only "good" CRTs that exist are used, old, and half worn out.

3. Surprisingly enough, all the CRT supporters are guys that still own CRTs. No LCD owners saying, "Oh man! Those CRTs rocked! Wish I could still buy that tech!"

4. Manufacturers didn't stop making CRTs because they were in high demand.

I suppose there are some advantages of CRT tvs compared to plasmas or lcds as well, but I wouldn't be caught dead with one in my living room.

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: nRollo
This is all a moot point.

1. You can't buy a good CRT anymore, only crappy ones.

2. The only "good" CRTs that exist are used, old, and half worn out.

3. Surprisingly enough, all the CRT supporters are guys that still own CRTs. No LCD owners saying, "Oh man! Those CRTs rocked! Wish I could still buy that tech!"

4. Manufacturers didn't stop making CRTs because they were in high demand.

1. I bought a new overstock 22" Trinitron for $50 from a local dealer a few months ago

2. See above.

3. My house has 3 LCDs, a DLP HDTV, and my CRT.

You know I'm yankin your chain right?

 

[BFG10K]

3. Surprisingly enough, all the CRT supporters are guys that still own CRTs. No LCD owners saying, "Oh man! Those CRTs rocked! Wish I could still buy that tech!"

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=31&threadid=2182155

 

[Continuity28]

Originally posted by: nRollo
No LCD owners saying, "Oh man! Those CRTs rocked! Wish I could still buy that tech!"

I would if I could. The manufacturers have taken the option from me.

There's no question that demand for CRTs is low, but don't pretend it's completely unwanted by some LCD users.

The best I can do is get the highest quality LCD until OLED or some other new tech comes around...

 

[flexy]

Originally posted by: CP5670

Ghosting is a placebo in the minds of CRT proponents.

This is like saying that CRT flickering at 60hz is a placebo in the minds of LCD proponents.

I can see it easily on the fastest 2ms TNs in just about any older game that runs at a constant 60fps. You simply aren't very demanding with this.

Any actual ghosting I'd be much more likely to blame on some hardware or configuration error than on an inherent trait to LCD's.

I can't imagine what kind of "configuration error" would result in motion blur. Want to give an example?

"ghosting" was an issue with LCDs 5+ (rather 10+) years ago. Welcome to 2008. People talking about ghosting on LCDs probably never saw one of the recent 5ms (2ms g/g) LCDs.

I was a hardcore CRT supporter and i debated long and long to get a LCD. I got a BenQ X2200W, i am aware there are also "crappy" LCDs out there.

Needless to say i dont miss my "great" CRT no bit..there is just NO comparison AT ALL compared to a new fast WS 22"+ LCD.

I have NO single factor which i could mention about my LCD which is a "disadvantage" compared to the CRT...in fact the CRT had so many disadvantages, size, aspect, focus etc..etc...

The "only" gripe one could have is the limitation at 60hz at native 1680...which FOR ME never is a problem....i could also set to non-native 1440x and switch to 75hz, for what it's worth.

It might be true that there are exceptions,for CERTAIN games it might be good having a display capable of 120hz+. But then IMHO CRTs have other disadvantages so i rather chose the 60/75hz cap over teh limitations i had with the CRT. Not to mention weight etc..etc.. which would come if i'd to get eg. one REASONABLE CRT, like an old Sony Widescreen CRT FW900. This would be the only thinkable alternative.

Edit: In regards to the "motion blur" debate, me too had already hours of fun debating with people about the "so called" motionblur.

Inronically, those are people playing a 10 year old game which looks like **** (CS1.6) and they're probably also still running Win95
I, as an avid gamer, can not see "motion blur" as a problem at all. If there wouldnt be people talking about it i wouldnt even know something liek that exists. (Maybe w/ other LCDs, possible...i dont know)

its like the people who run hours and hours of special software for *FINDING* a dead pixel...just that (after a few yours) they can happily say they found a dead pixel

After i got my LCDs i ran my whole suite of games looking for "motion blur"...and all the other disadvantages other people claim to see...too bad i dont SEE any.

ironically, the same people who avoid LCDs like the plague with pseudo-arguments and seeing flaws in LCDs...are the SAME PEOPLE who play at 800x600, no AA and no effects to be able to run CS at 120Hz because the 120hz are soooooooo important .)
I hardly take advice in regards to image quality and game experience from people playing outdated games running on ridiculus low resolutions in 4:3 aspect ratio on an old 17" and calling this "superior" to any current 22" LCD...gimme a break.

 

[Lithan]

Oh I do hope you're kidding? Does anand actually have a gfx moderator that doesn't know what a nit measurement is?

Learn rudimentary physics before you try to lecture me on how monitors can't "produce" black. I'd truely LOVE to hear how you think CRT's produce black. CRT's are considered better at producing black because LCD's typically have much higher nit ratings... which means it's more work for them to produce black; but they are every bit as capable of "producing" it as a CRT, hell a ROCK can produce black.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

3. Surprisingly enough, all the CRT supporters are guys that still own CRTs. No LCD owners saying, "Oh man! Those CRTs rocked! Wish I could still buy that tech!"

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=31&threadid=2182155

CRTs for sale at huge US etailer = 5

LCDs for sale at huge US etailer= 200+

I see what you mean, those CRTs are catching on!

 

[Tasiin]

Originally posted by: nRollo
3. Surprisingly enough, all the CRT supporters are guys that still own CRTs. No LCD owners saying, "Oh man! Those CRTs rocked! Wish I could still buy that tech!"

Funny, that's actually exactly what I said after trying LCDs for a few months. Then I went back to a CRT.

 

[Lithan]

Man I wouldn't buy that 21" nec, 76hz refresh rate... your head might explode and give you eyeball cancer.

 

[CP5670]

Originally posted by: flexy

Originally posted by: CP5670

Ghosting is a placebo in the minds of CRT proponents.

This is like saying that CRT flickering at 60hz is a placebo in the minds of LCD proponents.

I can see it easily on the fastest 2ms TNs in just about any older game that runs at a constant 60fps. You simply aren't very demanding with this.

Any actual ghosting I'd be much more likely to blame on some hardware or configuration error than on an inherent trait to LCD's.

I can't imagine what kind of "configuration error" would result in motion blur. Want to give an example?

"ghosting" was an issue with LCDs 5+ (rather 10+) years ago. Welcome to 2008. People talking about ghosting on LCDs probably never saw one of the recent 5ms (2ms g/g) LCDs.

Obviously, you didn't actually read what you quoted there. It is still an issue on modern LCDs if you're sensitive to the effect. As I said earlier in the thread, I notice it more in space sims than anything else, but it's also prevalent in FPSs with dull, low contrast environments. I don't need to look for it to see it. It sticks out blatantly to me in the majority of my games.

Like some others, I have LCDs on other systems, just not on my main gaming one.

 

[DuallyX]

Originally posted by: nRollo
This is all a moot point.

1. You can't buy a good CRT anymore, only crappy ones.

2. The only "good" CRTs that exist are used, old, and half worn out.

3. Surprisingly enough, all the CRT supporters are guys that still own CRTs. No LCD owners saying, "Oh man! Those CRTs rocked! Wish I could still buy that tech!"

4. Manufacturers didn't stop making CRTs because they were in high demand.

I suppose there are some advantages of CRT tvs compared to plasmas or lcds as well, but I wouldn't be caught dead with one in my living room.

I make my statement as a person who has owned and used plenty of LCD panels, including Apple and Sony 24" screens, which were very good, but still do not have the fine tonalities of the Sony CRT. So your point 3 is kind of bunk....and I'm sure I'm not the only person in the thread that has or does own both.

Your first point is sort of true. You can buy good used ones, but no, you aren't going to get a good quality CRT off the shelf at Best Buy. (Could you ever?)

Your second point is true, unfortunately.

Your fourth point is true, but I think that a large part of the reason that LCD's so quickly replaced CRT's is because LCD's were seen as being so cool. Even when you could get a great 21" CRT for half the price of a crappy low-res LCD, the LCD was seen as being "better", simply because it was the latest tech.

I want an LCD (OLED, whatever) that is as good as my CRT....or better for that matter, because reading text on my CRT is a pain. I don't really WANT to have a hundred pound gorilla of a monitor sitting on my desk, but until there is an affordable, professional LCD panel that meets or exceeds the performance of my CRT when it comes to color and tonality, that's the way its gotta be.

I don't think it's a moot point for people to ask for better LCD's. It's an embarrassment for LCD manufacturers that there are still people like myself that prefer the old tech to the latest LCD's because LCD's "just aren't there yet".

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: DuallyX

Originally posted by: nRollo

It's an embarrassment for LCD manufacturers that there are still people like myself that prefer the old tech to the latest LCD's because LCD's "just aren't there yet".

Well, we agree on most of it anyway.

I don't think it's an embarassment, there are still people who prefer vinyl LPs (say the sound better) to CDs or MP3s- should the CD companies be embarassed?

Nope, some people just hang on to old ways.

 

[DuallyX]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: DuallyX

Originally posted by: nRollo

It's an embarrassment for LCD manufacturers that there are still people like myself that prefer the old tech to the latest LCD's because LCD's "just aren't there yet".

Well, we agree on most of it anyway.

I don't think it's an embarassment, there are still people who prefer vinyl LPs (say the sound better) to CDs or MP3s- should the CD companies be embarassed?

Nope, some people just hang on to old ways.

I get your point, but I don't think my opinion is because of some sort of nostalgic emotion toward an electron gun. I'll state again that I'd be more than happy to chuck my huge CRT aside for a sleek LCD - IF, and only if, LCD's can meet or exceed my needs for display quality and characteristics.
I know that most people are well served, and probably better served by LCD's for their day to day usage.

But for my use, as a photographer and graphic designer, I am better served by a CRT, simple as that. And it's a bitch. I have to calibrate much more frequently, I have to adjust for geometry, degauss, etc. I don't want to do that. But in my line of business, I need accuracy onscreen that translates directly to what is printed.

It's an embarrassment for them because they know of the short-comings. If I can see the inferiority of LCD's in specific applications, trust me, so can the manufacturers. That's why we've been taunted over the years by SED, OLED, etc, etc. These great technologies that are supposed to finally put the final nail in the CRT casket. Hopefully someday they will actually deliver...

 

[Continuity28]

Originally posted by: nRollo
I don't think it's an embarassment, there are still people who prefer vinyl LPs (say the sound better) to CDs or MP3s- should the CD companies be embarassed?

Nope, some people just hang on to old ways.

So because someone likes CRTs that means they must automatically prefer EVERYTHING that's old? You're smarter than that.

It's not about what's old, it's about whats good to someone.

A lot of people are making this mistake, they bring up Vinyl, AGP, Windows 95, and other crap that has no relevence here. The topic is CRTs vs LCDs, other old tech doesn't apply.

In case you haven't noticed, the CRT supporters are also waiting for OLED and such... it's not about age. We are waiting for the TRUE successor to CRT, something that beats it in more ways than just form.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Continuity28

Originally posted by: nRollo
I don't think it's an embarassment, there are still people who prefer vinyl LPs (say the sound better) to CDs or MP3s- should the CD companies be embarassed?

Nope, some people just hang on to old ways.

So because someone likes CRTs that means they must automatically prefer EVERYTHING that's old? You're smarter than that.

It's not about what's old, it's about whats good to someone.

A lot of people are making this mistake, they bring up Vinyl, AGP, Windows 95, and other crap that has no relevence here. The topic is CRTs vs LCDs, other old tech doesn't apply.

In case you haven't noticed, the CRT supporters are also waiting for OLED and such... it's not about age. We are waiting for the TRUE successor to CRT, something that beats it in more ways than just form.

The people that like the vinyl LPs say they sound better than digital music on a good stereo- how is this different?

The BetaMaxes had advantages to VHS, XP has advantages to Vista.

My point wasn't that the people holding onto CRTs are in their rocking chairs at the retirement home, it's that LCD manufacturers need not be "embarassed" a few people still prefer the CRTs.

When technology shifts it isn't always superior in every aspect, and LCDs have advatanges other than form.

In any case, the point is moot for all the reasons I noted- the decision of "what is better" has been made

The market has long since spoken- the vast majority of consumers prefer LCDs so that's what manufacturers produce.

This "we'll wait for OLED" stuff is interesting, as that technology is nowhere near putting a 24-30" monitor on your desk. I suppose the next big debate will be "My $2000 17" OLED is superior to your $1000 30" LCD because of lower input lag- I don't mind that the monsters in the game are 1/2" tall!"

 

[BFG10K]

CRTs for sale at huge US etailer = 5

LCDs for sale at huge US etailer= 200+

I see what you mean, those CRTs are catching on!

This is a strawman argument. Nobody claimed LCDs weren't more popular than CRTs; in fact nobody except you was discussing popularity given it?s irrelevant to the topic at hand.

The people that like the vinyl LPs say they sound better than digital music on a good stereo- how is this different?

It's different because LCD inferiorities can be objectively and scientifically proven, unlike CDs. For a start I don't even think vinyl?s frequency response can match that of a CD, not to mention the fact that vinyl?s sound quality degrades slightly each time you listen to it.