LCD Monitors....are we being scamed? Stick with CRT?

[imported_IKnowNothing]

I'm taking a 3d Artist class during the day and working at a computer store by night. My experience working with LCD monitors (top of the line ones) is really bad. They don't compare at all to CRT monitors for speed or for visual quality.

I have to ask, are we being scamed here? Sure they take up less room, are lighter but they cost way more and the quality really isn't there now matter how much you may try to believe it...not even close.

Well they do lower shipping costs don't they ...hmmmm.....na they wouldn't have designed them for that reason

What do you think?

 

[Arkali]

What models of top of the line LCD monitors are you using, and which exact superior CRTs are you using?

 

[Elcs]

No we arent being scammed. LCD's provide major benefits to some users over CRT's as CRT's have major benefits to some users over LCD's.

I use an LCD and CRT side by side and I much prefer my LCD but its apples and pears. Quality LCD Vs. generic CRT...

Prepare to be flamed. This topic has been hotly discussed before.

 

[zodder]

If space and weight is no concern, it's tough to beat a 21" or 22" CRT for gaming and graphic work.

 

[Tab]

You're not using a top of the line LCD, unless it is infact a $3,000 top of the line 32-bit IBM Monitor with Dual-DVI inputs... Not to mention LCDS ARENT NOT MADE FOR ARTISTS!!! We haven't figured out how to make the colors perfectly exact.

 

[carage]

I know quite a few graphic designers using Apple CinemaDisplays both at home and at work, they don't seem to have a problem with it even when their job depends on it.

 

[Chudilo]

I do graphic work and I can't stand the LCDs. Yuo can not work on content that is intended for printing, but it's great for web content creation. SO far I have not seen a an LCD that would satisfy me with reproduction of dark colors. Yes I know it's a theoretical problem with LCDs. because they are lighted from the back .. but why should I care.
I have owned Sony CRTs exclusively since 1995. and so far have not seen any LCDs that will be able to match that sort of quality. But if you are used to a mediocre monitor you could probably go to an LCD and not even notice the loss of picture quality.

Here is an easy way of seeing a problem with an LCD. get a good true color image with a nice gradient of a single color.. and I o not mean something generated.. I mean like a picture of a car with a nice bright paint job... And look at how the color goes from shadow to the brightest spot. I am sure you will notice color bands of the same color that would be accurately reproduced on a CRT. Why would I ever put up with anything worse, especcially for more money.

 

[imported_IKnowNothing]

SO far I have not seen a an LCD that would satisfy me with reproduction of dark colors. Yes I know it's a theoretical problem with LCDs. because they are lighted from the back .. but why should I care.

I hear ya!

I can't understand how someone would pay so much for a LCD when they can pay way less for a CRT that will outperform it without a problem. I don't have to name any brands because this doesn't apply to only a few LCDs, it applies to them all. We are for the most part talking about the same thing here when we talk about what is inside a LCD display.

I understand certain applications for LCDs really benifit from the space saving like retail and medical but I think the general public needs to wait a bit for better quality products for LCDs.

My friend bought a 19" LCD display a few months ago. He drools over my 22" CRT display which cost half the price of his. His does take up less space but at what cost?

I have seen and used many LCD monitors, believe me (or not) they do not perform even close to a Decent CRT monitor!

I don't hate what LCD's could become...I just think they are a ripoff at the moment and I only hope people don't get burned. Sure they are cool looking and space saving but they take a chunk out of your wallet and their specs don't stand a chance against CRTs.

Just do your homework before buying one...do you really need a pretty looking monitor or do you want the best visual display?

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: IKnowNothing

SO far I have not seen a an LCD that would satisfy me with reproduction of dark colors. Yes I know it's a theoretical problem with LCDs. because they are lighted from the back .. but why should I care.

I hear ya!

I can't understand how someone would pay so much for a LCD [n]when they can pay way less for a CRT that will outperform it[/b] without a problem.

Boy that's a subjective statement if I ever saw one.

I understand certain applications for LCDs really benifit from the space saving like retail and medical but I think the general public needs to wait a bit for better quality products for LCDs.

My friend bought a 19" LCD display a few months ago. He drools over my 22" CRT display which cost half the price of his. His does take up less space but at what cost?

Apparently your friend is the de-facto standard on "quality" of monitors.

It's been debated here time and time again, and you could have just as easily found the answer to your biased claim that way, but I'll list off some reasons why people buy LCD's, because apparently you can't figure it out.

1. Much smaller than CRT's. On my desk, for example, I run 1 CRT and 1 LCD; it would be impossible to run 2 CRT's because there is no room on the right side of the desk (where the LCD is); there's about 1.5 feet of depth, which is more than enough for the LCD but not even close for the CRT.

2. Much sharper text at native resolution. Have you seen a 17" or 20" LCD on DVI on it's native resolution? It blows CRT's out of the water at 1280X1024 or 1600X1200; respectively. 19" is a bit of a tweener because it has the same resolution as 17" but on a bigger screen so it doesn't look quite as nice.

3. Much less heat - in a small college room, this adds up and the heat is a big bonus.

4. Lower power consumption (not a factor for most purchases, but it's nice to have).

5. Much less weight - for a monitor you take around places, it's nice to be able to carry it easily (to/from school; to/from Lan parties, etc)

6. Much higher brightness than your average CRT. Brightness on LCD's is stunning and it's tough to go back to CRT's once you get used to the insane brightness of (newer) LCD's.

7. Extremely sharp picture. I can't tell you how much sharper games look on this 12ms LCD I run vs the 19" trinitron that's next to it. It's stunning.

8. Less eye fatigue. LCD's don't flicker because they don't draw the screen like CRT's do and it is much easier on most people's eyes. A few do complain that their eyes also get tired on LCD's, but generally they're better on the eyes.

9. Style - LCD's look very sweet on the table, especially next to CRT's.


So yes, LCD's are terrible and they're only for stupid suckers. You win. Your buddy can drool over your 80 pound 22" CRT all he wants; the grass is always greener on the other side, dude.


"I do graphic work and I can't stand the LCDs" - brought up for the 100000th time. Graphics work is best suited to a CRT because LCD's dont have "perfect" colour representation yet, and CRT's are a much more mature market for professional graphics work. If your job depends on colour precision, then get a CRT and don't use this argument to make it seem like "LCD's are slightly inferior to CRT's for colour (depending on the models you're comparing) so therefore all LCD's suck and they're pointless" .

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Kinda funny now, considering Apple is usually pimped as the perfect hardware for grapic design and they don't really promote anything other than LCD...

 

[imported_IKnowNothing]

"I do graphic work and I can't stand the LCDs" - brought up for the 100000th time. Graphics work is best suited to a CRT because LCD's dont have "perfect" colour representation yet, and CRT's are a much more mature market for professional graphics work. If your job depends on colour precision, then get a CRT and don't use this argument to make it seem like "LCD's are slightly inferior to CRT's for colour (depending on the models you're comparing) so therefore all LCD's suck and they're pointless"

Well you said it right there didn't you? If a higher standard is used for doing graphic work why would you settle for a lower standard LCD??

Grass always greener on the otherside? I can pick any side I wish, I just choose to pick the one that is best. This isn't just a shot in the dark...I have access to seeing tons of brands, LCD's and CRT's. I choose CRT.

I can't wait untill LCD's become good..right now they are middle class at best.

Yes LCD's are cooler, less power consumption, nicer looking but they certainly are not better for what really counts and that is visual display. Hey...if you prefer pretty over functionality with a LCD monitor then all the power to you.

Why would I want to pay up to 4 times the cost of a CRT for a LCD when I can save the money and get a better video card or something?

CRT is heavy ya...but thats what my desk at home is for...I don't hold it.

Now would you like to say something that means anything?

 

[Alptraum]

I wont go over the detailed list of reasons why I switched since I have usually done that in the other 5 million threads on this topic. In a nutshell = I have been using nice 19", 21" and 22" CRTs for 9 years or so. And even though I still own a Mitsu 2040u and Sony G520p they are both on secondary systems untill I can replace themwith LCDs as I already have done on my main system.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: IKnowNothing

"I do graphic work and I can't stand the LCDs" - brought up for the 100000th time. Graphics work is best suited to a CRT because LCD's dont have "perfect" colour representation yet, and CRT's are a much more mature market for professional graphics work. If your job depends on colour precision, then get a CRT and don't use this argument to make it seem like "LCD's are slightly inferior to CRT's for colour (depending on the models you're comparing) so therefore all LCD's suck and they're pointless"

Well you said it right there didn't you? If a higher standard is used for doing graphic work why would you settle for a lower standard LCD??

It's *only* colour representation that's better on CRT, and it's not even an issue for the layman or even the casual photo editor and graphic designer. LCD's are *much* sharper, easier on the eyes, produce text that is considerably more readable (especially in small fonts) and games IMO look considerably better on low response time LCD's.

Why did you just scan through my post and ignore every valid point I made towards LCD's and focus on that one point? Have you even used LCD's for an extended period of time (I'm not talking about using your buddy's 19" LCD for an hour or two, either) ? I also thought LCD's weren't up to snuff until I actually had to use one at work; after a month I couldn't go back to CRT and bought an LCD for my home.

Originally posted by: IKnowNothing
Now would you like to say something that means anything?

I (and others) have said plenty to show our viewpoint (and use the search function to get a ton more reasons). You given no proof for your argument except for saying "I've used top of the line LCD's and the quality isn't there." Convincing!

Which LCD's have you used, and for how long? Was it hooked up to a good video card? Did you use DVI? You were running at native resolution? Etc. All we've got to work on is your biased viewpoint here.

 

[VIAN]

LCDs Pros:
Perfect Geometry
More Accurate Color Placement
Lower Space Consumption
Lower Power Consumption
Lower Heat Output
Lower Noticeable Tearing
Higher Brightness

CRTs(AG) Pros:
More Accurate Color Reproduction
Quicker Response Time
Cheaper
Higher Contrast
Higher Viewing Angle
No Dead Pixels
Scale Resolutions Accurately
Returnable

 

[Zebo]

have to ask, are we being scamed here?

LCDs are generally superior but when you get into high end CRT's...


Yes sir you are. LCD's suck by comparison IMO. They lie about response times. http://graphics.tomshardware.c...ay/20040923/index.html

They have crap color. The don't have blacks. look like crap at any res not native. In essence all thier "pros" appeal to biatches and metrosexuals not gamers or those interested in IQ.


Check out this industry leading 8ms BenQ exceeding 22msmost of the time.. The 16ms dell that everyone has emotional attachment to is even worse.

http://graphics.tomshardware.c.../20041015/benq-03.html

 

[constable]

I would totally rock a 19+" CRT, if it werent for the fact that Id have a splitting headache by the end of every day.

 

[theblackbox]

how come lcd vs crt arguments always start off with I'ma grahic artistor some such and then go into a diatribe about how much lcds suck.

Kinda funny now, considering Apple is usually pimped as the perfect hardware for grapic design and they don't really promote anything other than LCD...

my thought exactly, apple dumped the crt studio display when they introduced their lcd studio line, and they never turned back, and i very rarely hear any apple users complain.

Most LCD's are marketed and sold to the CONSUMER pc market. I don't know which "high end" lcds you are reffering to as all you said was :

I'm taking a 3d Artist class during the day and working at a computer store by night. My experience working with LCD monitors (top of the line ones) is really bad

lcd, like this:

LaCie

or some other top of the line lcd?

Check out this industry leading 8ms BenQ exceeding 22msmost of the time.. The 16ms dell that everyone has emotional attachment to is even worse.

i never thought of BenQ as industry leading, or dell for that matter. Response time isn't really an issue for graphic arts. Ghosting is for gamers. The new lower response times are just the lcd market tryig to sell to gamers new lcds because the market isn't moving fast enough.

What i hate most is graphic artists that use laptops...

A top of the line lcd will do as well as a crt, if you want to pay for it. Why people pay more, maybe it's a stylish thing.
I personally have dumped my crt and use lcds exclusively and i have never heard anyone complain, and my workspace looks better, has more room, and is cooler.

maybe it'sthe flouresent lights above, they always make crt's look better.

 

[AnnoyedGrunt]

A "high quality" CRT really isn't much less expensive than an LCD, and a very high quality CRT monitor is usually much, much more costly (primarily in professional video monitors - $30,000 or so).

The problem now is that CRT's have gone cheap, and LCD's are the "high end" but not in overall performance, just in some areas and in aesthetics. I have not been able to find a 19" CRT that could match the quality of my Iiyama Vision Master Pro 17 from 4 years ago. I ended up with a Viewsonic P95f+ that is close, and would have like to try the NEC/Mitsu high end 19", but couldn't find one readily available. Even the modern "high end" CRT's are rarely over $500, and have pretty poor quaility control. If you look @ newegg reviews of almost any monitor, you'll see that there are frequently people who need to go through 2 or 3 units before they find a good one (which is why I wanted to get the Viewsonic @ a local store). My new monitor took a couple tries before I had one with good convergence across the screen (most were good in the center but poor along the edges).

Anyway, I prefer CRT's for home use, mainly because you can choose any resolution and you don't have to worry about speed, but for work, (Pro/Engineer CAD work) I would be very happy with an LCD.

Each type has its place, but I think the CRT's of 3-5 years ago were better than the CRT's of today (unfortunate, even though they were more expensive).

-D'ho!

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Zebo
They have crap color. The don't have blacks. look like crap at any res not native. In essence all thier "pros" appeal to biatches and metrosexuals not gamers or those interested in IQ.

LOL. Yeah, you pretty-much covered all of the bases right there. LCD's suck! CRT's forever!!!

On a slightly more serious note, yes, LCDs do basically suck, unless you are pressed for space, or want to appear "hip" by owning one. The fact that they have limited viewing angle, poor color reproduction, poor response time, and pixel errors, and cost 3x-4x as much.. well, I'm sticking with my higher-end CRTs until such time as LCDs can actually compete on technical merits, rather than the "coolness factor".

(For similar reasons, I avoid SATA HDs, etc. too. Current first-gen ones are technically inferior to PATA HDs in many areas. They really only appeal to people that would have used out-of-spec "rounded IDE cables" anyways, and chances are they own a case with a window too. I do not.)

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: AnnoyedGrunt
Each type has its place, but I think the CRT's of 3-5 years ago were better than the CRT's of today (unfortunate, even though they were more expensive).
-D'ho!

Oh, definately. It's really almost scary, seeing how cheaply some of the current crop of "consumer" CRTs are built. But seeing as how they sell for $79, instead of $479, I can kind of understand how and why.

 

[OrionAntares]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: Zebo
They have crap color. The don't have blacks. look like crap at any res not native. In essence all thier "pros" appeal to biatches and metrosexuals not gamers or those interested in IQ.

LOL. Yeah, you pretty-much covered all of the bases right there. LCD's suck! CRT's forever!!!

On a slightly more serious note, yes, LCDs do basically suck, unless you are pressed for space, or want to appear "hip" by owning one. The fact that they have limited viewing angle, poor color reproduction, poor response time, and pixel errors, and cost 3x-4x as much.. well, I'm sticking with my higher-end CRTs until such time as LCDs can actually compete on technical merits, rather than the "coolness factor".

(For similar reasons, I avoid SATA HDs, etc. too. Current first-gen ones are technically inferior to PATA HDs in many areas. They really only appeal to people that would have used out-of-spec "rounded IDE cables" anyways, and chances are they own a case with a window too. I do not.)

I have an older 17" NEC LCD and I can say that I am extremely happy with it's preformance. I was originally using a trinitron CRT and personally think that my LCD has a sharper display. I've never seen and problems with the colors from screen to paper, infact, I've not had any screen to paper color problems while using my LCD. And besides looking "hip" it also looks better, I can stare at an LCD screen for a long time with no eye fatigue, but I can't work at any CRT very long without the screen flicker starting to strain my eyes. My friend has this nice 21" CRT, but I never even considered that it was better than my 17" LCD, he actually thinks that my LCD is better.

 

[Chudilo]

If you read books online then Sure LCD is a great option for reading/writing small text for hours at a time. That's about the only thing that LCDs are better then CRTs at. However if you are working with a high quality CRT which allows you to be using a refesh rate over 85Hz, then eye fatique is not an issue for a CRT either. So we're back at square one. CRT provide better image quality at a cheaper price. however they are not as trendy and occupy more space.

Let me throw in a third viewpoint into this agrument. I've seen a couple of extremely expensive Plazma monitors .. Those things provide as good of a picture as any CRT !!! Why not improve on those? Make 'em cheaper..If it cost even double the amount of my CRT I'd buy one in a second. But there is no way I 'm spending over $1500 on a monitor. They keep saying that Plazmas are cheaper to produce then CRTs in extremely large quanitities.. So Let's Go !!! Do it already !!

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024

Originally posted by: IKnowNothing

SO far I have not seen a an LCD that would satisfy me with reproduction of dark colors. Yes I know it's a theoretical problem with LCDs. because they are lighted from the back .. but why should I care.

I hear ya!

I can't understand how someone would pay so much for a LCD [n]when they can pay way less for a CRT that will outperform it[/b] without a problem.

Boy that's a subjective statement if I ever saw one.

I understand certain applications for LCDs really benifit from the space saving like retail and medical but I think the general public needs to wait a bit for better quality products for LCDs.

My friend bought a 19" LCD display a few months ago. He drools over my 22" CRT display which cost half the price of his. His does take up less space but at what cost?

Apparently your friend is the de-facto standard on "quality" of monitors.

It's been debated here time and time again, and you could have just as easily found the answer to your biased claim that way, but I'll list off some reasons why people buy LCD's, because apparently you can't figure it out.

1. Much smaller than CRT's. On my desk, for example, I run 1 CRT and 1 LCD; it would be impossible to run 2 CRT's because there is no room on the right side of the desk (where the LCD is); there's about 1.5 feet of depth, which is more than enough for the LCD but not even close for the CRT.

2. Much sharper text at native resolution. Have you seen a 17" or 20" LCD on DVI on it's native resolution? It blows CRT's out of the water at 1280X1024 or 1600X1200; respectively. 19" is a bit of a tweener because it has the same resolution as 17" but on a bigger screen so it doesn't look quite as nice.

3. Much less heat - in a small college room, this adds up and the heat is a big bonus.

4. Lower power consumption (not a factor for most purchases, but it's nice to have).

5. Much less weight - for a monitor you take around places, it's nice to be able to carry it easily (to/from school; to/from Lan parties, etc)

6. Much higher brightness than your average CRT. Brightness on LCD's is stunning and it's tough to go back to CRT's once you get used to the insane brightness of (newer) LCD's.

7. Extremely sharp picture. I can't tell you how much sharper games look on this 12ms LCD I run vs the 19" trinitron that's next to it. It's stunning.

8. Less eye fatigue. LCD's don't flicker because they don't draw the screen like CRT's do and it is much easier on most people's eyes. A few do complain that their eyes also get tired on LCD's, but generally they're better on the eyes.

9. Style - LCD's look very sweet on the table, especially next to CRT's.


So yes, LCD's are terrible and they're only for stupid suckers. You win. Your buddy can drool over your 80 pound 22" CRT all he wants; the grass is always greener on the other side, dude.


"I do graphic work and I can't stand the LCDs" - brought up for the 100000th time. Graphics work is best suited to a CRT because LCD's dont have "perfect" colour representation yet, and CRT's are a much more mature market for professional graphics work. If your job depends on colour precision, then get a CRT and don't use this argument to make it seem like "LCD's are slightly inferior to CRT's for colour (depending on the models you're comparing) so therefore all LCD's suck and they're pointless" .

Sounds like arguments for a nice laptop.
:roll:

. . . less electrical power, less space, less space, small footprint . . .
(and you can have your laptops)
:shocked:

an a whole lot lighter wallet.
:roll:

they each have their plusses and minuses . . . . however, a quality CRT - for the price - will (despite its "style shortcomings") provide the best bang-4-buck . . .

 

[Mem]

they each have their plusses and minuses . . . . however, a quality CRT - for the price - will (despite its "style shortcomings") provide the best bang-4-buck . .

You could always have both a CRT and LCD which`s what I`ve ,best of both worlds .

 

[jrphoenix]

If you're willing to pay..... lcd is the way to go. Lifetime CRT user until last year, now I have a Samsung 213T. I'll never go back to CRT, end of story. Doom 3's game play is very weak........ but, for all of those winers crying about how dark the game is.... 10 to 1 odds they're using a not very bright CRT! Doom 3 isn't too dark on my LCD.