CRT vs LCD

[mazeroth]

OK all of you LCD fanatics. This has been bugging me for a while so I thought I?d make a little comparison between CRTs and LCDs. I use a high-end LCD at work and a Sony G500 21? CRT at home, and to my eyes there is no comparison whatsoever. The CRT destroys the LCD. We have Dell 2005s and 2405s at work, which are excellent LCDs, but they can?t even compare to a good CRT to my eyes.

CRTs have better blacks and contrast
CRTs have more accurate colors (you can?t argue this. My brother is a true professional graphic artist for an extremely large company and they wouldn?t dare use LCDs for color matching and editing; no one in the industry does, just look it up)
CRTs have higher resolution
CRTs have higher refresh rates
CRTs don?t have a millisecond refresh rate to worry about (ghosting)
CRTs aren?t limited to their native display to look decent
CRTs are less expensive
CRTs have a wider viewing angle
CRTs don't get dead pixels

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


The argument could be brought up whether or not an LCD is less fatiguing on your eyes. There have been polls on here before and it?s pretty much a wash. I use my CRT at home just as much as my LCD at work and I have no problem with either of them on my eyes.

Also, the argument over LCDs using the DVI port is moot. They still don?t look nearly as good as a CRT.

Now, with the above FACTS I posted, how can you LCD fans say they?re better than CRTs? I really don?t want to start a war here, but I am truly at a loss why people love LCDs so much?

Ready?FIGHT!

 

[Zebo]

LCD's get the chicks.

I could give a more serious response but why? this has been beat to hell.

 

[DeathReborn]

I'm sticking with my CRT's for a long time yet. I play games at varying resolutions (640x480 up to 2048x1536 depending on game) and no LCD offers me that flexibility without compromising somewhere.

Yes CRT's are big & bulky but i'd buy a decent CRT over a LCD any day of the week.

 

[Zebo]

Too bad you can't buy a "decent crt" anymore.

 

[Ackmed]

Heh, what a bias, and "uninformed" topic.

Only two Pro's for a LCD? Please. Search up the old threads (but dont bump!!) to find more posts on the subject. You clearly are not well informed.

 

[mazeroth]

Ackmed, post a few more pro's for LCDs. Go for it. I seriously can't think of any more.

 

[xtknight]

It's been beat to death and neither side is able to convince the other of anything. Be ready for a lot of fanboyism.

 

[rancherlee]

LCD's have Perfect Geometry (great for CAD)
LCD's use ALOT less energy, not a little bit
LCD's work good at lower resolution for gaming (at least my veiwsonic VX924 does), desktop at lower resolution isn't so great)

CRT's start getting "fuzzy" looking after a year of daily use (most professionals get new ones every year or so)


This is coming from a stubborn CRT guy who purchased his first LCD 4 months ago!!! I'm never going back to CRT.

 

[mazeroth]

CRT's start getting "fuzzy" looking after a year of daily use (most professionals get new ones every year or so)
q]

This is why you calibrate it.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: mazeroth

CRT's start getting "fuzzy" looking after a year of daily use (most professionals get new ones every year or so)

This is why you calibrate it.

Sometimes they just begin to die.

CRTs have better blacks and contrast - True
CRTs have more accurate colors (you can?t argue this. My brother is a true professional graphic artist for an extremely large company and they wouldn?t dare use LCDs for color matching and editing; no one in the industry does, just look it up) - True
CRTs have higher resolution - Err, no, depends on the LCD.
CRTs have higher refresh rates - Refresh rates on an LCD don't matter.
CRTs don?t have a millisecond refresh rate to worry about (ghosting) - True, but I haven't had any issues with my LCD and ghosting.
CRTs aren?t limited to their native display to look decent - My LCD manages to look OK at other resolutions.
CRTs are less expensive - True
CRTs have a wider viewing angle - True, but it depends on your use, I tend to sit in front of my monitor, so viewing angle doesn't mean much.
CRTs don't get dead pixels - True, but depends on if grill lines bother you or not (on some monitors only obviously)

LCDs are smaller and weigh less - A lot smaller, and are a lot easier to transport
LCDs use a little bit less energy - True
LCDs also have better geometry (as stated above). I had to correct my CRT every other time it changed res from desktop -> game

There are pro's and cons to each, I once swore I would not get an LCD until I had to, and then I had to (CRT was dying and took up far too much desk space), and to be honest, I am happy with my LCD purchase (which was the cheapest LCD I could find, also VGA not DVI) and I haven't had any real issues (eg: ghosting, dead pixels - there are some, but only when I look for them, and my CRT had grill lines, which were much more apparent, colour is fine to me, but the CRT was dying in terms of colour reproduction as well).
I have become used to limited resolutions, since most games are OK with it, and I can run at the native res (1280x1024).

I honestly think it's more down to personal preference than anything else (unless you require a CRT eg for design work). Some people like LCD's, some like CRT's.

My CRT was a Dell/Sony Trinitron P991 19" capable of 1600x1200 @ 85Hz, my LCD's (I bought 2) were the cheapest ones I could find on the internet in October (2x17" AG Neovo).

 

[xtknight]

(OK, perhaps we can finally start an intelligent thread about displays without name-calling (somehow I doubt it). But I'll try...)

Originally posted by: mazeroth
This is why you calibrate it.

Alright, but it's still a con that you have to do that. Most of the time you have to open up the CRT case (potentially dangerous) to do the adjustments you need to do. You also didn't mention that LCDs are static (flicker-free displays). Personally it seems a lot easier on my eyes.

Not all cons listed apply to all LCDs. They definitely do to TN-mode ones, VA-mode ones are a little better and higher contrast, but IPS-mode ones deliver the best image. Unfortunately the latter is quite rare in comparison. Here's how that new IPS panel compares to an aperture grille CRT display after color calibration. http://www.lesnumeriques.com/duels.php?ty=6&ma1=120&ma2=52&mo2=95&p2=969&ph=6 Also take a look at viewing angles. The lower the color bar, the lower the difference in accuracy. However the IPS panel is still inferior with regards to color transition time. That may be fixed with new technologies.

Keep in mind CRTs have been around for what, 90 years now, and TFT panel manufacturers have not had time to perfect LCD technology as of yet being only 30 years (at best). Arrays of white LEDs serving as backlights are vastly superior to their cold cathode fluorescent lamp (CCFL) equivalent. This technology is coming soon, and should come down in price fairly fast. TFT manufacturers are adopting some CRT techniques to reduce response time. You may think it's ironic they are now introducing a flicker-like idea to reduce the response time, but I'm not 100% sure how it works. They should be able to reach a much higher refresh rate with that tech.

Resolution scaling? My resolution scaling is great for games. For the desktop, text leaves a little to be desired. Therefore I use high resolution and high text DPI.

As for resolution itself, TFTs can actually reach a higher number of pixels than CRTs in a given area, but unfortunately due to resolution scaling they have only made desktop LCDs with lower resolutions than comparable CRTs. Take a look at the 15.4" 1920x1200 laptop LCDs though.

For now, black levels and screen uniformity will be inferior with CCFL backlights, but with the new LED backlights things are looking bright. No pun intended. I believe TFTs actually can produce brighter primaries than CRTs, but midtones are where the problem comes in with the green-tinge introduced by the CCFLs. White LEDs will also eliminate this.

Viewing angles are indeed quite inferior on TN and VA LCDs, but IPS ones are great.

Upcoming technologies:

http://www.behardware.com/html/news/cat22/page1.html#8049
http://www.behardware.com/html/news/cat22/page2.html#8038

Also note that LCDs can be setup in a dual monitor config better with the slim bezel. So there you have it, there are some legitimate reasons why people like them. The aforementioned new technologies project a bright future for displays. And not just so the LCD fanboys have something to brag about, but because suitable alternatives will come for those that would take AG CRTs to their grave.

There are art-oriented LCDs (read: NEC and Eizo) that reach a bigger color gamut than AG CRTs in the NTSC and Adobe color spaces. It's just that they cost $8000 although reasonable ones are much lower. And, response time is still only average (but that is not important for graphics/art monitors unless motion vector-oriented).

There are good LCDs, but like aperture grille CRTs, you have to pay a hefty premium for them (new). That 20" LCD is $700.

One reason people buy LCDs is because aperture grille CRTs are no longer being sold new (except maybe for exorbitant prices).

 

[Energinerbuzzy]

Originally posted by: mazeroth

CRT's start getting "fuzzy" looking after a year of daily use (most professionals get new ones every year or so)
q]

This is why you calibrate it.

Ummm.............calibrate it? Please do explain.
When I hit old age and get all wrinkled and fuzzy, can I calibrate my self back to new again?

 

[DeathReborn]

Oh yes, my Lacie Electron Blue 22" CRT cost me £300, a comparable LCD would cost me over £600. CRT's are getting more expensive the longer they're out of production but LCD's are still too expensive for what you get.

I will be buying a LCD/SED/Plasma for HDTV 1080p (HDCP Compliant of course) in June but I fully expect to pay a lot of rsuch a device. I don't expect to pay a lot for a PC Monitor. I'll go LCD for my PC when my CRT's are dead & I can't get another to replace it or if something changes my opinion of LCD's.

 

[evolucion8]

I got a 17 inches Compaq LCD, and a ViewSonic 17 CRT, and I can say, both are great, but the CRT got better color, faster refresh rate and better blacks, LCD are good for text things like web surfing etc

 

[kmmatney]

"CRTs have more accurate colors (you cant argue this. My brother is a true professional graphic artist for an extremely large company and they wouldnt dare use LCDs for color matching and editing; no one in the industry does, just look it up) "

They have LCDs that are better color accuracy wise than CRTs. These 10-bit monitors are expensive, but they exist, and are used by graphic artists:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007W.../103-0439141-3290223?v=glance&n=172282

There are even 14-bit monitors, with a palette of 1.06 billion colors

http://www.eizo.com/products/graphics/cg210/index.asp

 

[WaTaGuMp]

LCD's dont cost 4 million dollars to ship. What do I win?

 

[clickynext]

LCDs are cool. CRTs are not.

 

[SonicIce]

can we just kill this thread right here? seriously. they're both good.

 

[PirreLi]

I prefer CRT's because I game but my Samsung 915n is doing fine.

 

[FalllenAngell]

I'm skeptical of a thread that starts with "FACTS", followed by an invitation to "FIGHT".

 

[JRW]

Originally posted by: xtknight
It's been beat to death and neither side is able to convince the other of anything. Be ready for a lot of fanboyism.

Agreed I pretty much gave up on these threads as well .. LCD owners are going to say LCD , CRT owners will say CRT .... both have pro's & con's , yada yada.

Im not giving up my Sony FW900 CRT for anything else, until it quits working of course,at that point im pretty much forced to buy an LCD.. Good PC CRTs dont exist anymore unless you buy refurbished or used.

Last month Toshiba announced they're not making CRT HDTV's anymore, Panasonic stopped recently and as of this month Sony discontinued there high end XBR / XS HDTV CRT models as well.

I bought a Sony 34XBR960 HDTV CRT 2 weeks ago knowing they were about to be discontinued and have absolutely no regrets ,this tv has amazing picture quality and displays Xbox360 better than anything ive witnessed,in fact as of march 8th the 34XBR960 is #3 on CNETs Top 10 HDTVs list. But oh well.. Blame consumers for not knowing any better. Soon we'll be forced to choose another display type, By the time im ready to replace my XBR im sure something worthy will be around, hopefully SED.

 

[vtohthree]

"CRTs are less expensive "

For a performance one or even per size, this is no longer true any more. A rather obsolete "fact". Just look around, see how much a decent flat screen 21'' CRT monitor costs compared to a decent 21'' LCD screen...it doesn't even come close anymore! In fact LCD's cost far less nowadays, unless you're talking about old crappy used/refurbished 14-17'' CRT's with really rounded out glass by a 3rd class brand.

 

[Ipno]

Sometimes they just begin to die.

I have been using the same Hitachi Superscan Elite 751 19" CRT every day since 1999. It's still very sharp. Show me an LCD that's has that kind of lifespan.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: FalllenAngell
I'm skeptical of a thread that starts with "FACTS", followed by an invitation to "FIGHT".

True. Although, there have been many posters that do the exact same thing without blatantly saying it. And to quote Malcolm, "I have more respect for a man who let me know where he stands, even if he's wrong, then one who comes up like an angel and is nothing but a devil."

Anyway, CRT... LCD... who cares? Use watcha like. Why even bring this debate up in such a manner? Why does it matter if you're "at a loss why people love LCDs"? If you don't like it, don't buy it. Pretty simple. Surely, you didn't think you were gonna have an LCD user read that and go, "Sheeit, he's right!" and toss it out the window...

For the record, I've got all CRTs here (1 Mitsu 2070sb and 2 Mitsu 930sb), so I've made my choice. But I see the writing on the wall. It was LUCK finding these 3 good monitors. LCD, SED, OLED..... I'm sure one of those will be replacing my Mitsus in the future, whether I want them or not. These CRTs ain't gonna last forever. And nobody is making any new ones that are any good.

 

[Zebo]

For the record, I've got all CRTs here (1 Mitsu 2070sb and 2 Mitsu 930sb), so I've made my choice. But I see the writing on the wall. It was LUCK finding these 3 good monitors.
-----------------

That's what makes this thread rediculous in first place.. You can't buy his monitor or yours new anymore or anything close to thier quality but instead all crappy, third world broke mofo destined, CRT's which I dare OP to go use along side a good LCD and make same bold statements..

Like saying "How can you guys be buying crappy Porsche 911 turbos when I have a Porsche 959 which is superior". Besides it's not being made anymore? Besides it costed a whole lot more?



CRTs have better blacks and contrast
---------------------
Not true anymore. NEC in sig has 1700:1 which best CRTcan't touch hovering in the 1000 range..

CRTs have more accurate colors (you can?t argue this. My brother is a true professional graphic artist for an extremely large company and they wouldn?t dare use LCDs for color matching and editing; no one in the industry does, just look it up)
-----------------
Right and all the graphic artist professionals who use macs to do thier work are just SOL when apple moved entirly to S-IPS LCD's..:roll:

CRTs have higher resolution
---------------------
Dells 3007 2560 x 1600 pixels is pretty high..but more important it's perfect convergence unlike any CRT will have at that res.

CRTs have higher refresh rates
--------------------------
So? That's not a "bonus" LCD's don't have a refresh rate, thank god.

CRTs don?t have a millisecond refresh rate to worry about (ghosting)
-------------
Finally you hit one CRT pro. Incidently you sound like an idiot not even knowing the correct terminology. It's millisecond "response time" and "ghosting" is'nt what you mean but motion blur instead.

CRTs aren?t limited to their native display to look decent
-----------------------
Whoa two in a row.

CRTs are less expensive
------------------
Not anything you'd want to use.

CRTs have a wider viewing angle
------------------
Not true. AS-IPS has 90's all around.
http://www.baddass.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/tft_central/images/nec_20wgx2/angle2.JPG

CRTs don't get dead pixels
--------------------
three! But they have millions of blurry ones which LCD does'nt have.