----------Why are LCD monitors thought of as better than CRT?

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Alaa
i like SEDs more, 1ms response--100000:1 contrast..CRT colors-LCD shape..thts the most powerful tech

Hey...finally something we can all agree on.

 

[drum]

Originally posted by: Compellor

Originally posted by: Bateluer
A cheap LCD is a lot worse than a cheap CRT.

Also, 19in LCDs are horrible buys. Most of them have native res' of 1280x1024, same as a 17in LCD. You need to jump up to a 20in LCD in order to get a respectable 1600x1200 resolution.

1280x1024 is what most people run their 19" CRTs at (actually 1280x960). So, 19" LCDs are a good buy if that's all you need. You need to spend another $200+ to get a decent 20" LCD. For many that's just too much money or just not worth it for the extra inch and higher screen res that many don't need.

I ran my 19" CRT at 16x12 @ 85hertz before getting my 2005fpw which i love

 

[Compellor]

Originally posted by: drum

Originally posted by: Compellor

Originally posted by: Bateluer
A cheap LCD is a lot worse than a cheap CRT.

Also, 19in LCDs are horrible buys. Most of them have native res' of 1280x1024, same as a 17in LCD. You need to jump up to a 20in LCD in order to get a respectable 1600x1200 resolution.

1280x1024 is what most people run their 19" CRTs at (actually 1280x960). So, 19" LCDs are a good buy if that's all you need. You need to spend another $200+ to get a decent 20" LCD. For many that's just too much money or just not worth it for the extra inch and higher screen res that many don't need.

I ran my 19" CRT at 16x12 @ 85hertz before getting my 2005fpw which i love

That's insane except maybe for gaming. No wonder people bitch about their CRTs looking blurry.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: Compellor

I ran my 19" CRT at 16x12 @ 85hertz before getting my 2005fpw which i love[/quote]

That's insane except maybe for gaming. No wonder people bitch about their CRTs looking blurry.

[/quote]

I run my 7 year old Sony 400PS at 16x12 @ 75 Hz, and it's fine. An LCD is sharper (LCD's don't go out of focus), and brighter, and doesn't flicker when you keep it at the low default resolution, but I haven't seen a really good reason to replace this monitor yet. This monitor can do 2048 x 1536 acceptably sharp, but only at 60 Hz, and that's a noticable flicker for me, so I don't.

I bought an LCD earlier -- paid around $800 for a 17" 12x10 with high contrast brightness and low delay in its day, but didn't use that for more than a couple of days because I couldn't get the color and contrast anywhere near good. I just use that for setup work these days. More recently, I've was disappointed with the performance of a Dell Ultrasharp laptop in comparison to the CRT for color and contrast.

For gaming, I've found a CRT to be more flexible -- being able to change resolutions and adjust brightness / contrast over wide ranges.

I guess I should get with the program and do compartive LCD shopping before my CRT gives out, so that I know for sure that I'm getting a better product. But I expect to have a trade-off, and especially in color accuracy, which is important to me for photographic work. Hopefully they'll improve further by the time that I need to switch.

 

[konakona]

I do respect opinions from those who were priviliged enough to have hands-on experience with "cream of the crop" from the both technologies.
Personally, I am all for CRTs. The main use for my computer is watching videos and gaming, and the more I look at supposedely some of the nicer LCDs, the more dissapointed I get. Perhaps that is because I get my hopes up too high thinking they will dethrone the CRT, but they never come close to that IMO, not even close. Granted, they are ok for light use instead of heavy video intensive use like in my case.

Its been about a year since I last paid my visit to Yongsan, where I had a chance to see hundreds of monitors on display. You may argue the monitors on display are never setup correctly, but I was able to distinguish the ones that were setup properly from the ones that were not; the place is huge probably 20 times bigger than an average office supplies store and is PACKED with tiny stores with tons of stuff. it was a pleasant surprise to see how much LCDs caught up in terms of the IQ, but for my intended purpose, CRT is still the king I concluded. I have seen some of the newer models in the past year, none of them were so visually impressive to further strengthen my viewpoint.

I am like Sunrise089, not really benefitting from the upsides of the LCDs, so I know I wouldnt buy one. Additionally, with all that lurking and posting on the messageboards, playing games and watching anime, doing school work (some coding as of late) and just reading stuff on the internet in general, I spend some good 12+ hours between CRTs and LCDs daily. If there is a same material avialable both in PDF and harcopy, I go for the former. Still, I never felt fatigue was such a big issue here and as a testement to that, my eyevision hasnt changed for years now. The monitor I am using now is a 22'' Diamondtron, and I am only replacing it when SEDs become widely available and affordable.