CRT vs LCD

[touchmyichi]

You're all noobs. I modded my game boy screen as a computer monitor, the black levels are awesome and the geometry is perfect. All pros use dot matrix screens, ghosting is impossible!

 

[mazeroth]

I started this thread to see if anyone could dispell my beliefs or prove me wrong. I honestly don't know much about LCDs other than I don't like them. I was just seeing why you guys like them so much.

Now, if I could get a KILLER deal on the Dell 30" LCD I would happily give up my 21" Sony CRT for it. I MIGHT give up my CRT for the 24" Dell, but I wouldn't bank on it. I'd rather pick up a used Sony 24" widescreen and call it a day, while saving a few hundred bucks.

Also, xtknight...KILLER reply! Thanks for taking the time to post all that.

 

[ForumMaster]

lcd's are better on the eyes as well as much brighter. when working late at night to finish an assignment for school, LCD's are better cause u don't have to take breaks like u do when u use CRT's. and LCD's are getting better. the technology is still not 100% mature like CRT's is. but for now, LCD's FTW!

 

[darXoul]

CRTs have better blacks and contrast

Only partially true. Many new LCDs have great contrast and already pretty deep blacks.

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)

Not true. Many artists, CAD/CAM/DTP specialists successfully use IPS or even VA LCDs. There are professional LCDs with advanced software and hardware calibration that can match CRTs. Also, LED backlight is coming.

CRTs have higher resolution

Not true. Look at the Dell 3007FPW. Besides, who needs a resolution exceeding 1600/1920*1200?

CRTs have higher refresh rates

No logic here. LCDs don't refresh the screen the way CRTs do it. You're not comparing apples to apples. LCDs don't flicker so it doesn't matter that they usually do 60 Hz.

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

True. Some new LCDs have no visible ghosting in movies though and hardly any noticeable afterglow in even the fastest games. Some motion blur is still present however.

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

True. Scaling IMO looks like crap on any LCD but... if you can use your native res 99% of the time, what's the problem?

CRTs are less expensive

Yea, too bad no one makes high end CRTs anymore. There's a new ViewSonic P227f but one of the users here complained about abysmal IQ on the G225fB. It's hard to find a good and inexpensive CRT, most ppl grab refurbs.

CRTs have a wider viewing angle

True if you compare them to low end LCDs based on TN panels. Also VA is weaker than CRT. IPS is on par though. In other words, a moot point.

CRTs don't get dead pixels

True but they suffer from geometry/convergence problems and blurry image in corners. LCDs are prone to dead pixels and backlight bleeding in return.


I'm still a CRT user BTW, so I'm not LCD-biased.

 

[FalllenAngell]

Originally posted by: 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."

Malcolm ended up bitter and disenfranchised when he discovered the hypocrisy of the leaders of his movement.

In any case, I was only trying to say I'm not a circus monkey who's going to perform for the amusement of the OP at the invitation to "FIGHT".

 

[Topplayer]

Originally posted by: PirreLi
I prefer CRT's because I game but my Samsung 915n is doing fine.

i game hard core with my lcd no problems here............i got a Samsung SyncMastor 930b

 

[deepred98]

Originally posted by: 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!

wtf?

 

[yhelothar]

I agree with your OP. But I still use a LCD.
My small room made it a deal breaker to use LCDs.
Another pro for LCDs that you left out is the ability to rotate them to portrait mode. It makes portrait picture viewing A LOT better. Web generally formats better on portrait mode also.

A large problem I found with using CRTs are fine horizontal details. Fine horizontal lines that are 1-2pixels in size is most often blurred or split into two lines when brightness/contrast is increased. Thus the monitor must be severely dimmed down to have an absolutely LCD-sharp picture. Not to mention it gets worse over time. That's probably the biggest quirk I have with CRTs.

The only thing that really bugs me now about LCDs is the blacks/contrast levels. Washed out blacks. It's quite annoying in games like Doom and Fear. But your brain does adapt to it pretty quickly.

 

[Munky]

I've always liked CRT's better, and I've tried LCD's before. Especially after comparing a CRT and a LCD side by side, I'm sticking with CRT until either a better alternative comes along, or hell freezes over.

 

[darXoul]

Originally posted by: munky
Especially after comparing a CRT and a LCD side by side, I'm sticking with CRT until either a better alternative comes along, or hell freezes over.

Stygia and Cania, the fifth and eighth layer are frozen. Now, go get your LCD

 

[ArchAngel777]

The OP here is about the most ridiculous thing I have read in a LONG Time. Well, I take that back, Malak's post on DX10 was.

Anyway, there have been probably 20+ threads with the exact same title. Go search the forums before posting something stupid like this. No excuse for trying to start a flame war that is so one sided that it makes Kirby Pucket turn in his grave.

 

[JRW]

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..

Er.. you need to do some research on that one , the average CRT has a contrast ratio of 5000:1 , LCDs are nowhere near a properly calibrated CRT in this area.

If I were to display a blank black screen in a dark room on my current CRT you wouldnt even know it was powered on, I discovered this when doing my own LCD vs. CRT side by side comparison.

 

[Wolfshanze]

I'm an owner of both CRTs and LCDs in my house.

As previously said, they have advantages and disadvantages of both.

I prefer to game on the CRT as it's more flexible, but the LCD is nice for standard desktop stuff.

While I love my CRT for gaming, I hate the fact it's a space-heater... I really can't wait to get rid of the damn room heater, but I don't like LCDs for gaming.

Still, this entire thread is pointless (as has also been brought up)... for starters, people will like what people want to like. Also, CRTs are as good as dead from a "can't buy good ones these days anyways" aspect. I'm glad I have two high-quality 19" CRTs in my house, but I know they cannot be replaced.

For those saying "I'll get a LCD when my CRT dies"... I wouldn't do that either... unless your CRT dies this year, SED monitors should appear next year or so, and frankly, SED monitors should own both CRTs and LCD monitors.

I'll replace my large, game-friendly, space-heating CRT when I can get an SED monitor... while I like my LCD, I will not get another one for my gaming rig! SED will be my next gaming monitor!

 

[Reznick]

For me, the primary advantages of the LCD are:

Widescreen
Dimensions/Space requirements
Crisp image display
Little calibration needed, if ever
Energy Use

Just replaced my 21" Dell CRT with the Gateway FPD2185W and I am very happy overall. Certainly better than what I had, and widescreen is like going from dial up to DSL or Cable. Once you go there, it would be hard to go back.

There are a few small gameplay issues. Playing WoW, the names over the heads of mobs, for instance, are hardly legible when in the distance. The pixelation of the text make it a bit harder to see. Targetting with the mouse solves this, but it is a bit of a hassle, and I don't recall this being an issue on the CRT. If the names were displayed, regardless how far away they were, you could make them out.

Others have complains that black is not handled well. I've been giving SC: Chaos Theory a go with my new X1900XT (wow, very smooth with everything turned on), and so far, I have not noticed any issues with dark areas. Perhaps if I looked closer, I might see what people complain about, but nothing in the gameplay has been hindered with the LCD.

Overall, it is the uniform crispness of the display and brilliance of the colors that impresses me. The CRT simply can't get this crisp and clear - it is stunning to see, and although some may have some issues with this depending on what they are doing with their PCs, I only see it as a huge upside.

 

[CP5670]

heh, pointless thread.

Originally posted by: JRW

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..

Er.. you need to do some research on that one , the average CRT has a contrast ratio of 5000:1 , LCDs are nowhere near a properly calibrated CRT in this area.

If I were to display a blank black screen in a dark room on my current CRT you wouldnt even know it was powered on, I discovered this when doing my own LCD vs. CRT side by side comparison.

In any case the contrast ratio alone means nothing if the default brightness isn't also taken into account, since the contrast is always measured at that brightness setting. That NEC LCD has an unusually high 470cd/m^2 brightness, so the black point is not necessarily that great.

CRTs have higher refresh rates

No logic here. LCDs don't refresh the screen the way CRTs do it. You're not comparing apples to apples. LCDs don't flicker so it doesn't matter that they usually do 60 Hz.

I think he means they can display higher framerates while the higher resolution LCDs are limited to 60fps. (may be a DVI bandwidth limitation though)

 

[Sonikku]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Too bad you can't buy a "decent crt" anymore.

Because the Sony FW900 doesn't count as a "decent crt", right?

 

[remagavon]

Originally posted by: Sonikku

Originally posted by: Zebo
Too bad you can't buy a "decent crt" anymore.

Because the Sony FW900 doesn't count as a "decent crt", right?

Show me where to buy one new. I got one off of ebay and it's hardly in 100% perfect condition.

 

[n7]

You forgot one:

No one makes good CRTs anymore!

 

[Sonikku]

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: Sonikku

Originally posted by: Zebo
Too bad you can't buy a "decent crt" anymore.

Because the Sony FW900 doesn't count as a "decent crt", right?

Show me where to buy one new. I got one off of ebay and it's hardly in 100% perfect condition.

You want to buy another because your current one isn't 100% perfect? Damn...

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: JRW

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..

Er.. you need to do some research on that one , the average CRT has a contrast ratio of 5000:1 , LCDs are nowhere near a properly calibrated CRT in this area.

If I were to display a blank black screen in a dark room on my current CRT you wouldnt even know it was powered on, I discovered this when doing my own LCD vs. CRT side by side comparison.

Flat aperture grille do when properly calibated not invar shadow masks which are sold today. As far as black I could say the same for my LCD.. http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y87/AgtX2003/DSCF0150.jpg

..not all LCD's are created equal just like all tubes arnt..


Sonikku - I generally ignore idiots but maybe you don't know that monitor has'nt been made since 2003? For those counting thats 3 years ago.

 

[ponyo]

LCDs will soon have just as high or higher contrast than CRT. LCD projectors like Sanyo Z4 already have claimed 7000:1 contrast ratio. It's only going to get better in the future.

As for the pointless LCD vs CRT debate, market has decided. CRT is history. Why argue about it?

 

[Zebo]

SED will own all catagories but one and I'm sure a couple CRT holdhouts will still complain about resolution scaling.

 

[fierydemise]

Originally posted by: Zebo
SED will own all catagories but one and I'm sure a couple CRT holdhouts will still complain about resolution scaling.

To me resolution scaling isn't a big deal but it has been one of my hang ups going about going over to LCDs, SEDs are different they are better then CRTs in every area and so I can forgive the resolution scaling because they are superior in so many other ways.

 

[professor1942]

CRT? eww.

 

[GOREGRINDER]

lcd's are native digital
crt's are most certainly not,...myself?,.. i dont do anolalog if at all possible,not with my home theater,not with my musical equiptment(guitar's,amps,effect processors, nothing.. and up until about 5 months ago lcd's werent a good consideration for gaming in the least(IMO anyway),..so 5 months ago yeah i would have agreed with most of you back then,.. but now if your paying attention,.. thing's are a bit different,. you just cant expect to spend the same amount you did for your crt and expect the same gaming results,... thats impossible,... count on at least 100-150 dollars more per untit

(however an lcd without dvi is a gut job and barely worth the upgrade over a crt,unless pixel clocks are hellish fast)

you can buy almost any crt to play games on well enough
you cannot buy just any lcd to play games on well enough(at this point in time you really do need to spend about 300+ for a decent lcd for gaming at all at a minimum),i think the dell's are overated,however decent for the price,but now you can get far superior lcd widescreen's for gaming at the same price point ,viewsonic,benQ,and acer are bringing some nice response times and thier great screen tech in all pricepoints above 300 on the 16:10 and 16:9 frontlines. there are some fantastic gem's in the enourmous pool's of lcd monitor's