LCD or CRT?

[nitromullet]

The thing is, you won't be able to find a large, high quality new CRT. If you want an FW900 (which is a very nice CRT), you will have to find it used. I wonder why Sony stopped making this obviously superior monitor to swtich to LCD's..? Something to think about...

Edit: JRW is also comparing the output from a high end (used to sell for $2k new) CRT to a middle-of-the-road (~$500ish) LCD. Dell is known for it's value, and their LCD's aren't bad (I own one myself), but I think that there are better ones out there. I think the high end Samsungs and Sonys are probably overall nicer screens, might be a better comparison.

 

[CP5670]

Probably because LCDs' elegant looks allow them to sell better to the average people who walk into stores and they are also much cheaper to ship. Although you're right that LCDs are the only real option right now, since buying CRTs is like a lottery now for various reasons. I can't wait for some SED monitors to come out.

 

[Kalessian]

Buying my Mitsubishi CRT was the best decision I could have made for a monitor. My only regret is that I didn't get the 22" model.

http://www.azatek.com/details.asp?iid=697

Some things about CRTs drive me nuts. I used an LCD only for 2 whole monthes while I was away from my personal desktop. When I came back to the CRT it seemed extremely blurry as far as text sharpness goes.

Another thing is the imperfect geometry. I did not get a perfect CRT. I am limited to a few resolutions at specific refresh rates if I want good geometry. For example, I cannot use any of the 1280x960 options because of geometry problems. I spent monthes with Powerstrip adjusting the front and back porches, and I've scored a good rate on every other res besides 1280x960.

But I forget all of it when I play games or movies with my superbright 1 setting. It cranks up the contrast and brightness.... colors become insane... blacks actually get more black, making dark spots scarier, but at the same time light sources get brighter - it creates a bigger spectrum for a whole new atmosphere in games. Text is unreadable in this mode, but the colors come alive.

 

[Compellor]

Originally posted by: nitromullet
The thing is, you won't be able to find a large, high quality new CRT. If you want an FW900 (which is a very nice CRT), you will have to find it used. I wonder why Sony stopped making this obviously superior monitor to swtich to LCD's..? Something to think about...

Edit: JRW is also comparing the output from a high end (used to sell for $2k new) CRT to a middle-of-the-road (~$500ish) LCD. Dell is known for it's value, and their LCD's aren't bad (I own one myself), but I think that there are better ones out there. I think the high end Samsungs and Sonys are probably overall nicer screens, might be a better comparison.

Sony dropped out of it due to market demand and most likely cost. They're still making CRT TVs (the end is near, though) since that market is still pretty big to make a decent profit.

No LCD can produce the inky blacks you get on a quality CRT. This is really my only major complaint about them.

 

[nitromullet]

True, about the inky blacks, but there are better options than Dell if you can afford them...

http://img262.imageshack.us/my.php?image=samsung043ll.jpg

This guy has an absolutely horrible camera (or the picture quality is set to low), but I still think that you can see that the black levels are better on this Samsung 244t than on the the 2001FP in this thread. (once the image loads, it's incredibly slow for me)

There seems to be a misconception in a lot of CRT vs LCD threads that Dell = LCD. Sure, Dells are popular and they are usually a good value for the money, but I don't think they offer the best in overall quality. You can't just compare a Dell LCD to any high end CRT of your choice and make a generalization about LCD's compared to CRT's.

 

[CP5670]

The text sharpness with CRTs is something that seems to vary a lot with individual units. The three duds I went through earlier all left a lot to be desired, as the monitors were not only blurry but the blurriness was inconsistent across the screen, but my current one looks extremely close to an LCD in this respect after I adjusted the focus and everything, much better than any other CRT I have seen. I have to put my head up close to the screen to tell the difference at most resolutions. It falls off a bit at 2048x1536, but still is quite good even there.

Some things about CRTs drive me nuts. I used an LCD only for 2 whole monthes while I was away from my personal desktop. When I came back to the CRT it seemed extremely blurry as far as text sharpness goes.

Another thing is the imperfect geometry. I did not get a perfect CRT. I am limited to a few resolutions at specific refresh rates if I want good geometry. For example, I cannot use any of the 1280x960 options because of geometry problems. I spent monthes with Powerstrip adjusting the front and back porches, and I've scored a good rate on every other res besides 1280x960.

But I forget all of it when I play games or movies with my superbright 1 setting. It cranks up the contrast and brightness.... colors become insane... blacks actually get more black, making dark spots scarier, but at the same time light sources get brighter - it creates a bigger spectrum for a whole new atmosphere in games. Text is unreadable in this mode, but the colors come alive.

Yeah, that's the sort of crap you have put up with when buying any good CRTs these days, and it's not just limited to the used and refurb ones; the manufacturing quality simply went to hell shortly before they were discontinued altogether.

Regarding the geometry issue, are you talking about the vertical linearity distortion at the top? I got that with one of my defective units, although the one I have now has no such issue.

The superbright mode is awesome though. After getting to used it for eight months, games now look quite ugly without it. It doesn't seem to affect the text much (in terms of blurriness) despite what I've heard about it, although I prefer a dimmer look for text viewing anyway.

 

[JRW]

Q]This guy has an absolutely horrible camera (or the picture quality is set to low), but I still think that you can see that the black levels are better on this Samsung 244t than on the the 2001FP in this thread. (once the image loads, it's incredibly slow for me) [/quote]

I'm aware there are better LCDs with deeper black levels but its still no where near CRTs levels , The shot you posted looks decent but notice how bright the room is, If he were to take the same shot at night it would be a totaly differant story.. I dunno about you but I like to watch movies with the lights out or at least in a darker room than that.

Edit: JRW is also comparing the output from a high end (used to sell for $2k new) CRT to a middle-of-the-road (~$500ish) LCD

The monitor in the shot is a 21" G520P which I bought for $600 on newegg.com , I think you might be getting it confused with the $1,600 21" F520 which was the higher end model. But the G520P is a great monitor and also has the superbright feature (known as Dynamic mode on sony branded monitors) which even the F520 lacked.

 

[nitromullet]

I thought you had an FW900 as indicated in your sig, which was a HIGH end monitor in its day. I used to really want one of those, but when I finally made enough cash to afford such a purchase Sony stopped making them. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that pretty much any CRT will have better black levels than almost any LCD, but the overall image quality may not be nearly as nice on a cheaper CRT. I'm sure the ViewSonic G810 CRT I have at work doesn't even come close to the IQ on an FW900.

 

[JRW]

Originally posted by: nitromullet
I thought you had an FW900 as indicated in your sig, which was a HIGH end monitor in its day. I used to really want one of those, but when I finally made enough cash to afford such a purchase Sony stopped making them. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that pretty much any CRT will have better black levels than almost any LCD, but the overall image quality may not be nearly as nice on a cheaper CRT. I'm sure the ViewSonic G810 CRT I have at work doesn't even come close to the IQ on an FW900.

Yea back when I took those comparison shots I didnt have the FW900 just yet. Shots ive taken of the FW900 can be viewed here.

 

[alpha88]

I still believe a good CRT is superior to an LCD in terms of picture quality and gaming abilitiy. However, you can't get good CRTs anymore.

The FW900 is the best moniter available, but you can't get them new.

I use a Dell 2405FPW and am very happy with it. The smaller size and better geometry are a reasonable trade off.

 

[nitromullet]

Nice shots, that is definitely a sweet monitor no matter how you cut it.

 

[I3eyond]

for the price it sure should be!!!

 

[Phantronius]

If I had to go back to CRT *gag&*THe F900 would be the only one I could handle. Beyond, that, no one is taking my 2405 away from me.

 

[GodlyHammer]

GDM-FW900/HP A7217A Are these the same thing? I'm bidding for one on Ebay and they say that the HP A7217a is the same at the FW900

 

[GhostDoggy]

Originally posted by: GodlyHammer
I'm looking for a few crystal clear picture. Capable of higher resolutions, atleast 1280x1024 @ a decent refresh rate.

I would ask yourself what factors in a display are most important to you and then look from there. Both have benefits and drawbacks. 1280x1024, BTW, isn't all that high-resolution unless everything you look at is low-resolution. For instance, at 50% scale you could view a 2.6MP picture from a digital camera at that resolution. Yeah, a whopping 2.6MP. Imagine how difficult it could be trying to do that for 6-8MP cameras.

I am pretty sure most LCD flat panels being offer have this resolution, but I've always found that too low to accept. What are the major activities you plan on using it for?

 

[GodlyHammer]

Originally posted by: GodlyHammer
GDM-FW900/HP A7217A Are these the same thing? I'm bidding for one on Ebay and they say that the HP A7217a is the same at the FW900

 

[GodlyHammer]

bump

 

[GodlyHammer]

Originally posted by: GodlyHammer

Originally posted by: GodlyHammer
GDM-FW900/HP A7217A Are these the same thing? I'm bidding for one on Ebay and they say that the HP A7217a is the same at the FW900

 

[BFG10K]

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).

CRT's flicker no matter how fast the refresh rate, it is the way CRT's work.

Fair enough, but then by extension you would also have to admit that LCDs always ghost because that's how they work.

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

The OP asked for games. Being stuck at one resolution or facing ass picture quality is a serious limitation, especially when a far cheaper CRT can run whatever resolution it likes equal to or below its maximum.

There are a number of compelling reasons to choose either one based on picture/viewing quality...

The only advantage would be text quality and geometry at a native resolution but that's really just a one-trick pony as the pony bolts when you change the resolution. Also ghosting is always a problem unless you're willing to sacrifice colour quality which then affects movies, something the OP also asked for.

It might be trendy to accept LCDs because they appear on the Jetsons but the fact is 75 year old technology costing far less than LCDs is far better for gaming, movies and photo work.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

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).

CRT's flicker no matter how fast the refresh rate, it is the way CRT's work.

Fair enough, but then by extension you would also have to admit that LCDs always ghost because that's how they work.

Yup, that's exactly right. LCDs ghost all the time. CRTs always have some phosphor trail glow. Fair enough. I do agree for solely gaming and if you want the flexibility a CRT is probably best. You simply cannot get a good quality LCD for that cheap. I find resolution scaling fine for text but for gaming it isn't so good with all the aliasing. I use an LCD because for gaming long periods the CRT gave me too much eye fatigue/headache but if the OP doesn't have that problem then there's really no reason to switch.

Edit: edited a billion times, sorry.

 

[GodlyHammer]

...and still, no one answers my question.

 

[GodlyHammer]

Originally posted by: GodlyHammer

Originally posted by: GodlyHammer

Originally posted by: GodlyHammer
GDM-FW900/HP A7217A Are these the same thing? I'm bidding for one on Ebay and they say that the HP A7217a is the same at the FW900

 

[xtknight]

Dude, don't bump the post so often. It is spamming up the forums. Sorry, but if someone knew, they would answer your question.

 

[CP5670]

Originally posted by: GodlyHammer

Originally posted by: GodlyHammer
GDM-FW900/HP A7217A Are these the same thing? I'm bidding for one on Ebay and they say that the HP A7217a is the same at the FW900

I'm 99.99% sure they are. The only difference is the cabinet color. Rebadged clone CRTs like this are very common and exist for just about every model.

 

[albohm]