I Am Afraid of LCD's I Think I Want a 80 lb CRT

[imported_Reagle]

Am I nuts? Flatpanels have a irratating contrast to them and a strangly bright back lighting to them that is never quite right and the whites are slightly nausiating to me. I know that they have their good qualities but I know I can buy a 80 lbs CRT for very little and run it at like 150 hz. It should look good. I play alot of games too.

Everyone is going to LCDs and abondoning CRTs. Am I missing the boat?

 

[Munky]

I'm still using my 4 year old CRT, and I dont even care about LCD's. The bad news is that CRT's are no longer in production, and most places sell only LCD's. So most people naturally start buying LCD's, but after having used a CRT and a LCD side by side there's no way I'm buying any new monitor until something better than LCD's comes along.

 

[Heartbreaker]

Not everyone. It just seems that way. Though you have to act fast if you want a CRT. FWIW, I bought a 24" LCD, couldn't stand it. Sold it and I am back using a dying CRT, thinking about what is next.

 

[darXoul]

Try to get a nice, used Sony FW900, G500 or another good monitor with Trinitron or Diamondtron tube.

If you're afraid of buying used hardware (like myself), there is the new ViewSonic P227fB (sold in the US as G225fB) which is based on a shadow mask tube but was assessed very positively in this CRT review:

http://www.behardware.com/articles/613-1/the-last-crt-survey.html

I've seen one poster here who complained about this monitor but it looked like he got a faulty one. Maybe give it a try.

 

[rbV5]

Everyone is going to LCDs and abondoning CRTs. Am I missing the boat?

Not me, not as my primary display anyway. I'm unwilling to go to LCD for my main gaming display at this point.

 

[CP5670]

Try to get a nice, used Sony FW900, G500 or another good monitor with Trinitron or Diamondtron tube.

If you're afraid of buying used hardware (like myself), there is the new ViewSonic P227fB (sold in the US as G225fB) which is based on a shadow mask tube but was assessed very positively in this CRT review:

http://www.behardware.com/articles/613-1/the-last-crt-survey.html

I've seen one poster here who complained about this monitor but it looked like he got a faulty one. Maybe give it a try.

That's an interesting review. I'm surprised they did a CRT roundup at this point in time, especially as all of the ones they reviewed have officially been discontinued. It looks like the Diamondtron-based iiyama they got was a defective one though.

There is a Phillips 22" CRT on Newegg (not the one they reviewed there) with good refresh rates, although it's a shadow mask. I think that's about the only decent one you can still buy brand new.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: rbV5

Everyone is going to LCDs and abondoning CRTs. Am I missing the boat?

Not me, not as my primary display anyway. I'm unwilling to go to LCD for my main gaming display at this point.

LCD's have their advantages, like desk space, and they are easier to move, and consume less power/put out less heat.
But CRT's can be nice too.

Dual LCD's > single CRT though (my desk barely had space for a single 19" CRT, but there's plenty of room for 2x17" LCD because it's not very deep, but it's wide).


It all depends on your needs, if you can a) fit a large CRT and b) won't need to move the CRT more than once in a blue moon, then they are fine.

 

[darXoul]

Originally posted by: CP5670

I'm surprised they did a CRT roundup at this point in time, especially as all of the ones they reviewed have officially been discontinued.

The ViewSonic P227fB is actually a brand new monitor. It's been sold since March 2006 in Europe.

Originally posted by: CP5670
There is a Phillips 22" CRT on Newegg (not the one they reviewed there) with good refresh rates, although it's a shadow mask. I think that's about the only decent one you can still buy brand new.

Yep, the 202P70. Looks like a good one. This Philips and the ViewSonic mentioned above are probably indeed the only two decent large CRTs you can get new right now.

 

[rbV5]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: rbV5

Everyone is going to LCDs and abondoning CRTs. Am I missing the boat?

Not me, not as my primary display anyway. I'm unwilling to go to LCD for my main gaming display at this point.

LCD's have their advantages, like desk space, and they are easier to move, and consume less power/put out less heat.
But CRT's can be nice too.

Dual LCD's > single CRT though (my desk barely had space for a single 19" CRT, but there's plenty of room for 2x17" LCD because it's not very deep, but it's wide).


It all depends on your needs, if you can a) fit a large CRT and b) won't need to move the CRT more than once in a blue moon, then they are fine.

I have a couple LCD's myself at home and we switched to LCD's at work completely last year so there are 8 of them staring at me from my Work Console alone. I do drive a 27" LCD for my bedroom PC, which I do like for that application.

For my main gaming display however, I'm affraid my old 22" CRT is going to last much longer. I've been back and forth about buying a used FW900, if I don't do it soon, I'll probably be forced to settle for an LCD. (I have a 17" LCD sitting next to my 22" CRT for dual monitors btw)

 

[Heartbreaker]

Originally posted by: darXoul
Yep, the 202P70. Looks like a good one. This Philips and the ViewSonic mentioned above are probably indeed the only two decent large CRTs you can get new right now.

I am deciding between trying one more LCD, or getting 21" Phillips, my local shop can get either the 202p (Aperture Grill and refresh 1600x1200 at over 100Hz) or the 201b (shadow mask, with 1600x1200 85Hz).

I figure if I get one more CRT it should last me till LCDs are very close to CRT.

 

[pkme2]

I still use a Rasterops 21" (Hitachi) but with the newest innovations in lcds,
the CRT's days are numbered. Great unit but its getting long in the tooth.
The prices are really getting to be affordable on the 20" LCDs, so maybe......

 

[darXoul]

It seems like there are two versions of the 202P - the "European" version 202P with aperture grille and the 202P73/75 (silver/black or black) with shadow mask tube.

I'm currently using my Philips 109P4 (aperture grille) and it's awesome - sharp even in corners, good refresh rates, great colors, contrast... If it was black and a bit larger, it would be a perfect monitor I wouldn't even think of changing to anything else.

 

[Witchfire]

I've been using the same Philips 201B4 21" CRT for the past 6 years, and I plan to stay with it till it dies, or until something TRULY better comes along.

I've looked into LCDs time & time again, and I really can't see anything that would really be a step up for less than $1600 or so. Going to a 20.1" LCD with a fast enough response time to avoid ghosting, and good enough picture quality to compare with my beloved dinosaur here would cost me over $400, and it would MAYBE be on par with what I have now. Why spend the that much $$$ for something only as good as you already have?

This 201B4 has been the best purchase I ever made for my gaming rig, and has outlasted 7 different rigs at this point.

 

[Witchfire]

As an added point, is anybody else here turned off to the 'anti-glare' or 'anti-reflective' coating manufacturers put on LCDs?

I have yet to see one that doesn't to some degree have that frosted glass look that slightly fuzzes everything out. Laptops have been coming out lately without it, and I think the picture quality is far better for it.

 

[dfloyd]

I really do not get this, not this day and time. Original LCDs were bad, this is true but imo they have caught up in almost every area and even surpassed all but the highest end CRTs (This is very debateable as in some areas they have surpassed them).

I had a nice 20" Mitsubishi, and yes it was nice. And as nice as it was it doesnt hold a candle to either 20.1" widescreen LCD I have owned. The text is so much sharper, the colors are so much more vibrant, the only area it could come close to comparing is contrast and thats still a very close call. Now I have a wide screen I can pick up in one hand, try doing that with a Sony widescreen CRT, that looks great, gives me greater fov in most games, and has just as good if not a better image than my previous CRT had. I have seen high end CRTs as well as some very nice LCDs and I honestly cant help but think this has to be mostly perception. LCDs got a bad name for good reason when they first came out, those reasons (Mainly Response time, ghosting, and backlighting) are not nearly the problems they were and in many cases are not a problem at all. Go check out some new high end LCDs in the store, even better do what I did, set them up side by side with your CRT, I think most would be suprised.

Oh and pulling a all nighter does not strain my eyes 1/10 what every CRT I have ever owned did, so consider that as well.

 

[darXoul]

Originally posted by: dfloyd
Oh and pulling a all nighter does not strain my eyes 1/10 what every CRT I have ever owned did, so consider that as well.

I think the whole point about eye strain is very subjective. I must say my CRT gives me absolutely no problems in this area, maybe because I always use it @100+ Hz. I'd also like to add that some LCDs I've seen were simply way too bright even with reduced brightness. Others were too bright at default and when brightness was reduced to a bearable level, image was dull and kind of lifeless.

 

[dfloyd]

I personally dont think its subjective at all. Why?

Refresh, just the way it works between the two shows how it can cause eye strain more so on a CRT. Also consider text quality, I dont think most would disagree that LCDs definatly have far sharper text. Blurry text is a major cause of eye strain imo. In fact I never could keep my CRT as high in res as I would like to as the text would kill my eyes. Running 1280 x 1024 at most and if I did my eyes would strain more. This is not the case with my LCDs, 1680 x 1050 is perfectly comfortable all the time. So even running 100+Hz (Which I understand will burn a CRT up alot quicker) does not fix all causes of eye strain on a CRT. At least from what I have personally seen.

 

[Dethfrumbelo]

LCDs give me headaches (too much brightness/contrast/sharpness, especially when reading text - nothing to do with refresh rates). I have no problems with CRTs > 72 Hz.

After a while looking at an LCD screen, I start to lose focus, like I'm looking through the screen. Weird.

Maybe I'll look into the 202p.

 

[dfloyd]

Too much contrast and sharpness gives you headaches?

Strangely I think its the oppisite for most people friend.

Brightness I could understand but most new and decent LCDs are easily adjustable to very comfortable brightness levels. There are some that are overly bright, but usually a quick check of reviews will show you which are and which are not.

 

[darXoul]

Originally posted by: dfloyd
Also consider text quality, I dont think most would disagree that LCDs definatly have far sharper text.

That's what they say... My CRT has razor sharp text though, also in corners. Absolutely no complaints, even compared to the best LCDs.

Originally posted by: dfloyd
In fact I never could keep my CRT as high in res as I would like to as the text would kill my eyes. Running 1280 x 1024 at most and if I did my eyes would strain more.

I run my monitor @1280*960 in Windows anyway, @1600*1200 text is way too small. On a 20" viewable diagonal, I guess I would give 16*12 a try.

Originally posted by: dfloyd
So even running 100+Hz (Which I understand will burn a CRT up alot quicker) does not fix all causes of eye strain on a CRT. At least from what I have personally seen.

In fact, 100 Hz is my monitor's recommended refresh rate in the resolutions I use. I seriously doubt it will burn my CRT.

 

[Heartbreaker]

Originally posted by: dfloyd
Too much contrast and sharpness gives you headaches?

Strangely I think its the oppisite for most people friend.
.

You don't speak for most. Read this:
http://cloanto.com/users/mcb/19960719lcd.html

The vast majority of people have no problem with either technology. But some small percentage will have a problem with either tech.

Using a damaged out of focus CRT is bad or using a refresh rate that flashes can drive you nuts.

But I just like darXoul, much prefer good CRT. I have been using them over 20 years, no eye strain.

Got my shiny new LCD. Eyestrain almost instantly. I had eye pain for a weak until I sold it. Part of the problem is definitely excess brightness and I bough one of the worse offenders, the 2405. The thing is Max brightness for a CRT is about 100cd, this is about the minimum in most LCDs and they look like crap at minimum. I run my CRT much less than max, LCD simply don't go that low.

Viewing angles were really really bad. There was lag, ghosting etc and lots and lots of eyestrain. I have no problem with my 75Hz refresh at 1600x1200 CRT

Just accept that not everyone is the same.

 

[dfloyd]

Originally posted by: guidryp

Originally posted by: dfloyd
Too much contrast and sharpness gives you headaches?

Strangely I think its the oppisite for most people friend.
.

You don't speak for most. Read this:
http://cloanto.com/users/mcb/19960719lcd.html

The vast majority of people have no problem with either technology. But some small percentage will have a problem with either tech.

Using a damaged out of focus CRT is bad or using a refresh rate that flashes can drive you nuts.

But I just like darXoul, much prefer good CRT. I have been using them over 20 years, no eye strain.

Got my shiny new LCD. Eyestrain almost instantly. I had eye pain for a weak until I sold it. Part of the problem is definitely excess brightness and I bough one of the worse offenders, the 2405. The thing is Max brightness for a CRT is about 100cd, this is about the minimum in most LCDs and they look like crap at minimum. I run my CRT much less than max, LCD simply don't go that low.

Viewing angles were really really bad. There was lag, ghosting etc and lots and lots of eyestrain. I have no problem with my 75Hz refresh at 1600x1200 CRT

Just accept that not everyone is the same.

Its a good article but I still disagree with it on several points. First it was done in 2004, things have improved some since then. Also I can understand how Fluorescent Light and brightness might bother someone.

But as far as sharpness goes it makes no sense. Even if the text is more blurry on a CRT iit is still the same text and the same pixels they are just not as sharp so you will have to focus harder to make them out perfectly. The sharper (I read as clearer) something is the less you should have to focus on it to make it out. So he is theorizing that sharpness could contribute but from my understanding of the human eye and how it works this just does not make any sense.

And on the contrast issue I dont understand how anyone could say more contrast is worse. The larger the amount of contrast the bigger the difference between light and dark, aka white and black. One of the biggest original complaints with LCDs was not having enough contrast to make blacks black enough, so claiming more contrast is bad is very confusing to me. The newest tech coming out is up to what 4000:1 contrast and higher? Compare that to 300:1 LCds started around.

So considering my above two arguments I am still not sure I am wrong on my points friend. I am definatly not saying LCDs are for everyone and in fact I know they are not, but it seems in general and for the majority LCDs are far enough along to make very good daily use monitors. At least imo and from what I have read on the statistics.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: Reagle
Am I nuts? Flatpanels have a irratating contrast to them and a strangly bright back lighting to them that is never quite right and the whites are slightly nausiating to me. I know that they have their good qualities but I know I can buy a 80 lbs CRT for very little and run it at like 150 hz. It should look good. I play alot of games too.

Everyone is going to LCDs and abondoning CRTs. Am I missing the boat?

One significant part of the boat is that the manufactures are also abandoning CRT. So you likely going to second grade CRT at this point if you get one new -- a rough conclusion drawn from the withdrawal of key players in the field and the lack of continued development in that area. Correct me if I'm wrong and you can get a 1st rate new CRT at a reasonable price.

Current LCD's have obvious advantages on some areas, and have overcome some of the traditional shortcomings (see the CRT review), but to me it seems to be an incomplete, not fully mature solution, and that a couple of generations from now will make the current LCD's seem bad. Hence it could be worthwhile to not pay the premiums necessary for a top-ranked LCD at the moment. OTOH, that also means not having their benefits.

 

[CP5670]

Originally posted by: dfloyd
Its a good article but I still disagree with it on several points. First it was done in 2004, things have improved some since then. Also I can understand how Fluorescent Light and brightness might bother someone.

But as far as sharpness goes it makes no sense. Even if the text is more blurry on a CRT iit is still the same text and the same pixels they are just not as sharp so you will have to focus harder to make them out perfectly. The sharper (I read as clearer) something is the less you should have to focus on it to make it out. So he is theorizing that sharpness could contribute but from my understanding of the human eye and how it works this just does not make any sense.

And on the contrast issue I dont understand how anyone could say more contrast is worse. The larger the amount of contrast the bigger the difference between light and dark, aka white and black. One of the biggest original complaints with LCDs was not having enough contrast to make blacks black enough, so claiming more contrast is bad is very confusing to me. The newest tech coming out is up to what 4000:1 contrast and higher? Compare that to 300:1 LCds started around.

So considering my above two arguments I am still not sure I am wrong on my points friend. I am definatly not saying LCDs are for everyone and in fact I know they are not, but it seems in general and for the majority LCDs are far enough along to make very good daily use monitors. At least imo and from what I have read on the statistics.

There are no LCDs (at least computer monitors) with anything near 4000:1. The contrast ratios can be somewhat misleading in any case, since they are measured at the maximum brightness setting. A lot of LCDs with high contrast ratios also have an excessive default brightness level and can't maintain the same contrast ratio at lower brightness settings.

In general, I think ambient lighting makes a huge difference in what looks better. Some LCDs actually look very good to me in the daytime, but in a pitch dark room it's a different story, with the washed out black levels and/or screen door effects contributing to both eyestrain and poor image quality. There is also the 60hz limitation on most larger LCDs as well as the lower resolutions (compared to CRTs) on anything except the pricey 30" LCDs. For a nighttime gamer like me, there is not much of a contest.

The last generation of aperture grill CRTs, if you can still find one of them, have extended brightness modes that give the same vibrant, saturated look in games (and at the same time preserve black levels) while allowing for a dimmer look in Windows. As for the sharpness, the one I have is very hard to distinguish from an LCD after making the necessary focus adjustments, although I agree that the average CRT is quite lacking in this respect.

All that being said, if I was buying today I would probably get an LCD, as the good CRTs have all disappeared from the market by now (I'm not quite comfortable with buying a used one unless I can see it in person). But just about any LCD I could buy would be a downgrade in some way over my existing CRT.

The ViewSonic P227fB is actually a brand new monitor. It's been sold since March 2006 in Europe.

That's interesting, I remember seeing it (the G225 one) on Newegg a few months ago but it is no longer available there, so I thought it was discontinued. I don't think I know of any other 21/22" CRT still being manufactured.

 

[MrCoyote]

I still use a 19" Sony G410R. It has a variable .24dp-.25dp, and I run my desktop at 1600x1200. Text looks very good and sharp, even at that resolution. I haven't gone to LCD for several reasons...ghosting, dead pixels, backlight bleeding, fixed resolution, etc. Ghosting is getting better, but I can't stand dead pixels or backlight bleed. Even one dead pixel is too much for me. The fixed resolution makes scaling pretty bad. I've yet to see a LCD scale an image perfect, like a CRT.

Many people fail to realize that a CRT display has a fine dot-pitch consisting of RGB phosphors. This is why CRT can scale easily to any resolution. As long as you get a CRT with a fine dot pitch(.24dp). LCD's are stuck with a fixed number of pixels. Maybe if LCD panels were made with a finer dot-pitch(smaller pixels), they may scale better. What we need is a LCD panel with twice the number of pixels, then what you want to display. ex. (3200x2400 for a 1600x1200 display). This would allow better scaling at lower resolutions.