new CRT monitor

[TitusTroy]

Originally posted by: CP5670Well, the F520 has a very tight grill pitch, probably the best out there, but it uses an older generation tube that lacks the extended brightness capabilities of some of the final CRTs.

The 21" and 22" CRTs are all actually 20". The internal size of the tube is a bit larger than the actual viewable area on a CRT, which is what they used to advertise.

But yeah, I also see no reason to switch when you already have something good. You can get a bigger screen, but you have to compromise on a lot of other things for it. For me, it's too much of a downgrade to even consider. I'll probably keep using mine until OLED displays come out in another two years.

the reason why I'm looking to switch is because my GDM-F520 is starting to show signs of burn in at the very top and bottom of the screen (I've had the monitor for 8 years)...looks like the Windows taskbar has burned into the screen...it is very faint and only really noticable when looking at an all white background but it is still annoying

you're right in that I have not seen another CRT monitor that uses the .22 dot pitch which the F520 uses

when you say 'older generation tube' are you referring to the fact that it uses the Trinitron tube and not the next generation FD Trinitron tube?...if so do you really thinks that it makes all that much of a difference?...plus the CRT's that come with the FD Trinitron tube do not come with the .22 dot pitch, so there is a tradeoff...I think the .22 dot pitch is more important then having the latest FD Trinitron tube in terms of image quality

 

[bka4u2c]

People still use CRTs? Just kidding. I remember my trusty 21" Sony CRT. I did not want to give the beast of a monitor up. I'm now on my third LCD which happens to be a HDTV\LCD at the moment and I just couldn't imagine going back to a CRT. Now my first LCD was a 19" DELL and it was okay but did experience some form of ghosting now and then. After that widescreen were available at reasonable prices and I got a 20" LCD and it was just beautiful. Currently using a Sharp Aquos as my display and love it. Now that current games have caught up with including wide screen resolutions by default I couldn't be a happier PC gamer. But as most have stated it comes down to choice and preference. I'm not as picky about too black here and too bright there, and I guess I have been lucky to not have had one with dead pixels, yet.

 

[Deinonych]

Originally posted by: CP5670

Unfortunately, the SED tech has been indefinitely put on hold and is mired in a patent war. It may never come out on retail displays at all.

That's why I put a at the end (perhaps a would have been more appropriate, though).

 

[CP5670]

Originally posted by: TitusTroy
the reason why I'm looking to switch is because my GDM-F520 is starting to show signs of burn in at the very top and bottom of the screen (I've had the monitor for 8 years)...looks like the Windows taskbar has burned into the screen...it is very faint and only really noticable when looking at an all white background but it is still annoying

you're right in that I have not seen another CRT monitor that uses the .22 dot pitch which the F520 uses

when you say 'older generation tube' are you referring to the fact that it uses the Trinitron tube and not the next generation FD Trinitron tube?...if so do you really thinks that it makes all that much of a difference?...plus the CRT's that come with the FD Trinitron tube do not come with the .22 dot pitch, so there is a tradeoff...I think the .22 dot pitch is more important then having the latest FD Trinitron tube in terms of image quality

I think it does use the FD tube. I was referring to the last generation of CRTs that had enhanced brightness modes, reaching about triple that of a normal aperture grill. Mitsubishi called theirs the "Superbright Diamondtron" tube and I believe Sony had something similar (don't know if it had any name but I think it was used in their G series CRTs).

The feature is fairly useless for text or graphics work, so you often didn't see it mentioned in reviews, which were usually geared towards professional usage. On the other hand, I think it makes a world of difference in games or movies. You essentially get LCD brightness with CRT contrast when it's turned on.

Originally posted by: Deinonych
That's why I put a at the end (perhaps a would have been more appropriate, though).

I agree. :laugh:

 

[TitusTroy]

Originally posted by: CP5670
I was referring to the last generation of CRTs that had enhanced brightness modes, reaching about triple that of a normal aperture grill. Mitsubishi called theirs the "Superbright Diamondtron" tube and I believe Sony had something similar (don't know if it had any name but I think it was used in their G series CRTs).

The feature is fairly useless for text or graphics work, so you often didn't see it mentioned in reviews, which were usually geared towards professional usage. On the other hand, I think it makes a world of difference in games or movies. You essentially get LCD brightness with CRT contrast when it's turned on.

I think I have that enhanced brightness mode in my F520...it's one of the preset Picture Effect options...you can choose from Standard, Professional or Dynamic...Dynamic really increases the brightness level and does make a difference in games...it's actually a bit too bright for normal desktop use

 

[Martimus]

My monitor is a Mag 800V. Far and away the best monitor I have ever had, but it is very big. And the people who actually believe that a good LCD has better image quality than a good CRT are ignorant. There is no comparison. LCD's are easier to move and place, but if you have the room and aren't planning on moving it, a good CRT always looks better.

 

[Cabages]

Im sure someone already suggested the Sony FW900 right (or one of the HP rebranded)?

 

[kmmatney]

Originally posted by: TitusTroy
the only way LCD's became mainstream was by making CRT's unavailable

if CRT's were still being manufactured and sold in the same quantity as LCD's are now then CRT's would still be the clear choice for many people---especially hard core gamers...LCD's only started to take off after CRT manufacturer's stopped producing them

Tha's not even close to being true. CRTs were available aplenty while LCDs were coming out. No one wanted to buy CRTs, even when they were insanely cheap. If CRTs werre still being manufactured, they'd just be sitting on shelves. No one was forced to buy LCDs, at least not for several years while LCDs became mainstream.

 

[Assimilator1]

NinjaJedi
It is a known fact & physical limitation of LCDs that using anything other then the native resolution blurs the image, at least a little (how much depends on the res & screen).This is not a matter of opinion but a fact.
Maybe the difference to you isn't noticeable or bothersome but it is there nonetheless ,I think that is what CP5670 is getting at.

Deinonych
SED?

<--- sticking with my 19" CRT until it blows up ,at that point I hope OLEDs will be decently priced & large enough. I will enjoy the extra space then though!.

 

[Deinonych]

Originally posted by: Assimilator1
Deinonych
SED?

SED Overview

 

[qbfx]

Originally posted by: TitusTroy
why buy an LCD just for the sake of buying one?...it has to match or exceed the quality of my current CRT for it to make any sense...and the LCD technology is still not there yet for high end gamers...you have to compromise image quality by getting a TN panel with low response times or suffer with good image quality but bad input lag and response times

I think a good CRT is a better investment for the next few years

I agree with you on some of the small advantages of CRTs over LCDs but to say a CRT is a better investment is at the very least odd.

A good H-IPS or even S-PVA (LED backlit units aside) calibrated to dE 0.3-0.7 with blacks as low as 0.1 cd/m² will look at least as good as the best CRTs but probably better), I'm dead sure if you use for example a NEC 2690WUXi or smth similar for a couple of days you'd want to put a bullet in your big ol' CRT.

 

[Assimilator1]

My god those are expensive though! £800!!:shocked:
(on an admitidley quick search anyway).

Deinonych
Thanks

Will be good if it ever comes to market, but will it be better than OLEDs?........

 

[MIDIman]

I had two G500's a few years ago. I thought I'd never turn, but bought the 24" Dell when it came out. Was very unsatisfied.

More recently, I need an LCD at work for heavy graphics editing and color work. I went through four Dells and HPs until I finally settled with Apple. While the cost is high, there's a reason graphics people buy into the Apple bandwagon - its a guaranteed quality factor, in this case S-IPS or H-IPS. The NEC 90 Pro-series is probably the best way to go, but they're a bit above any price range I or my work have the money for. IMHO, Apple's are the best of the bunch at the moment for the cost and guaranteed product.

There's a great sticky LCD thread on the Graphics forum if you haven't browset it yet.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: kmmatney


Well, my father in law works for Disney (imagineering) and the graphic artists are using LCDs these days...

Good for them.
That still doesn't make lcd the best choice for color reproduction.

If it's good enough for Disney, it's good enough for you.

Also note, marketing and graphics shops generally use Macs. And let me tell you, Apple hasn't had a CRT in a loooong time.

 

[ArchAngel777]

CRT's had geometry issues, serious ones at that. To be honest, I would rather have an object take accurate shape than accurate colors.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: kmmatney


Well, my father in law works for Disney (imagineering) and the graphic artists are using LCDs these days...

Good for them.
That still doesn't make lcd the best choice for color reproduction.

If it's good enough for Disney, it's good enough for you.

Also note, marketing and graphics shops generally uses Macs. And let me tell you, Apple hasn't had a CRT in a loooong time.

Actually its not.
I'll take my crt over a lcd any day of the week.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: kmmatney


Well, my father in law works for Disney (imagineering) and the graphic artists are using LCDs these days...

Good for them.
That still doesn't make lcd the best choice for color reproduction.

If it's good enough for Disney, it's good enough for you.

Also note, marketing and graphics shops generally uses Macs. And let me tell you, Apple hasn't had a CRT in a loooong time.

Actually its not.
I'll take my crt over a lcd any day of the week.

To each his own. I'll be GLADLY upgrading my 21" Sony G500 CRT to a new Dell 3008 LCD.

 

[Modelworks]

 

[SonicIce]

On alot of the special features videos on Disney/Pixar DVD's they're all using high end Mitsubishi or NEC CRT's.

 

[panfist]

Originally posted by: NinjaJedi

IMO the crapiest LCD monitor is probably going to have much better image quality then CRT.

When was the last time you had your eyes checked? Do you even have eyes?

Edit: nevermind apparently people have been over this already...

By the way your statement is in contradiction to scientific fact: CRTs produce better images than LCDs. Your LCD might be very good, but if you put it next to a high-end CRT, there is no chance the LCD would win. Don't talk to me about who is using LCDs and how hot their shit is, when you know there are more factors involved in choosing a display than just image quality.

 

[Deinonych]

Originally posted by: Assimilator1
Will be good if it ever comes to market, but will it be better than OLEDs?........

By the time SED makes it to market (if it ever does), I suspect OLEDs will be fairly well established. So, it will a matter of which technology has the fewest downsides. Right now, display life is the biggest problem with OLED, but they are making fairly substantial headway into resolving that. Plus, OLED is already a working technology, whereas SED is still in prototype phase.

So, SED has a pretty big hill to climb to gain market acceptance.

 

[ajaidevsingh]

In this issue i must say that the 32 inch gamer LCD is not at all that good in contrast to my 42 inch CRT!!

 

[deepinya]

CP5670- You hit it on the head. 60fps on an LCD cant come CLOSE to 120hz on a CRT. The motion blur makes me vomit.

For gaming, you cant touch a high-end CRT

 

[konakona]

Originally posted by: Replay

Originally posted by: Deinonych... I understand the attraction to CRTs -- it was hard for me to move away from mine (an NEC FE1250+).

NEC FE1250+ 22" CRT just landed on my gaming desk, alongside a small NEC LCD, and a Dell 21" Trinitron.

Pros(?):
- This room was warm all winter, with the heat turned off.
- Built in anti-theft system, 70 lb CRT monitors.

For me, a quality CRT is still the king.
- I appreciate a screen that looks good at varying resolutions.
- Cost. Freakin sweet NEC FE1250+ 22" CRT was $25. Dell Trinitron 21" was $10.
Good deals keep the cost down on the 7 player home gaming lan.

Most folks never had a good CRT. Most CRT's are poor. Mediocre models from day one, or they developed issues. And sadly, some quality name brands became lower quality late model products (NEC Multisync).

I think thats the key issue here; most that claim LCDs are just as good either have ridiculously high-end LCD that costs more than the entire computer or have never seen a quality CRT with a AG tube in it. Though I finally gave in and bit on that soyo deal hotness, I still miss the natural colors on my 22' gateway. I do game frequently, but no FPS at all (mostly still images with text, or some MMORPG), so my criteria are slightly different. Size is about the only valid argument to dethrown CRT IMO, at least in terms of entertainment use.


kinda sad to hear what happened to SED, but they did mention the initial pricing would have been very high due to their obvious advantage in PQ compared to LCD (that speaks a volume for those who think LCD is near perfect)

 

[Modelworks]

I think the weight is the only thing I hate about crt.
You need a sturdy desk.
I have 150 lbs of monitor on mine