LCD or CRT?

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: Shamrock

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: Shamrock
really?

http://www.azatek.com/pricelist.asp?CID=59

how about an NEC FE1250+ (21") for $157 (+$40 ship)

in games, I cant STAND ghosting and slow reaction times (it gives me a headache and makes me dizzy) hopefully, SLED's or OLED's will not do that.

Modern LCD's don't ghost. :roll:

yes they do, even the 8ms versions do. Just not as much. :roll:

I've played with Dells, Sony, and Samsung, and ALL will still ghost, even just moving the mouse (let's not even get into games)

No, they don't.

An 8ms rated monitor is capable of 125 frames per second.

If I can't see ghosting on my 16ms rated monitor with my "far above average" vision there is no way you can see it on a 8ms rated monitor.

I'm happy you love that huge, heavy, monitor but don't lie about stuff that is already well documented.

those rates are measure differently for each company and cant be trusted, many 8ms really take 14-15-16ms to refresh and with good eys, yes there will be a little ghosting.

 

[GodlyHammer]

Ebay has those.

 

[BFG10K]

An 8ms rated monitor is capable of 125 frames per second.

Assuming the 8ms figure is accurate, which it isn't. Most LCDs grossly overstate this figure and in practice are nowhere near it.

If I can't see ghosting on my 16ms rated monitor with my "far above average" vision there is no way you can see it on a 8ms rated monitor.

I can see ghosting on a 16ms monitor. The jury's out for 8ms models as I haven't had a chance to thoroughly test them but colour quality usually tanks on LCDs with low response times.

LCDs are completely and utterly inferior for gaming, movies and colour editing work compared to CRTs. Their only real advantages have to do with their physical characteristics being smaller than CRTs, characteristics that have nothing to do with display quality.

 

[nitromullet]

LCDs are completely and utterly inferior for gaming, movies and colour editing work compared to CRTs. Their only real advantages have to do with their physical characteristics being smaller than CRTs, characteristics that have nothing to do with display quality.

You forgot to mention the fact that they don't flicker, have perfect geometry, and display text much clearer than a CRT. I believe that all of those have to do with display quality.

Edit: it's funny to me how many CRT faithfuls there are. Even moreso, since most people that have tried an LCD would never want to go back.

 

[BFG10K]

You forgot to mention the fact that they don't flicker,

Neither does a CRT at a decent refresh rate.

have perfect geometry,

Only at their native resolution.

and display text much clearer than a CRT.

Only at their native resolution.

 

[MBrown]

Originally posted by: DeathSlayer
Hyundai L90D+ is a good 19'' LCD.

agreed. But now I'm kinda wishing I had a 20inch LCD instead.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

You forgot to mention the fact that they don't flicker,

Neither does a CRT at a decent refresh rate.

Yeah, they still do, and they still bother some people including me, even at 120 refreshes a second. It's like the DLP rainbow effect (even the color wheel spinning at 120 RPS). Some just have sensitive eyes. Not surprisingly I can also detect the rainbow effect (though it doesn't give me nausea like it does some people).

The only desirable LCDs in $250-300 range I'd say are:

ViewSonic VX724
BenQ FP91G+
Samsung 940b
Samsung 740b

All of those will only do 1280x1024 at max.

If you find image quality/viewing angles undesirable get another CRT.

 

[I3eyond]

how about the vx922, the 930bf, or the 940b?

 

[kmmatney]

If you using it for movies, then a 19" would be better than a 17".

 

[GodlyHammer]

What monitors have the HD thing right now? I want to be prepared for Vista.

 

[CP5670]

There aren't that many right now. Dell is supposed to update their line with HDCP support in a month or two.

Edit: it's funny to me how many CRT faithfuls there are. Even moreso, since most people that have tried an LCD would never want to go back.

I have yet to come across an LCD that's in the same league as my CRT (I've tried out the 1905, 2405, VP930b and a few others in various places). They all have inferior contrast, color banding and screen door effects and are stuck at one resolution, which in most cases is lower than the maximum on a comparably priced CRT. And the higher resolution ones can't show more than 60fps due to DVI refresh rate limitations even if the panel was good enough to display that at all times, which I don't know if any are. There are some genuinely good LCDs out there, but they are professional level models that you have to pay through the nose for and even with those you have to compromise somewhere.

I will actually be buying a monitor soon for a second computer and it's going to be an LCD for a couple of reasons (major space constraints, gaming isn't a priority on that and the good CRTs are all gone anyway), but my main machine will keep its CRT until some decent displays like SEDs come out.

 

[JRW]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

LCDs are completely and utterly inferior for gaming, movies and colour editing work compared to CRTs. Their only real advantages have to do with their physical characteristics being smaller than CRTs, characteristics that have nothing to do with display quality.

You forgot to mention the fact that they don't flicker, have perfect geometry, and display text much clearer than a CRT. I believe that all of those have to do with display quality.

Edit: it's funny to me how many CRT faithfuls there are. Even moreso, since most people that have tried an LCD would never want to go back.

I had a Dell 2001FP LCD sitting next to my 21" Sony CRT for awhile but ended up going back to a solo CRT, I loved the text clarity on the LCD but color reproduction ,color banding / dithering ,very poor black levels, native resolution hassles ,viewing angle and response time / motion blur were all enough to turn me away... I think having the CRT right next to it running the same programs / games / movies made the differance that much more obvious for me, but Im glad it worked out that way because now I have a 24" FW900 16:10 aspect CRT and its by far the best gaming monitor Ive owned ,plus watching .ts / wmv HDTV material on it is amazing.

I recently noticed something interesting about CRTs & Flickering ,apparently the videocard being used has some affect on how noticable it is,A few weeks back I traded in my evga 7800gtx 256mb for a 7800gtx 512mb (using evga's step up program) , I had to send the 256mb card back before they would send out the new card,so I dug up a 5500FX PCI I had in the closet to use as a temp card, While using the 5500FX (had to use it for a week) I noticed flickering on my monitor even when running 100hz, I kept checking the monitor's OSD thinking it was at 60hz but it wasnt, Also image quality was slightly degraded (image wasnt as sharp) , Soon as I got my 7800gtx 512mb I noticed not only an improved image but the flickering was completley gone. Maybe this is a low quality vs. high quality videocard Ramdac issue? Anyhow just thought i'd share.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

You forgot to mention the fact that they don't flicker,

Neither does a CRT at a decent refresh rate.

have perfect geometry,

Only at their native resolution.

and display text much clearer than a CRT.

Only at their native resolution.

CRT's flicker no matter how fast the refresh rate, it is the way CRT's work. Agreed, it's more noticable at lower refresh rates, but now that I'm used to LCD's I really don't enjoy looking into what ammounts to a strobe light all day. I still have a CRT at work, so I still have to... Obvioulsy, it's doable, I just prefer not to when I'm the one making the purchasing decision.

....why whould you run an LCD at anyhting other than the native rez when viewing text?

I know, I know that ultimately it's up to the individual's preference, but I just don't like seeing the claim that the only advantage of LCD's over CRT's are the physical characteristics. There are a number of compelling reasons to choose either one based on picture/viewing quality... Rgrettably, even in 2006 we still have to sacrifice in one area or another with respect to what kind of display we choose, let's just keep the FUD to a minimum.

I had a Dell 2001FP LCD sitting next to my 21" Sony CRT for awhile but ended up going back to a solo CRT, I loved the text clarity on the LCD but color reproduction ,color banding / dithering ,very poor black levels, native resolution hassles ,viewing angle and response time / motion blur were all enough to turn me away...

This reminds me of one of those late night infommercials... oh, the muss, the fuss, whatever are we going to do... (wtf is a native resolution hassle?)

Maybe we could make one with some guy struggling with trying to carry his 24", 90lb CRT up some stairs... "Don't let this happen to you... Get an LCD!"

 

[JRW]

Maybe we could make one with some guy struggling with trying to carry his 24", 90lb CRT up some stairs... "Don't let this happen to you... Get an LCD!"

You say that as if people move their monitors often... besides weight is not an issue for those of us that actualy care about Image quality. When im using my monitor im more concerned at what im looking at on the screen itself not how much it weighs or how much power its using.

Native resolution hassle = Having to run one single resolution to achieve the monitors maximum image quality. Running any other resolution results in interpolation, not only does this degrade image quality but it causes higher response times / motion blur. This is not an issue on a CRT, I run my desktop at 1920x1200 and use a variety of other resolutions when playing games depending which one it is and it always looks great.

 

[Munky]

I use a 2001fp at work, and even though I dont game on it, I still hate it. The text is too small at native res, and at lower res everything looks like crap. And the colors are definitely more washed out and less accurate than on a crt. I just cant bring myself to like lcd's, even when compared to my average 17" crt at home. I'm debating right now whether to buy a bigger and better crt, but I'm definitely not even considering lcd's - the poor color quality and inflexible resolution is just unacceptable, not to mention the possibility of dead/stuck pixels. I'm sure if you dont care much about those then you can get used to the lcd image quality, but I doubt anyone would chose a lcd when comparing the image by side with a quaity crt.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: JRW

Maybe we could make one with some guy struggling with trying to carry his 24", 90lb CRT up some stairs... "Don't let this happen to you... Get an LCD!"

You say that as if people move their monitors often... besides weight is not an issue for those of us that actualy care about Image quality. When im using my monitor im more concerned at what im looking at on the screen itself not how much it weighs or how much power its using.

Native resolution hassle = Having to run one single resolution to achieve the monitors maximum image quality. Running any other resolution results in interpolation, not only does this degrade image quality but it causes higher response times / motion blur. This is not an issue on a CRT, I run my desktop at 1920x1200 and use a variety of other resolutions when playing games depending which one it is and it always looks great.

How is that a hassle? You set the res once and forget about it... I know that people don't often move their monitors. My point was all this crazy negativity you guys have over LCD's... Your post sounded like an infommercial...

munky: Learn how to use Windows... You don't honestly think you have to change the resolution to change the size of the text do you? The other factors are personal preference. I'm fine with that, but don't turn your lack of ability to properly adjust the settings in your OS to a shortcoming with the hardware.

My advice to the OP:

1) Search this topic next time, it's been debated ad nausem on this forum.
2) Go to the store, look at your options, and decide for youself. You won't get a definitive answer here, as it's a matter of personal preference.

 

[JRW]

How is that a hassle? You set the res once and forget about it... I know that people don't often move their monitors. My point was all this crazy negativity you guys have over LCD's... Your post sounded like an infommercial...

The 2001FP has a native res of 1600x1200 , Not all games run smooth in this resolution , Even now with my 7800GTX 512mb I still run a lot of games at 1280x800 (16:10) just to get maximum framerates. I'd rather run a lower res with max graphic settings , antialising & anistropic filtering enabled versus a higher res with lower graphic detail and having to disable Antialising etc. just to get decent framerates. So having this resolution flexibility is a definate plus.

Some shots I took from COD2 @ 1280x800 w/ max graphic settings here.

 

[BenSkywalker]

I have spent considerable time trying to think of a display technology that would be worse then LCDs and haven't been able to do it. Nigh nothing for contrast, very slow and incapable of producing accurate colors; I've had other ideas that would have certain negative characteristics but nothing can be so bad in such critical areas as LCDs.

The people hyping them are the 'wow it's new' crowd- sit down and run any LCD, cost no object, against a $200 CRT playing games and movies side by side and you will see there really is no comparison(forget it when looking at the high end Trini/Diamondtrons).

DLP, Plasma, SED and OLED are all vastly superior- though they do have issues of their own. Unfortunately right now all the remotely decent CRTs have been dropped and unless you want to move into the very high end/huge size part of the spectrum there isn't anything good on offer. Your best bet is to buy used or find the best deal on the current lousy tech.

 

[Creig]

I was offered a pair of new Dell 2001FP to replace the two 21" Sony Trinitrons I was using at work.









I kept the Trinitrons.

 

[nitromullet]

Ben, I think you're mistaking the 'wow it's new crowd', with the 'this is it' crowd. There really aren't any high quality CRT's available anymore, unless you want to get used or reconditioned stuff. Most of the new CRT's avaialble are cheap and of poor quality.

As far as your other point goes, do you think I just started using computers a year ago? I've used plenty of CRT's, still use two 21" CRT's everyday at work. One is a crappy new ViewSonic that will barely do 75Hz at 1600x1200. The other is a Dell P1110 that is built on the highly regarded Sony Trinitron tube (the technology with the lines from the damper wire), which I've been using for years that gets blurry when the brightness or contrast are turned up, so I keep at a nice dim/dull level to keep it from looking blurry. We have a lot of these in our office that suffer from the same flaw. Oh yeah, then there was the awesome Nokia 440Pro that I got rid of because it had issues with the OSD and the lack of uniform color - on a white background the edges looked brown and you could actually see a circle on the screen from the electron gun. Of course, it didn't have that when I bought it, but after about a year it developed this (it lost a lot of it's brightness and color over the first year). Sure, Nokia/ViewSonic would take it back, but it's 90lbs boxed up and it would've cost me about as much to fly it out to them myself as it would have to ship it. Sorry, but my personal experiences with CRT's have not been good, and I am not sad to see them go.

I'll trade all that crap for having to have a sweet video card to run my 2005FPW at native res, a little backlight bleeding, and one stuck pixel, which are the only issues I have with my LCD. Are either of the technologies perfect? Far from it IMO, I just don't see the sense in trying to push high end CRT's, which can't even be bought and over exagerating their strenghts. I think there is a reason that LCD's have become more desirable, and it's not just the space.

 

[Steelski]

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: Shamrock
really?

http://www.azatek.com/pricelist.asp?CID=59

how about an NEC FE1250+ (21") for $157 (+$40 ship)

in games, I cant STAND ghosting and slow reaction times (it gives me a headache and makes me dizzy) hopefully, SLED's or OLED's will not do that.

Modern LCD's don't ghost. :roll:

no, they are just limited in Resolution.
The guy has a 7800GT,

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

munky: Learn how to use Windows... You don't honestly think you have to change the resolution to change the size of the text do you? The other factors are personal preference. I'm fine with that, but don't turn your lack of ability to properly adjust the settings in your OS to a shortcoming with the hardware.

Ummm.. been there, done that - not a solution to the problem.
1. Some apps dont work with the bigger text setting
2. In my line of work I have to know exactly how the text is positioned and sized in relation to other fixed-size elements like tables and graphics. Changing my text size to a non-standard setting would only mess things up.

 

[Compellor]

Originally posted by: nitromullet
I'll trade all that crap for having to have a sweet video card to run my 2005FPW at native res, a little backlight bleeding, and one stuck pixel, which are the only issues I have with my LCD. Are either of the technologies perfect? Far from it IMO, I just don't see the sense in trying to push high end CRT's, which can't even be bought and over exagerating their strenghts. I think there is a reason that LCD's have become more desirable, and it's not just the space.

Well said! The only thing I really miss about my Sony CRTs is the excellent black levels when I gamed on them. My new ViewSonic VP930b LCD doesn't quite measure up in that department (it still looks damn good for an LCD), but for everthing else it's MUCH better. The native res thing doesn't really bother me too much since this monitor scales pretty good to down to 1024x768 if I need to go that low for a game. FEAR looked rather good on this monitor out of the native res.

 

[JRW]

Originally posted by: Compellor

Originally posted by: nitromullet
I'll trade all that crap for having to have a sweet video card to run my 2005FPW at native res, a little backlight bleeding, and one stuck pixel, which are the only issues I have with my LCD. Are either of the technologies perfect? Far from it IMO, I just don't see the sense in trying to push high end CRT's, which can't even be bought and over exagerating their strenghts. I think there is a reason that LCD's have become more desirable, and it's not just the space.

Well said! The only thing I really miss about my Sony CRTs is the excellent black levels when I gamed on them. My new ViewSonic VP930b LCD doesn't quite measure up in that department (it still looks damn good for an LCD), but for everthing else it's MUCH better. The native res thing doesn't really bother me too much since this monitor scales pretty good to down to 1024x768 if I need to go that low for a game. FEAR looked rather good on this monitor out of the native res.

The black levels alone killed my experiance with the Dell 2001FP LCD, plus the color was much more accurate on the CRT and had smooth gradients compared to the color banding & dithering I noticed on the LCD. My 3.5 year old G520P CRT was making a brand new out of the box LCD look bad ,which was sad indeed.

My comparison shots when I had both side by side here

 

[Compellor]

Originally posted by: JRW
The black levels alone killed my experiance with the Dell 2001FP LCD, plus the color was much more accurate on the CRT and had smooth gradients compared to the color banding & dithering I noticed on the LCD. My 3.5 year old G520P CRT was making a brand new out of the box LCD look bad ,which was sad indeed.

My comparison shots when I had both side by side here

Yeah. I've seen those over on HardOCP. It's quite dramatic. I've been tempted to get another Sony CRT just for gaming.