CRT vs. LCD

[wchou]

Is lcd really superior over crt? It uses less electricity, take less desk space, is very sharp image but there's only one drawback, it is very expensive still.
I'd like 21' LCD vs what I am using now, a 19'crt monitor.

 

[SynthDude2001]

There are still advantages to each type of monitor...we cannot yet say that either CRT's or LCD's are better across the board, for everything and everyone's purposes.

 

[wchou]

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001
There are still advantages to each type of monitor...we cannot yet say that either CRT's or LCD's are better across the board, for everything and everyone's purposes.

So this blurring effects on crt is a good thing for movies?

 

[imported_Kensai]

Erm.. *Good* quality CRT's don't ghost.

 

[Smoolean]

I've read that LCDs are better at displaying text, what are CRTs better at (since I have no idea what 'ghost' means)?

 

[DfiDude]

Blurriness

 

[w00t]

crt's are superior to lcd's.

lcd's have bairly anything on crt's.

 

[DaveSimmons]

CRT: better color and contrast, better support for multiple resolutions, less/no ghosting, much cheaper.

LCD: Half the weight and size, sharper.

 

[SrGuapo]

Originally posted by: w00t
crt's are superior to lcd's.

lcd's have bairly anything on crt's.

die


Anyway, it really depends on your priorities. If you want the best performance and color quality, a nice CRT is required. They can scale resolution very well (in case you old graphics card can't handle doom3 at 1280x1024). Good LCDs are superior in displaying 2D images and text. They are not *that* much more expensive than comparable CRTs as well (though there is still a premium). They are lighter and easier to move around. The main issue I have with LCDs is possible blurriness in other resolutions (mainly noticeable with text).

Just decide whether you want 3D performance and good resolution handling over good 2D/text performanc at native resolution in a MUCH lighter package.

 

[0roo0roo]

when 17" 8ms viewsonic lcds are 240 dollars at microcenter... crt is dead. there was a 17" viewsonic*dunno what response rate for 200 flat at frys this weekend too. 300 dollars gets you a 19" lcd now. thats a 20" crt. add the fact that they last atleast twice as long...use less power etc. crt is dead for most people.

 

[Zebo]

They don't make any CRT's that can hang with LCD's. Get an LCD.

The cheap CRTs suck ass and thats all they make anymore.

crt is dead.

yup

FD Trinitrons died two years ago. U-NX Diamondtrons died over 4 months ago.

 

[Excelsior]

Yes..for most people...LCD is better than CRT..but like SrGuapo said, it depends on what you want. LCDs are lighter, smaller, use less power, and have perfect geometry instantly. However, they look BEST on their native resolution, refresh rates aren't as good when compared to CRT, they don't have "perfect" blacks, and color isnt as good.

I would really prefer to have both, but instead I opted for an LCD due to being in a dorm room, and moving my computer more often.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
CRT: better color and contrast, better support for multiple resolutions, less/no ghosting, much cheaper.

LCD: Half the weight and size, sharper, Brighter, Less power, Longer Lifespan, Perfect geometry, Option of digital input.

FIXED for truth(FFT )

 

[imported_rod]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
CRT: better color and contrast, better support for multiple resolutions, less/no ghosting, much cheaper.
LCD: Half the weight and size, sharper.

CRTs like all resolutions, dont ghost and refresh faster.


I'll be sticking with CRT until LCD's get better and cheaper.

RoD

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: Zebo
They don't make any CRT's that can hang with LCD's. Get an LCD.

The cheap CRTs suck ass and thats all they make anymore.

crt is dead.

yup

FD Trinitrons died two years ago. U-NX Diamondtrons died over 4 months ago.

:roll:

Are you serious? I'd glady match my 22" NEC/Mitsu against any LCD out there.

2048 x 1536 @ 85hz anyone?

LCD's are generally better than low end CRT's at most things, but when you compare them to a high end CRT, they are still lacking...plain and simple.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: rleemhui

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
CRT: better color and contrast, better support for multiple resolutions, less/no ghosting, much cheaper.

LCD: Half the weight and size, sharper, Brighter, Less power, Longer Lifespan, Perfect geometry, Option of digital input.

FIXED for truth(FFT )

You think LCD's will last longer than a CRT eh? How about we talk about the lack of black performance with LCD's? How about color reproduction compared to a high end CRT?

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: rleemhui

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
CRT: better color and contrast, better support for multiple resolutions, less/no ghosting, much cheaper.

LCD: Half the weight and size, sharper, Brighter, Less power, Longer Lifespan, Perfect geometry, Option of digital input.

FIXED for truth(FFT )

You think LCD's will last longer than a CRT eh? How about we talk about the lack of black performance with LCD's? How about color reproduction compared to a high end CRT?

Yes it is a fact that LCD's usually last longer.

Lack of black performance was already listed in the fact that he said "better contrast". He also already listed "Better color" As a plus for CRT. So I don't know what you are complaining about. Fact is he left out many advantages of LCD's so I added them. They are pretty big deals if you ask me. If your feelings were hurt because someone mentioned that LCD's might beat your CRT at certain things, I suggest you get a hobby.

All I did was add many advantages he left out, I don't think I tried to deceive anyone as the major disadvantages are still listed as advantages for the CRT.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: rod

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
CRT: better color and contrast, better support for multiple resolutions, less/no ghosting, much cheaper.
LCD: Half the weight and size, sharper.

CRTs like all resolutions, dont ghost and refresh faster.


I'll be sticking with CRT until LCD's get better and cheaper.

RoD

lcds are getting better and cheaper. down to like 200 for a 17".. 240 for a 8ms. makes spending money on a crt rather hard to justify.

and crts can do all resolutions, but it matters less and less the faster video cards get. as for refreshing, its not comparable. 60hz refresh is essentially flicker free for lcd as the whole screen redraws at once and doesn't fade. heck, 1hz would be absolutely flicker free on an lcd. but animation would be at 1fps and in the end, lcd has less eye strain, theres no denying it.

You think LCD's will last longer than a CRT eh? How about we talk about the lack of black performance with LCD's? How about color reproduction compared to a high end CRT?

actually lcds will last longer. half brightness for crt is 10-20k. half brightness for lcd is 50k. makes the useful life of the lcd far longer. makes justifying spending money on crts even harder. http://www.viewsonic.com/monitoruniversity/lcd.htm

 

[kobymu]

Originally posted by: rleemhui

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
CRT: better color and contrast, better support for multiple resolutions, less/no ghosting, much cheaper.

LCD: Half the weight and size, sharper, Brighter, Less power, Longer Lifespan, Perfect geometry, Option of digital input.

FIXED for truth(FFT )

so in other words:

CRT: better image quality (except for Perfect geometry but that is nullified with calibration)
LCD: better at everyting else

 

[Matt2]

I haven't even read the rest of the responses, but I will say this:

My 17" viewsonic LCD 16ms response time, native res. 1280x1024 is the best thing that has happened to me.

The image does not get any sharper than this and with a 16ms response time, no ghosting, ever!

You get what you pay for. If you want the sharpest image that oney can buy and save your eye sight a little bit, get an LCD.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: kobymu

Originally posted by: rleemhui

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
CRT: better color and contrast, better support for multiple resolutions, less/no ghosting, much cheaper.

LCD: Half the weight and size, sharper, Brighter, Less power, Longer Lifespan, Perfect geometry, Option of digital input.

FIXED for truth(FFT )

so in other words:

CRT: better image quality (except for Perfect geometry but that is nullified with calibration)
LCD: better at everyting else

Yeah,besides the sharpness advantage. Calibration will never be perfect however. But yes, CRT definitely has the advantage in contrast and color, that can't be argued.

 

[Insane3D]

I think the problem here is we are comparing LCD's to entry level, and mid level CRT's which all pretty much suck nowadays. I'd gladly stack my NEC/Mitsu Diamondtron against any LCD.

We haven't even mentioned the issue of dead/stuck pixels either.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo


actually lcds will last longer. half brightness for crt is 10-20k. half brightness for lcd is 50k. makes the useful life of the lcd far longer. makes justifying spending money on crts even harder. http://www.viewsonic.com/monitoruniversity/lcd.htm

Thanks for linking Viewsonic's LCD marketing page...I'm sure everything there is 100% true.

 

[0roo0roo]

yea yea... but they do make both
and my crts definetly have dimmed.. or died...

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
yea yea... but they do make both
and my crts definetly have dimmed.. or died...

Funny...I have a Gateway 17" FD Trinitron (rebadged Sony) that came with a 200mhz Pentium Pro system circa '95 or so, and it still works great. I will say it might be a tad dimmer, but most FD Trinny's are really bright to begin with. All of the ones I've had I generally keep the brightness @ 0% - 5%.

I'll agree most LCD's are better than most CRT's today, other than true high end CRT's like the NEC/Mitsubishi Diamondtrons. 1600 x 1200 @ 100hz and 2048 x 1536 @ 85hz, along with Superbright modes, software calibration, and 100% accurate color reproduction = teh win.