Originally posted by: xtknight
-CRTs don't necessarily have better color reproduction. There was an LCD released by NEC that showed more of the NTSC gamut than CRT's did. It was specifically targeted toward graphics professionals who really needed the BEST.
(in reply to someone else)-CRTs do have a little bit of smearing. Hence "Medium-short persistence phosphors". Ghosting is something else, and I wish people would use other terms.
-Refresh rates aren't perfectly applicable to LCDs.
-LCDs have perfect geometry. Perfect for CAD/CAM work.
-LCDs don't flicker, so you don't have to worry about the refresh rate in that regard.
-I love the perfectly flat look of my LCD.
-LCDs can reach higher resolutions in the same amount of space. (only for notebooks at this point)
-LCDs don't give me a head/neckache whereas CRTs do, even at 85 Hz.
-LCDs have very little ELF/VLF emission. Some people said that caused cancer (I'm not saying I believe that). Just pointing that out.
-LCDs are always perfectly in focus. They never go out of focus and you don't have to risk your life to adjust it correctly (on some older CRTs). Thus LCDs reproduce a more detailed image (assuming equivalent source, resolution, and dot pitch of course).
All in all, if my LCD didn't have any motion blur, I'd be perfectly happy with it. The colors aren't that bad to me. I'm not a graphics professional. I think the colors look better more vibrant. They look more real, whereas the CRTs tend to have a red/warm cast over everything, but that's just my opinion, so don't start a flame war over it. My dad says LCDs have a blue cast over them.
With Windows Vista, the resolution scaling issue should be a thing of the past if they go with vector rendering. However, the benefits of settings your game to low resolution will still be gone, I believe (if you want perfect scaling quality).
Personally, I can't wait for FED/SED/NEDs (whatever you want to call them). No deflection yoke so no harmful ELF radiation. One argument gone. Thinner, another issue gone. Less power usage than LCDs. Perfect geometry, poof. Larger color gamut than CRTs, check. I think they're perfectly in focus. They still flicker (I believe) and have a set resolution though.
Originally posted by: Dainas
CRTs win hands down 9/10th of the time, any good CRT (like a 19inch phillips 109b $180) will have far better colour, definition and refresh rate, which shouldnt be a concern if you spend more than $100 on it. LCD people who argue; ether never have played on a good CRT and dont know what their missing, are bitter about their lack of space or that fact that they payed $350+ for a display that only shows up to 1280x1024 and ghost like mad. There are good LCDs, the problem is the decent ones that can compaire to a good 19 or 21inch CRT cost $600+
There are LCDs that dont ghost or have higher resolution than 1280x1024, or have nice colour for less than $600, problem is not one of them has all of these.
$600 is way off...it may be true like a year ago. But if you do some research today, you could get many LCDs that can be comparable to high end crts. The dell 2005fpw is an example, for as little as $335.
Originally posted by: Dainas
Yeah thats a nice display but the max resolution is 1680 x 1050 and the pixels are 0.258mm, hardly pin prick sharp like a good CRT. I will admit there are alot of CRTs that people claim are very good but have fat dot pitch though.
Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
Most people don't run their CRT's at pin-prick sharp resolutions (< .258mm). Very rarely have I heard of people running a 19" CRT at higher than 1280X1024 (90% of 19" CRT's look like crap above 1024 or 11xx), and most people with 20" or 21" screens just do 1600X1200.
If you need ultra fine resolution, then sure, run your 20" or 21" CRT at 19xx by 14xx, but that is not what the market does.
Also, dot pitch hardly dictates sharpness in LCD's. I'd argue a 17"/20"/24" LCD has much sharper text than all but the most expensive (professional) CRT's .
Originally posted by: xtknight
Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
Most people don't run their CRT's at pin-prick sharp resolutions (< .258mm). Very rarely have I heard of people running a 19" CRT at higher than 1280X1024 (90% of 19" CRT's look like crap above 1024 or 11xx), and most people with 20" or 21" screens just do 1600X1200.
If you need ultra fine resolution, then sure, run your 20" or 21" CRT at 19xx by 14xx, but that is not what the market does.
Also, dot pitch hardly dictates sharpness in LCD's. I'd argue a 17"/20"/24" LCD has much sharper text than all but the most expensive (professional) CRT's .
Besides, you wouldn't be able to see a damn thing at 19x14 on a 19". Unless you enjoy squinting, the LCDs are not giving you anything less really. The reason isn't because the LCDs are technically incapable, it's becuase the companies figure there is no market at all for high res on low size.
Originally posted by: xtknight
Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
Most people don't run their CRT's at pin-prick sharp resolutions (< .258mm). Very rarely have I heard of people running a 19" CRT at higher than 1280X1024 (90% of 19" CRT's look like crap above 1024 or 11xx), and most people with 20" or 21" screens just do 1600X1200.
If you need ultra fine resolution, then sure, run your 20" or 21" CRT at 19xx by 14xx, but that is not what the market does.
Also, dot pitch hardly dictates sharpness in LCD's. I'd argue a 17"/20"/24" LCD has much sharper text than all but the most expensive (professional) CRT's .
Besides, you wouldn't be able to see a damn thing at 19x14 on a 19". Unless you enjoy squinting, the LCDs are not giving you anything less really. The reason isn't because the LCDs are technically incapable, it's becuase the companies figure there is no market at all for high res on low size.