- Aug 22, 2001
- 32,095
- 32,640
- 146
There is absolutely really no room for argument. Technology proves this and experience shows it beyond any doubt. If you want to argue about an LCD's plus points over a CRT you have a few areas only Size, heat and thats it. It is just a fact that a good quality CRT is better picture quality than any LCD availible. Not even worth arguing, people will argue I assume because they spent a bundle on one and feel the need to assert its superiority over a much less priced truly superior product 
There is no LCD that can produce a picture of the quality my 930sb does and that goes for its 22" big brother. :roll:
There is no LCD that can produce a picture of the quality my 930sb does and that goes for its 22" big brother. :roll:Originally posted by: RealityTime
There is absolutely really no room for argument. Technology proves this and experience shows it beyond any doubt. If you want to argue about an LCD's plus points over a CRT you have a few areas only Size, heat and thats it. It is just a fact that a good quality CRT is better picture quality than any LCD availible. Not even worth arguing, people will argue I assume because they spent a bundle on one and feel the need to assert its superiority over a much less priced truly superior product
Wrong
I have an older version of that (the 900u) and also a 22" Diamond Pro. My Samsung 192t looks a lot better then both of them.Originally posted by: Alptraum
Wrong
whatever
:roll:
Originally posted by: RealityTime
Originally posted by: Alptraum
Wrong
whatever
:roll:
Heh, I know its part personal preference. Which is why I put the smiley face. But I think a lot of people that weigh in on these LCD versus CRT threads have not owned both. I have spent lots of time with me pretty decent quality CRTs (The diamond pro 2040u and the Sony G520p being the two best I have) and for me the image on the 192t is better. And all of the people I know that have spent lots of time with both CRTs and LCDs prefer LCDs. I usually hear how much better CRTs are from people that have not owned an LCD and been able to compare them side by side. Though there are some people that do that and favor CRT.
- Aug 22, 2001
- 32,095
- 32,640
- 146
Preach it bruddaOriginally posted by: jrphoenix
Especially in FL where it already costs enought too keep our homes cool through the summer!
Originally posted by: Alptraum
Originally posted by: RealityTime
Originally posted by: Alptraum
Wrong
whatever
:roll:
Heh, I know its part personal preference. Which is why I put the smiley face. But I think a lot of people that weigh in on these LCD versus CRT threads have not owned both. I have spent lots of time with me pretty decent quality CRTs (The diamond pro 2040u and the Sony G520p being the two best I have) and for me the image on the 192t is better. And all of the people I know that have spent lots of time with both CRTs and LCDs prefer LCDs. I usually hear how much better CRTs are from people that have not owned an LCD and been able to compare them side by side. Though there are some people that do that and favor CRT.
I've used both. I understand people's liking for LCD's. They have that nice appealing 'brightness' when you look at them. That distinct LCD look. But I am interested in quality, not aesthetics. Their color reproduction, picture clarity, and response is abysmal. Particularly considering I do a lot of gaming on my machine. The diamond pro series is simply a league above any LCD for concerns of picture quality.
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
LOL. Yeah, you pretty-much covered all of the bases right there. LCD's suck! CRT's forever!!!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.
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.)
Larry, what are you on?
And don't bring SATA into the argument; ever heard the name 'Raptor' before?
I am not sure what are your standards for a high end CRT or LCD, but as far as I am concerned, even the Viewsonic P220f doesn't match mine. Of course, I had to pay 4 times as much for my CinemaDisplay 23inch. I think $500 won't buy you anything great in the LCD department, but that is a pretty high end CRT in today's prices.
I just don't see your problems anywhere.
Latency? Well, it's rated at merely 25ms (the new one is 16ms), and I still couldn't find any ghosting on mine in any game or app. I thought this could be just that I have a low standard, so I got some friends to try it and the result is the same.
Viewing angle? I am currently using mine more frequently as a TV, when my friends come over they sit in all sorts of odd spots and angles dodging all the books on my floor. None of them ever complained about not being able to see the screen.
Sharpness and contrast? Spanks all the CRTs I've seen.
Color reproduction? Well, I don't have a CMYK printer anyway, so why would I care. As far as watching movies is concerned I personally think it looks much better on my LCD compared to my original Viewsonic e70f (I know it is definitely not a top of a line CRT.)
Resolution? Yeah, you are not going to get great quality at any resolution other than the default optimal resolution. But who in the world would buy a LCD and intentionally not run it at the hardware's optimal resolution?
The only thing I've been harrassed about is the gamma issue and the lack OSD controls, but that is what you get when you hook Apple hardware on to a PC.
I just don't see your problems anywhere.
Latency? Well, it's rated at merely 25ms (the new one is 16ms), and I still couldn't find any ghosting on mine in any game or app. I thought this could be just that I have a low standard, so I got some friends to try it and the result is the same.
Viewing angle? I am currently using mine more frequently as a TV, when my friends come over they sit in all sorts of odd spots and angles dodging all the books on my floor. None of them ever complained about not being able to see the screen.
Sharpness and contrast? Spanks all the CRTs I've seen.
Color reproduction? Well, I don't have a CMYK printer anyway, so why would I care. As far as watching movies is concerned I personally think it looks much better on my LCD compared to my original Viewsonic e70f (I know it is definitely not a top of a line CRT.)
Resolution? Yeah, you are not going to get great quality at any resolution other than the default optimal resolution. But who in the world would buy a LCD and intentionally not run it at the hardware's optimal resolution?
The only thing I've been harrassed about is the gamma issue and the lack OSD controls, but that is what you get when you hook Apple hardware on to a PC.
If you game on your computer. And that is one of its main uses, an LCD is not ideal. And to those saying they are convinced their premo lcd displays are better than the crts they have owned. Unless you've owned a true quality trinitron monitor from sony or nec/mitsubishi. You have not seen what a quality crt really has to offer. And to those who have owned one of these premo crts and still claim their lcds are better. Get over it, you paid large for something that just looks nice, as in its actual physical presence is pleasant vs a crt. Too bad whats on the screen is not up to par.
mooncancook
Platinum Member
- May 28, 2003
- 2,874
- 50
- 91
For you graphic artists who is enjoying your CRT, go ahead and enjoy it, but don't come out here and claim LCD is a scam.
I use a 19" CRT at work and both a 19" CRT and 15" LCD at home. I read a lot of online reference and do a lot of coding at work, so I deal with text most of the time. For me I much prefer LCD becuase text is so much sharper. For color reproduction, maybe CRT is better, but unless your eyes are trained, most ppl won't notice the difference. I know LCD looks like crap if not in native resolution, but you'd be stupid to run your LCD in non-native resolution. I know CRT is better for movies bacuse it can produce true black, but it's not that bad unless you are in a really dark room, beside, i'd view my movies on my home theatre most of the time. CRT better for games is no doubt, but again, i play games a lot, and i don't notice much differece between my CRT and LCD.
For the majority of things i do on computers, LCD is either better or perform equally well. For you graphic artists, it might be a different story, but don't force your view point on other ppl because most ppl are not graphic artists.
LCD is more expensive bacause manufacturing liquid crystal screen is way more difficult than producing electron guns. LCD is already very cheap, and will become cheaper as manufacturing techniques mature. One thing CRT can never compare to LCD is style. As graphic artist you should know how important is style. As long as i can afford it, i'd always get something more stylish. LCD is not cheap but affordable to most ppl. You don't need to ask why ppl pay so much for LCD or plasma TV, why ppl buy B&O, LV... why some artists' work worth so much... well those things are overpriced, but LCD price is reasonable.
Last but least, have anyone here mention about eletro-magnetic radiation? i'm a little concerned being a foot away from a 20" CRT for a long period of time. Having a peace of mind is priceless.
I use a 19" CRT at work and both a 19" CRT and 15" LCD at home. I read a lot of online reference and do a lot of coding at work, so I deal with text most of the time. For me I much prefer LCD becuase text is so much sharper. For color reproduction, maybe CRT is better, but unless your eyes are trained, most ppl won't notice the difference. I know LCD looks like crap if not in native resolution, but you'd be stupid to run your LCD in non-native resolution. I know CRT is better for movies bacuse it can produce true black, but it's not that bad unless you are in a really dark room, beside, i'd view my movies on my home theatre most of the time. CRT better for games is no doubt, but again, i play games a lot, and i don't notice much differece between my CRT and LCD.
For the majority of things i do on computers, LCD is either better or perform equally well. For you graphic artists, it might be a different story, but don't force your view point on other ppl because most ppl are not graphic artists.
LCD is more expensive bacause manufacturing liquid crystal screen is way more difficult than producing electron guns. LCD is already very cheap, and will become cheaper as manufacturing techniques mature. One thing CRT can never compare to LCD is style. As graphic artist you should know how important is style. As long as i can afford it, i'd always get something more stylish. LCD is not cheap but affordable to most ppl. You don't need to ask why ppl pay so much for LCD or plasma TV, why ppl buy B&O, LV... why some artists' work worth so much... well those things are overpriced, but LCD price is reasonable.
Last but least, have anyone here mention about eletro-magnetic radiation? i'm a little concerned being a foot away from a 20" CRT for a long period of time. Having a peace of mind is priceless.
ponyo
Lifer
- Feb 14, 2002
- 19,688
- 2,811
- 126
Originally posted by: RealityTime
If you game on your computer. And that is one of its main uses, an LCD is not ideal. And to those saying they are convinced their premo lcd displays are better than the crts they have owned. Unless you've owned a true quality trinitron monitor from sony or nec/mitsubishi. You have not seen what a quality crt really has to offer. And to those who have owned one of these premo crts and still claim their lcds are better. Get over it, you paid large for something that just looks nice, as in its actual physical presence is pleasant vs a crt. Too bad whats on the screen is not up to par.
It's all personal preference.
As for using quality CRT, what you think these LCD people used in the past before they switched to LCD?
Let me ask you this since you seem so caught up in LCD people not having experienced using "true quality trinition monitor." Have you ever worked with LCD and Trinition CRT side by side like in a dual monitor setup? Using one by itself will mask lot of its imperfections and flaws. You only see the image from that monitor so you think it's good. But if you pair it with something and use both at the same time you can see the pros and cons of both displays. Every shortcomings can be seen and it stands out since you're seeing both at the same time.
I use LCD/CRT dual monitor setup. 20" Dell 2001FP LCD and 21" Sony G520P Trinition CRT. Both monitors are less than a year old and both bought new. I like both displays but I use the LCD for 99% of all document reading. I use my CRT for about 70% of the games but there are some games I actually prefer playing on the LCD due to its brightness. I spend 80% of my computer time doing office work and browsing and less than 20% for games. I do use my CRT as extra desktop space but any primary viewing docs and apps get moved to the LCD. If I had to choose and only use one monitor at a time, I would keep the LCD. That's not to say I don't like my Trinition. I love it and would gladly use that only if I didn't have my LCD. It's just that for my use, I prefer the LCD. For others reverse may be true. It all just depend on that person's computer use and habit and their eyes.
I really think we should ban LCD vs CRT threads. It's worse than Intel vs AMD threads IMO.
Why ban these posts? There is nothing more informative than hearing a good chanter about opposing ideas.
I love the responses that I have read in this post and I see some areas that someone would like to have a LCD over a CRT.
My concern is that people are subjected to believing LCDs are the top of the line for visual display but the are not. I know LCDs are here to stay or at least some form of it, but the cost versus quality issue is an easy one...CRTs give you the bigest bang for you buck hands down.
I haven't listed any models because there isn't the need too, there is enough information on the web for you to lookup detailed reviews and I'm sure you will find that the CRTs still hold the title of best display. Lets not even talk prices.
I guess if you have a fat wallet and can afford to dish out the bucks for the top of the line LCD then hey all the power to ya. I prefer to buy a mature display that beats out LCD in most instances and costs way less.
LCDs are being marketed big time right now for the average consumer while CRTs are being left in the dark a bit. I guess someone has to buy LCDs to further its advancement but it won't be me for awhile.
Honestly I couldn't give a rats ass if I bought a LCD or a CRT monitor. It's not like my life depends on it. I'm just stating from experience that CRTs blow LCDs away for most applications at a significant reduction in cost.
Flame away
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
I really think we should ban LCD vs CRT threads. It's worse than Intel vs AMD threads IMO.
---------------
Not worse yet but getting there.
I'd just like to add the serious rift occurs when someone accutally has a real good CRT like diamondtrons and above then IMO it can be 50/50 LCD vs CRT depending on tastes and concerns. But in general even the cheapest LCD's are superior from the CRT from whence the user came.
---------------
Not worse yet but getting there.
I'd just like to add the serious rift occurs when someone accutally has a real good CRT like diamondtrons and above then IMO it can be 50/50 LCD vs CRT depending on tastes and concerns. But in general even the cheapest LCD's are superior from the CRT from whence the user came.
ponyo
Lifer
- Feb 14, 2002
- 19,688
- 2,811
- 126
I think we'll get close price parity between CRTs and LCDs real soon. Prices on good CRT is around $600-700 for 22" and around $300 for 19". I think sometime next year we'll see many 20" LCD in the $600-700 range and $300-400 for most 19" LCD. I think 17" LCD will drop to under $200 for most models. Of course this is all a guess from me but that's how I see things going based on my readings from various panel manufactures like AUO and LG-Phillips forecast.
LCD technology and manufacturing should continue to get better. CRT manufacturing seems to get worse as companies shift their resources into other display technologies.
LCD technology and manufacturing should continue to get better. CRT manufacturing seems to get worse as companies shift their resources into other display technologies.
Originally posted by: RealityTime
If you game on your computer. And that is one of its main uses, an LCD is not ideal. And to those saying they are convinced their premo lcd displays are better than the crts they have owned. Unless you've owned a true quality trinitron monitor from sony or nec/mitsubishi. You have not seen what a quality crt really has to offer. And to those who have owned one of these premo crts and still claim their lcds are better. Get over it, you paid large for something that just looks nice, as in its actual physical presence is pleasant vs a crt. Too bad whats on the screen is not up to par.
When you say you have used both, which LCD(s)have you used? Did you use them at home? School? Work? Mars? As far as paying a lot for my LCD it was cheaper then CRTs I have gotten in the past. Granted these days I could get quality big CRT for less ($700 or so as opposed to the $1200 I have payed before) but you concept that people are embarresed to admit how inferior their LCDis because they spent so much on it is ludacris. If they did suck and were not as good as my CRTs, much less worse, the reaction you would see from me and I am pretty sure many others would be would be us bitching about what a waste they are.
When you say we payed large for something that just looks nice you are correct. It has a better image then the CRTs. While the LCD itself is stylish, thats just a bonus. I went for around 9 years with huge clunky looking boxes on my desk and would continue to do so if they had a better image.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Agreed. CRT's costs lots to make, especially good ones. Lots to ship too. I really can't beleive LCD's cost more than a diamondtron. Well they don't really anymore. And they will be half the price very soon.
I do think you'll see a CRT resurgence once this happens. After all, in many peoples minds, more money is more better.
apoppin
Lifer
the reverse is true in the Winter where i live . . . . overclock the CPU, RAM, video card, video ram open the case, set the monitor's timings to MAX, and move closer to the computer.
:roll:
of course CRT's are better... when LCD is as good as CRT for picture and everything else (sharpness, etc) then I will get an LCD.. oh yeah they also have to 1/2 in price.
you can get a great CRT 19" monitor for like $300-400 Cdn, an LCD is like $1k.. lame ripoff if you ask me.
you can get a great CRT 19" monitor for like $300-400 Cdn, an LCD is like $1k.. lame ripoff if you ask me.
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: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter