Most people buy a new LCD, and notice how "brilliant" the colors are when compared to their 5 year old CRT... High saturation must make low color gamut less noticeable to people who wouldn't know the difference anyway. It gets worse if the LCD is one of the low-ms models that tend to support only 6 bits per color channel; that's 18 bit color, and some graphics designers complain that 24 bit color on a good CRT is not enough.
That's not to say that there aren't LCDs which can handle tasks that demand color-correctness. Eizo makes some, for example. But somehow I doubt that such expensive LCDs (IIRC the 18 inch model goes for something like $1500) are what gamers who have a warezed copy of Photoshop installed so they can open it up every now and then to think to themselves "all theez kewl buttons are soo l33t" are using when they lecture us on how LCDs are universally better than CRTs in all possible categories of evaluation.
Finally, it's not possible to correctly judge the color reproduction characteristics of different monitors until all have been calibrated to the same standard. Someone who compares a recent LCD and CRT and says that the LCD has better colors is full of the proverbial *it, because perception of colors is highly relative, and personal preferences vary widely (that's why Adobe Gamma is not useful for any serious digital imaging - try a Gretag Macbeth or Monaco colorimeter instead).
FWIW, when I first saw a monitor calibrated to 6500K (as is somewhat standard among photographers), I thought it was a sickly yellow color. You do get used to it after a while, though, and then everything else looks way too cool (I use the term in the color temperature sense).
That's not to say that there aren't LCDs which can handle tasks that demand color-correctness. Eizo makes some, for example. But somehow I doubt that such expensive LCDs (IIRC the 18 inch model goes for something like $1500) are what gamers who have a warezed copy of Photoshop installed so they can open it up every now and then to think to themselves "all theez kewl buttons are soo l33t" are using when they lecture us on how LCDs are universally better than CRTs in all possible categories of evaluation.
Finally, it's not possible to correctly judge the color reproduction characteristics of different monitors until all have been calibrated to the same standard. Someone who compares a recent LCD and CRT and says that the LCD has better colors is full of the proverbial *it, because perception of colors is highly relative, and personal preferences vary widely (that's why Adobe Gamma is not useful for any serious digital imaging - try a Gretag Macbeth or Monaco colorimeter instead).
FWIW, when I first saw a monitor calibrated to 6500K (as is somewhat standard among photographers), I thought it was a sickly yellow color. You do get used to it after a while, though, and then everything else looks way too cool (I use the term in the color temperature sense).
I was surprised that no one has brought up this point: A 1600x1200 LCD can be dropped down to 800x600 without
interpolation. Also, why doesn't the computer industry make a new standard of resolutions where the numbers of
pixels can be reduced or raised by factors of 2,4, 1/2, etc (Eg: 400x300, 800x600,1600x1200, or 600x400, 1200x800,
2400x1600) . Why do they have these strange resolutions like 1024x768 in thew first place?
interpolation. Also, why doesn't the computer industry make a new standard of resolutions where the numbers of
pixels can be reduced or raised by factors of 2,4, 1/2, etc (Eg: 400x300, 800x600,1600x1200, or 600x400, 1200x800,
2400x1600) . Why do they have these strange resolutions like 1024x768 in thew first place?
Seems contradicting. You first said if one doesn't play games or watch video, response time and variable resolution aren't important, and if one isn't into art, colors aren't important. If you don't do any of these, what's left? I imagine most people do at least one of these with their PC. Yeah if you only surf the internet, then none of this is important, but an LCD is a lot of money to spend on an internet only PC.
Also, then you said that response time is important to you because you're a gamer, so you use an LCD.
FPS does have to do with your monitor, if you want to run a slightly lower res for faster FPS, but can't without it looking bad because it isn't native.
no it wouldnt. with one CRT, the desk would bend down, double that weight could easily crack or break it. it isnt real wood. it's some $50 particle board desk i bought from ikea during college. plus with CRTs, i wouldnt have room for pda cradle, phone cradle, mouse cradle, ipod cradle, klipsch control pod. plus i never liked the idea of having the screen of my monitor next to my face. with the LCDs, i can push it as far back as possible. here is a pic of that same desk when i was using my 19" CRT on it although the hutch is still attached. old pic
another benefit i like from LCDs is power consumption. it saves me some money when it comes to electric bills which add up when everythine is always powered on.
apoppin
Lifer
you could get a really quality (larger) desk for much (much) less then the difference of the LCD vs. CRT prices . . .
:roll:
How much energy are you really saving? maybe $10 a year in electricity . . . barely $50 over the life of the monitors.
:roll:
dismissed. . .
. . . next argument please . . .
:roll:
Anubis
No Lifer
if you put the 2 monitors close to teh corners they will fint and not break it, i have a 200lb TV on something similar to that
I thought the main argument for power savings for LCDs was "how much power would be saved if every monitor was switched from a CRT to an LCD," which is a moot point anyway, because that won't be happening, and if it did, an even greater environmental problem would be created by the millions of CRTs that would need to be disposed of, than would be solved by less coal being burnt to power the aforementioned CRTs.Originally posted by: apoppin
How much energy are you really saving? maybe $10 a year in electricity . . . barely $50 over the life of the monitors.
:roll:
dismissed. . .
. . . next argument please . . .
:roll:
On an individual level, only you can decide if the power savings are worth it for you, but for me there are many other things that US$500 could be better spent on than "upgrading" my perfectly fine CRT to an LCD that would not work as well for the stuff I use a monitor for, except that it would look "cool" in the eyes of a few random geeks on the internet who have an obsession with making sure everyone throws out their CRTs in favor of LCDs.
For the sake of those who may be hard headed, I'll repeat what has been said over and over once again: LCDs can have advantages over CRTs in some cases; however, this does not mean that CRTs are "dead," have been "killed," or any such nonsense. It's much like the digital vs. film debate in photography; each medium has some advantages and disadvantages, and rumors of the latter's demise have been greatly exaggerated by some gearheads who have more interest in blowing their money on the latest and greatest technology, rather than actually using the technology at hand to do something useful.
Aha, Sherlock, a very thoughtful deduction! How would I be able to say that LCDs use more power individually, but less power in a large group? It makes no sense, does it?
The point I was trying to make did not contradict with Apoppin's point. His point was that when considered individually, the power savings one gets from using an LCD do not add up to enough when considered in the financial sense, to offset the cost of purchasing the LCD in the first place.
My point was to simply add to his, that the only way I've heard the power savings thing argued semi-convincingly was if mass quantities of CRTs were replaced with LCDs - which subsequently brings up other problems.
In the end, IMHO it's not wise to buy an LCD solely to save money on electricity. Buy one if you need a thin monitor, or for some of the other reasons mentioned. Do not buy one if you want to save money, or if you want to do color-critical work, or for some of the other reasons that some of us use CRTs.
Everybody's guilty conscious is to get a lcd monitor. They look better than CRT's. But not everybody has the money for them...
VH, I think you're missing the point. It's not about the image quality, it's about the LCD's physical looks. I personally think CRTs in this day and age looks outdated and IMHO makes the user look like a cheap ass who can't afford an LCD. I do like the vibrant colors and resolution flexibility of a great CRT too as I work with graphics but a GOOD LCD is great too. Image quality on my Sony SDM S73s are perfectly adequate for my graphics needs and I never find myself wanting a CRT again. I get very good consistant colors and ability to calibrate these LCDs. Sure you can't have sunlight directly hitting the screen but the same goes for CRTs although probably not as bad. In the past I've owned about 6 CRTs including some higher end ones with calibration by Apple and Radius for pre-press use. No matter how I cut it, LCDs save a ton of desktop space. You just can't argue that.
Wow that's a sweet Sony alright. Heh: Check out the banner above it, shows alot of empty space behind the monitor, 'nuf for a CRT.
When I need additional desk space, it's really not too hard to move my keyboard...
konakona
Diamond Member
- May 6, 2004
- 6,285
- 1
- 0
well i guess then it all comes down to difference in our priorities. being a quasi-perfectionist I am, I am always willing to go that extra mile for best audio/visual quality possible with best bang for buck (check my sig for my SWEET audio setup
) this is funded by $$$ saved from food. now when it comes to food i am as tolerant as one gets It depends on what you use the computer for, but I play games a lot and find even high end LCDs basically unacceptable for that after having gotten used to CRTs. Ghosting isn't quite so bad but the resolution issues and color problems (banding similar to 16-bit mode, gray shadows that have some green and brown in them, different colors apparent from different angles, etc.) really make these monitors unattractive for FPS gaming. I do like text better on LCDs, but CRTs certainly are only slightly worse with that while I think LCDs are significantly inferior for FPS games. I even prefer my somewhat crappy CRT (21" but not flat, no AG, does 1600x1200 at only 75hz and has become slightly blurry over time) to any LCD out there when it comes to games.
The LCD monitors themselves do look nicer and are newer, but I would think that the monitor's performance at its main task would be more important than its appearance, especially when you factor in the higher price. I mean, if you are just using an LCD as house decoration, there are probably things that guests will find more attractive than monitors.
The LCD monitors themselves do look nicer and are newer, but I would think that the monitor's performance at its main task would be more important than its appearance, especially when you factor in the higher price. I mean, if you are just using an LCD as house decoration, there are probably things that guests will find more attractive than monitors.
You're apparently missing the point. Not every geek is a metrose... er, better not say that, may get in trouble
... anyway, not every geek takes form over function. Yes, I could get a CRT that has good image quality and excellent color performance for $300, or I could get an LCD for $1500 that would have about as good of performance, while having better looks in the eyes of some (when I, like most geeks who actually use their computers to get stuff done instead of admiring their hardware half the time, just don't give a ****).An analogy: have you ever looked at large format consoles? They're freaking huge, and bristling with all sorts of lights and buttons (and maybe an LCD or two
). Not exactly most people's idea of living room decor, but yet recording studios will take those over stylish little mixers (do such things even exist? if not, maybe the audio world just doesn't care). And the little mixers are even a heck of a lot cheaper. So why don't they take the prettier stuff, especially since it costs a lot less? :roll:Hmm...I've worked at recording and post-production studios in the past and often enough, style plays a big role in a purchasing decision. Why? Because the appearance of the room can create a distinct mood and can help performers get into a state of a creative mind. I do a bit of mixing and recording at home too and that's one reason why LCDs stay. Plus living in Manhattan is expensive, especially when it comes to realestate. My apt. is 1000 sq which is quite big for the city, and the rent is $3000 a month. $450 is nothing to spend on something that's going to be looked at on a daily basis.
Large SSL consoles can look great and in every recording/production house I've been to nowadays, they all use LCD monitors for their DAWs and video editing stations. No CRTs. Reason? Space, appearance and when guitarists overdub direct in that room, there's no buzz that get's intruduced into the pickups. Also sometimes those little Mackie mixers can do wonders as well in conjunction with a large desk and is usually the mainstay of smaller recording studios.
Large SSL consoles can look great and in every recording/production house I've been to nowadays, they all use LCD monitors for their DAWs and video editing stations. No CRTs. Reason? Space, appearance and when guitarists overdub direct in that room, there's no buzz that get's intruduced into the pickups. Also sometimes those little Mackie mixers can do wonders as well in conjunction with a large desk and is usually the mainstay of smaller recording studios.
Originally posted by: Anubis
Originally posted by: freeject
They dont let us use our own furniture in our dorms.
FYI i ran DUAL 19in CRTs for 3 of my 4 years in college on their desks just fine, and had room to put a notebook on the desk and a text book to do work just fine
well then you had a much larger desk than i did
http://gallery.rgb63.com/jhu/IMG_1527
that was my setup last year. this year, i have the same sized desk, but with a 19" lcd instead of the 15" you see in that picture (and no table to the right either). there is no way that i can put any crt on my desk and still have the keyboard fit on the desk w/ room for wrist support.
lcds are also far easier to store/ship/travel with, which is an important issue when you go to school in MD and consider CA to be your home.
lcds are also perfectly sharp (w/dvi), and produce less heat. also they have less glare (but there are ways to reduce it on crt monitors)
konakona
Diamond Member
- May 6, 2004
- 6,285
- 1
- 0
Originally posted by: GOSHARKS
Originally posted by: Anubis
Originally posted by: freeject
They dont let us use our own furniture in our dorms.
FYI i ran DUAL 19in CRTs for 3 of my 4 years in college on their desks just fine, and had room to put a notebook on the desk and a text book to do work just fine
well then you had a much larger desk than i did
http://gallery.rgb63.com/jhu/IMG_1527
that was my setup last year. this year, i have the same sized desk, but with a 19" lcd instead of the 15" you see in that picture (and no table to the right either). there is no way that i can put any crt on my desk and still have the keyboard fit on the desk w/ room for wrist support.
lcds are also far easier to store/ship/travel with, which is an important issue when you go to school in MD and consider CA to be your home.
lcds are also perfectly sharp (w/dvi), and produce less heat. also they have less glare (but there are ways to reduce it on crt monitors)
get rid of all that junk on your desk and remove that little bookshelf thingy, there ya go
want me to show you my pics? mine is 22'' btw.
1
2
3
everything fits very snugly, LCD would have done absolutely nothing for me
not everyone lives that far away from his/her home. in fact i live some 7000-8000 miles away from my home yet never worried about carrying LCD home. again, for the price of a LCD you can get two better or equivalent CRTs.
Look, no sane person is arguing that LCDs suck and have no advantages. I do argue against the point that CRTs are dead and have no advantages over LCDs, which is what some people seem to be either expressing or implying. Certain people seem to be on a crusade to get everyone to waste a bunch of cash switching to LCDs; this technological masturbatory exercise is what I would condemn as baseless and idiotic. It is especially strange now that the LCD vs. CRT argument is based solely on style and desk space. Why is it so important to you that the rest of us downgrade our CRTs to crappier LCDs that we could actually afford (if even that), just so our desks look prettier to you? It's not like you have to look at our desks all day long... wait, you don't happen to be Mr. Ashcroft or one of his assistants, in charge of monitoring all the imbedded video cameras that watch our every move?
Originally posted by: VanillaH
get rid of all that junk on your desk and remove that little bookshelf thingy, there ya go
want me to show you my pics? mine is 22'' btw.
1
2
3
everything fits very snugly, LCD would have done absolutely nothing for me
not everyone lives that far away from his/her home. in fact i live some 7000-8000 miles away from my home yet never worried about carrying LCD home. again, for the price of a LCD you can get two better or equivalent CRTs.
so i could:
a. move some of my stuff around, have a crt, and have less stuff on the desk
or
b. have an lcd so that i can put more stuff on the desk
whats the point then? there is no argument - the lcd saves room for me and allows me to put more stuff on my desk, while keeping a usuable working evironment. i cannot do that with a decently sized crt - a 19" crt is about 18" deep. my keyboard (ibm model m, permanent fixture) is 8 inches deep. my desk is 24" inches deep. i cannot type with my wrists hanging off the edge of the desk. the only way that a crt would work for me would be to turn it at an angle to the desk, ie not perpendicular to how i would normally sit at a desk. takes up even more room, and creates discomfort for me.
why is there even discussion regarding this? it is plain and simple: lcds do save room and make for a better evironment to work in.
konakona
Diamond Member
- May 6, 2004
- 6,285
- 1
- 0
Originally posted by: GOSHARKS
Originally posted by: VanillaH
get rid of all that junk on your desk and remove that little bookshelf thingy, there ya go
want me to show you my pics? mine is 22'' btw.
1
2
3
everything fits very snugly, LCD would have done absolutely nothing for me
not everyone lives that far away from his/her home. in fact i live some 7000-8000 miles away from my home yet never worried about carrying LCD home. again, for the price of a LCD you can get two better or equivalent CRTs.
so i could:
a. move some of my stuff around, have a crt, and have less stuff on the desk
or
b. have an lcd so that i can put more stuff on the desk
whats the point then? there is no argument - the lcd saves room for me and allows me to put more stuff on my desk, while keeping a usuable working evironment. i cannot do that with a decently sized crt - a 19" crt is about 18" deep. my keyboard (ibm model m, permanent fixture) is 8 inches deep. my desk is 24" inches deep. i cannot type with my wrists hanging off the edge of the desk. the only way that a crt would work for me would be to turn it at an angle to the desk, ie not perpendicular to how i would normally sit at a desk. takes up even more room, and creates discomfort for me.
why is there even discussion regarding this? it is plain and simple: lcds do save room and make for a better evironment to work in.
the point is you are just stubbornly refusing to pull that desk just a tad bit forward and move lil things like add-on bookshelf (at least from that pic it appears you have hardly anything on it) and rearrange a lil bit. its not that hard, i dont even have two desks like you do
if your definition of 'a usuable working evironment' is room to put lil stuff like pencil holder, cd spindle and post it that dont necessarily have to sit on the same desk, more power to ya. cant you just move them to the neighboring desk?now, i am not pointing a finger at you for it, its your preference and i respect that. i am just saying not everyone is willing to sacrifice arguably better visual quality and MUCH better price/performance ratio just for that little inconvinience (i dont even see it as one but anyway)
in case i havnt mentioned, that lil desk is something i got for free and its pretty tiny. you could get a better desk for ~$50 if you shop around
pull the desk forward to what extent? (yes i could have taken the shelf off if i needed to, but i didnt need to!) keep in mind that this was a dorm room and space was slightly limited.
to have a comfortable setup with a 19" crt, i would need to have the desk out about 6" from the wall - not exactly a small move when you have to move around in your room.
and my definition of usuable work environment is sitting perpendicular to the monitor plane, and to have enough room to rest my wrists on the desk while using the keyboard. all the other stuff that is on the desk (minus laptop, keyboard, mouse, and speakers) is there becuase there is space to put it there, not becuase it has to be there. slight difference.
ok i'll admit it - lcds are for user convience. thats what you pay for. some may find that it is worth the premium, but it is clear that others do not.
as a sidenote, i have been able see much more detail in images, viewing on lcd than on a crt.
to have a comfortable setup with a 19" crt, i would need to have the desk out about 6" from the wall - not exactly a small move when you have to move around in your room.
and my definition of usuable work environment is sitting perpendicular to the monitor plane, and to have enough room to rest my wrists on the desk while using the keyboard. all the other stuff that is on the desk (minus laptop, keyboard, mouse, and speakers) is there becuase there is space to put it there, not becuase it has to be there. slight difference.
ok i'll admit it - lcds are for user convience. thats what you pay for. some may find that it is worth the premium, but it is clear that others do not.
as a sidenote, i have been able see much more detail in images, viewing on lcd than on a crt.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter