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

[Patrick Wolf]

I have the NEC FE2111-SB, same as the OP. I praised it to death until I got my NEC 20WMGX2 which is no longer in production.

My biggest gripe about LCDs are the black levels (eww). The only LCD I tryed out before the 20WMGX was the Delll 2005FP and that was just yucky.

Yes, it took some tweaking, OK a lot of tweaking to get the 20WMGX looking right, but I certainly don't want to go back to the CRT.

My PC's top priority is gaming. Not too long ago I set up my CRT next to the LCD for a little comparison and noticed something...

The image on the FE2111-SB looks like it has a very small mesh over it. I didn't really notice this before, but after staring at the solid image of the LCD it was rather noticeable (probably cause I sit very close to the screen) and kinda bothered me.

As for the advantages and disadvantages I've noticed of this LCD and CRT.

+Obviously, size and weight (personal thing; depends on your situation)
+Easier on the eyes, reading text is a godsend compared to the CRT.
+Widescreen (mucha grande better than 4:3 gaming; like, seriously)
+Ghosting, what ghosting? I know it's there, but much too small to notice, care, or think twice about.
+Perfectly solid image (no messing with refresh rates as well)
+Perfect uniformity always. Never needs adjustments.
+With some tweaks, color reproduction is beautiful.
+Black levels aren't perfect, but good enough to live with. (A-DV mode: off)

--Brightness takes a small hit to achieve acceptable black levels when comparing against the CRT's SuperBright mode.
--Tearing seems more prevalent in some games requiring VSync to be enabled which may hinder performance.

So for me the advantages heavily outnumber the disadvantages when comparing these two monitors.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

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.

TN panels are crap. I owned 2. I have seen a Samsung 226BW and a Dell 2707 heads up both fully calibrated. Trust me, once you go to a good S-PVA panel, you will NOT look back. Even my Dell 2405 is a lot better than any TN panel that's out there. I bought 2 TN panels and returned them both simply because they were horrendous. I settled for an MVA in the end. On campus we have ugly Dell 1908s and I can guarantee you those Dell 2407s that are in some labs are damn sexy compared to the TN 1908s...

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: 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.

BFG- you're not going to convince me to going back to squinting at a little 4:3 tv-thing.

You can "prove" the input lag and ghosting all you like, but I've had both and for me gaming on 30" of 25X16 WS compared to 19" of 4:3 tv-thing is like the difference in doing the wild thing with Jessica Simpson and Rosey Odonnell.

Yeah sure, they're both sort of the same thing, but the difference is so huge between the two no one would ever really choose the latter given equal opportunity at the former.

 

[Lithan]

Proving ghosting is there is meaningless if it's not noticable.
99.999% of users say that to notice ghosting on a modern LCD you're either superhuman or full of crap. You choose which. End of discussion.

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: 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.

Will you follow the masses if they jump off from a cliff? People that chose the LCD over CRT because of image quality are pretty much the same who choses a Celeron because is cheap or a Chevrolet. I don't follow the masses.

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: 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.

Don't bother arguing with him, he never accept defeats... :disgust:

 

[HOOfan 1]

actually people who choose an LCD are those who choose it because they like it better and those who choose a CRT are those who like CRTs better

Internet-telling people what they can and can't see, how they should or shouldn't think and how they should spend their money FTW

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: evolucion8

Will you follow the masses if they jump off from a cliff? People that chose the LCD over CRT because of image quality are pretty much the same who choses a Celeron because is cheap or a Chevrolet. I don't follow the masses.

As noted, I use what monitor I like best, not what the masses say. If I had $1200 for a LCD, stands to reason I could buy pretty much any CRT.

I had a FE2111SB gathering dust here till I gave it away.

 

[QueBert]

CRT for teh wins!!

I bought FIVE 21-22" CRT's off Craigslist for $20 a pop, I have hooked up all to test them, all worked and looked good. I will switch to LCD when MS makes a version of Winblows that requires wide screen, if by some force of magic all 5 of them somehow die this year. I will be back on CL looking for more CRT's.

and for the tards on here, my previous monitor was a 24" Gateway which was highly rated a a good screen with a great panel. I couldn't wait to ditch it and go back to CRT goodness. I would looooove a Sony 24" WS CRT but I can't find them for $20 like my 22" was

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: 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.

not MY monitor, ever CRT I have ever looked at. You are just not suffciently attentive to notice it. it looks more like a gentle "roll" of a wave on high quality monitors. VERY gentle, but still there. You can most easily notice it by looking at the EDGE of the picture.

My current monitor cost 700$ when I got it... and I returned 5 others for refund (thank you costco) before settling for this one. If someone made a better 700$ CRT I would have bought it.

I am seriously considering abandoning monitors altogether though, and sticking to HD projectors instead...

 

[Fyon Nex]

There are advantages/disadvantages to both technologies. The main advantage to LCD was screen size. When CRTs used to be mainstream, most people were using 15inch, 17inch monitors. It was a lot more expensive to manufacture 24inch+ CRTs at the time when LCD was introduced. And I remember friends of mine who had 19inch CRTs we all regarded as having a HUGE monitor!

Also, when you buy a 22inch LCD, you get 22inch viewable screen where as CRTs you do not. Along with ZERO flicker on LCDs which is great on the eyes for most internet users (mainstream computer users), zero x-ray emissions, zero VHF fields, and perfect undistorted (flat) screens, the advantages of CRTs will diminish as LCD technology matures.

For some informative analysis on LCD vs CRT, check out:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl.../lcd-parameters_3.html

 

[Continuity28]

The other thing that bothers me is LCD image persistence. Sure, it's not permanent like CRT burn-in, but CRT burn-in takes forever to actually happen, whereas I get LCD image persistence within minutes. It makes everything look muddy and you end up needing to keep giving the monitor breaks more than you'd like.

I wonder if it's because mine is a PVA type. I actually heard from someone that TN monitors don't have the image persistence problem as bad. True or false?

My next would probably be something like the DoubleSight H-IPS montior, or an extremely fast TN provided it did colors at least somewhat well.

 

[IcePickFreak]

I've never had this issue with my LCD, it's a 22" TN, had it about 1-1/2 years. Perhaps this is a PVA issue, I'm not too versed in that, is it an older tech? I just find that odd because in TV talk, image retention is a plasma thing, and one that many LCD TV owners will drive into the ground even though it's really becoming a non-issue with new plasma sets. But it's non-exsistent, or so they say, with LCD sets. I'm sure they're completely different monsters, but I've never been aware of any LCD screen having image retention or burn-in issues, but as I said I'm by no means an expert with them. I'm interested to hear anymore on this.

 

[taltamir]

I have also never had this issue with any of my LCD monitors. but I have seen this issue with crappy LCDs used in schools and business... you know, the kind that only has a VGA input and are the size of a small book...

Bottom line... buy a better LCD, and buy it at COSTCO so you can return it for a refund in 90 days if you are not satisfied, they even refund you the cost of shipping it if you bought it at costco.com
Now THAT is service.

 

[Continuity28]

Originally posted by: taltamir
I have also never had this issue with any of my LCD monitors. but I have seen this issue with crappy LCDs used in schools and business... you know, the kind that only has a VGA input and are the size of a small book...

Bottom line... buy a better LCD, and buy it at COSTCO so you can return it for a refund in 90 days if you are not satisfied, they even refund you the cost of shipping it if you bought it at costco.com
Now THAT is service.

I plan on buying a new one, yet mine was once highly recommended in these very forums about two years ago, it's not as old as you think. ViewSonic VP2030b

 

[happy medium]

I'm picking up a Sony GDMFW900 24inch widescreen crt for 250.00$ in real good shape.

Heres the specs.

http://www.superwarehouse.com/...itor/GDMFW900/p/105660

Will these resolutions (2304x1440) work with any video card for gaming.
Will I have to edit the drivers or something?.

 

[konakona]

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.

Mostly so, but I wouldnt say flat out no. Some people did score some lightly used models for cheap, you just gotta know exactly what to look for and find right sellers that would let you test things out. More fair and accurate statement would be somewhat unlikely at worst, or YMMV at best. Never say never!

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!"

You must have been conviniently ignoring quite a few posts at anandtech that do not agree with your own, some even right in this very thread. Amongst those that dealt with both types, I see it as a split; on one hand we have people commending strengths of CRTs, but stating that their personal order of priorities sways them toward LCDs, while on the other hand there are others lamenting the decline of CRTs and the ensuing reluctant adoption of newer (but not superior) technology. There are yet others that do prefer LCDs by a longshot even with plenty experience with both techs, with whome I just cant help but respectfully disagree.

In fact, I would like to counter that claim that most of these superficial "testimonials" of absolute and indisputable LCD dominance mostly come from folks that used some shitty ass el cheapo shadowmask, not a decent trinitron/diamondtron (this is not to knock all shadowmasks in existence, just that it is just that some of the cited advantages CRTs hold are more pronounced on aparture grille types).

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

I am not sure what you were trying to do here with your weak and irrelevant point about the masses preferring LCD, but the fact is that you own a 3008, definitely a high end; for some reason I seriously doubt they were looking at your glorious IPS when ditching their CRTs for their new toys.

It's Everyone wouldn't buy LCDs if the differences were as noticeable as you say they are"

Maybe not everyone, but even back when LCDs were noticeably craptastic, people were divided into CRT and LCD camps; a significant shift toward LCDs had been well underway, even when EVERYONE acknowledged LCDs weren't meant for gaming yet. Eventually, LCDs came a long way to become generally acceptable in areas they were severely lacking compared to CRTs, but that was never a direct cause why they overtrhew the CRT reign; this happened much later in time when CRTs were mostly phased out already for other concerns (production cost, power consumption, text for office work)

As noted, I use what monitor I like best, not what the masses say. If I had $1200 for a LCD, stands to reason I could buy pretty much any CRT.

No offense, and I do agree we all should go for what we like best ourselves personally However, your mentioning of general public's purchase trend and your own experience with entirely different market segment was very incohesive to put it nicely; it only hurts your argument more than anything as I see it.

As for me, I mostly use my display for watching anime, with some MMORPOG gaming in between. While it is decent all around, I cant say I am too impressed with colors on my P-MVA 24'', at least compared to my older diamondtron. I should note that ability to properly display HD resolution is something CRTs do miss sorely, now that more and more materials are made available in widescreen format.


Since this thread seems to be swarming with LCD gurus, let me ask you this: are IPS panels all they are cracked up to be? I prefer natural and lush colors above all. I am seriously considering an upgrade to that 26'' doublesight if the perceived benefits are likely to be appreciable. Your thoughts?

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: konakona

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.

Mostly so, but I wouldnt say flat out no. Some people did score some lightly used models for cheap, you just gotta know exactly what to look for and find right sellers that would let you test things out. More fair and accurate statement would be somewhat unlikely at worst, or YMMV at best. Never say never!

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!"

You must have been conviniently ignoring quite a few posts at anandtech that do not agree with your own, some even right in this very thread. Amongst those that dealt with both types, I see it as a split; on one hand we have people commending strengths of CRTs, but stating that their personal order of priorities sways them toward LCDs, while on the other hand there are others lamenting the decline of CRTs and the ensuing reluctant adoption of newer (but not superior) technology. There are yet others that do prefer LCDs by a longshot even with plenty experience with both techs, with whome I just cant help but respectfully disagree.

In fact, I would like to counter that claim that most of these superficial "testimonials" of absolute and indisputable LCD dominance mostly come from folks that used some shitty ass el cheapo shadowmask, not a decent trinitron/diamondtron (this is not to knock all shadowmasks in existence, just that it is just that some of the cited advantages CRTs hold are more pronounced on aparture grille types).

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

I am not sure what you were trying to do here with your weak and irrelevant point about the masses preferring LCD, but the fact is that you own a 3008, definitely a high end; for some reason I seriously doubt they were looking at your glorious IPS when ditching their CRTs for their new toys.

It's Everyone wouldn't buy LCDs if the differences were as noticeable as you say they are"

Maybe not everyone, but even back when LCDs were noticeably craptastic, people were divided into CRT and LCD camps; a significant shift toward LCDs had been well underway, even when EVERYONE acknowledged LCDs weren't meant for gaming yet. Eventually, LCDs came a long way to become generally acceptable in areas they were severely lacking compared to CRTs, but that was never a direct cause why they overtrhew the CRT reign; this happened much later in time when CRTs were mostly phased out already for other concerns (production cost, power consumption, text for office work)

As noted, I use what monitor I like best, not what the masses say. If I had $1200 for a LCD, stands to reason I could buy pretty much any CRT.

No offense, and I do agree we all should go for what we like best ourselves personally However, your mentioning of general public's purchase trend and your own experience with entirely different market segment was very incohesive to put it nicely; it only hurts your argument more than anything as I see it.

As for me, I mostly use my display for watching anime, with some MMORPOG gaming in between. While it is decent all around, I cant say I am too impressed with colors on my P-MVA 24'', at least compared to my older diamondtron. I should note that ability to properly display HD resolution is something CRTs do miss sorely, now that more and more materials are made available in widescreen format.


Since this thread seems to be swarming with LCD gurus, let me ask you this: are IPS panels all they are cracked up to be? I prefer natural and lush colors above all. I am seriously considering an upgrade to that 26'' doublesight if the perceived benefits are likely to be appreciable. Your thoughts?

Sorry konakona, I'm not going to debate this anymore.

When the argument boils down to "a few guys buying little CRTs at garage sales vs 99.9% of the market" it's been largely settled.

I am starting to wonder if this is a cultural thing though.

I know BFG is from New Zealand, and down there it might be perfectly normal to have a CRT tv or monitor. (I've never been there)

Here in the States CRT tech is so reviled you feel like a guy riding your horse down the highway if you have a CRT tv or monitor.

 

[BFG10K]

When the argument boils down to "a few guys buying little CRTs at garage sales vs 99.9% of the market" it's been largely settled.

What has been settled? That your 3008 is a minority and that the vast majority of LCDs in use are probably 1280x1024 native being run at 1024x768 to make their text look bigger?

I am starting to wonder if this is a cultural thing though.

I know BFG is from New Zealand, and down there it might be perfectly normal to have a CRT tv or monitor. (I've never been there)

Are you going to address presented technical facts or are you going to continue with irrelevant tangents such as public perception and someone?s country of origin?

What is your response to the ghosting examples I posted, or the measured input lag? That it doesn't matter because the masses don't care? Well guess what? The masses don?t care about your 3008. They also don?t care if they run 1280x1024 at non-native and the image is hideously blurry as a result.

Here in the States CRT tech is so reviled you feel like a guy riding your horse down the highway if you have a CRT tv or monitor.

Sure, sure, just like everyone in the States has a 3008. Oh that's right, they don't. In fact almost nobody does. So did the market decide the 3008 is crap then?

Public opinion and all that. :roll:

You told us you use SLI to attain performance not possible on single cards. Well I use CRTs to attain pixel and input response not attainable on any LCD. That is fact regardless of what the masses think or what country you think I?m from.

 

[NickelPlate]

Originally posted by: nRollo
When the argument boils down to "a few guys buying little CRTs at garage sales vs 99.9% of the market" it's been largely settled.

If I actually cared I suppose I'd ask you to substantiate these numbers and statistics you keep spewing out. But I don't, so no need to bother.

Originally posted by: nRollo
I am starting to wonder if this is a cultural thing though.

:roll:

Originally posted by: nRollo
Here in the States CRT tech is so reviled you feel like a guy riding your horse down the highway if you have a CRT tv or monitor.

OMG, the drama meter is just off the scale! Are you for real? Is it your Nvidia focus group status that makes you think you can speak for the public? Statements like that seriously discredit any argument you may have and make you look like a fanatical fanboy. I'm not arguing the pros and cons of monitors at all. As I've already stated in this thread everyone is free to choose whatever they want. You keep saying it's all moot and you're not going argue it anymore, but yet you keep arguing and making yourself look, well.....foolish quite frankly.

Just spare us and let it go already.

 

[Maleficus]

I <3 my CRT. I wish it wasn't dying

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

When the argument boils down to "a few guys buying little CRTs at garage sales vs 99.9% of the market" it's been largely settled.

What has been settled? That your 3008 is a minority and that the vast majority of LCDs in use are probably 1280x1024 native being run at 1024x768 to make their text look bigger?

I am starting to wonder if this is a cultural thing though.

I know BFG is from New Zealand, and down there it might be perfectly normal to have a CRT tv or monitor. (I've never been there)

Are you going to address presented technical facts or are you going to continue with irrelevant tangents such as public perception and someone?s country of origin?

What is your response to the ghosting examples I posted, or the measured input lag? That it doesn't matter because the masses don't care? Well guess what? The masses don?t care about your 3008. They also don?t care if they run 1280x1024 at non-native and the image is hideously blurry as a result.

Here in the States CRT tech is so reviled you feel like a guy riding your horse down the highway if you have a CRT tv or monitor.

Sure, sure, just like everyone in the States has a 3008. Oh that's right, they don't. In fact almost nobody does. So did the market decide the 3008 is crap then?

Public opinion and all that. :roll:

You told us you use SLI to attain performance not possible on single cards. Well I use CRTs to attain pixel and input response not attainable on any LCD. That is fact regardless of what the masses think or what country you think I?m from.

BFG:

I'm not disputing that there are things a CRT does better, never have.

My argument has always been that what they do better isn't enough to over look that you're looking at a little tiny 18-19" 4:3 picture on 99% of the CRTs out there, and a little better color and response time can't make up for the lower resolution and/or the picture filling your field of vision.

When you go to the movies, the screen is HUGE because the image filling your field of vision makes the movie more realistic and helps you supend disbelief. You don't go to the movies and gather around an old 19" tv and and say "Wow! The black is a little darker!"

Why is everyone in the States buying up 42"> LCDs, plasmas, and DLPs? Because the more it fills your field of vision, the better the experience.

I seriously meant no offense whatsoever by my cultural remark.

I have never met a live human being who prefers a CRT anything in years. Among the people I know and have met, there are two kinds: those who have shifted to modern tech and those who want to.

I was merely speculating it's possible in your area of the world thats not the case at all, maybe CRT TVs and monitors are still the norm. Here, there is great stigma attached to owning either.

There's nothing to take personally in my post.

 

[will889]

Yeah CRT's are better for gaming, but against the best LCD's the margin is much closer than it was in the past, but the overall benefits of using an LCD for all the other things make up for it 5X. BTW I got rid of 2 Sony HMD-A400 trinitrons this past week and now use 2X LCD's. Gaming isn't as good - granted, but I don't mind it's close enough with most games, minus the fact that I have to use Vsyc in most games with LCD's to prevent the jerks.

 

[taltamir]

actually, the market decided that the 3008 is OVERPRICED...

I don't know what he is talking about with the "culture" stuff...

And I why is CRT better for gaming? i find LCD much better for gaming.

As for ghosting... Not an issue with my LCD...

 

[QueBert]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: BFG10K

When the argument boils down to "a few guys buying little CRTs at garage sales vs 99.9% of the market" it's been largely settled.

What has been settled? That your 3008 is a minority and that the vast majority of LCDs in use are probably 1280x1024 native being run at 1024x768 to make their text look bigger?

I am starting to wonder if this is a cultural thing though.

I know BFG is from New Zealand, and down there it might be perfectly normal to have a CRT tv or monitor. (I've never been there)

Are you going to address presented technical facts or are you going to continue with irrelevant tangents such as public perception and someone?s country of origin?

What is your response to the ghosting examples I posted, or the measured input lag? That it doesn't matter because the masses don't care? Well guess what? The masses don?t care about your 3008. They also don?t care if they run 1280x1024 at non-native and the image is hideously blurry as a result.

Here in the States CRT tech is so reviled you feel like a guy riding your horse down the highway if you have a CRT tv or monitor.

Sure, sure, just like everyone in the States has a 3008. Oh that's right, they don't. In fact almost nobody does. So did the market decide the 3008 is crap then?

Public opinion and all that. :roll:

You told us you use SLI to attain performance not possible on single cards. Well I use CRTs to attain pixel and input response not attainable on any LCD. That is fact regardless of what the masses think or what country you think I?m from.

BFG:

I'm not disputing that there are things a CRT does better, never have.

My argument has always been that what they do better isn't enough to over look that you're looking at a little tiny 18-19" 4:3 picture on 99% of the CRTs out there, and a little better color and response time can't make up for the lower resolution and/or the picture filling your field of vision.

When you go to the movies, the screen is HUGE because the image filling your field of vision makes the movie more realistic and helps you supend disbelief. You don't go to the movies and gather around an old 19" tv and and say "Wow! The black is a little darker!"

Why is everyone in the States buying up 42"> LCDs, plasmas, and DLPs? Because the more it fills your field of vision, the better the experience.

I seriously meant no offense whatsoever by my cultural remark.

I have never met a live human being who prefers a CRT anything in years. Among the people I know and have met, there are two kinds: those who have shifted to modern tech and those who want to.

I was merely speculating it's possible in your area of the world thats not the case at all, maybe CRT TVs and monitors are still the norm. Here, there is great stigma attached to owning either.

There's nothing to take personally in my post.

hhere is the bottom line, most consumers are sheep who have no idea what's good and what's not. They just buy what's new.

don't like 4:3? get a Widescreen CRT, best of both worlds. I'm just about to order a wide screen CRT next week. People switched to LCD's mostly because they're thinner and "newer" and you know how sheep think "newer HAS to be BETTER!" if I took the average person and showed them a CRT next to an LCD with everything besides the actual screen covered up. Put the same image on both and told them to select which it looks better on, I am willing to bet you anything 90%+ would choose the CRT. It's not some magical made up nonsense in my head that's telling me shit looks better on my 22" CRT, I had it hooked up next to my 24" LCD. The wide screen thing was nice, but the screen got sold because it lacked the IQ. It didn't look bad but it didn't hold a handle to my Trintron, and all the tuning in the world wouldn't have fixed that.

The majority of people would prefer something other than LCD if it was NEWER and SMALLER, so if I created a paper thin technology, doesn't matter if the image looked bad, people would flock to it if the price was right.

CRT > all else. If you NEED widescreen, Sony's WS CRT lays any LCD I've seen to waste. That's exactly why I'll be paying about $600 total to have one shipped to me, yes it's worth it...


What sucks is there aren't any more wide screen CRT's on the market. I will agree WS is a nice feature, it's a shame companies went with cost saving and axed the better quality CRT's over LCD. I'd love to be able to go to Best Buy and pick up a 28" CRT wide screen monitor, even if it cost me $1,500 bucks.