LCD vs. CRT

[hemiram]

I recently pretty much had to switch to LCD due to my eyes killing me at home on my Dell 19" Trinitron CRT and not being that bad at work, looking at a tiny 15" LCD. I started looking at a few at the stores and most of the ones I could afford looked bad, or were slow, or cost $400. Just after the first of the year, someone showed me the one they bought, a Princeton 17" on closeout for $215 after a 75 dollar rebate. I've had it 5 months and am very pleased with it. Nore more headaches!

But if you want to see a really GREAT 19" LCD monitor, this is it:

Sony SDM-HS95P A friend of mine got one for his birthday last week. It blows away his formerly great Samsung (I might buy it). Only one drawback, $$$ It's $599.99 after a 100 buck rebate. I was at Best Buy on Sunday, and it looked so much better than any other monitor in the store, it wasn't even close. It's brighter than hell, and black is really black. We played a couple of games and some DVDs on it at my friend's house, and I really saw nothing negative at all about it. Except the price.

 

[kobymu]

Originally posted by: cscpianoman
... they last longer than CRT's. Yeah, sure some are super high priced, but get a decent one and it will last a lot longer than a CRT.

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
... esp since crts fade after just a short few years(around 3) into horrible ugliness.

Now that is just BS, are you LCD troll of some sort? :roll:

my 19" Samsung SyncMaster is going strong for more than 8 yeasr and my 19" LG Flatron for 6 years and both look as good as when i bought them. high quality CTR can hold on to a good 10 years if not more. and btw both CTR's cost me back then less then 350$ and can STILL display 3D and video (but not text) better then most if not all current 350$ LCD, and that is after more then 6 years.

And i dont know from where you got that 3 year cap for CTR, i know that sony 1st generation of tubes for flat CTRs went bad after about 5 years but other then that i dont know any 3 yeas life cycle for CTRs./

/edit
does anybody here have a LCD for more then 5 years?

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: kobymu

Originally posted by: cscpianoman
... they last longer than CRT's. Yeah, sure some are super high priced, but get a decent one and it will last a lot longer than a CRT.

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
... esp since crts fade after just a short few years(around 3) into horrible ugliness.

Now that is just BS, are you LCD troll of some sort? :roll:

my 19" Samsung SyncMaster is going strong for more than 8 yeasr and my 19" LG Flatron for 6 years and both look as good as when i bought them. high quality CTR can hold on to a good 10 years if not more. and btw both CTR's cost me back then less then 350$ and can STILL display 3D and video (but not text) better then most if not all current 350$ LCD, and that is after more then 6 years.

And i dont know from where you got that 3 year cap for CTR, i know that sony 1st generation of tubes for flat CTRs went bad after about 5 years but other then that i dont know any 3 yeas life cycle for CTRs./

/edit
does anybody here have a LCD for more then 5 years?

sorry i'm not an lcd troll, i didn't even recommend them until recently because of the high prices and slow response times and fixed resolution. all those problems are now solved, prices are low, response time is getting so close its a quibble, and video cards are now so fast resolution doesn't matter as much. its a simple fact that crts fade. manufacters quote something like 20k hours to half brightness at the generous end, 10k at the less generous end. at 20k thats about 7 years at 8hrs a day which sounds extreme until you realize that long before its dimmed by half that its already dimmed too much as half brightness is very far gone. it happens gradually which is why most dont notice all that much unless you get a new monitor and place it side by side. though its not exactly a bonus to say that you sort of gradually aclimatize to a deteriorating mediorcre display.. but after about 3 years its already noticable, i've owned plenty of crts from sony to viewsonic and have seen this myself. combine that with the power consumption/eye strain/size..theres no more reason to get them for computing.

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: whatever
text: LCD
games/movies: CRT

 

[deveraux]

From what I've read (I can't remember the link now -- sorry), CRTs are meant to last longer than LCDs. What OrooOroo said is true, CRTs fall to half brightness after 7 years of 8 hrs per day use, on average (it was quoted in that article as well). However, LCDs fall to half brightness after 5 years of 4 hrs per day use, according to that article. I will try to find it but it's been almost a year (I think) since I read it.

Also, bear in mind that by now, LCD technology has probably got better as well so the figures may no longer be accurate. However, to the OP, text is certain more crisp on LCDs and I highly recommend them.

As for gaming on CRT or LCD. I absolutely love my Dell 2005FPW for gaming, UNTIL I had to leave it at home when I came to uni (which I'm using a CRT). The brightness on the CRT has certainly fallen over the years, quite obvious, BUT, somehow, gaming on it looks "better". I can't really pin point the exact reason, but the colors just seem less washed out.

However, I'd still pick my 2005FPW for gaming just because gaming in WS is more desirable. I still find myself looking past the edges of my CRT while gaming -- a true testament to how much WS matter, IMHO.

My $0.02

 

[AJPatel]

I would never go back to anything running on VGA now that I've seen the crisp text on my DVI LCD and laptop screen.

 

[fierydemise]

I have an old NEC Multisync that I've had for a good 3 years and I got it cheap because it was already 2.5 years old at that point. LCDs are easier on the eyes for text but besides that I wouldn't use one day to day, first of all there is the issue of the super high price to get any LCD that has any quality, on all but the highest end (and most expensive) color reproduction is poor, the response time listed on specs is not accurate gray to gray response time is alot slower, this means that as games push moniters more LCDs which used to be adequate will start to ghost. Finally just as a personal preference I like my black different from a dark navy (but thats just me). Just to reiterate LCDs for text CRTs for everything else.

 

[DerelictDev]

I have a VP171b lcd and i love it. I use it on its optimal res 1280 by 1024 and the image is so crisp and clean no crt can come close.

I also play video games (CS- Source) on the same resolution and i gotta say it looks great. In my opinion beats the crt as well as ive seen the game played at my friends house but though his crt is good its not the greatest, then again a really good crt still can get expensive so go lcd.

Once you do you wont go back.

 

[fierydemise]

Originally posted by: DerelictDev
then again a really good crt still can get expensive so go lcd.

Thats just like saying CRTs are expensive so buy something thats even more expensive. A high quality NEC FE991 is about $240 I'll be amazed if you can find me a quality 19" LCD even a quality 17" for that price. CRTs win in cost and I think almost everything else but thats is a point of contention.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: deveraux
From what I've read (I can't remember the link now -- sorry), CRTs are meant to last longer than LCDs. What OrooOroo said is true, CRTs fall to half brightness after 7 years of 8 hrs per day use, on average (it was quoted in that article as well). However, LCDs fall to half brightness after 5 years of 4 hrs per day use, according to that article. I will try to find it but it's been almost a year (I think) since I read it.

Also, bear in mind that by now, LCD technology has probably got better as well so the figures may no longer be accurate. However, to the OP, text is certain more crisp on LCDs and I highly recommend them.

As for gaming on CRT or LCD. I absolutely love my Dell 2005FPW for gaming, UNTIL I had to leave it at home when I came to uni (which I'm using a CRT). The brightness on the CRT has certainly fallen over the years, quite obvious, BUT, somehow, gaming on it looks "better". I can't really pin point the exact reason, but the colors just seem less washed out.

However, I'd still pick my 2005FPW for gaming just because gaming in WS is more desirable. I still find myself looking past the edges of my CRT while gaming -- a true testament to how much WS matter, IMHO.

My $0.02

well viewsonic says lcd's fall to half brightness in 50k hours
http://www.viewsonic.com/monitoruniversity/lcd.htm



LCD advantages

Brightness
The typical ViewSonic LCD monitor has a brightness of 200 to 300 nits, compared with a typical CRT brightness of 100 nits. Since an LCD acts like a shutter, it can be made brighter by increasing the brightness of the backlight. However, when the beam current of a CRT is increased to boost brightness, the beam spot size also increases, which lowers effective resolution and may yield a soft or fuzzy image.

No flicker
There is no flicker on an LCD display because, while a CRT must be refreshed, the LCD has a constant source of light over the whole screen. Once a pixel is on, it stays on until turned off.

Focus
In a CRT, the electron beam is circular when aimed directly forward, but becomes distorted when aimed up, down, left or right as it sweeps across the screen and may cause image clarity or focus issues at the screen edge.

In contrast, an LCD has millions of pixels, each one effectively independent from its neighbor, with no scanning electron beam, so distortion problems are negligible. The image is always perfectly "focused" over the entire screen.

Perfect geometry
LCD monitors provide geometrically perfect, distortion-free images-a huge advantage for advanced users such as artists and designers.

Longevity
The only item that ages on an LCD monitor is the backlight, which is composed of one or more tiny fluorescent tubes. The typical life of a backlight is 50,000 hours to the half brightness point-the point at which brightness is one-half of the original brightness, and the industry standard measure for product life.

A CRT ages in two ways: An oxide layer forms on the cathode of the electron gun, decreasing beam current; and the phosphor ages and becomes less efficient. The typical CRT half-brightness point occurs between 10,000 and 20,000 hours.

Power consumption
The power required to run an LCD is about one-third of that required for a CRT with the same screen area. In addition, the amount of heat generated by an LCD monitor is considerably less than a CRT monitor, resulting in a lower load on air conditioning. Building cooling needs may be decreased by up to 20%.

And, if an LCD monitor is used with an uninterruptible power supply, the lower power required provides precious extra minutes to store critical data and shut down gracefully in the event of a power failure.

These power-saving features of LCDs reduce the total cost of ownership.

Low emissions
An LCD is essentially emission-free, while a CRT monitor can generate electric, magnetic and even X-ray emissions due to the high-voltage power supply necessary to drive the CRT. An LCD causes no electromagnetic interference.

Ergonomics
The size, dimensions and weight of an LCD allow it to fit into locations that a CRT can't-even mounted on a wall. An average 17" CRT monitor may measure almost 17 inches deep and weigh 40 pounds, while an average 17" LCD takes up half the space, with a depth of just around 8 inches and a weight of 15 pounds.

In addition, some LCDs can also pivot from landscape to portrait mode to enhance certain applications, making it easier to work on spreadsheets or two-page layouts, for example.

Total cost of ownership
LCD prices have been decreasing in recent years. When the total cost of ownership is considered-including savings in power consumption and lifespan-LCDs are now less expensive than many CRTs.


chart below this in link on power usage

 

[cbrookerd]

all i know, is that i have had my sony e440 for about 2.5 yrs. and the text quality sucks.....blurry as hell.....hurts my eyes after a while of stairing at it.....i am looking into a new monitor and am seriously considering an lcd

 

[flatblastard]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
sorry i'm not an lcd troll, i didn't even recommend them until recently because of the high prices and slow response times and fixed resolution. all those problems are now solved, prices are low, response time is getting so close its a quibble, and video cards are now so fast resolution doesn't matter as much. its a simple fact that crts fade. manufacters quote something like 20k hours to half brightness at the generous end, 10k at the less generous end. at 20k thats about 7 years at 8hrs a day which sounds extreme until you realize that long before its dimmed by half that its already dimmed too much as half brightness is very far gone. it happens gradually which is why most dont notice all that much unless you get a new monitor and place it side by side. though its not exactly a bonus to say that you sort of gradually aclimatize to a deteriorating mediorcre display.. but after about 3 years its already noticable, i've owned plenty of crts from sony to viewsonic and have seen this myself. combine that with the power consumption/eye strain/size..theres no more reason to get them for computing.

I'll try to remember that screen resolution doesn't matter anymore when I'm cranking up my 24" widescreen CRT's resolution all the way to max screen real estate. You just keep plugging away @ 1280x1024 or whatever your LCDs native resolution might be, while I'll be plugging away at whatever resolution I see fit. Not to mention the Dell 24" WS LCD can't hold a candle to my GDM-FW900. I hate Sony, but I love my 24 WS CRT. I heard many horror stories about this monitor, but I guess I got a good one. Hoorah for me!

 

[0roo0roo]

put it this way. you buy big huge screen, you got the money for fast video card.

 

[flatblastard]

Good point...I can't disagree with that.

 

[IGBT]

..dumped my sony crt's and now use lcd's from 15" to 19" and for my eyes the text on the lcd is much easier to read and my eyes don't get tired. And I'am not exposing my self to crt particle emission any more. The games are good too.

 

[ksuWildcat]

Originally posted by: bjc112
I personally say LCD hands down for both situtations.

My Dell 2005fp blows my 21" Sony e540 away.

In games, movies, and text.

I think i fogot to mention it's WS.

I agree 100%. I only have a Dell 2001FP, but it is still much better than any CRT I have ever seen, including arguably the best CRTs ever made by NEC/Mitsubishi.

 

[oogabooga]

LCD is MUCH easier on the eyes, i think dVI helps with this. The only real difference i noticed between DVI/analog was that DVI's text reproduction was a bit more crisp. That's just me i guess.
CRT's just strain my eyes, lcd's don't as much. (this is over generally long periods of time).

LCD's are fine for gaming : Even on my 15in LCD most of my friends will acknowledge that the ghosting isn't bad. And this is off a crap dispaly from 3 years ago. On a buddies new 2005fp we dont see any at all (though he admits he has seen ghosting from time to time, but nothing terrible enough to ruin gameplay).

LCD's are more portable/compact too. I missed having my 21in NEC, (it's a 15in LCD FOR crying out loud! ) but i eventually got used to the smaller screen and the fact that i had about 10x the desk space. Not to mention going out to lan is worlds easier now.

I dunno what to recommend for you, but just providing my input. You have to weigh the cost benefit ratio as well, but i'm guessing it may be worth it. My next purchase is hopefully either a 2005fp or 2405fp

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: bjc112
I personally say LCD hands down for both situtations.

My Dell 2005fp blows my 21" Sony e540 away.

In games, movies, and text.

I think i fogot to mention it's WS.

I agree, for one reason: DVI.

After switching to LCD and a DVI connection, everything was so much sharper and crisper I was blown away.

If you get LCD with an analog connection, don't even bother.

 

[firefaux]

lcd definitely. however, it really depends on the quality of monitor. a great crt will blow a crap lcd out of the water in text. but in general, a really good lcd with dvi input will have far superior text. i'd suggest samsung or nec/mitsubishi panels. they tend to have good angles and color reproduction (as well as response time, not that important for 2d stuff but doesnt hurt to have)

 

[Gilda]

LCD screens are much better for text. I do not suggest using an LCD screen for gaming though, specially if you already have a nice CRT.

I have the Dell 1905 monitor that I purchased for gaming...The LCD monitor is not on my 2ndary PC and my CRT is again my gaming monitor.

 

[Miramonti]

I decided to start migrating to lcd's based on feedback here - I've replaced one 1 out of 3 crt's so far with a dell lcd, and the difference is staggering.

My crt's seemed ok before, not top of the line by any means but adequate, altho now next to an lcd they almost seem unreadable in comparison. I'm looking forward to swapping the other 2 crt's out.

 

[w00t]

i would use lcd's if i read text but for gaming crt