LCD verses CRT

[Space Cowboy]

I'm having a hard time trying to figure out which one would be better for me and would really appreciate your comments and advice.

Space is not a issue.

I'm not a gamer but I like graphics and video's.

Any Thoughts?

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/prod...&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=320-4221&link_number=

or?

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=24-001-133&depa=1

or?

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=24-002-040&depa=1

or?

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=24-116-234&depa=1

One more .. Are there others?

http://www.techonweb.com/products/productdetail.aspx?id=A77148

Thanks Allot
Cowboy

 

[Mrvile]

If you're not a gamer then I'd go LCD. The only thing that lags LCDs behind CRTs in games is that they are slightly slower, sometimes causing ghosting. However, if you just look at images and watch movies, the brighter, sharper LCD would be better.

If you're willing to dish out teh CASHZORS then get the Dell FPW. It's the biggest and baddest thing on the market, and looks great. Just be sure to post :camera:'s when you get it.

If you're tight on money the Samsung is also a great choice.

 

[imported_g33k]

I totally agree with Mrvile. If you're not into gaming, get an LCD.

 

[Space Cowboy]

I had a AG Neovo F-419 19in LCD Monitor. Nothing but problems. Maybe it was just the brand but it had great spec's and reviewed well all over the net? The first one I recieved was defective and would randomly get strange lines thru the screen that wouldn't go away till I rebooted. Then when ZipZoomFly finally sent out the replacement (a month later) it had some major backlight issues. When the screen was black it was all washed out around the edges. So they told me to ship it back and then they told me there was nothing wrong with it and gave me two options. Take it back or get a refund. So I went for the refund and they charged me a restocking fee? So all said and done I lost my shirt on that deal. The shipping costs alone was a little over $60.00 and the process took around 3 months all together.

Anyway .. does anybody know what the DPI is on the Dell's. It looks like they have a no question return policy and they pay the shipping. At least thats what their sales department told me over the phone.

Thanks Allot
Cowboy

 

[Space Cowboy]

I'm still undecided but looking to get the biggest display I can afford.

Any more thoughts?

Thanks
Cowboy

 

[housecat]

hands down, LCD wins in nearly every important part

perfect geometry- LCD (NEVER loses focus over the years)
16.7million colors- LCD and CRT
crystal clarity from DVI- LCD (its a digital interface for a digital screen)
easy on the eyes- LCD with DVI and cleartype enabled (its like looking outside at the beach compared to CRTs)
size- LCD
cool factor- LCD
heat- LCD
energy savings- LCD
environmentally friendly- LCD
large screen size- LCD BY FAR, theres the Apple Cinema 30", Dell 24" and you can use most 1080 HDTV's as screens and they are beautiful that go as big as you want
response rate- LCD and CRT (no difference in the new 12ms and 8ms panels from CRTs)
weight- LCD (a 20" lcd weighs like 12lbs. a 20" CRT weighs like 80LBS!)
best black reproduction- CRT


there you have it, the ONLY thing CRTs have on LCDs now is better black reproduction.
Thats it!

In ALL OTHER AREAS, LCDs match or beat CRTs.. and when they beat CRTs they DESTROY THEM.

IMO, you should stick with teh Dell LCDs and coupons.. they will be your best deal.
Find the DVI panel you want from their selection, unless you are willing to spend over $1200.
Then I can help you further.

 

[Space Cowboy]

Wow,
Great info. Thanks Allot.

I love a BLACK desktop like this Desktop

Is there anything I should look for in a LCD that would indicate it displays BLACK as good as they can? Like cmd or pixcels per sq inch?

Thanks
Cowboy

 

[Wolfshanze]

Why does everybody forget to mention Screen Resolutions when comparing CRTs to LCDs? All the LCD fans seem to forget this one category where LCDs lack FAR BEHIND CRTs.

Changing resolutions away from native plain and simple sucks on any LCD compared to a CRT.

On the other hand, I think LCDs have completely caught up with CRTs on response times (or at least as much as needed). A point CRT fans always mention, but I think is a non-issue nowadays.

Bottom line, I think LCDs are as good as or better then CRTs in almost every category EXCEPT changing resolutions.

Having said that, this feature mostly effects gamers, so if you're a non-gamer, by all means, LCD is the way to go.

 

[housecat]

Its kind of a limitation of the technology as far as I understand.

To create a black it just shuts those pixels off.. and thats as black as it goes.
And on most panels you get SOME backlight still, so its not pitch black as on a CRT.
More like black with a glare.. thats the best description.

Its not bad IMO

The new 2405 Dell is supposed to have much better black than the 2005FPW.

Its not enough to sway me, but the 2405 would be my monitor of choice right now regardless.

 

[BenSkywalker]

That post by housecat has some rather severe inaccuracies and misleading information.

First he seriously understates how poor LCDs are at recreating black- it doesn't really exist on LCDs. They are incapable of it. Color accuracy in general on LCDs is extremely poor- don't count on what you are seeing on the display being anything like how it would look printed or on a display that was capable of handling colors decently.

Response time and ghosting are also seriously understated- there is VERY clear ghosting amongst even the newest 8ms panels. Those with fairly serious problems with their vision may not notice it as much, but it is very real. Fast moving action scenes in movies display ghosting issues quite nicely, not as bad as gaming would but it is still certainly a drawback.

 

[Wizard12]

you guys are depressing me !

I wanna buy an lcd


!


almost bought a 710T, but now this 730B came out and no one reviewed it yet!
;-(

 

[housecat]

Originally posted by: Wolfshanze
Why does everybody forget to mention Screen Resolutions when comparing CRTs to LCDs? All the LCD fans seem to forget this one category where LCDs lack FAR BEHIND CRTs.

Changing resolutions away from native plain and simple sucks on any LCD compared to a CRT.

On the other hand, I think LCDs have completely caught up with CRTs on response times (or at least as much as needed). A point CRT fans always mention, but I think is a non-issue nowadays.

Bottom line, I think LCDs are as good as or better then CRTs in almost every category EXCEPT changing resolutions.

Having said that, this feature mostly effects gamers, so if you're a non-gamer, by all means, LCD is the way to go.

Thats a really good point that I should address for the OP.

I'd forgotten about that one, and I'll tell you why

I use 640x480 for Diablo2, Starcraft ect STILL
And modern LCDs have pretty much 3 options, display in original size, 1:1 stretching (maintains aspect ratio from original image), and Fill screen.


Basically, playing a game on a large LCD with a max res of 1680x1050 like my 2005fpw is really really small when at original 640x480 with no stretching.

Its this little itty bitty screen in the middle of the screen..


1:1 stretching makes it MUCH bigger, basically the biggest 4:3 screen you can fit on a 20" widescreen LCD like mine.
Prob comparable to a 17" CRT size



The 3rd option, Fill is what I prefer.
It stretches 4:3 resolutions like 640x480 to fill a widescreen (16:10 aspect ratio).
This introduces stretching of the pixels and changes how the game looks from originally.
Not much though in my experience or opinion. Not enough that I desire to run 1:1.

But the point is, the scaling on these panels (done by a microchip within the screen) is EXCEPTIONAL.






I'm old school.. believe that.. I recently played KINGS QUEST 1 on this PC.

Freaking KQ1, and let me tell you, it blew me away. 1:1 it was huge enough.. but even stretched with the Fill option, it didnt look overly stretched out.
I played thru the game like that.. I got a very "immersive"(LOL) experience from KQ1 due to this large LCD.


I plan on playing more OLD DOS games like that when I get my 24" LCD, simply because it is so cool seeing these old games on large screens.. and they look great.



And if you can play these 160x200 res games and be happy.. believe me, going from a native resolution 1600x1200 panel down to 1024x768 IS NO BIGGIE!

I was VERY concerned about this before I took the plunge to LCD.
Because I still like to enjoy my old ancient DOS games from the early to late 1980s.

So I dont know what else to tell you about this.

I will take a photo of the 3 modes in an old game like Starcraft or KQ1 if you would like?

I'll be more than happy to upload them to my webspace and share them with you and the forum.

But I love these old games more than anything.. and backwards compatibility with them is always an importantce to me to some degree.


edit- I shoudl add, that I forgive this SLIGHT stretching (when using the Fill option) becuase no CRT is bigger than 20"!!!
You can get 24" LCDs, 30", 37".. all that will work just like this one.

Plus you get widescreen for NEW games like Half Life2, not many CRTs are widescreen

 

[fstime]

I'd take a NEC 21+ inch CRT over a LCD.

 

[Hadsus]

Originally posted by: Wolfshanze
Why does everybody forget to mention Screen Resolutions when comparing CRTs to LCDs? All the LCD fans seem to forget this one category where LCDs lack FAR BEHIND CRTs.

Bottom line, I think LCDs are as good as or better then CRTs in almost every category EXCEPT changing resolutions.

Having said that, this feature mostly effects gamers, so if you're a non-gamer, by all means, LCD is the way to go.

I owned the Dell 2001fp till a few days ago. I bought the NEC-Mitsu monitor that Cowboy listed in his links.

I agree with Wolf on one thing.....you are stuck on the native screen resolution of the LCD and that's not a good. With the Dell I am tied to a small text size at 1600 lines of resolution at the desk top. Increasing the font size to large helps but I still found myself increasing text sizing in the browser....which screwed up alot of web pages. In the end, I returned the monitor because of this issue and the *&^%* brightness, which I could not get used to no matter how much I fiddled with settings (OS and monitor). Interpolation is excellent though. Gaming is pretty good though it couldn't handle UT well.

The NEC-Mitsu is a heavy PITA. It is big, it is beefy and if you do lan parties it is outta the question. (BTW, it also uses about 110 watts IIRC from the product specs). It is also an outstanding imaging monitor and trounces the Dell in image quality. Blacks of course are better and if you dial up high resolution images (like photos) you can see immediatedly that the NEC is better (and the Dell is no slouch in the image department). Better detail and better (read: more accurate) colors. And, of course, you can dial up any desktop resolution you want. I use 1280X1024. Text imaging is outstanding and I feel no eye fatigue.

In the end, both are very good monitors.....LCDs (specifically, Dell) give you a great form factor, good performance but you are tied to a high resolution and lotsa brightness. CRTs (specifically NEC-Mitsu) are big, take up lotsa space, but outperform LCDs and are more flexible with OS resolutions.

 

[housecat]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
That post by housecat has some rather severe inaccuracies and misleading information.

First he seriously understates how poor LCDs are at recreating black- it doesn't really exist on LCDs. They are incapable of it. Color accuracy in general on LCDs is extremely poor- don't count on what you are seeing on the display being anything like how it would look printed or on a display that was capable of handling colors decently.

Response time and ghosting are also seriously understated- there is VERY clear ghosting amongst even the newest 8ms panels. Those with fairly serious problems with their vision may not notice it as much, but it is very real. Fast moving action scenes in movies display ghosting issues quite nicely, not as bad as gaming would but it is still certainly a drawback.

You have a 8ms panel? Or even a 12ms?
And you will tell everyone you can see ghosting?

Yeah right.
Even tho low quality panels with exaggerated ratings CAN ghost as their so-called 8ms times.. a true 8ms panel is not going to ghost to 99.9% of the population's eyes.
Here we get into grey to grey response times ect...

I would seriosuly love to have some 2005/2405 owners to post their replies on their panels and ghosting.

My comparison list speaks for itself, its just true.

 

[Space Cowboy]

Man .. I'm getting confused again but it doesn't take much :shocked:

But I love the contrast in colors when using a BLACK background.

Rock & ROLL

 

[BenSkywalker]

You have a 8ms panel? Or even a 12ms?
And you will tell everyone you can see ghosting?

Yeah right.

It is quite easy to see ghosting on all the displays- either your optic nerve is extremely easy to saturate or you have rather serious vision issues if you can't.

Even tho low quality panels with exaggerated ratings CAN ghost as their so-called 8ms times.. a true 8ms panel is not going to ghost to 99.9% of the population's eyes.

Factually incorrect- not to mention even the "high quality" displays grossly overstate how quick their gray to gray response time is.

I would seriosuly love to have some 2005/2405 owners to post their replies on their panels and ghosting.

Why are you even mentioning the 2005 with high performance displays? It is extremely sluggish and shows severe ghosting while fast scrolling text. I guess you could go to Wal-Mart and find some displays that are slower, but it certainly isn't comparable to the fastest displays available.

SpaceCowboy-

But I love the contrast in colors when using a BLACK background.

LCDs aren't remotely in the league of CRTs when it comes to contrast- and they are totally incapable of handling black properly.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
That post by housecat has some rather severe inaccuracies and misleading information.

First he seriously understates how poor LCDs are at recreating black- it doesn't really exist on LCDs. They are incapable of it. Color accuracy in general on LCDs is extremely poor- don't count on what you are seeing on the display being anything like how it would look printed or on a display that was capable of handling colors decently.

Response time and ghosting are also seriously understated- there is VERY clear ghosting amongst even the newest 8ms panels. Those with fairly serious problems with their vision may not notice it as much, but it is very real. Fast moving action scenes in movies display ghosting issues quite nicely, not as bad as gaming would but it is still certainly a drawback.

What LCD's have you used for long periods of time to get these impressions Ben? I used a Samsung 191T (25ms rated; massive ghosting in games and bad in movies), Samsung 173V (25ms rated; minimal ghosting in games and fine for movies), BenQ FP737S-D (16ms rated; virtually nonexistant ghosting) and Samsung 710T (12ms rated; no discernable ghosting in games or movies) for 6+ months each.

I also worked with Dell E173FP and 1704FP's last summer.


The 710T is the nicest LCD I've used, hands down (although I haven't had a chance to try out the new 8ms panels or the new Dell widescreens yet).

I currently use a 12ms Samsung 710T and I don't see ghosting in games and especially not in movies.

Also, despite LCD's not having perfect colour accuracies, the way you describe it makes it sound like blues turn out pink, greys turn out black, etc. LCD are obviously not perfect for colour representation, but newer high quality LCD's have quite good colour representation; it's not *way off* like how you make it sound.

I don't see how you can say ghosting is understated. It was a huge issue on 25ms panels and above, but now, it couldn't be the most overstated aspect of LCD's when you are talking about high quality 8ms or 12ms panels.



Blacks are indeed not fully black on LCD's - the best way to test this is to run an LCD with a black background at night next to a CRT (using dual monitor is best). However just like the response time issue, it's blown completely out of proportion.

The backlight will make the LCD appear, hte best I can explain, 'like a lit-up black' in a pitch-black room while the CRT will essentially show blacks as pitch black. It's not that distracting - blacks still look black, just like a 'lit up' black next to CRT's. On an all-black screen an LCD will have some backlight glow, while the CRT will have none of this (or almost none).

For those who want to know - the best way to gauge 'just how black' a monitor can go by the specs, look at the contrast ratio (although actual measured contrast ratios would be idea rather than rated ones, which are sometimes skewed). Typical LCD's are 500:1 up to 1000:1 (which is frankly BS; no LCD can truly do 1000:1 yet). CRT displays don't even bother showing contrast ratio usually since they are essentially an order of magnitude better; they are usually in the ballpark of 2500:1 to 5000:1 contrast ratio, which explains why they display so much better blacks. Contrast ratio is essentially the difference between the brightest white and the darkest black a monitor can display.

I'd still take the razor-sharp text and crisp native resolutions over CRT's more accurate colours and 'blacker blakcs' any day of the week, and twice on tuesday . How about another two issues that CRT users downplay: geometry and focus. CRT's all have flawed geometry (some screens require more tweaking than others) and have better dot pitch and focus in the center of the screen, while the corners are blurrier. LCD's have a uniform image in terms of geometry, dot pitch, and focus.

 

[sellmen]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

You have a 8ms panel? Or even a 12ms?
And you will tell everyone you can see ghosting?

Yeah right.

It is quite easy to see ghosting on all the displays- either your optic nerve is extremely easy to saturate or you have rather serious vision issues if you can't.

Even tho low quality panels with exaggerated ratings CAN ghost as their so-called 8ms times.. a true 8ms panel is not going to ghost to 99.9% of the population's eyes.

Factually incorrect- not to mention even the "high quality" displays grossly overstate how quick their gray to gray response time is.

I would seriosuly love to have some 2005/2405 owners to post their replies on their panels and ghosting.

Why are you even mentioning the 2005 with high performance displays? It is extremely sluggish and shows severe ghosting while fast scrolling text. I guess you could go to Wal-Mart and find some displays that are slower, but it certainly isn't comparable to the fastest displays available.

SpaceCowboy-

But I love the contrast in colors when using a BLACK background.

LCDs aren't remotely in the league of CRTs when it comes to contrast- and they are totally incapable of handling black properly.

You have obviously never used a quality LCD

 

[housecat]

Originally posted by: Space Cowboy
Man .. I'm getting confused again but it doesn't take much :shocked:

But I love the contrast in colors when using a BLACK background.

Rock & ROLL

Just take alook at the resolution scaling for yourself here.

These are BAD quality pics, but hey they were done right now and done for free.. so live with it

1:1 Starcraft
Aspect stretching
Fill (stretches beyond the original 4:3 aspect ratio)
the early 2005fpws had backlight issues, and you can see that on my panel.
its much exaggerated in photos than it is in practice.. but the new ones dont have such a problem like that

Dude, my god. Just take my word for it, 90% of these guys would take a new Dell 2405FPW over a old crappy 21" CRT..
they either are graphic artists (who have to have the absolute best image quality, so they use CRTs) or they are CRT fanboys (yes they still exist)

facts and fast advancing LCD technology has pretty much wiped out CRT fanboys.. but most cling to CRTs for cost.. but if you cant afford a $500 screen (even the good CRTs cost this much) or more.. you shouldnt be in this hobby and commenting on this expensive hardware in which all of the good stuff does not come cheap.

Yes, a $80 19" CRT is a good deal.. but whooptie whoop.

 

[housecat]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

You have a 8ms panel? Or even a 12ms?
And you will tell everyone you can see ghosting?

Yeah right.

It is quite easy to see ghosting on all the displays- either your optic nerve is extremely easy to saturate or you have rather serious vision issues if you can't.

Even tho low quality panels with exaggerated ratings CAN ghost as their so-called 8ms times.. a true 8ms panel is not going to ghost to 99.9% of the population's eyes.

Factually incorrect- not to mention even the "high quality" displays grossly overstate how quick their gray to gray response time is.

I would seriosuly love to have some 2005/2405 owners to post their replies on their panels and ghosting.

Why are you even mentioning the 2005 with high performance displays? It is extremely sluggish and shows severe ghosting while fast scrolling text. I guess you could go to Wal-Mart and find some displays that are slower, but it certainly isn't comparable to the fastest displays available.

SpaceCowboy-

But I love the contrast in colors when using a BLACK background.

LCDs aren't remotely in the league of CRTs when it comes to contrast- and they are totally incapable of handling black properly.

^^ This is a perfect example of a CRT fanboy.
While it sounds great, 99% of people who use a Dell 2005fpw or 2405fpw and then use a 21" CRT will take one of the Dells.

I suppose I'd better get all of my friends optic nerves checked, all my buddies from work as well as my wifes and my brothers and my parents... oh and my cousins and the rest of my extended family.

I've never ever heard anyone say that they've noticed ghosting on my 2005 and I've only noticed it on older, slower LCDs




I think the OP needs to see a 2005 or 2405 for himself and judge.
Then he'll be here telling you are full of it.

 

[BenSkywalker]

LCD are obviously not perfect for colour representation, but newer high quality LCD's have quite good colour representation; it's not *way off* like how you make it sound.

Usually when I pick up a CRT I will end up spending a total of about twelve hours calibrating the colors to get them perfect- LCD's are significantly less accurate then generic bargain CRTs when it comes to color reproduction. They all seem to have an insane red push, the backlighting completely hoses all dark colors(killing any chance of seeing slight altercations in color) and they lack black. Your standards must be very, very low if you are trying to compare their color accuracy to CRTs.

I don't see how you can say ghosting is understated. It was a huge issue on 25ms panels and above, but now, it couldn't be the most overstated aspect of LCD's when you are talking about high quality 8ms or 12ms panels.

8ms displays? Link.

As you can see, the curve didn't quite reach the 8 ms we were promised, but an explanation is in order. With the monitor pushed all the way to 100% contrast, we did get roughly 8ms at the ISO point (255 on the curve). The only problem is that the image is not usable; the color dynamics are completely wiped out. So we chose a more appropriate contrast adjustment, one that's closer to the actual conditions under which the display will be used. And that resulted in a latency reading of 10 ms in the best case.

Because they are so great and all. BTW- your particular model has an actual response time that closes in on 30ms depending on the situation- link.

The backlight will make the LCD appear, hte best I can explain, 'like a lit-up black' in a pitch-black room while the CRT will essentially show blacks as pitch black. It's not that distracting - blacks still look black, just like a 'lit up' black next to CRT's. On an all-black screen an LCD will have some backlight glow, while the CRT will have none of this (or almost none).

CRTs offer several different levels of black, LCDs offer none.

What LCD's have you used for long periods of time to get these impressions Ben?

None of them long enough to grow apologetic for the lacking technology for sure. You have obviously gotten used to the compromises that LCDs force on to you, I haven't.

You have obviously never used a quality LCD

LCDs can't reproduce black, if you do not understand this point of fact then you don't understand how they work. LCDs will NEVER be able to produce true black- the technology doesn't allow it.

^^ This is a perfect example of a CRT fanboy.
While it sounds great, 99% of people who use a Dell 2005fpw or 2405fpw and then use a 21" CRT will take one of the Dells.

I want the highest quality display I can reasonably buy.

"But the LCDs take up less space"

I want the highest quality display I can reasonably buy

"The new LCDs are only a couple of orders of magnitude off in response time"

I want the highest quality display I can reasonably buy

"Our new LCDs can reproduce almost 70% of all colors perfectly"

I want the highest quality display I can reasonably buy

"LCDs use a lot less power"

I could keep going with this but when all is said and done LCDs can not match a decent CRT in image quality. I have no particular fondness for CRT technology, it's just that of all the emerging technologies LCDs are by far the poorest in terms of IQ. You want to point me to any consumer or prosumer display that can go toe to toe with a CRT in all qualitive aspects I will gladly take a very close look at it. CRTs are being phased out as of now, I've been thinking of dropping another $800 on a decent CRT for when my current model dies(not likely to happen for a long time) because of how poor LCD technology is.

I think the OP needs to see a 2005 or 2405 for himself and judge.

Yes, sitting next to a FP2141SB-BK or FP2070SB as I did and laugh at how poor LCDs really are when compared to a decent CRT. Sure, you save yourself some money going with LCDs over a decent CRT, but the image quality isn't close.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker


8ms displays? Link.

As you can see, the curve didn't quite reach the 8 ms we were promised, but an explanation is in order. With the monitor pushed all the way to 100% contrast, we did get roughly 8ms at the ISO point (255 on the curve). The only problem is that the image is not usable; the color dynamics are completely wiped out. So we chose a more appropriate contrast adjustment, one that's closer to the actual conditions under which the display will be used. And that resulted in a latency reading of 10 ms in the best case.

Because they are so great and all. BTW- your particular model has an actual response time that closes in on 30ms depending on the situation- link.

I think we've all seen those links before. Once again you skew the picture with your verbage. Those screens have actual measured response times up to 27.5ms, as low as ~12ms (~9ms for 8ms rated screens). Despite the 'close to 30ms in worst-case situation' response times, I cannot discern ghosting on my 710T, and my vision is fine.

You seem to ignore Tom's conclusion as well, where he finds several new screens more than worthy enough to play games with:

In the multi-use category, the clear winner is the Samsung 710T. Its new 13 ms panel is responsive enough to make for good gaming, and it's even faster than the Hydis panel. The Samsung is as much at ease with office applications and multimedia use.

He even advised one of the LCD's for graphics professionals (for whom colour is everything):

Finally, for those who are more worried about color rendering than responsiveness, I'd advise buying the VX715. Its more traditional format and more acceptable latency make it a great candidate as a main monitor. We particularly appreciated the intensity of the colors and the wealth of shades this model offers. We'd advise it for graphics pros.

My issue with your comments Ben is that you're turning it into a, no pun intended, black and white situation where you say LCD's are inadequate ghosty shitboxes, while CRT's are, once calibrated, vastly superior in every single facet.

I disagree wholeheartedly. In my opinion, LCD's are better for 99.999% of home users out there. They're significantly smaller, text in far clearer and they display much sharper images. Warcraft III looked 10 times better even on my ghosty LCD's compared to my old 19" CRT. Doom3 looked like a blurry mess on my 191T (where black to grey transitions were in the 80ms ballpark), but looks gorgeous on my 710T.

I can't think of a reason that the vast majority of home users need the slightly better colour reproduction of CRT's versus LCD's. Especially the users starting most of these threads where the person asking is not a graphics professional.

 

[Space Cowboy]

So which one would make this Picture look the best?

Dell UltraSharp 2405FPW 24-inch Wide Aspect Flat Panel LCD Monitor with Height Adjustable Stand

NEC/MITSUBISHI FE2111SB-BK 22" SuperBright Diamondtron CRT Monitor

Hyundai L90D+19"

 

[BenSkywalker]

So which one would make this Picture look the best?

CRT without a doubt- particularly in the shadowing on the side of her face, looks like crap on a LCD. If I was you I would try and find a 2141 instead of the 2111. They cost more and are hard to find, but they are a better display.

He even advised one of the LCD's for graphics professionals (for whom colour is everything):

Versus the other LCDs, not compared to a CRT.

My issue with your comments Ben is that you're turning it into a, no pun intended, black and white situation where you say LCD's are inadequate ghosty shitboxes

And how exactly are they not?

Warcraft III looked 10 times better even on my ghosty LCD's compared to my old 19" CRT.

Remember to only compare exact vintage displays. If you are talking about a six year old CRT you need to compare it to a six year old LCD. Check out a remotely decent CRT lined up to your 710T and then compare.

I can't think of a reason that the vast majority of home users need the slightly better colour reproduction of CRT's versus LCD's. Especially the users starting most of these threads where the person asking is not a graphics professional.

From the OP-

I'm not a gamer but I like graphics and video's.

For graphics, a CRT is easily superior- and it isn't really a contest.