CRT vs modern LCD: Taking a look back

[moonbogg]

Help me understand the benefits of the modern gaming LCD display. Its been so long I forgot what it was like to use a CRT monitor. Talk to me about picture quality differences and other comparisons which will allow me to appreciate what I have so as to not take modern technology for granted and remain blind to its face value benefits vs what we had in the days of old.

 

[MikeMike]

It's thinner.

It refreshes faster... Unless you remember good old Samsung Syncmaster CRT monitors which were 120hz native.

 

[SelenaGomez]

LCD are also lighter and have higher resolutions. CRT monitors are 480p I believe.

 

[Mr Evil]

Lets see how I remember it. LCDs:

• Don't have any geometry problems.
• Are much sharper.
• Don't give you a headache from the incessant flickering.
• Don't go all wonky just because you walked past them with a magnet.
• Emit less awful high pitched whining sounds.
• Can be moved without a forklift.
• Use less power.
• Are practical in larger sizes.
• Are available in higher resolutions (though it took far too long to exceed CRTs there).

...CRT monitors are 480p I believe.

That ought to get a few bites!

 

[SirCanealot]

LCD are also lighter and have higher resolutions. CRT monitors are 480p I believe.

Err, most monitor-grade CRTs would hit 1600x1200 at least at 60hz. All the ones I had would do 1280x960 at 85hz (which was my preferred setting usually; didn't ever have a high-end GPU back then!) — the higher end ones would do a lot more. Bite given

CRTs still have an infinite contrast ratio (compared to 1000:1 for IPS and 2500:1 for VA panels) and usually as good colour as a high-end LCD panel.

CRTs were fairly sharp too, but I believe they eventually lost sharpness as the tubes degraded. I had a 2nd hand CRT last for a few years and by the end it was pretty blurry.

Now the problem with CRTs: I have a Samsung HD 32" CRT on my floor and it's been there for a while taking up my floor. I'm waiting for someone to open an arcade in London (Heart of Gaming, look it up!) so I can give it to him as I don't want to just throw it away it's amazing for retro games up to PS3/360. In the footprint this CRT takes up (it's a slimfit CRT too!), I could fit 4-5 of my BenQ 32" LCD monitor.

Here we go, this is quite fun:
http://www.displaymate.com/ShootOut_Comparison.htm

 

[jasonz50]

I had one of the last of the Trinitron monitors, and I definitely miss the PQ. It was certainly as sharp as my LCD if properly configured.

Basically everything outside of raw PQ has been improved upon, however. I'm very much looking forward to affordable OLED screens in desktop monitor sizes.

 

[Anubis]

LCD are also lighter and have higher resolutions. CRT monitors are 480p I believe.

um LOL

my Sony FW900s ran 2304*1440 back in the year 2000! - and TBH its was a better monitor then even the best gaming monitors released today in terms of pure performance

sure it was a boat anchor + space heater but it was hands down an amazing monitor for everything

 

[SelenaGomez]

um LOL

my Sony FW900s ran 2304*1440 back in the year 2000! - and TBH its was a better monitor then even the best gaming monitors released today in terms of pure performance

sure it was a boat anchor + space heater but it was hands down an amazing monitor for everything

That is not the same as "1440p" today. I rememeber reading the differences but dont remember them. I am not a pro at this jsut starting somethings. I loved my old CRT monitor. I felt the colors were betters etc

 

[CP5670]

CRTs had far better black levels, the refresh rates were higher than LCDs of the time and there was no motion blur. At this point, modern LCDs have better refresh rates and the Lightboost/strobing modes are equally good with motion blur, but the black levels are not comparable to CRTs. CRTs could become quite sharp as well but definitely degraded and needed adjustments over time. I stuck with my Mitsubishi 2070SB CRT until 5-6 years ago (which did 2048x1536 at 85hz and 1600x1200 at 110hz) and switched to an LCD mainly because of the bigger screen, as the CRTs never went beyond 24" or so in size.

 

[RockinZ28]

CRTs had far better black levels, the refresh rates were higher than LCDs of the time and there was no motion blur. At this point, modern LCDs have better refresh rates and the Lightboost/strobing modes are equally good with motion blur, but the black levels are not comparable to CRTs. CRTs could become quite sharp as well but definitely degraded and needed adjustments over time. I stuck with my Mitsubishi 2070SB CRT until 5-6 years ago (which did 2048x1536 at 85hz and 1600x1200 at 110hz) and switched to an LCD mainly because of the bigger screen, as the CRTs never went beyond 24" or so in size.

Had that exact same monitor. Actually it's still sitting in my old room at my mother's house. Did pretty much same as you, used until 2009 and only gave it up in order to get a larger display. And by then I was just playing casually. Absolutely owned for the fast paced Q3 engine games back in the day playing competitively.

 

[mnewsham]

That is not the same as "1440p" today. I rememeber reading the differences but dont remember them. I am not a pro at this jsut starting somethings. I loved my old CRT monitor. I felt the colors were betters etc

Pixels are pixels, if you have 2560x1440, that's simply how many pixels are there. Fact.

And the IBM T221 CRT had a native resolution of 3840x2400 in 2001. Far greater than even a 4k display today (3840x2160)

 

[Anubis]

That is not the same as "1440p" today. I rememeber reading the differences but dont remember them. I am not a pro at this jsut starting somethings. I loved my old CRT monitor. I felt the colors were betters etc

sure it is. its just 16:10 vs 16:9

 

[Anubis]

Pixels are pixels, if you have 2560x1440, that's simply how many pixels are there. Fact.

And the IBM T221 CRT had a native resolution of 3840x2400 in 2001. Far greater than even a 4k display today (3840x2160)

the T221 was a LCD not a CRT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors

 

[crisium]

I used a 21-inch (19 actual IIRC) Sony Trinitron until Feb 2012 as my main display. I like the lack of native resolution on CRTs. As games became 16:9 standard and more demanding for my video card, I became more creative. Letter-boxing 4:3 to 16:9 is pretty steep, so sometimes I made by own 16:10 resolutions (measured for accuracy). Though I also did 16:9 sometimes if I felt it was acceptable, or 4:3 if I really needed the whole screen.

I played games at 1360x768, 1680x1050, 1600x1200, 1920x1080, 1920x1200... even 1600x1024. That's a 1.5625:1 aspect ratio folks! Only native display to have it was an old iMac, I think.

I would max out the game settings, and then lower the resolution to make it playable so long as I didn't notice aliasing and that it wasn't too small. I had fun with it, actually.

 

[SirCanealot]

I used a 21-inch (19 actual IIRC) Sony Trinitron until Feb 2012 as my main display. I like the lack of native resolution on CRTs. As games became 16:9 standard and more demanding for my video card, I became more creative. Letter-boxing 4:3 to 16:9 is pretty steep, so sometimes I made by own 16:10 resolutions (measured for accuracy). Though I also did 16:9 sometimes if I felt it was acceptable, or 4:3 if I really needed the whole screen.

I actually letterboxed when I was on a CRT too — I didn't mind it at the time! In fact, I liked the free 'AA' I got from vertically compressing the image
Now I'm on a 32" LCD and I couldn't think about going back to a 22" CRT and then letterboxing it...

 

[StinkyPinky]

Budget crt's were god awful. As a kid i couldn't afford high end ones so often had budget crt's and they would give you headaches, whine, flicker, and god knows what else they did. Probably irradiated your testicles.

 

[vissarix]

im going to buy an old crt since im on low budget, i was thinking about the sony trinitron g520 and the syncmaster 753fdx...i mostly play fps shooters so dont care about high resolution and ultra settings...high refresh rate and low response time matters to me...which one is better?

 

[lefenzy]

1600x1200 @ 85 Hz was a great resolution. Even today you have to go to 1440p or the rare 1920x1200 to match or exceed the vertical resolution of a nice high end CRT.

Lost in these discussions is cost. I forget how much CRTs used to cost.

Certainly monitor screen sizes are a lot bigger these days. Then again a lot more people are using 13-15" laptop displays as well.

 

[nathanddrews]

My FW900 died a while back, but I'm using a Viewsonic PS790 right now. I created a custom native resolution of 1600x1200@85Hz, then use 4X DSR to play games at 3200x2400@85Hz. Blacks are great, colors are great, brightness is somewhat lacking, but the motion... it's just so incredible. We gave up far too much motion quality moving to LCD, IMO.

 

[bigboxes]

I had a high end Mitsubishi and ran it at hi-def @85Hz and up. Aperture gill and flat screen. Sure it was big, but I had that sucker on a monitor arm regardless. One day it started flickering some pink color and a new cable wouldn't fix it. Upgraded to an NEC flat screen that was awesome. Wife still has that monitor. I always loved quality. My current LG is not that. It was an impulse buy. Love the real estate, but would love a better monitor again someday.

 

[Madpacket]

For the average CRT I could never switch back but I still have and use (on occasion) my Sony FW900 I picked up for $50.00 a while ago (even came with a set of BNC cables). I don't use it that often because it's in decent condition and don't want it to die

Everytime I boot up a twitch game like Quake running at 1280*800@120Hz I'm reminded how far we still have to go WRT motion clarity. Lightboost is really a hack in comparison. The lack of input lag on CRT's is also refreshing although I think LCD tech has caught up enough here.

 

[Headfoot]

Someone with the equipment should do a CRT vs x-Sync LCD comparison. I wonder if FreeSync/GSync has closed the motion clarity gap. It sure seemed like it to me, but I havent used a CRT since they went out of style in the early 2000's

 

[hawtdawg]

Someone with the equipment should do a CRT vs x-Sync LCD comparison. I wonder if FreeSync/GSync has closed the motion clarity gap. It sure seemed like it to me, but I havent used a CRT since they went out of style in the early 2000's

Gsync/Freesync have nothing to do with motion clarity. lightboost/ULMB improve things, but they can't even be used with Gsync/Freesync.

 

[Headfoot]

Gsync/Freesync have nothing to do with motion clarity. lightboost/ULMB improve things, but they can't even be used with Gsync/Freesync.

uhhh what? Yes they do. They have a metric a$$ ton to do with motion clarity. They make jerky frame rates look smooth, which is motion clarity. Are you talking about image ghosting / pixel overdrive?

 

[moonbogg]

I don't think motion clarity will be on par with CRT until high performing OLED panels are a thing.