Originally posted by: Camus2
I saw that as well and I don't think the points are bad, but it seems to me that there are a couple of things to keep in mind. One - LCD's are not CRT's and while no LCD may be able to produce the level of blackness of a crt you also don't have to devote a 3 x 3 foot foot cube on your desktop to set up one of those 100 lb giants to have a nice big screen. Also, when he talked about the "vivid image" I've been screwing around with the settings on the monitor and mostly on my video card (since the 2005fpw is so bright that you have to knock down the brightness a little there) and I noticed that if I pull the brightness down and jack up the contrast and gamma a little bit I get a more vivid looking image (as far as I can tell.) In any case, its hard to tell from photographs what it actually looks like, anyway. If you look at the pictures he has under "scientist" where he says the lack of contrast is illustrated best you can't really make out as many details in the CRT picture as you can in the LCD display (the structure of the floor or above the door for example.) The last thing I might mention is that if you are someone that is in to playing video games take a look at the side by side picture of the far cry he has where he is trying to say that the 2005fpw doesn't have as vivid a picture. Even though he might be right, which one of those monitors would you rather be playing that game on? The widescreen looks pretty sweet right there! Look at the picture he has under the link "foliage", for instance. I'm sure this would also be true for other things that are widescreen like DVD's etc.
I think it all depends on what you are using the monitor for.
You raise some good points here.
However, let me add one more issue into the pot.
I think one issue that nobody has raised so far with regard to LCDs vs. CRTS is safety. Here's an issue that I am somewhat versed in because some years ago, I did some major research on the safety of CRTs. I found it so interesting, that I keep current on much of the "controversy."
The problem of the health effects of electromagnetic radiation was not well documented during the hayday of the CRT, and studies by regulation agencies that had been pretty well dismantled after Ronald Reagan took office, only had funded studies conducted by industry manufacturers (pretty much a Fox guarding the Chicken Coop kind of thing). These studies turned up nothing much, except in Sweden where Union representatives demanded, and got INDEPENDENT studies (studies not performed or funded by manufacturers of CRTs) and these independent studies, funny enough, came up with rather different results than the studies in the USA. The studies in Sweden showed statistically significant percentages (20 per cent) with birth defects and miscarriages for workers who spent a majority of their day in front of CRTs. That gave "birth" sorry for the pun, eventually, to a safety standard for monitors that became known as the TCO standard. It's gone through several different stages from when it first was implemented.
Monitors first had to meet a standard of 2.5 millarads of radiation at 19" (measured off the front of the monitor) ... though always more was measured off the back and sides and bottom of the dam things, and later, a more stringent standard of 2 millarads at 12-inches. Even this was thought to be a compromise, but a considerably better compromise, because many people where forced to sit closer than 19", and many leaned in, and because the better shielding meant a little less was probably coming out the back and sides (but not that much less, folks).
For those of you that are past the age where are considering having children, you need not worry about spending hours and hours in front of your CRT monitor. As far as you are concerned, the heck with your reproductive system, right? But for those of you still of childbearing age, and who still plan to have children (and for those WITH children), you need to realize that the TCO standards for CRTs as a health standard was merely a compromise, and not perfect. For those planning to have kids (and that especially applies to all of you who still ARE kids), you need to give the issue some thought and weigh the health benefits of LCDs against the risks of CRTs. LCDs have no measurable risk associated with them.
And so you need to think about IF the difference in quality is worth the risk you take with your reproductive system. LCDs may not be perfect, folks, but they are certainly better for health. And IF you have kids, you don't want them spending hours upon hours of the day in front of CRTs, remember that even the latest the TCO health standard that came of Sweden is no guarentee of that you are safe. Even if it is only 2 millirads at 12 inches, more comes out the back, sides and bottom than out the front of a TCO rated CRT. How much more? Quite a bit more! Too much more, in fact. Much more than tripple of what is considered "the safe backround level." No one is required to measure what comes out the back and sides and bottom. That's why manufacturers don't bother to put any shielding there.
This is an issue that the old Sadhu needed to mention to some of you kids out there playing games. You tell me to F...off, and that that's okay. I'm fine that that. But for all you parents out there, you should remember that your kids health is more at risk in front of a CRT than it is in front of an LCD. For me, that was enough to buy my daughter a new LCD (rather than decide to give her my previous and rather expensive EIZO CRT ... even if did meet TCO standards). Better safe than sorry. She might be able to buy someone else's eggs if she decides to have kids, but as for her own, she's already got all she will ever have.