LCD or CRT?

[SVT Cobra]

CRT>LCD

those of you who are LCD fanboi's are saying that you cna game on an LCD...BS, try it with high reso's....give me a fast refresh rate or 115 hz plus....

also to get the "great" LCD that you guys have all been talking about you have to go out and sell both your arm and a leg, and if you want bigger than a 19 inch you need to try and sell a kidney on ebay...

 

[svi]

those of you who are LCD fanboi's are saying that you cna game on an LCD...BS, try it with high reso's....give me a fast refresh rate or 115 hz plus....

There are very few people that need more than 60Hz to game well, and I've yet to meet a single person that can actually tell the difference between 90FPS and 120FPS in even a semi-scientific test.

also to get the "great" LCD that you guys have all been talking about you have to go out and sell both your arm and a leg, and if you want bigger than a 19 inch you need to try and sell a kidney on ebay...

Something like the 2001FP can be had for $400-500. It's pricey, sure, but really not that bad compared to some of the overpriced hardware out there. Hell, people pay $800 for CPUs that will be midrange in two and a half years, budget in four, and keychain candidates in seven. Monitors stick around a little longer.

 

[DerelictDev]

WTF are some of you ppl talking about. LCD screens arent "really" based upon refresh rates, there based upon pixel timing (8ms, 16ms, 25ms.)
In a crt a photon image has be sent to lense to produce an image (something in that sense) and refresh rate is how fast that can be done.
In a LCD there is no need for that because technically the pixel is "always on" but its based on how fast the pixel can change colors. The timing like 8ms means it takes 8milliseconds for a pixel to change from pure white to black. The lower the number the better, at least in most cases as long as it doesnt sacrfice color to attain the ms rating.
Some backup info about refresh rates on lcd -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refresh_rate]
http://www.driverheaven.net/showthread.php?p=510726
http://www.computerhope.com/help/lcd.htm
http://escotal.com/monitor.html - Scroll to bottom
ton more on google.com
Refresh rate is there to stop "flicker" on crt monitors. LCD's dont suffer this problem and "per se" your not suppose to base quality on it.

I have a viewsonic VP171b which i got about 1.5 yrs ago and i run Counter Strike source on it @ 1280 by 1024 res and absolutely no ghosting or any other bs people talk about.

Son of a Noob may be correct at higher resolutions there may be ghosting but personally i cant say anything about that cause the highest res on my lcd has is 1280 by 1024 (That can also be a draw back in lcds, resolution is based on lcd size. Typically 17" and 19" max res. is 1280 by 1024, Some 19" and higher have higher resolutions.)
Also most of these people who bitch about lcd's have crt's and never actually used a good lcd to try it out. They have too much pride in their crt to even give lcd's a chance.

Personally im going to tell you to go for a lcd. Once you get it, i doubt youll regret it or notice any kind of problems playing games etc.

 

[svi]

WTF are some of you ppl talking about. LCD screens arent based upon refresh rates, just pixel timing (8ms, 16ms, 25ms.)
In a crt a photon image has be sent to lense to produce an image (something in that sense) and refresh rate is how fast that can be done.
In a LCD there is no need for that at all but its based on how fast the pixel can change colors. The timing like 8ms means it takes 8milliseconds for a pixel to change from pure white to black. The lower the number the better, at least in most cases as long as it doesnt sacrfice color to attain the ms rating.

LCD screens are still subject to refresh rates, because that's how video cards work. An LCD running at a refresh rate of 60Hz will still only update the picture 60 times per second, whether the pixel response time is 12ms or 12ns.

 

[Muscles]

Originally posted by: svi

those of you who are LCD fanboi's are saying that you cna game on an LCD...BS, try it with high reso's....give me a fast refresh rate or 115 hz plus....

There are very few people that need more than 60Hz to game well, and I've yet to meet a single person that can actually tell the difference between 90FPS and 120FPS in even a semi-scientific test.

I'd gladly be willing to take that test preferably using Quake 2 or 3.

Originally posted by: svi

WTF are some of you ppl talking about. LCD screens arent based upon refresh rates, just pixel timing (8ms, 16ms, 25ms.)
In a crt a photon image has be sent to lense to produce an image (something in that sense) and refresh rate is how fast that can be done.
In a LCD there is no need for that at all but its based on how fast the pixel can change colors. The timing like 8ms means it takes 8milliseconds for a pixel to change from pure white to black. The lower the number the better, at least in most cases as long as it doesnt sacrfice color to attain the ms rating.

LCD screens are still subject to refresh rates, because that's how video cards work. An LCD running at a refresh rate of 60Hz will still only update the picture 60 times per second, whether the pixel response time is 12ms or 12ns.

Correct. LCD's are definitely subject to refresh rates. If the maximum refresh rate of whatever monitor you're using is 60 hz then that is the MOST amount of frames per second you will ever be getting. So for example, if you had a killer machine playing Quake 3 or UT2k4 and you are getting over 200 frames per second but your monitor can only output 85 hz max then that's all you're really getting in framerate (85 instead of 200+) basically making your killer machine worthless because the LCD monitor is a bottleneck.

If you're an overclocker think of it like having to run using a divider because your RAM is holding you back from having a 1:1 ratio.

 

[Excelsior]

Regardless of what any of you say, blacks and colors are still not as good on LCDs as they are on CRTs.

 

[svi]

I'd gladly be willing to take that test preferably using Quake 2 or 3.

If you want to do the test, you'll need a friend to help you with it. First, have your friend record what sessions will be set to what (90FPS or 120FPS) beforehand. The mix should be random, not alternating or anything. (Flipping a coin works.) Obviously, the player is not allowed to look at this list. Set the monitor to a low resolution at a suitably obscene refresh rate (as high as possible, that's what the low resolution is for).

Have the friend set the maximum frame rate for the game according to the session number. (Again, the player can't be allowed to look at this, for obvious reasons.) Play the game for a little while, record what frame rate you think was maximum. Repeat, for a minimum of 10 sessions. (More sessions == better.)

It's definitely not perfect, but it beats nothing. Results are often surprising.

Regardless of what any of you say, blacks and colors are still not as good on LCDs as they are on CRTs.

They sure aren't. However, the difference is no longer large enough for most people to care. Obviously, everyone's preferences and perception will vary.. all the more reason to try before you buy.


Side note: both parts of this post reminded me so much of every single audio argument I've ever seen.

 

[Excelsior]

You are correct. The difference isn't big enough for most people to care, including myself, thats why I have an LCD. However, I was just stating the facts.

 

[0roo0roo]

http://www.viewsonic.com/monitoruniversity/lcd.htm

 

[Iain]

Are none of you worried about the radiation and the electromagnetic field that CRT monitors give out? Surely thats reason enough to change to LCD alone

 

[mumbs]

There are anti-glare/radiation filters you can buy for your crt. You can find a good deal on ebay.

 

[svi]

http://www.viewsonic.com/monitoruniversity/lcd.htm

Gee, it sure is good to get this information from an unbiased source like Viewsonic.

Are none of you worried about the radiation and the electromagnetic field that CRT monitors give out? Surely thats reason enough to change to LCD alone

Ah, radiation. Such a scary word, yes? Guess what: LCDs shower you with radiation. LEDs give out lots of radiation. Light bulbs positively glow with radiation. The VAST majority of this radiation is in the visible light or infrared spectrum, which means it's harmless. The same applies to CRTs. CRTs do put out a tiny bit of UVA, but this is strictly regulated, and it is nowhere near enough to cause you any harm.

As for the electromagnetic field, show me something approaching solid evidence that an electromagnetic field as weak as a typical CRT's can actually have any sort of effect on humans.

 

[kmmatney]

I'm a fairly heavy gamer - and I like LCDs better for gaming. Games just look nicer.

CRTs work by accelerating electrons into phospors. This produces X-rays, same as an X-ray Tube. The energy of the X-rays are low, and when designed correctly CRTs are safe, but there is a huge difference between the visible light that LEDs produce and the X-rays produced in a CRT.

Edit - I'm an X-ray scientist, btw...

 

[Iain]

No i dont have solid proof but from what I've read it isnt actually that low an EMF. When compared to other high EMF sources it may be low but remember that monitor right near your head. Personally I just prefer to be safe that sorry. It is after all a relatively recent technology and these things tend to take a long time to emerge. Its only recenly that strong evidence for electricity pylons causing leukemia has brought it into the spotlight but theres been evidence suggesting it for it for decades.

 

[imported_g33k]

Originally posted by: svi

http://www.viewsonic.com/monitoruniversity/lcd.htm

Gee, it sure is good to get this information from an unbiased source like Viewsonic.

Viewsonic sells both LCD's and CRT's. Havent you read that page? I find it to be accurate information. Do you not?

 

[svi]

I'm a fairly heavy gamer - and I like LCDs better for gaming. Games just look nicer.

This is a perfect example of why people should try before they buy. Some people say they prefer CRTs by a wide margin, others (like you) say they prefer LCDs even for gaming. It really is very subjective.

Still, I do have to ask (sorry): what CRTs have you used?

This produces X-rays, same as an X-ray Tube. The energy of the X-rays are low, and when designed correctly CRTs are safe, but there is a huge difference between the visible light that LEDs produce and the X-rays produced in a CRT.

I would hardly say that there is a huge difference between visible light and X-rays. They're essentially the same thing, X-rays are just more energetic. If you mean a huge difference in their effects on organisms, though, then sure.

Anyway, you are correct that CRTs produce X-rays. However, they produce a very low amount of X-ray radiation, and the leaded glass blocks an enormous amount of that. They are far less dangerous than a few minutes in the sun or a routine X-ray.

No i dont have solid proof but from what I've read it isnt actually that low an EMF. When compared to other high EMF sources it may be low but remember that monitor right near your head. Personally I just prefer to be safe that sorry. It is after all a relatively recent technology and these things tend to take a long time to emerge.

This is what happens when people watch too many sci-fi movies. Give them any term that sounds scary and a little prodding, and they'll become convinced that it'll kill them. Irradiated food is a perfect example of this.

CRTs are also not "relatively recent techology", unless you're putting them on the scale of all human technological advances (starting with fire).

Viewsonic sells both LCD's and CRT's. Havent you read that page? I find it to be accurate information. Do you not?

Some is accurate, some is exaggerated, some is missing. Viewsonic is phasing out CRTs, and their margins on LCDs are much higher.

Examples: It says "no flicker", but a properly configured CRT will not have perceivable flicker. The emissions section implies that the differences in radiation actually make any kind of real-world difference. The page also fails to mention contrast, color reproduction, and resolution issues.

 

[n7]

Ignorance is bliss.

Seems like a lot of people in this thread love ignorance

 

[imported_g33k]

Originally posted by: svi
Some is accurate, some is exaggerated, some is missing. Viewsonic is phasing out CRTs, and their margins on LCDs are much higher.

Examples: It says "no flicker", but a properly configured CRT will not have perceivable flicker. The emissions section implies that the differences in radiation actually make any kind of real-world difference. The page also fails to mention contrast, color reproduction, and resolution issues.

You must of missed reading the second page under CRT advantages. It doesn't fail to mention it.

 

[dukdukgoos]

I think color reproduction is better and "truer" on CRTs. I work with many graphic designers who feel uncomfortable designing on LCDs alone, as the colors aren't accurate enough. They usually resort to having both a CRT and LCD so they can refer to both when designing color palettes.

 

[RyBoy]

2005fpw - No ghosting, no delay, bright, detailed, awesome.

 

[Iain]

No i dont have solid proof but from what I've read it isnt actually that low an EMF. When compared to other high EMF sources it may be low but remember that monitor right near your head. Personally I just prefer to be safe that sorry. It is after all a relatively recent technology and these things tend to take a long time to emerge.


This is what happens when people watch too many sci-fi movies. Give them any term that sounds scary and a little prodding, and they'll become convinced that it'll kill them. Irradiated food is a perfect example of this.

CRTs are also not "relatively recent techology", unless you're putting them on the scale of all human technological advances (starting with fire).

Theres no need to patronise me, I didnt pick up the terms from sci-fi movies. I just happen to read newspapers and take an interest in such things. I didnt say I was convinced at all if you read what I said, just that the potential risk was surely a significant factor when making a choice between the two technologies.

It is recent technology in the sense that any potential damage done to us wont show up until this very new computer generation that we are grows up.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: swinger222
what about refresh rates and image quality?

CRT wins the Image Quality Debate. Every thing looks clearer on a CRT, partialy due to the fact that colour, brightness, and contrast are better with a CRT.

If you are playing games then you need a CRT.

Oh; did I forget to mention, that CRT's do not have the latency issue that LCD's have? 8ms? Ha, thats joke! My CRT can do better than that. Most 8ms panels are really like 15-25ms, so don't go listening to all that marketing hype. Go OLED when it comes out, just as long as you dont mind the interpolation that All flat displays have. The Swiss army knife like resolution and latency free abilty of any CRT is reason enough choose the tube.

CRT advantages:
[*] Resolution- You wont need the latest $500+ graphics card to view it natively. Any resolution you choose is native to a CRT. Even plasma cant really win this one.
[*] Colour- As close to real as it will ever get.
[*] Clairty
[*] Latency-No need to worry about motion blur or responce time.
[*] Cost- Superior picture qualty at a fraction of a cost.
[*] Excellant 180° viewing angles
[*] No backlighting needed- LCD back lights loose their brightness over time and get dim, making it hard to see what is on the screen.
[*]Images apear more detailed on a CRT.
[*] Last, It's a time tested proven technology- Most screens will last 10+ years.

LCD Advanteges-
[*] Size
[*] Weight- Unless you travel alot (IE Military) and dont stay in one city very long LCD is ideal.
[*] Power
The only place that I can really think of where an LCD would be desirable is people who live on boats*. All of the LCD advantages I listed are things that boat owners take in to serious consideration when choosing appliences for their vessel (TV's, Refregerators, Ovens/Stoves, Lights, Radio, GPS). Ok, RV's too.

When Playing games a CRT has a distint advantage over an LCD allowing you to score higher points in (for example) Day Of Defeat, because of the clairty and ability to see in the dark, A CRT will allow you to sneak arround users who have lcds. How you ask? Because People who are using lcd's cannot see you and often turn on their "Flash Lights" even though they are right next to you and you can see them with out turning yours on. I cannot tell you how many times that has saved me and it keeps me at the top of most servers top 10 or 20 lists of best players. Stealth RULES!

*In Florida, a lot of people choose their boat as their permanent residence. Plenty of marina's are set up to accomodate such guests.


From another thead I posted to:
But if you really want my advice get a crt, no need to worry about responce times, motion blur, bad colour, interpolation (pixelation at low resoultions),

CRT's run any resolution natively, have an infinate colour spectrum, if you ask me it's the best when it comes to picture quality hands down.

LCD has only the SIZE and power advantage; all other advanteges belong to CRT.

My advice is go out and get a crt, forget about making a fashion statement with your PC; Thin monitors blow, CRT's rule when It comes to clairty, resolution, and colour. People who love LCD's are people who also like interior decorating and think celerons are high performace computer brains.

 

[svi]

You must of missed reading the second page under CRT advantages. It doesn't fail to mention it.

Oops, yes, I did. Thanks for mentioning that, can't believe I missed the next button.

Page 2 still says nothing about contrast, however, and the problems noted on the first page are still there.

Theres no need to patronise me, I didnt pick up the terms from sci-fi movies. I just happen to read newspapers and take an interest in such things. I didnt say I was convinced at all if you read what I said, just that the potential risk was surely a significant factor when making a choice between the two technologies.

I'm not patronizing you, I've just talked to one too many people who think that some scary-sounding phrase could be hurting them somehow even if they have seen no evidence of it whatsoever. If you take an interest in such things, you should look at studies that have found no correlation between CRT monitors and anything other than normal eye strain (which occurs if you're staring at ANYTHING all day, whether that's a CRT, an LCD, or a book). A nonexistent risk should not be a factor in making a decision.

I'm sorry if I sound annoyed, I've just been through this tons of times with more people than I care to count.

It is recent technology in the sense that any potential damage done to us wont show up until this very new computer generation that we are grows up.

Generations before us have sat in front of much more "dangerous" and less regulated CRTs all day, and they seem to be fine.

LCD has only the SIZE and power advantage; all other advanteges belong to CRT.

LCDs are also much easier to set up. CRTs require some degree of setup and calibration before they work at their best, LCDs work at their best pretty much out of the box. Also, size, weight, power consumption and heat output are pretty major arguments. Not everyone can afford to have a big hulking space heater.

Thin monitors blow, CRT's rule when It comes to clairty, resolution, and colour. People who love LCD's are people who also like interior decorating and think celerons are high performace computer brains.

This is a completely unfair generalization. I know plenty of people who simply can't afford to have that extra heat put out into already cramped and hot rooms, who want affordable widescreen monitors for watching DVDs, who move their monitors many times throughout the year, et cetera. Also, the heat output difference between CRTs and LCDs in a computer lab or internet café can make a big difference in heat and/or air-conditioning costs.

As for where CRTs "rule", the differences between CRT and LCD color reproduction is really not large at all these days (assuming high-quality representatives of each category), and I have no idea what you mean about "clarity". CRTs die over time just as LCDs do (with both, it's a question of on time, not age; that's why some people have dying five-year-old CRTs and others have 12-year-old CRTs in good condition), and I don't know what you meant about images looking better on CRTs (unless you were referring to color reproduction, which would make your point redundant).

 

[cryptonomicon]

you forgot to mention that lcds are easier on the eyes

 

[svi]

Originally posted by: cryptonomicon
you forgot to mention that lcds are easier on the eyes

I think I mentioned that people who say this almost always do so because they haven't tried good CRTs and/or don't know how to configure CRTs. No offense meant, of course.