I'm currently a die-hard CRT user. I'd love love love to like an LCD, for the lowered heat output, smaller footprint, etc.... but I truly see noticeable ghosting in my favorite FPS game Quake 2, on a 5ms display using DVI no less. Further down the line when LCD's or a similar technology like the LCD-like CRT technology, where there are millions of individual electron emitters, called S something or other, then I'll be interested. For now though I can't deal with the compromise I feel I have to make to use an LCD.
Maybe its just me, but I can't imagine 1600 x 1200 on a 19" CRT (with an 18" viewable area).
As far as your very first post, LCDs have a lot going for them. Colors on LCDs are more "vivid" - maybe not exactly accurate, but overall more pleasing. LCDs are easier on the eyes, Text is much sharper, and screen geometry is always perfect (and flat), and the screens are brighter. Ghosting in a non-issue for most people. You also have a lot of widescreen options - a large widescreen is great for games.
Judging from the number of people posting here who have an FW900 or other high end CRT, I doubt your claim of 99% is accurate. I have an HP A7217A (FW900) and I can't find an LCD that will match it, strength for strength. There are those of us who just feel that the benefits of LCD technology simply don't outweigh its limitations. There's nothing "diehard" about it.
While I will agree that CRT monitors are on their way out, I feel that LCD is an overall step backwards. The whole point of a monitor is to bring the visuals to your eyes and I will use whatever technology that will do this the best. And that's still CRT.
CrystalBay
Platinum Member
- Apr 2, 2002
- 2,175
- 1
- 0
I also love my sub 200.00 SyncMaster 997DF. What ever happened to those Flat/Shallow CRT's? prolly not as enviro friendly, and costly to manufacture compared to LCD...
This is false. There are two or three older games I play that exhibit enormous amounts of ghosting on my 4ms rated 90GX2, which is a relatively recent model. I can only play them for a few minutes before I start getting dizzy. There are somewhat faster panels available now, but none that are quite dramatically so.
I've heard that those didn't look very good anyway, losing focus sharply towards the edges. I'm not sure if they were ever widely available.
....one has to ask, why are LCD's always measured agianst the CRT 
This arguement about desk space puzzles me? your screen needs to be in the near field to b immersive, not an arms length away.
CRT is truly filmlike, black is black with every shade inbetween, ....and the onscreen speed cant b matched by a flat panel to this day.
...just look at high end home theatre, CRT projection is still the reference all others are judged by...
Refurbished CRT for me.
This arguement about desk space puzzles me? your screen needs to be in the near field to b immersive, not an arms length away.CRT is truly filmlike, black is black with every shade inbetween, ....and the onscreen speed cant b matched by a flat panel to this day.
...just look at high end home theatre, CRT projection is still the reference all others are judged by...
Refurbished CRT for me.
Originally posted by: corsa
Refurbished CRT for me.
Yeah, a big space heater that'll give you a hernia lifting it, while sucking a few hundred watts of juice ... awesome!
Threads like this are full of opinions (and you know what they say about opinions..). Nobody can claim to have tested the best of both camps. Stick to what works for you. I for one, dont like space heaters that make my desk look like a postage stamp while at the same time lack the sharpness to display text without making my head hurt - things nobody can deny. At the same time, as mentioned many times, CRT is faster, color is still a notch better (unless you really dump the big bucks on a high-end LCD).
If all of the above would matter to me, I'd probably use both.
If all of the above would matter to me, I'd probably use both.
JRW
Senior member
- Jun 29, 2005
- 569
- 0
- 76
Man people must have owned some crappy CRTs or just like using the text excuse to warrant all the other negatives LCDs offer, I can read text just fine on my CRT @ 1920x1200! ,it makes me laugh when people claim CRT's are "so blury" with text. Not all CRT models are alike.. there are many that have very sharp text and even tho it may not be quite LCD sharpness its certainly not something that would make it difficult to read at all.
And the space heater / weight / size issue is also a weak attempt.. when buying a monitor im more interested in its performance and image quality... not weight / power consumption ... thats just silly.
In buisness power consumption is a massive factor. On my desk i can't use a screen larger than a 19" CRT as it would put it uncomfortably cose to my face due to the depth. Heavy monitors are a pain in the arse to move around. Just because you don't rate those factors highly it does not mean that everyone else agrees.
As to text, a cheap LCD does a better job than a cheap CRT.
JRW
Senior member
- Jun 29, 2005
- 569
- 0
- 76
Originally posted by: corsa
....one has to ask, why are LCD's always measured agianst the CRT
CRT is truly filmlike, black is black with every shade inbetween, ....and the onscreen speed cant b matched by a flat panel to this day.
...just look at high end home theatre, CRT projection is still the reference all others are judged by...
Refurbished CRT for me.
Thats also a good point .. CNET to this day uses a Sony 34XBR960 CRT HDTV as a refrence tv when rating OTHER hdtv's (plasma / lcd etc.) so that alone says a lot about the image quality of a good CRT. I have a 34XBR960 and it does indeed have an amazing picture and Xbox360 looks superb on it (pic).
postmortemIA
Diamond Member
- Jul 11, 2006
- 7,721
- 40
- 91
I think all you CRT lovers would drool over my laptop's WSXGA+ display
-good contrast with TrueLife
-dot pitch that CRT users can only dream about - about 0.13mm (although CRT have declared about 0.25mm dot pitch, imprecision of el. beam makes it more like 0.50mm)
-no geometry problems
-sharp and not dull(I had Trinitron)
-good contrast with TrueLife
-dot pitch that CRT users can only dream about - about 0.13mm (although CRT have declared about 0.25mm dot pitch, imprecision of el. beam makes it more like 0.50mm)
-no geometry problems
-sharp and not dull(I had Trinitron)
Wow,
quite a few valid points and arguments for the both sides, here.
I've had a 17" Mag, with Trinitron tube, CRT for the past 8 years and I loved it. I've just recently replaced it with an LG L203WT LCD and I've been glued to it, ever since I purchased it. One of the first things I noticed was that with the digital link, DVI, without the analogue conversion, the response rate of the new LCD is faster.
I'm not into games and use my computer primarily for text and so I'm very happy with this new panel.
One thing that hasn't really been discussed here, which has always been a concern to me, is the fact that a CRT has an electron gun pointed directly at your head ! While I used the MAG, I purchased the leaded plate glass to cover the screen and it made a difference; I could sit in front of the monitor for longer periods of time before my head began to ache.
If nothing more, the fact that these LCDS do not produce excessive radiation is enough to convert me.
Good luck with your choices.
John
quite a few valid points and arguments for the both sides, here.
I've had a 17" Mag, with Trinitron tube, CRT for the past 8 years and I loved it. I've just recently replaced it with an LG L203WT LCD and I've been glued to it, ever since I purchased it. One of the first things I noticed was that with the digital link, DVI, without the analogue conversion, the response rate of the new LCD is faster.
I'm not into games and use my computer primarily for text and so I'm very happy with this new panel.
One thing that hasn't really been discussed here, which has always been a concern to me, is the fact that a CRT has an electron gun pointed directly at your head ! While I used the MAG, I purchased the leaded plate glass to cover the screen and it made a difference; I could sit in front of the monitor for longer periods of time before my head began to ache.
If nothing more, the fact that these LCDS do not produce excessive radiation is enough to convert me.
Good luck with your choices.
John
I'd agree aperture grille CRTs are currently superior in displaying color and motion than any LCD at the moment. The problem is...they're not available new. As for shadow masks I guess they still have some advantage in the midtones and with motion, but not enough for me to sacrifice clarity, brightness, and a flicker-free image. AGs are sharper than the shadow masks we're stuck with today as well BTW. If you have an AG, stick with it until LCDs get lower response time and white backlight LEDs. But there's no arguing they are simply not available.
You do get what you pay for. The NEC is the first LCD I've used that can match dark and midtone reproduction of my shadow mask CRT very closely. The fact it's so close in that category and superior in about every other, that's the easy choice for me. The only thing I feel missing is the sheer smoothness you get with a CRT. This should become available on LCDs when they have color-filter-less ones (divides response time by 3) or OLEDs.
You do get what you pay for. The NEC is the first LCD I've used that can match dark and midtone reproduction of my shadow mask CRT very closely. The fact it's so close in that category and superior in about every other, that's the easy choice for me. The only thing I feel missing is the sheer smoothness you get with a CRT. This should become available on LCDs when they have color-filter-less ones (divides response time by 3) or OLEDs.
JRW
Senior member
- Jun 29, 2005
- 569
- 0
- 76
According to a recent Hardocp post the 20WMGX2 has fairly poor black level details vs. other LCDs: http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1089582&highlight=black
The human eyes perceive black differently depending on what other colors are shown, and since the other colors are so bright I can say the black/contrast is amazing especially with OptiClear. Black is a little grayer than a CRT (which is pitch black with correct brightness) in a dark room, but still darker than any other LCD I've seen. Contrast was measured at 2000:1 in one instance, and that contrast is what makes black seem so black when white is really bright.
Edit: after looking at your link it looks like you're discussing the darker spectrum issue with the NEC (pure black is shown for the first few tones). Yes, this is one problem with it for editing photos. The Samsung 215TW is close and doesn't have this problem though. In the best setting I can see the black different starting at 3,3,3 so it's not too bad. I think something with that website is odd because using my own program I couldn't differentiate until 8,8,8 or so.
If you happen to have a professional calibration tool you can fix this up with gamma adjustment.About 5 years ago, I picked up a Sony G500 21" crt. It is fantastic, and knock on wood, still going strong. It weighs a metric ton or three, heats my office nicely in the winter, and takes up a lot of space on my desk. But it kicks virtually EVERY LCD monitor's ass in image quality, even on text. I'm an engineer, I do CAD and motion capture analysis on my computer at work, where I have dual 19" LCDs. I don't recall the model/brand of the LCDs at work, but they are pretty high end. They look like SHITE compared to my G500 at home. Plus the argument about native resolution on an LCD is really important. With a good CRT, you can use virtually any resolution you want (that's supported by the monitor). On an LCD, if it's not the native resolution, it generally looks crappy.
All that said, low-end CRT's suck more than mid-range LCD's IMO, because of geometry problems. But if you can find a truly high end CRT monitor in decent condition, it'll walk all over any LCD for any price.
(BTW, I was exaggerating about the heat. It's not that bad. But it is big, and it does weigh a lot.)
All that said, low-end CRT's suck more than mid-range LCD's IMO, because of geometry problems. But if you can find a truly high end CRT monitor in decent condition, it'll walk all over any LCD for any price.
(BTW, I was exaggerating about the heat. It's not that bad. But it is big, and it does weigh a lot.)
If you can get 8 gamer friends together who want the best display available, this would be a hell of a deal:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Lot-of-8-Sony-Trini...19QQcategoryZ99235QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
http://cgi.ebay.com/Lot-of-8-Sony-Trini...19QQcategoryZ99235QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Here's a lot of only four... easier to get a group buy going with fewer people. There are lots of great CRT monitors on ebay. I just did a search for "Sony 21" CRT" because I'm not as familiar with non-sony model numbers. There are some 24" widescreen sony CRTs there, too... that'd be pretty sweet for games.
Most cost around $100 for shipping, but you're still getting a screaming deal.
Most cost around $100 for shipping, but you're still getting a screaming deal.
postmortemIA
Diamond Member
- Jul 11, 2006
- 7,721
- 40
- 91
Wow, that's quite a sweet deal. :Q
There used to be a seller there offering FW900s and the HP rebadged versions for very cheap (like $300 shipped) a few months ago. I think many of the FW900 owners here got theirs from that guy. There are still many of them available from others. The 2070SBs can be harder to come by but have several rebranded variants, like the SGI one on AccurateIT.
They're all used or refurbished units though and light shipping damage (enough to get the tube slightly out of alignment) is a common issue, so there is a significant risk in buying them. I don't recommend CRTs to people anymore because of the high chance of getting one that has some sort of problem (at least 1 in 2, I'd say), even with the old flagship models. I think the best ones are quite superior to the top LCDs in almost every way and I'll be holding on to mine for a while, but if I was buying a monitor today for my main rig, an LCD (a 20WMGX2, specifically) would be an automatic choice.
OptiClear does wonders for the black level in a brightly lit room, but its effect seems to decrease with the ambient light level and it does almost nothing in a pitch dark room. I think the reflections that many people don't like are actually part of what makes it work so well.
Where in the world are you guys pulling these numbers from? There is a HUGE thread over at hardforums about used/refurbished FW900/A7217A and nearly every person who bought one was thrilled with it. There might have been one that had convergence problems in one corner, but I think he was able to clear up the majority through the extensive OSD. Yes, some had minor scuffing or cracking on the bezel and some got a bad one from an unscrupulous seller, but I believe most people are happy with their purchase.
Sonikku
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2005
- 15,882
- 4,882
- 136
Yes indeed. The Seller that sold me my Sony FW900 packed it extremely well. I admit it took both of my arms to haul it into my room by itself, but not having to move it since in about a year has hardly made it an issue. I guess an LCD would be really handy if I was constantly on the move, constantly dragging my machine to the latest quake con event or some other lan party. But I'm not. As for the heat, I put my pizza on top of it to keep it warm. ^_^
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 Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter