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

[thatsright]

I just bought a 19" LCD flat panel. Had it calibrated and properly adjusted the colors and brightness. Hooked up from a Radeon 9700 Pro via DVI to the Samsung 940b.

What a disappointment over my 19" CRT monitor. Video looked HORRID on it. In Windows Media Player, the video played was all blocky and blurry. Even after moving the panel back a bit, and turning on clear type the brightness of the backlight gave me a headache. I could even see individual pixels on the LCD. And the color reproduction was horrible.

I don't understand why people think they are so much better. Prove me wrong!

 

[Piuc2020]

Set the monitor to its native resolution.

Well, I personally like LCDs because they offer a really sharp image (text is really great), they occupy very little space and very little power (power bill friendly), they also cause zero eye sore (for me) even at 60hz while my CRT used to give me some headaches and made my eyes sore a lot. Colors as well as response time is still better (especially response time) on CRTs, and they have the ability to scale resolutions really well (has to do with LCDs being fixed-pixel displays and CRTs the opposite). LCDs with LED lighting for each individual pixel are coming out, that should improve color ten fold but they are very costly and in short supply. Toshiba is also launching their SED technology which is meant for TVs (I wouldn't be surprised if its adopted for computer displays) which has EXCELLENT contrast-ratio and EXCELLENT color.

 

[TecHNooB]

Uh.. LCDs take up less desk space. That's pretty much what got me into LCDs. I currently own a really crappy 17" LCD @ an awesome 25ms response time. Didn't phase me by much. I sacrificed a smooth cursor for desk space. LCDs also take less energy and generate less heat. Another big plus.

 

[sisq0kidd]

I will glady trade you my old 17" Samsung CRT for that 19" lcd if you are unhappy with it

To be honest, the only reason why I jumped on the LCD bandwagon was for two reasons:

1. Saves space. People argue that it's not a lot of space, but imagine your keyboard or speakers being twice the size they are now. It's inconvenient.

2. Got a great deal on 2 17" lcds.

I remember, at first, the colors looked a bit faded to me compared to my crt. But I did like the fact that my screen was now perfectly rectangular instead of some disfigured parallelogram.

 

[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.

 

[xtknight]

It's all subjective. One person will say it looks like horse s**t, and the next will say it's the best thing they've ever used. Personally, I like mine. Sure, colors could be a little better, but it's not a big deal for me that the colors be dead accurate for games or general usage. They are hardly far off. Some colors may even be more accurate. If you don't believe me, check out the latest monitor reviews on BeHardware.com. Black will probably never be darker than on a CRT though. Nobody's saying LCD doesn't have its issues, but for the most part, these issues (as minor as they may be) tend not to bother the vast majority. I do miss good resolution scaling however. The advantage for me is the LCD being much easier on my eyes (especially for long gaming sessions!) I don't care about space.

Anyhow, the Samsung 940B is not really high-end when it comes to color reproduction and contrast. Unfortunately the ones that will produce better-looking colors will be in the $400-infinity range. My old 6-bit Samsung 710T definitely had inferior dark colors to my CRT, but the 8-bit ViewSonic VP930b is right up there with the CRT and I'd go as far to say it's brighter and more vibrant with the correct settings. Yes, the 19" VP930b does have a big dot pitch, but that was the only thing that fit my price range and wants.

 

[Bluestealth]

+Emit less heat
+Use less power
+Take up less space
+Generally easier on the eyes when working with text(for long periods)
+Fairly good at dealing with high motion video as of late, won't be messed up by magnetic fields
+Very good viewing angles as of late

-Only the ultraexpensive LED-backlit lcds have better color rendering then crts
-No true black on non LED-backlit lcds
-Can be blocky when dealing with games/high speed video
-viewing angle can be less then crts
-backlighting can be spotty

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: thatsright
What a disappointment over my 19" CRT monitor. Video looked HORRID on it. In Windows Media Player, the video played was all blocky and blurry.

That's odd. The difference in my CRT and LCD for video was tearing (can be solved) and color. No more blockiness than usual. Blocks come from compressed video.

 

[jamori]

Another plus is that you can get widescreen LCD's. They may exist for CRTs as well, but I've never seen them.

Also ... my 2405fpw LCD is heavy enough. I couldn't imagine carting around a 24" widescreen CRT.

The biggest issue for me, though, is the refresh rate issue. Even at 80hz, some CRT's bug my eyes and give me headaches after awhile. It just isn't at all a problem even with a LCD.

 

[Inappropriate4AT]

I've owned cheap LCDs and high end ones. I've owned a ton of CRTs. I've yet to see one tube that could compare to any LCD I've owned, including the cheaper ones. If you're running the video in fullscreen mode, the picture will be extremely pixelated and blocky. LCDs aren't meant for this, you need to run it in it's native resolution with the movie windowed to the resolution it's encoded for.

 

[L00PY]

Originally posted by: sisq0kidd
I will glady trade you my old 17" Samsung CRT for that 19" lcd if you are unhappy with it

Better yet, I've got a Dell 20" CRT (a Trinitron) that I'm using as my second display that I would trade for your LCD. I'd be willing to give up my matching Dells just to make you happy.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Inappropriate4AT
I've owned cheap LCDs and high end ones. I've owned a ton of CRTs. I've yet to see one tube that could compare to any LCD I've owned, including the cheaper ones. If you're running the video in fullscreen mode, the picture will be extremely pixelated and blocky. LCDs aren't meant for this, you need to run it in it's native resolution with the movie windowed to the resolution it's encoded for.

I'm confused. You're saying cheap LCDs are better than any of your CRTs or vice versa?

Originally posted by: jamori
Another plus is that you can get widescreen LCD's. They may exist for CRTs as well, but I've never seen them.

Also ... my 2405fpw LCD is heavy enough. I couldn't imagine carting around a 24" widescreen CRT.

The biggest issue for me, though, is the refresh rate issue. Even at 80hz, some CRT's bug my eyes and give me headaches after awhile. It just isn't at all a problem even with a LCD.

Yup. Same here. About 75 Hz it stops hurting my eyes, but not my head and neck. It sucks, really. One widescreen CRT I know of is the FW900.

 

[JRW]

I've only owned one LCD , a 20.1" Dell 2001FP, and while it had nice text output I could not find any other reason to keep it ,especially being I play a lot of games and like to watch movies, my Sony G520P 21" CRT was sitting right next to it(specs here) and honestly the CRT was making it look bad,When buying the LCD my original intention was to replace the CRT but after a few weeks I decided to return the 2001FP instead, I knew at that point I wouldnt be happy with any current LCDs on the market.. (motion blur / dithering / poor black levels / native resolutions / slight input lag) Im now using a 24" Widescreen CRT (Sony FW900) and couldnt be any happier. The picture quality is superb and I like having the resolution flexibility.

My main priority is overall image quality so weight & power consumption is not a factor for me when choosing a display ,plus CRT refresh rates never bothered my eyes even after extended sessions.

I took these pics but of course they're not perfect examples, the LCD & CRT both look better in person but either way The response from anyone that saw them in person was the same,they all thought the CRT looked a lot nicer, especially with black levels. (of course).

 

[xtknight]

The Dell 2001FP is the worst LCD I've heard of with a measured contrast ratio (by AT) of like 48:1 and black level of 5.0 cd/m² so it's not really too surprising. Most get a black level of 0.50 cd/m² (at the max) and 400+:1 contrast nowadays. I've heard the Samsung 20"-24" monitors have stunning black levels (not sure of the contrast on those). Though the best AG CRTs can reach 11000:1 due to really dark black.

 

[kmmatney]

Originally posted by: Inappropriate4AT
I've owned cheap LCDs and high end ones. I've owned a ton of CRTs. I've yet to see one tube that could compare to any LCD I've owned, including the cheaper ones. If you're running the video in fullscreen mode, the picture will be extremely pixelated and blocky. LCDs aren't meant for this, you need to run it in it's native resolution with the movie windowed to the resolution it's encoded for.

I agree. I've owned many higher end CRTs, but even the sheapest LCD I've used beats them. I like LCDs over CRTs because:

1) Nicer color. Maybe not as "accurate" as a CRT, but I play around with the gamma and vibrance settings to my liking and its much more pleasing than a CRT. I could care less about color accuracy.

2) Perfect, crisp text at native resolution

3) Higher resolution. I can only tolerate 1024 x 768 on a 19" CRT, but I can use 1280 x 1024 on a 19" LCD. I have Keratoconus in both eyes.

4) No pin cushion or screen geometries to worry about.

5) Awesome widescreen movies. I've never had any problems running movies at full screen - you will see some of the limitations of the DVD resolution, but it still looks very good.

I don't care much about power saving, but the extra desk space and portability is nice, as is using a DVI connector. Never had any problems with blocky movies, and I watch a lot of movies on mine. I'm not a big fan of Samsung LCD's, though. I use one at work - not as good as mine at home.

 

[Alaa]

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

 

[nib95]

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

Yes, but its not out yet, is only being released at a minimum size of 50" to begin with and is going to cost around $3000+.

So, not the best idea in the world for a PC monitor lol.

 

[CP5670]

You can't get any of the good CRTs anymore. The only ones still available are fairly low end ones and frequently have quality control problems, so compared to those the good LCDs are certainly better.

Although I have yet to come across any LCD that comes even close to my CRT in a number of respects. There are a few that look like they may have comparable image quality just going by the specs, but they cost over $5000 and compromise in other things like response times.

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

:thumbsup:

 

[Alaa]

they said by 2010 it'll cost 600-700$ so wait until then

 

[Calin]

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.

I feel the 1280 resolution of the 17" panels as having too small features. This is the main point that keeps me away from a 17" LCD (and price )

 

[Griswold]

Originally posted by: kmmatney
I'm not a big fan of Samsung LCD's, though. I use one at work - not as good as mine at home.

Good chance that whatever LCD you have at home, it will have a Samsung panel (thats just the LCD panel, not the casing) - as they're not only the most widely used ones, Samsung panels (at least some of them) are considered to be amongst the best too.


And yea, LCD ftw. CRT's always cause a headache and eye fatigue when I sit in front of one for a couple hours. I made the switch 7 or 8 years ago and never looked back.

 

[Sunrise089]

I'm a huge fan of CRTs, in spite of all the "advantages" possessed by LCDs. In my case I have a corner desk, don't carry my LCD in the car, and own an air conditioner and an Opteron, so the advantages of space, weight, and heat don't matter. I consider the superior blacks and color accuracy of CRTs to roughly be canceled out by the brighter colors of LCDs. Ditto with superior response time vs sharper text. But after all that, CRTs still have two huge advantages - they cost half as much or less, and they allow you to scale the resolution.

I have a 7800gt at 470/1100. That's a decent card. On the other hand, lets say I had a 21" LCD - with a resolution of 1600x1200. Check out benchmarks for a lot of new games at high settings - can I run everything? No. On the other hand, look at what becomes playable even one resolution setting down - 1280x960 - a lot. For me that ability, which will become more important as new games like Oblivion are released and my card needs to last another year+ makes CRTs the choice for me.

 

[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.

 

[Art Vandaleigh]

Much of the debate between CRT/LCD is personal preference IMO, but for me i will choose a CRT over an LCD for gaming and video. To give reference, i have a viewsonic 22" P225F at home, which was one of their top models a few years ago, and i use a Samsung 930BF 19" LCD here at work for 8-9 hours per day. My main gripe about LCD's is the native resolution, or lack thereof higher resolutions. Scaling also is horrible, unlike the CRT which works well across the entire range. I must say that the Samsung is great for office/web browsing, and offers sharper text, but less color depth. Compared to my CRT, the LCD looks a tad "washed out" to my eyes, and yes ive adjusted every possible setting to find the optimal.

 

[nova2]

@Art Vandaleigh: then again, for scaling, some LCDs are worse then others.

and also:
"xtknight: You can either set the video card or monitor to do the scaling. Choose the one that looks the best. I preferred my monitor's scaling with my Samsung 710T, but with my new VP930b, I prefer my video card scaling."

Sure, it could be a huge issue, if you were to read a lot of text in a non-native res, but most people won't be doing this, with, the exception of a minority of gamers who enjoy text rich RPG games, etc, and can't run them at native res for X reason.

of course, also comes down to end-user opinion.

some will flip out because they don't like how the text looks at X non-native res, in a game where they don't read a lot of text.