From CRT to LCD: My Journey

[VIAN]

Go to the AVS forum and you'll see that LCD owners have to replace their bulbs anywhere from a few short weeks after installation (rare) to two years. These tubes do very commonly burn out in a couple of years. It's crazy to suggest people are going to buy a new TV then.

Don't you fckin hate it when I place the the cursor somewhere to place the quote and then after I place the quote, the cursor moves it to the beginning of the document and places it there. HATE HATE HATE that.

Alright, that's kinda strange since LCDs are supposed to have a really long lifespan. Well, supposed, it hasn't withstood the test of time yet.

 

[VIAN]

updated op - Prolonged USe.

 

[VIAN]

revised and updated.

 

[Matthias99]

I'd have to say the biggest issue right now is V-Sync. Since having V-Sync off shows so much tearing. I am forced to turn it on. Because of this, I get very unsmooth play. When the frame rate jumps from 60 to 30, it feels like you are playing at an unplayable frame rate and it?s distracting.

You know, turning on triple buffering fixes this...

Also, as many people have noted, the viewing angle in newer panels is significantly improved over the older model in the 1704FP. But you seem to have adjusted to that.

 

[VIAN]

I know it fixes it... BUT... the memory

and it's only available with OpenGL in the control panel.

 

[Intelia]

LCD'S are very nice . But we have a problem if you buy an lcd what would you upgrade to the latest and greatest video cards, Because your going to be res. limited. and the latest and greastest just released video card is no better at the res. a lcd offers than the old video cards. check out the bench marks .

 

[VIAN]

Like I said in the article, This LCD scales very well. non-native resolutions aren't as sharp, but they are pretty damn good. Doesn't bother me unless you put them side by side during 3d games that is.

 

[Intelia]

Hay sorry my LCD won't go above native at least theres no setting in my manager for it.
I still have my 19" Sony though but I really can't see very well above 1280x1024

 

[ArchAngel777]

LCD'S are very nice . But we have a problem if you buy an lcd what would you upgrade to the latest and greatest video cards, Because your going to be res. limited. and the latest and greastest just released video card is no better at the res. a lcd offers than the old video cards. check out the bench marks .

Everyone keeps saying things like "You will not notice performance gains from top of the line graphics with a low resolution like 1366X678."

Here is the thing though, even though a 27" LCD is limited to 1366X768 resolution, imagine all the eye candy you can turn on? Super Sampling? 8X FSAA, 16X Anisotropic Filtering... All of these otions turned to the highest will even bring my respectable GeForce 7800 GTS to its knees. Ok, perhaps a little exeragerion, but it would definately not be CPU limited if I turned on those options.

So, I see the LCD resolution as a blessing, not a curse. It allows you explore every best possible visual setting for that resolution possible.

EDIT --

In case you are having a hard time following my reasoning is this. People would like 2400 X 1400 type resolution on their 32" LCD... But, me? Naw... I am fine with 1366X768, looks nice and sharp, runs wonderully and you never have to worry about the frame-rate. Unless your playing F.E.A.R....

EDIT 2 --

Yes, before someone already tells me that 2400X1400 32" LCD displays don't exist, I realize that Just making a statement

 

[Teetu]

I found this thread while I was searching for people having viewing angle issues with the 1704FPT. The reason I was surprised is because at work we have 1704FPVt monitors and they do not have this problem whatsoever. You can look at them from the most odd angle and the colors are rock steady. It sucks because I had such a positive experience with the FPV that it pushed me to pick up the FPT when it was so cheap.

 

[ChuckHsiao]

Originally posted by: Teetu
I found this thread while I was searching for people having viewing angle issues with the 1704FPT. The reason I was surprised is because at work we have 1704FPVt monitors and they do not have this problem whatsoever. You can look at them from the most odd angle and the colors are rock steady. It sucks because I had such a positive experience with the FPV that it pushed me to pick up the FPT when it was so cheap.

That's because the Dell 1704FPV uses an MVA (or PVA) panel, while the Dell 1704FPT uses a TN panel. MVA/PVA panels have virtually no viewing angle issue, while TN panels do. They're also more expensive.

 

[Teetu]

is there a noticeable difference between the TN panel and MVA/PVA when it comes to gaming?

 

[JRW]

Im still not sold on LCD , I recently had a Dell 2001FP sitting next to my 21" Sony G520P CRT running clone mode / dual monitor for 3 weeks, While the LCD had a nice picture overall and cleaner text I never had a problem reading text on my CRT either (1600x1200@85hz desktop).

Every other image quality aspect was better on the CRT, Games and Movies looked better on the CRT , Doom 3 was an absolute joke on the 2001FP in fact I feel sorry for those that experianced it that way. Black levels were just horrible especialy with the CRT sitting next to it.

All buying an LCD did for me was make me realise how good my CRT is, I know i cant speak for all CRT's but the G520P is a damn good monitor, Its the first CRT ive owned that is actualy clearly focused corner to corner, text is just as clear in the center of the screen as it is in the corners, and while I was used to running 1600x1200 on my CRT (desktop res) I also like having the freedom of changing resolutions for gaming without worrying about image degration.

LCD Advantages: Smaller overall size,Weight,Power consumption,Heat,Attractive / Modern looking - (although the G520P is probably the best looking crt design ive seen,in fact it uses the same case/color scheme as the highest end 21" Sony F520)

CRT Advantages: Pure black levels,Superior Contrast ratios (Average CRT is well above 1000:1) , Refrence standard color accuracy,smooth infinite grayscale ,looks great at any viewing angle,use any resolution without worring about scaling/Image degration,no input lag (I noticed a slight delay on the LCD vs. whatever the crt was showing) , and last but certainly not least.. no motion blur worries with 1ms response times.

Im certainly not going to sacrifice image quality just so I can have a lighter / slimmer display sitting on my desk,It makes no sense.

My CRT & LCD Side by side.

What irks me the most is knowing I'll eventualy have no choice but to buy LCD in the future,I just hope they're improved a lot more by then :disgust:

 

[Ackmed]

Sorry, but your opinion is farrr from fact. To me, LCD's are better overall.

JRW, thats hardly a fair shot. The CRT is straight to the camera, the LCD is at an angle. And its also pointed upwards, while the CRT is dead on. btw, you wont have to buy a LCD. Wait for oleds.

 

[JRW]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Sorry, but your opinion is farrr from fact. To me, LCD's are better overall.

JRW, thats hardly a fair shot. The CRT is straight to the camera, the LCD is at an angle. And its also pointed upwards, while the CRT is dead on. btw, you wont have to buy a LCD. Wait for oleds.

Sorry but simply saying my opinion is farrr from fact doesnt cut it , for those of us that have actualy compared a good crt and lcd *side by side* know the real deal.

The angle I took the shot at didnt effect the image quality ,however my camera settings werent ideal and it made the LCD actualy look worse than in person , but you can still get an idea of the black level differances.

Couple more shots:

Close up of the LCD - A pretty accurate shot there , alittle to much contrast from the camera still.

Another side by side but this time no lights on in my room - Again camera settings caused the LCD to appear alittle brighter / washed out than in person ,however the CRT remained black because it was actualy displaying pure black

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: JRW

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Sorry, but your opinion is farrr from fact. To me, LCD's are better overall.

JRW, thats hardly a fair shot. The CRT is straight to the camera, the LCD is at an angle. And its also pointed upwards, while the CRT is dead on. btw, you wont have to buy a LCD. Wait for oleds.

Sorry but simply saying my opinion is farrr from fact doesnt cut it , for those of us that have actualy compared a good crt and lcd *side by side* know the real deal.

The angle I took the shot at didnt effect the image quality ,however my camera settings werent ideal and it made the LCD actualy look worse than in person , but you can still get an idea of the black level differances.

Couple more shots:

Close up of the LCD - A pretty accurate shot there , alittle to much contrast from the camera still.

Another side by side but this time no lights on in my room - Again camera settings caused the LCD to appear alittle brighter / washed out than in person ,however the CRT remained black because it was actualy displaying pure black

Sure it cuts it. To me, LCD's are better. To others, they are not. Its my opinion, and their opinion. Neither is fact.

I have compared a CRT and LCD side by side. I had a high end 19" Sony CRT, when I got my first LCD. I compared it side by side, and to me, the LCD was better. Yes the CRT has better black, but as you said, its not as bad as the pic makes it look. In person it much better than that.

Games are only one use, for a monitor. Most people web surf, or do other things more than gaming, that involve text. Text on a LCD is far better and more sharp on a LCD, than CRT.

 

[JRW]

You're wrong about the "in person its *much* better than that" , As I said in my first post Doom 3 was a joke on the LCD with the CRT sitting next to it ..that comment applied to me actualy playing it in person not looking at my pictures. But as you said some people prefer LCD's either way wich is fine , Personaly ive never had a problem reading text on this CRT for the 2 years ive owned it (1600x1200 desktop) I do a lot of gaming / online gaming so my overall decision leans towards that as well. If all you're doing is browsing then LCD is fine. I prefer to have a display that will look great no matter what im doing.

 

[BillyBobJoel71]

i think the color clarity (not quality) is much higher on lcd's and the white is much brighter. also when looking at white backgrounds it is consistent on a high quality screen. text is crystal clear, and there is no refresh rate flicker. its the brightness that makes me choose it over the crt and its weight and size. they also do not waste 80 - 100 watts of electricty while idling (crt's always refresh the screen even when there is no movement) and give off no heat.

 

[Ackmed]

Once again, you're trying to put your opinion, as fact. A bad habit of yours.

I didnt say the CRT would give you problems reading text. I simply said I think its much better on a LCD, than CRT. Do you think text looks better on CRT, or LCD? I hope you didnt use VGA connection on the LCD.. because that degrades quality big time. "Looking great" with CRT+text is a bad combo to me. Text on a LCD (to me) simply looks much better than on a CRT.

You like CRT's better, I like LCD's. That doesnt mean either of us is "wrong". Just have different preferences. Also, I prefer WS, where there are many more for LCD, than CRT.

 

[cbehnken]

Originally posted by: JRW
You're wrong about the "in person its *much* better than that" , As I said in my first post Doom 3 was a joke on the LCD with the CRT sitting next to it ..that comment applied to me actualy playing it in person not looking at my pictures. But as you said some people prefer LCD's either way wich is fine , Personaly ive never had a problem reading text on this CRT for the 2 years ive owned it (1600x1200 desktop) I do a lot of gaming / online gaming so my overall decision leans towards that as well. If all you're doing is browsing then LCD is fine. I prefer to have a display that will look great no matter what im doing.

Turn down the brightness on the LCD. Running it much over 50% is going to reduce the black levels considerably.

 

[ponyo]

Originally posted by: cbehnken

Originally posted by: JRW
You're wrong about the "in person its *much* better than that" , As I said in my first post Doom 3 was a joke on the LCD with the CRT sitting next to it ..that comment applied to me actualy playing it in person not looking at my pictures. But as you said some people prefer LCD's either way wich is fine , Personaly ive never had a problem reading text on this CRT for the 2 years ive owned it (1600x1200 desktop) I do a lot of gaming / online gaming so my overall decision leans towards that as well. If all you're doing is browsing then LCD is fine. I prefer to have a display that will look great no matter what im doing.

Turn down the brightness on the LCD. Running it much over 50% is going to reduce the black levels considerably.

Exactly.

BTW, I've been running dual screen with the exact same monitors, Sony G520P and Dell 2001FP for almost two years now @ 1600x1200. I do 99% of all text reading on the 2001FP. Movies and TV usually on G520P. Games I normally play on G520P but I'm not a heavy gamer so I also have no problem gaming on 2001FP. I enjoy both monitors greatly.

I think 2005fpw is better LCD than 2001fp. I used to think otherwise but 2005fpw has grown on me and now I'm used to its ultra-bright screen, other monitors seem dull in comparison.

 

[JRW]

Originally posted by: cbehnken
Turn down the brightness on the LCD. Running it much over 50% is going to reduce the black levels considerably.

The LCD was actualy set at 0 brightness in those screenshots ,Brightness adjustments on an LCD do very little to the black levels, believe me I tried everything to get better blacks out of it.

Originaly posted by: SuperThphoon
i think the color clarity (not quality) is much higher on lcd's and the white is much brighter. also when looking at white backgrounds it is consistent on a high quality screen. text is crystal clear, and there is no refresh rate flicker. its the brightness that makes me choose it over the crt and its weight and size. they also do not waste 80 - 100 watts of electricty while idling (crt's always refresh the screen even when there is no movement) and give off no heat.

There is no noticable refresh rate flicker on a properly configured CRT , At all. Ive not had any eye strain problems with this one over the last 2 years... and Im not sure what you mean by white backrounds ..when I have my CRT set on Dynamic mode(a feature on the monitor itself,basicly the same thing as Ultrabrite mode on Viewsonic crts) it doesnt get any whiter and colors are bright/vibrant while maintaining pitch blacks, something LCD will probably never be able to do with current configurations.


The comment about no heat is almost comical , my 2001fp put out plenty of heat , not as much as a CRT but I noticed with the LCD you actualy FEEL the heat coming from the front of the screen while on a CRT the heat comes out of the rear (CRT screen itself is always cool to the touch) So even tho LCD puts out less heat overall I actualy felt the heat being generated by the LCD , I wasnt sure if I was just being silly but when asking about it on IRC a couple people knew what I was talking about (whew).

And yes I had the LCD hooked up to DVI and my CRT on VGA.

I also experianced input lag on the LCD side, for example if I opened / closed a window you would actualy see the window pop up a split second sooner on the CRT, I thought maybe this had to do with clone mode ,drivers or something else not related to the LCD itself ..but when I hooked up my Sony CRT HDTV to the DVI input there was no input lag with both CRT's connected. This may not be a big deal to some but if you're an online gamer its like having a higher ping that you cant do anything about

 

[VIAN]

updated.