us3rnotfound
Diamond Member
🙁 I used to have one too.
Sold it for $200 a few years ago, but it was a great monitor.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
I forgot how awesome CRTs look
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
🙁 I used to have one too.
Sold it for $200 a few years ago, but it was a great monitor.
reallyscrued
Platinum Member
I miss my KDS Avitron. The two thin lines were easily forgiven.
The flickering, the blurriness of DB-15 cables, the geometry imperfections, the heat/weight/space used up were not.
Whatever happened to those small CRTs? They were like 2-4 inches deep for up to 32 inch TVs I think, or maybe I'm mixing them up with DLPs. In any case, I don't know if it's my eyes but I'm using a very crappy LCD right now and I can't notice any motion blur; but to be fair I've never been exposed to a high end LCD. I *do* notice the pixel grid and it annoys me.
Without cleartype, I would never be able to live with standard LCDs.
The flickering, the blurriness of DB-15 cables, the geometry imperfections, the heat/weight/space used up were not.
Whatever happened to those small CRTs? They were like 2-4 inches deep for up to 32 inch TVs I think, or maybe I'm mixing them up with DLPs. In any case, I don't know if it's my eyes but I'm using a very crappy LCD right now and I can't notice any motion blur; but to be fair I've never been exposed to a high end LCD. I *do* notice the pixel grid and it annoys me.
Without cleartype, I would never be able to live with standard LCDs.
flexy
Diamond Member
Honestly, i think my Benq 2200W image is WAY clearer and has WAY better color and contrast than when i had my last 19" CRTs.
We can debate whether something like "motion-blur" exists (i personally say no)...but i dont think there is any question that for color/contrast/clearness this LCD is FAR superior to the CRTs.
I can take ANY CRT right now and put a test pattern on it, and i can guarantee you that 99% (if not 100%) have convergence issues since this is BY DESIGN how CRTs work. You will see a white grid pattern and the white lines will NEVER be 100% all white and 100% converging...they will have "rainbows" to a certain extent, depending on screen position.
Other things are problems coming from age (or wrong calibration)..like color imbalances...phosphors getting weaker....grays get more "green" or "pink"...things like that.
I know we can debate for hours now whether CRTs are "better" or LCDs are "better"...but for god's sake....each technique has flaws of its own.
Cookie Monster
Diamond Member
There were called SEDs IIRC. Not sure what happened to such technology.
terentenet
Senior member
I would take a LCD over a CRT each day of the week. No eye fatigue, LCD is much crisper, working with text on a LCD is sheer pleasure. LCD is much easier to carry around and LCD technology evolved enough that colour gamut compared to a CRT is as big or bigger. However, LCD doesn't compete with CRT in terms of contrast (newer backlit ones do); LCD may have a bit of motion blur but overall, that adds to the gaming experience if you don't look at it as a flaw. LCD's also have lag compared to CRT's, but that's something I can live with as long as it's not huge lag (60ms or over).
LCD is the way to go right now. OLEDS are a long way until they reach market at reasonable price. I have a 30" LCD and wouldn't consider switching to a OLED panel smaller than this, but I imagine it will take a couple of years until we see one at less than $2000.
LCD is the way to go right now. OLEDS are a long way until they reach market at reasonable price. I have a 30" LCD and wouldn't consider switching to a OLED panel smaller than this, but I imagine it will take a couple of years until we see one at less than $2000.
Modelworks
Lifer
You would be wrong.
CRT are superior to LCD when working with color. Color is analog not digital and that gives CRT the advantage in those areas. Studios still use CRT monitors for a reason. You need them when doing proof work to match colors correctly. LCD monitors come close but on calibration testing fail at around 92% color accuracy and even the best still have gradients.
Want to see the flaws in LCD monitors ?
Look at this page:
http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/gradient.php
CRT monitors have perfect gradients on that test, LCD do not.
http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/viewing_angle.php
CRT have near perfect color when viewing from angles, LCD suffer from color changes making it less than ideal when working with color.
http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/response_time.php
Response time is getting better but CRT still has the best causing zero blurring in high motion.
If you keep a trinitron CRT calibrated it is very very hard to beat for display quality.
Simply enough, the IBM P275 is widely recognized as one of the best CRT monitors ever made. It seems pretty silly to me to say that my problem(liking an LCD more than a CRT) was because I was using an IBM monitor.
CRTs have their pros and cons, but I definitely prefer the set of pros and cons an LCD has over any CRT.
CRT's have better color, better black, absolutely no lag what so ever. Their screens are unbelievably fast. They can run any resolution up to their max and still look great. They can be viewed from virtually any angle without any color distortion.
That said, they have two flaws that I don't like. The first is that the backlight in a CRT is a light that is constantly flashing on and off. This causes eye strain and makes things troublesome to read sometimes. The second is that as a CRT ages, the accuracy of the image begins to fail. Certain parts of the screen might display blurry while other parts remain crystal clear.
With an LCD, the color isn't quite as good. The viewing angles aren't as good. The screen isn't as fast. That said, the LCD I picked out has colors that are good enough to where it still looks good to me. The viewing angle isn't insanely amazing, but it's enough for me to use the computer just fine. I picked the fastest type of panel as well, so games and such work as close to perfect for me as possible. It's good enough in all of the areas where an LCD isn't as good as a CRT. Combine this with the fact that the backlight on an LCD is always on, eye strain goes away completely. It's as easy to look at an LCD as it is to look at a wall or something. The entirely digital monitor and digital cable connection is definitely more clear looking too. Reading is so much better.
exar333
Diamond Member
You clearly don't understand technology at all. The name on the outside of the monitor doesn't mean much more than who assembled the bezel. IBM made a lot of VERY good Trinitron monitors that were of excellent quality and performance.
BTW - IBM has made very good computers/monitors for a long time, and I don't know why you have such a bias against them.
Krakn3Dfx
Platinum Member
I still have my Samsung 955DF 19" CRT, the image quality is friggin AMAZING compared to just about any LCD I've seen.
Having said that, it's a friggin beast weight-wise, so I've pulled the base off of it and use it as a monitor in my Mame arcade cabinet (old Defender cabinet, had to make some adjustments, but now it looks amazing in there), which it's perfect for, and makes the old arcade games like Ninja Gaiden really pop.
Having said that, it's a friggin beast weight-wise, so I've pulled the base off of it and use it as a monitor in my Mame arcade cabinet (old Defender cabinet, had to make some adjustments, but now it looks amazing in there), which it's perfect for, and makes the old arcade games like Ninja Gaiden really pop.
If you're using 60Hz on a CRT then you're going to have eye-strain. I always use 100 to 112Hz for gaming on my 19" CRT and I don't recall having eye-strain. Looking at 60Hz on a CRT for even a minute is annoying to me though. I'm generally content with 1024x768 for games or anything else for that matter, which even on a cheaper CRT you can run high refresh rates. Once ghosting/blur & input lag is unnoticeable to me I'll eagerly make the move to a non-CRT monitor.
Maxspeed996
Senior member
:thumbsup:
I assumed you were replying to the second part of my comment about CRT's being better than LCD's, not the part about IBM. I was just joking around about IBM lol.
Actually, the name can matter, as some companies will tend to use cheaper manufacturer's than others to increase profits at the cost of product quality. So usually you would make fun of the company who's logo is on the product, and not the manufacturer's name, as that isn't usually known unless one goes and looks for said information.
On the point of IBM bashing.. It's just something I developed, don't really know why. They've always seemed like a more corporate industry minded company to me. And I've never really had any experiences that would make me have a good view of them.
flexy
Diamond Member
i wouldnt use a LCD for "professional" image processing and print work..however for me as normal PC user who also designs once in a while w/ Photoshop/Paintshop its very sufficient. Yes, there are SOME issues with viewing angles, things like that....but then i dont use my LCD to calibrate images/color output.
As for this "motion blur"...its amazing how many people see motion blur as a problem and the fact that current LCDs still only do 60hz....while a BIG majority of high end games dont even do 60hz++...so Vsync etc and monitor smoothness....doesnt even come into play since most high end games of today still have FPS *BELOW* what the hardware can actually do.
I can see this being more an issue with game engines which can easily out 100+ FPS and then you MIGHT see a difference in smoothness on 100hz+ capable CRT versus a 60hz capped LCD.
I also read many posts already regarding this and found myself "testing" my own games eg. quickly spinning around, things like that to see that "motion blur". Even if there IS something like motion blur with a recent 2ms LCD, its a MINOR issue, IMHO.
I just do NOT see it as a problem that the picture MIGHT be a little less "clear" if i do some crazy fast moves and then try to spot DETAILS while i am spinning around. This is really like trying to look for flaws at all costs while the overall benefits still outweigh.
Also..i dont want to deny there are big differences in LCDs....i can simply compare my LCD here and the one on my wife's notebook....sorry to say that HER screen has horrible, horrible viewing angles as opposed to mine. My 22" is *almost* homogenous across the screen in colors/brightness/contrast and only if i move my head all the way to one side i see a little yellowish tint appearing on the other side. On her screen the colors would already "flip" (go negative) if she doesnt look at her screen all the way straight.
I still say that a decent LCD has more benefits than ya old tube..that being said, i do NOT mind to try those new 120hz LCDs and i am certainly also interested in OLEDs 🙂
Edit: Nice test page tho!!
It doesn't matter the frame rate that a game can push. Were talking about REFRESH RATE of a screen. On a CRT, if you leave it at 60hz, it's not going to be very comfortable to your eyes. It doesn't matter what the frame rate is of whatever is being displayed on the monitor, it's how fast the monitor itself is updating it's display.
I think there was an argument on the forums a while back about the difference between CRT and LCD when it came to the effect of refresh rate on your eyes. Since LCD's have a persistent image that merely gets updated, the lower refresh rate doesn't really effect your eyes. While on CRT's, it's constantly drawing the image over and over, from top to bottom, there's nothing to keep the colors on the screen as it goes to draw another frame, it's just drawing them fast enough that your eyes can't see the color disappear. But at 60hz it's low enough to notice a slight flicker.
reallyscrued
Platinum Member
Oh, I also miss being able to run other resolutions than the native LCD grid without feeling like jabbing a fork in my eye(s).
cusideabelincoln
Diamond Member
I haven't used any recent "2ms" LCD panels, but I do have a labeled 8ms Samsung panel and motion blurring is a big problem. And it's not exclusive with fast motion, either. Low to moderate to fast motion produces blurring. The only time I don't get blurring is if motion is moving across the screen like a turtle (in other words, slowly).
Again, maybe newer, faster panels have alleviated the problem, but in my experience with various LCDs and LCD TVs, motion blurring exists. And with every CRT I've ever used, this problem does NOT exist. I switched from CRT to LCD about 4 years ago, and I immediately noticed the problem. Now, for example, if I'm at my mom's place and use her CRT, I get annoyed to come back to my place and use my LCD. TF2 gets quite confusing when you can't tell what's happening on screen, and the Pyro's fire effects effectively act like a smoke grenade.
My brother, who isn't even a tech head, came to my place and watched me play a game. The first thing he said (as he was accustomed to CRTs) is why does the game look so blurry (I was playing some BF2) on my LCD panel.
Oh and framerate has nothing to do with this problem. Blurring exists at low and high framerates, although high framerates make the gameplay experience as a whole much better and thus does not compound the problem. V-Sync does help a bit (only when I'm getting 60+ fps), but I hate V-Sync. Every time I use it, whether triple buffering be on (or forced) or off I notice input lag which negatively impacts gameplay.
crisium
Platinum Member
I still use a 21-inch Trinitron CRT. I won't be switching to LCD until this thing breaks. My only gripe with it is the heat - the damn thing heats up my room in all of 30 minutes and then begins cooking the rest of the house. Size and weight is almost a non-factor and I'm surprised to see people complaining. I move my CRT just twice a year - and I'm sure many people do it less.
What I really like: no native resolution. I game at 1920x1080 for widescreen capable games whenever possible. Widescreen on one of these is letterboxed to the perfect size for a shooter - meaning I don't have to turn my head at all or move my eyes too much. For games that are a little too stressful on my system I can reduce the resolution to 1360x768 without having to worry about scaling issues that LCDs have. For 4:3 games it's the same: 1600x1200 or 1280x960 if that's too much for my system (though haven't run into that problem in a while since most games support 16:9).
As for desktop use I do 1360x1024. It's not the sharpest resolution, but I don't want to squint to read text. If I'm working with large pictures I simply change my res. Unfortunately 2048x1536 on this is only 60Hz tops, and that does indeed strain the eyes. 1856x1392 is 75Hz which is acceptable some of the time. 1792x1344 is the biggest 4:3 at 85Hz, so that's not bad at all. And 1920x1080 is 85Hz so I'm all set for watching 1080 movies on here - they look sharp as hell!
I suppose if you move your monitor more than once a month and/or the heat is too much you can go LCD, but I'd rather not.
What I really like: no native resolution. I game at 1920x1080 for widescreen capable games whenever possible. Widescreen on one of these is letterboxed to the perfect size for a shooter - meaning I don't have to turn my head at all or move my eyes too much. For games that are a little too stressful on my system I can reduce the resolution to 1360x768 without having to worry about scaling issues that LCDs have. For 4:3 games it's the same: 1600x1200 or 1280x960 if that's too much for my system (though haven't run into that problem in a while since most games support 16:9).
As for desktop use I do 1360x1024. It's not the sharpest resolution, but I don't want to squint to read text. If I'm working with large pictures I simply change my res. Unfortunately 2048x1536 on this is only 60Hz tops, and that does indeed strain the eyes. 1856x1392 is 75Hz which is acceptable some of the time. 1792x1344 is the biggest 4:3 at 85Hz, so that's not bad at all. And 1920x1080 is 85Hz so I'm all set for watching 1080 movies on here - they look sharp as hell!
I suppose if you move your monitor more than once a month and/or the heat is too much you can go LCD, but I'd rather not.
thilanliyan
Lifer
My eyes are really sensitive to the flicker so I'm glad I switched to LCD about 4 years ago.
flexy
Diamond Member
>>>
It doesn't matter the frame rate that a game can push. Were talking about REFRESH RATE of a screen. On a CRT, if you leave it at 60hz, it's not going to be very comfortable to your eyes. It doesn't matter what the frame rate is of whatever is being displayed on the monitor, it's how fast the monitor itself is updating it's display.
>>>
well i don't say that 60hz on a CRT is pleasant, where did i say that? I also assume that if someone still HAS a CRT he better not run at 60hz....why would he want to do this?
But we're talking LCDs here and "so called" issues and flaws like the 60hz cap of the LCD and what some others call "motion blur".
In a game, if you move fast and spin....say the game outs at 45FPS...you will have "visual imperfections" before hardware limits even come into play....issues which are related to the game/render engine, the power to your PC *and* last not least what your graphics card can actually throw out.
You wont get ultra smooth movement on your 60hz or 100hz or 120hz monitor if the game and/or your hardware cannot output that much.
The monitor factor is VERY far at the end of this line when it comes to all those crtieria.
Also....we need to differ between the problem of the capped 60hz...and the MOTION BLUR which is induced by LCD latency/lag.
In other words: If you had a 120hz LCD you'll be able to get rid of the 60hz cap....but the question remains whether the "motion blur" from the LCD latency still remains...regardless whether its a real 120hz LCD or not.
It doesn't matter the frame rate that a game can push. Were talking about REFRESH RATE of a screen. On a CRT, if you leave it at 60hz, it's not going to be very comfortable to your eyes. It doesn't matter what the frame rate is of whatever is being displayed on the monitor, it's how fast the monitor itself is updating it's display.
>>>
well i don't say that 60hz on a CRT is pleasant, where did i say that? I also assume that if someone still HAS a CRT he better not run at 60hz....why would he want to do this?
But we're talking LCDs here and "so called" issues and flaws like the 60hz cap of the LCD and what some others call "motion blur".
In a game, if you move fast and spin....say the game outs at 45FPS...you will have "visual imperfections" before hardware limits even come into play....issues which are related to the game/render engine, the power to your PC *and* last not least what your graphics card can actually throw out.
You wont get ultra smooth movement on your 60hz or 100hz or 120hz monitor if the game and/or your hardware cannot output that much.
The monitor factor is VERY far at the end of this line when it comes to all those crtieria.
Also....we need to differ between the problem of the capped 60hz...and the MOTION BLUR which is induced by LCD latency/lag.
In other words: If you had a 120hz LCD you'll be able to get rid of the 60hz cap....but the question remains whether the "motion blur" from the LCD latency still remains...regardless whether its a real 120hz LCD or not.
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: 25K
-
-
-
