CRT vs LCD

[vtohthree]

DID ANYONE MENTION BURN IN?!?!? lol...


Not like it's a big deal, but yeah you can leave an LCD on without a screensaver for a long time and not worrying about burning the image because you don't need "screen saver" to save your screen.

another + for the LCD

(funny thing is I only own CRT's, unfortunately mine are all old and horrible with washed up colors.)

 

[jiffylube1024]

Many of Mazeroth's original points are misleading or irrelevant.

Originally posted by: mazeroth
CRTs have better blacks and contrast

True.

CRTs have more accurate colors

True but recent 8-bit PVA panels are much improved.

CRTs have higher resolution

Not in all cases. Under 24" it's true, CRT's do have higher resolutions (although many consumer CRT's look like crap at high res, like 17" or 19" screens above 1280X1024). The Dell 30" LCD has no equivalent in CRT's at its pricepoint and runs 2560X1600 native resolution.

CRTs have higher refresh rates

Irrelevant, LCD's don't draw an image by scan lines.

CRTs don?t have a millisecond refresh rate to worry about (ghosting)

True, but modern <12ms screens have all but eliminated ghosting, at lest for most users' eyes (or those who can't be convinced they don't see ghosting, no matter the evidence).

CRTs aren?t limited to their native display to look decent

True. My biggest gripe with LCD's.

CRTs are less expensive

Crappy CRT's are. Professional ones (which many of the CRT-sticklers on AT use) are significantly more expensive.

CRTs have a wider viewing angle

True, but LCD is certainly "good enough" for most people these days, with >160 degree viewing angles.

CRTs don't get dead pixels

True, but dead pixels almost never "happen" - they either come with dead pixels from the factory or they don't, and newer screens seem to have a much lower defect rate.

LCDs are smaller and weigh less
LCDs use a little bit less energy

For 15-19" screens, it's in the range of 50-66% less power. Above 20", the improvement drops but is still significant, such as the 24" Dell 2405fpw using 80W peak, while the Sony 24" CRT uses 170W! (still over 50% better power consumption).

What about these points:

LCD has much higher brightness levels
LCD has sharper text (on DVI)
LCD does not flicker
LCD causes less eye strain (for most people once they are accustomed to it)
LCD does not generate radiation
LCD does not lose focus over time, and calibration is simpler than CRT
LCD does not have two thin lines going across the screen (for Trinitron/AG CRT panels)
LCD is wall mountable
LCD can be run in portrait mode (certain models, eg many Dell screens)
LCD generates less heat (which is very significant in office buildings, and CRTs are a double whammy for companies in the summer adding to power bills both in extra power consumption and air conditioning costs)

 

[JRW]

LCD has much higher brightness levels

True, but I found the brightness level overkill on my LCD which ended up causing more eyestrain than my CRT, however LCDs do perform better during the day and in brightly lit rooms.

LCD has sharper text (on DVI)

True, but Ive had no problems reading text on my FW900 @ 1920x1200 either, but if I were doing mostly text work or needed a monitor for work I'd go with an LCD.

LCD does not flicker

True,but running a CRT at a high refresh rate (85hz and up) eliminates flicker for most people.

LCD causes less eye strain (for most people once they are accustomed to it)

Not for me, see brightness overkill above.

LCD does not generate radiation

Boy this one has been beat to death ,Any radiation generated by a CRT is shielded inside the tube so its not even worth mentioning. I've heard very early CRTs caused concern but it hasnt been an issue for many years.

LCD does not lose focus over time, and calibration is simpler than CRT

Perhaps on cheaper shadow mask based crts? from my experience I have yet to witness this , my oldest monitor is a 19" Sony G400 bought in 1999 and it still has razor sharp focus. Maybe it will eventually lose focus but when it does I think its safe to say I got my moneys worth, We have 5 LCDs at work each one is 4 years old and every one of them shows signs of aging,mainly the loss of brightness and thin vertical lines running down the screens , judging from them I would have to say LCDs don't age nearly as gracefully as CRTs in the long run but Im sure it varies on model / brand.

LCD does not have two thin lines going across the screen (for Trinitron/AG CRT panels)

Honestly I think this is just used as an excuse to bash CRTs, These lines are so incredibly thin I cant imagine someone actually being bothered by it , the only thing that might make sense to me is if the user wears glasses ,then perhaps it would make them more noticeable / magnified(?)

LCD is wall mountable

True ..if thats important to you ...in a PC monitor...

LCD can be run in portrait mode (certain models, eg many Dell screens)

I doubt thats a selling point for the average user.

LCD generates less heat (which is very significant in office buildings, and CRTs are a double whammy for companies in the summer adding to power bills both in extra power consumption and air conditioning costs)

Agreed to a point , my LCD wasn't exactly an igloo and definitely generated a fair amount of heat, but I could see companies benefiting from it power bill wise. The benefits for home users is much smaller.

For 15-19" screens, it's in the range of 50-66% less power. Above 20", the improvement drops but is still significant, such as the 24" Dell 2405fpw using 80W peak, while the Sony 24" CRT uses 170W! (still over 50% better power consumption).

Unless my UPS is wrong it shows my FW900 using 75W - 95W Max, The FW900 is rated at 170W but that doesnt mean its drawing a continuous 170W load.

 

[videopho]

STOP BEATING THE CRT DEAD HORSE
SNOOZE...Brrrrr...Brrrrrr