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

[flexy]

the "bad, bad TN panel" debate is another one....

As long as you are NOT doing professional image editing where gamma is a factor IMHO any new, decent and recent TN does fine in 99,999999% of all applications.
I admit, i do NOT have a reference and i cant compare other LCD monitors to my monitor, except my wife's notebook LCD where i see an EXTREME bad viewing angle. So, i can only make statements in regards to what i see on my LCD which is a TN.

Saing that TNs are bad and whatever, blah blah is just a very ignorant statement. I never say that TNs are supposed to be used for professional image work or similar...but i am saying that for almost everything TN are "sufficient" and do not pose a major disadvantage in ANY way.
Even for occasional image editing i am fully happy with my TN. I am happy with my black values, even if not PERFECT. I am happy with response times, size, brightness distribution, sharpness, color saturation, viewing angle, interpolation.
All those factors combined result in a WAY better monitor than my great "fast" CRT.

 

[flexy]

>>>
caltamir:
Anyways, CRTs are not better, for anything. They have pluses and minuses, just like LCDs,
>>>

oh hell yeah..let's start with convergence and focus...whereas almost ANY CRT has a problem...NO "consumer grade" CRT has perfect focus and convergence, none i ever worked with.

Talk about degrading. My last CRT got "darker" with the years, no way to adjust either since all the controls are on chip now.

Color balance can change over time...etc..etc..

Weight, Power Consumption.

This debate (IMHO) is very similar to "vinyl [analog] vs CD [digital]".

Yes, motionblur is not an issue. Maybe its an issue in certain games with certain color combinations. As long as i dont see any negative effects, now compared to the time when i was playing on the CRT...why should i bother?
My LCD btw. has optional black frame insertion which i can turn on.
This is supposed to help reduce motion blur.

In theoretical tests (pixperan) there is indeed a noticeable improvement.

However, in 98% of games i play i dont even see the need to turn on BFI since i am fully happy with 5ms/2ms reponse and overdrive - "happy" in the sense that i dont experience and see anything negative from using this monitor.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: flexy
the "bad, bad TN panel" debate is another one....

As long as you are NOT doing professional image editing where gamma is a factor IMHO any new, decent and recent TN does fine in 99,999999% of all applications.
I admit, i do NOT have a reference and i cant compare other LCD monitors to my monitor, except my wife's notebook LCD where i see an EXTREME bad viewing angle. So, i can only make statements in regards to what i see on my LCD which is a TN.

Saing that TNs are bad and whatever, blah blah is just a very ignorant statement. I never say that TNs are supposed to be used for professional image work or similar...but i am saying that for almost everything TN are "sufficient" and do not pose a major disadvantage in ANY way.
Even for occasional image editing i am fully happy with my TN. I am happy with my black values, even if not PERFECT. I am happy with response times, size, brightness distribution, sharpness, color saturation, viewing angle, interpolation.
All those factors combined result in a WAY better monitor than my great "fast" CRT.

I agree with this.

I'm typing this on a NEC 24WMCX, the blacks on this page look black, I'm sitting right in front of it so I don't care about view angles, and it's a fast panel.

Would I own it for professional work? No

Is it fine for computer games and surfing the net? IMO, yes. I can afford any monitor- if this sucked, I'd buy a new one.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: flexy
>>>
caltamir:
Anyways, CRTs are not better, for anything. They have pluses and minuses, just like LCDs,
>>>

oh hell yeah..let's start with convergence and focus...whereas almost ANY CRT has a problem...NO "consumer grade" CRT has perfect focus and convergence, none i ever worked with.

Talk about degrading. My last CRT got "darker" with the years, no way to adjust either since all the controls are on chip now.

Color balance can change over time...etc..etc..

I forgot about the CRTs getting darker over time, another aspect of their inferiority. I remember having to turn the brightness up the older they got.


When you combine that with the fuzzy text, non square picture, 4:3 aspect ratio, degaussing, and all the other crap associated with them- it's pretty easy to see why the world dropped CRTs like a hot rock.

 

[Modelworks]

I'll keep using my 21" trinitrons.
Replace them ? Not going to happen.
I use these for work, not games.
I need the true blacks and since my monitors are calibrated and professionally configured they are perfect for my use.
LCD may replace these in the future, but not just yet.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: taltamir
I am surprised no one mentioned some of the numerous drawbacks of looking at a CRT:
1. The shake, there is a "shaking" effect to every CRT, the broken ones shake all over the place, but even a highest quality well shielded one "shakes", especially in the edges of the display.

You got something wrong with your crt, they do not shake.

2. It is practically impossible to get a perfectly square image, with an LCD you plug in a DVI cable and every spot is DEAD ON. With a CRT you have a million angle adjustments knobs to tweak, and no matter how much you tweak them it is NEVER perfectly leveled.

It just takes someone that knows what they are doing .

3. The flicker, oh how I hate the flicker. If your eyes are sharp enough to catch the ghosting issues and what have you not with an LCD, they should also be sharp enough to see that that each "dot" on the CRT is basically going on and off, flickering from black to color back and forth. This bothers me moreso than a little ghosting while scrolling (which actually I only find bothersome when dealing with TEXT, not with games or movies... Get a window full of text and scroll it down, it will create ghosting, especially if it is white text on black background, or plaids)

At 100Hz I doubt you can see the flicker.

Anyways, nRollo made a very good point. If people didn't all prefer LCD to CRT then you would still be able to find CRT monitor's on store shelves.

Actually its called profit.
There is more profit to be made in LCD than CRT, because of the cost of manufacturing, transport.
I still find CRT monitors for sale.
But then I don't shop at the chains like bestbuy, where they market to people that would buy a emachine.

 

[Continuity28]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
I still find CRT monitors for sale.

High-end types? Can you point me in the right direction?

 

[happy medium]

The 24 inch crt Sony widescreen is allways on ebay for about 300.00$

http://cgi.ebay.com/Sony-24-Fl...VWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

I still find CRT monitors for sale.
But then I don't shop at the chains like bestbuy, where they market to people that would buy a emachine.

You don't shop at E-Tailers or stores that cater to anyone else either because AFAIK every company in the world gave up on CRTs due to lack of demand for them.

All that's left are used ones at garage sales and auctions.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: Modelworks

I still find CRT monitors for sale.
But then I don't shop at the chains like bestbuy, where they market to people that would buy a emachine.

You don't shop at E-Tailers or stores that cater to anyone else either because AFAIK every company in the world gave up on CRTs due to lack of demand for them.

All that's left are used ones at garage sales and auctions.

I guess the monitor I just bought from viewsonic doesn't exist ?
http://www.viewsonic.com/produ...pdisplays/crtmonitors/

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Continuity28

Originally posted by: Modelworks
I still find CRT monitors for sale.

High-end types? Can you point me in the right direction?

Mostly its the companies that target professionals or corporations.
CDW, Ingram, Super warehouse are some places to buy.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: Modelworks

I still find CRT monitors for sale.
But then I don't shop at the chains like bestbuy, where they market to people that would buy a emachine.

You don't shop at E-Tailers or stores that cater to anyone else either because AFAIK every company in the world gave up on CRTs due to lack of demand for them.

All that's left are used ones at garage sales and auctions.

I guess the monitor I just bought from viewsonic doesn't exist ?
http://www.viewsonic.com/produ...pdisplays/crtmonitors/

I honestly didn't know you could buy a new $500 CRT any more. Color me surprised.

 

[Lithan]

Originally posted by: TonyB
nobody ever claimed to have super-human eyesight, but to claim a blanket statement "I can't see the difference with my eyeballs so therefore nobody else can" is pretty ignorant of the fact that different people have different degrees of eyesight. As for me, i never owned a trinitron, all my EIzo's are shadow mask but i'm assuming you're talking about those two horizonal support wires that can be easily seen on a white background.

*touches nose*

I took YEARS of shit from "gamers" who swore that the bars on trinitrons were too distracting and said that their 15" piece of craps were WAAAAY better monitors than my top of the line trins. Same exact scenario.

As for the variance in peoples eyes, eyesight does vary. But not the aspects of it that are taken into account here. The eye seeing something as smooth has to do with the way the BRAIN works, not the EYE... and that part of the brain doesn't really vary. What does vary is if you deliberately look for graphical anomalies, then your brains usual manner of correcting is impaired. That is why on monitor A, one person will see them and another wont. However, on MOST decent monitors made today, even looking for them, they are not visible. Hence why people are using stopmotion photo's to "prove" that there's ghosting. The whole "I see ghosts" line is nothing but placebo in 99% of cases today. Ironic... it's exactly like people who see ghosts in real life.

 

[flexy]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: Modelworks

I still find CRT monitors for sale.
But then I don't shop at the chains like bestbuy, where they market to people that would buy a emachine.

You don't shop at E-Tailers or stores that cater to anyone else either because AFAIK every company in the world gave up on CRTs due to lack of demand for them.

All that's left are used ones at garage sales and auctions.

I guess the monitor I just bought from viewsonic doesn't exist ?
http://www.viewsonic.com/produ...pdisplays/crtmonitors/

There can be the most amazing and fast CRT in the store for $50 shipped, there is NO way in hell i am going back to 4:3. Thats why i said the ONLY alternative would be the Sony FW900. This monitor might be $100 or so, add extreme shipping costs because this monitor weighs a ton
(Not to mention the hassle moving with such a monster)

Buying a "new" CRT doesnt make a lot of sense - and the problem with the old refurbished ones is that MOST of them already show signs of age, and they can be significant with CRTs.

 

[Lithan]

Moving CRTs isn't so bad actually... mainly because I'm such a worrier about my LCD's screen I bundle the fucker up. CRT flatscreen is recessed so you slap a film cover on it and it's good to go. Takes 2x the space of my bundled LCD at most. My reasons for LCD over CRT are threefold. 1: Widescreen selection and price is superior. 2: Power usage and heat output VASTLY reduced. (55 vs 150+watts) 3: reduced eyestrain during 5+ hr long sits (rare gaming nights and/or big code sessions during the year).
I don't have any delusions about LCD's, nor do I imagine that this or that minor detail is a deal-breaker for me. If CRT's were better monitors for what I do, I'd pull one of the two $700+ 21+" crts out of my basement and use it instead of this thing. I dropped an extra $100 on my desk five years ago so it would be strong enough to support one of those crazy bastards. But they aren't, and I get a good laugh out of people who prefer CRT's for this or that (legitimate) reason trying to use a make-believe reason (ghosting/input delay in games) to sell other's on a monitor that in 99.9% of cases will be inferior, just because it's what works for them.

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: Sigismundo
Now I know everyone has fully embraced LCD's as THE way to go these days....and so for my second home PC I started to look for a LCD, this is used by my wifey, and mostly for gaming/entertainment. So I looked through the excellent LCD thread and what my options were. The more i looked the more I realized however even now if I wanted to get a LCD that matched the performance of my NEC 21" on my main computer I was gonna have to put out a decent wad of cash. Is it really always the best bang for the buck to go with the LCD?

Loooking around I see many CRT's with barely any use on refurb sites etc that were 700-1500 bucks not so long ago going for like 100 dollars.

Their brightness, contrast, and colors exceed still to this day almost anything I see on LCD's that are under 1000 dollars.

If Bang for the buck is your concern, and gaming is you chief use. Even now in 2008 might a nice CRT be a better option? I don't particularly care if takes up more space or weighs 70 lbs, I just want the best brightest quickest response and beautiful contrast at the best price.

And as I said I've seen friends so excited about some new uber LCD screen only to see it and notice how much it's image pales in comparison to my NEC FE2111-SB, especially in terms of brightness and contrast.

In crysis for example on my old NEC CRT, it looks like DAYLIGHT when you walk around, it's so bright and rich.....and on my friends LCD which is a rather nice one, it looks very nice compared to other LCD's....but compared to the old super bright diamondtron it looks dull......maybe it's just me.

I want honest thoughts here, maybe I'm missing something.

A good argument and everything you have said is accurate but lcds have one thing more that you didn't mention in widescreen. I was previously using a viewsonic 21" crt that actually did something like 2100x1600 but I still would rather have my 24" dellfpw widescreen as it gives me an advantage and just feels better in games. There are widescreen crts but they will probably cost you the same as an lcd.

 

[zephyrprime]

Ugh, I'm tired of this debate.

The only advantages a CRT has are color and cost at this point in time. CRT's have higher specified contrast ratios but in reality, their contrast ratios suck and their black levels are worse than LCD because CRTs reflect more ambiant room light (http://www.xbitlabs.com/images...cd-parameters/p7s.jpg) and they leak current over black areas more and more as they age. The only time a crt black level can beat a lcd is in a dark room and even then this won't be true as the crt ages.

LCD brightness is higher than CRT brightness. This is a plain fact.

Color gamut on a CRT is better than on a LCD though. However, as a crt ages, it's color accuracy and gamut declines. This may not matter if you only plan on using a given monitor for a few years though.

 

[BDawg]

LCDs suck because they have no degauss button to play with.

 

[xtknight]

The typical gamut of a CRT is somewhere around 75% NTSC as it is for an LCD, AFAIK. This roughly matches the sRGB space that was designed for PC use (web, GUI).

Very few (and expensive) CRTs offer ~100% gamut, while many cheaper LCDs are capable of it. LED-based ones can reach even 114-120%. So it is not really true that CRTs offer more gamut. If they exceeded sRGB, they would be less suitable for standard web/photo editing.

 

[OCNewbie]

I'm told LCD's "have changed", and that ghosting, etc., has been done away with. I prefer CRT's, the picture anyway. I'm sure LCD's will eventually be comparative but probably not till OLED or another technology comes out.

 

[Denithor]

I swore by my ViewSonic P95f+B until about a year and a half ago when I got a Samsung 204B for free (safety incentive from work ). Anyway, for gaming and general use I could not see any difference between the former relatively high-end CRT and the (at the time) high-end TN LCD monitor. My eye strain after an entire night of gaming is significantly lower than it used to be on the CRT (even at high refresh rates--1280x1024 @ 101Hz).

Now I'm considering the BenQ G2400W as an upgrade.

 

[nRollo]

The thread is a moot point in my opinion.

Even if it was agreed by all CRTs are better at everything monitors are used for, 99,999/100,000 people are going to buy a LCD panel.

So does it matter which is better?

Probably not.

 

[NickelPlate]

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.

If it's all moot then why keep arguing it? I wouldn't have even bothered to bump this thread again but your third statement above is a generalization which is completely false. I know many people who have the means and tech savvy to know the difference, have used and owned both and still choose to use top end CRTs for the vast majority of their work/gaming, as long as they can find them. I know others that can't stand CRTs and would never go back to them.

All of these threads come down to personal preference and opinion and everyone trying to persuade the other side and never getting anywhere (kind of like politics or religion). If you want to continue to use a CRT and have or can find a good one then by all means do so. If not then buy an LCD, simple as that.


NP

 

[Sigismundo]

Wow, When I started this thread, I never expected LCD people to take it so personally. If you prefer LCD's....have at it, why should it bother you if many people still feel CRT's offer a better image? Let us crazy people enjoy ourselves.

I just got my "new to me" HP A7217A 24" Wide Screen CRT which is the Sony FW900 with a different piece of plastic around it. Yes It's large. Yes it's Heavy.....(I am gonna be sore tonight)

Yes It did in fact arrive on a pallet on a large truck, not a UPS van.

Yes It may require animal sacrifice, and it's own power generator.

But man o man it's gorgeous.....I LOVE this so much and it cost my about 300 bucks including Shipping. I got a Grade "B" after talking to the sales guy at Accurate IT, but I see no defects except that on teh top right corner of the monitor on the plastic it's scuffed.....otherwise it looks like it's brand new.

I have been through the stores looking at LCD's and I have not seen one that looks this nice.....maybe I'm crazy but it's sexy. As for the person who mentioned the 85 limit on refresh rate, i have a program that fixes that.....I can get it to 100 easy, thanks to a utility called "ReForce". Given I keep it at below the higher end resolutions, for better FPS in games I really am not worried about this stressing it out.

Text is sharp, picture is great, if I have only one complaint is there are so many detailed settings for color etc, that I am near lost....so I posted another thread hoping other FW900, and A7217A owners can give me their settings. i don't have a color meter, and don't need it to be perfect, I'm just really miserable at tweaking that.

It also annoys me there are no XP drivers for the A7217A, but I just used the FW900 drivers and they work fine, same monitor after all.

words can not express the joy I am recieving from this monitor....I'm sure if either of these break I may move to a LCD as their technology gets better.....but this thing brings me great joy, and I highly recommend any and all other CRT lovers to check out Accurate IT, Great service, and how they can offer free shipping at these prices is beyond me.

 

[BFG10K]

I don't know BFG- but he's one of the review sites not warning us to stay away from LCDs, and using them himself.

So what AT says (or doesn't say) is gospel?

You said the tech sites are ignorant for using LCDs and not warning us, have you changed your mind and now they don't have a reason to warn us, or a reason to use CRTs?

I haven?t changed my mind at all; most tech sites are ignorant to this sort of thing.

Furthermore most reviewers don?t even play games and some don?t even watch the benchmarks because they?re automated. In such situations their opinions are of little to no value about LCD image quality.

So the AT video crew isn't bothered by the input lag, and says it straight out.

So what? What relevance does the AT video crew have to me? What relevance does the general public have to me?

We can see input lag and ghosting have been objectively proven in the links I provided. If you want to ignore those in favor of the AT video crew that?s your choice but don?t run around claiming the issue doesn?t exist.

As for the general public, how many people have you seen running their native 1280x1024 at 1024x768 or 1152x864 and are happy with heinous blur? I?ve seen a lot in the offices I?ve worked in and they?re perfectly happy because the text is ?big?. Yet the IQ looks like ass.