LCD vs. CRT

[DeathSlayer]

I still have eye strain with a 17'' CRT @ 1280x1024 with 120Hz refresh. Still flickers.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
I would say almost universally most people think LCD's are easier on their eyes... Of course I haven't done a poll, but everytime I am out in the field talking to people they always comment how much nicer the LCD's are on their eyes... I don't think I would be going out on a limb saying the most people prefer an LCD on their eyes, if given the choice between a CRT or LCD... Could be wrong though.

The poll here a while ago supports that:

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=31&threadid=1785015&enterthread=y

That poll is great for the small crowd of techies/gamers... But you have to remember that we are a small sect in the world... I think people get used to what they have to be honest. I would like to see a poll with the non-gaming non-techie people. That is I guess what I am referring too. But thanks for posting that link... I was amazing to see that LCD was so low.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Once you get used to the brightness (won't take long) the LCD is much better.

This is a matter of personal preference- and it matters greatly which displays you are comparing. As a general example the Dell 2001 is *significantly* more difficult for my eyes to handle then my NEC 2141- although Dell makes very poor quality LCDs in general so that shouldn't be too much of a surprise(shocking seeing the new Gateway running side by side with a 2005 just how bad Dell's LCD monitors are). Some of the higher end LCDs don't bother my eyes nearly as much, although they still aren't quite up to par with my monitor that really isn't fair as I would need to check out one of the LED backlit LCDs for an even comparison(top tier products for both techs).

I used to drive home cross eyed from work, now after using an LCD I can actually keep my eyes focused without double vision

It doesn't sound like 85Hz was cutting it for you if that is what your office had your monitors set up for. Most businesses run their CRTs at either 60Hz or 75Hz(Windows default depending on the version of Windows). IME if you suffer from eye fatigue using a CRT your eyes are telling you the RR is too low if you can spot it instantly or not. I find 120Hz to be my comfort point on the desktop although I can tollerate 100Hz when I need to for desktop use and 85Hz will carry me for a few hours when I want some real high res gaming(alas my monitor only pushes 85Hz running 2048x1536).

True, 85Hz isn't the best for my eyes, but it was tolerable for me. When I first received my LCD is was so bright. My eyes are very sensitive to light... So, after they were adjusted the LCD really works great for me. My ViewSonic PF790F was a great monitor and looked great at 100Hz, but after long hours it still would have the same effect on me.

If I have to work on a customers computer that is 60Hz I make a MAD dash for the display settings before I give myself a migraine. That is no exageration either... Wow, 60Hz litterally kills me. 75Hz is tolerable for a short while and 85Hz seems to work great. But 100Hz is superior all the way.

 

[mindless1]

I've tried many different and semi-nonstandard refresh with CRT and can't use less than 90Hz for over 30 minutes.

Contrary to another poster, cleartype does NOT help at all, makes eyestrain worse. I bought LCD specifically to avoid blurring, it seems ludicrous to me to deliberately blur text... but to each his own. I never sit closer than 2' from the monitor either. The only time I suspect LCD could be worse is if one bought a panel with the hard glossy coating or sheet over it which are horrible IMO, because their whole point seems to be to artifically put contrast and saturation beyond realistc. People are silly though, they'll rate a monitor as "better" if it has an inaccruately overshot saturation.

 

[Exodor]

I've had to cut short some day-long gaming sessions with a CRT because I actually start getting nauseous- and that's a 85Hz.

I've never felt sick while using a LCD.

 

[sillious]

CRT for me. Wether or not it's good or easy on my eyes (but it is) I prefer to use CRT because it's more commonly used in the 3D animation, video editing fields for quality images.

 

[Golgatha]

If I have to work on a customers computer that is 60Hz I make a MAD dash for the display settings before I give myself a migraine. That is no exageration either... Wow, 60Hz litterally kills me. 75Hz is tolerable for a short while and 85Hz seems to work great. But 100Hz is superior all the way.

85Hz and above in 2D and 3D please. Refresh force works great for this. 60Hz literally gives me a headache in less than an hours. 75Hz is tolerable for a bit, 85 is a nice point for several hours, and 100+ is icing on the cake.

 

[tcsenter]

see a little flickering at 85hz in Windows, although it's good enough for games. It goes away at 100hz for me in windows.

You may be experiencing a cheap monitor tube. My cheap MAG 17" flat screen CRT has no perceptible flicker at 75Hz, but at 85Hz has this barely perceptible 'oscillation' or waves in the display that flow from top to bottom. Its very faint, sometimes you see it and sometimes you don't, depending on what is being displayed, but it isn't there at 75Hz. 85Hz happens to be the max advertised refresh rate of this monitor at 1024x768, so I think the tube is straining to do 85Hz at this resolution, resulting in some kind of overscanning anomaly (or something).

 

[Cipherfaction]

from what i heard lcd

 

[deepred98]

thanks guys i'm prob gonna stay wih my lcd cuz my crt is really heavy and started leaving imprints on my desk :Q
also you guys said a lot about gaming, well for me my eyes don't hurt at all while gaming on a lcd just when i'm reading text

oh yeah one more question.
what resolution do you guys have your screens at? (mine is currently 1152x864, don't know if this is native or not cuz my lcd is still analog)

 

[Hadsus]

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
I would say almost universally most people think LCD's are easier on their eyes... Of course I haven't done a poll, but everytime I am out in the field talking to people they always comment how much nicer the LCD's are on their eyes...

The poll here a while ago supports that:

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=31&threadid=1785015&enterthread=y

Eh, sorry, but the poll doesn't support your hype. 66% does not equate to universal.

:roll:

 

[L00PY]

Definately find out the native resolution for your LCD and set it to that. On Dells, when you bring up the OSD it tells you the native/optimal resolution. It wouldn't surprise me if other manufacturers did that too. Go to the website to find out the specs if you have to. Running non-native probably screws up your vision / causes your eyes to burn more than brightness / contrast.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Hadsus
Eh, sorry, but the poll doesn't support your hype. 66% does not equate to universal.

:roll:

Ok, duh? Yes, that was a poll here on Anandtech and not one of the whole world. Do you have another poll? Obviously we can never "universally" know unless every person in the world voted, but 62 votes might mean something. Since everybody has different eyesight, I don't see why it matters anyway, and that's the only possible answer to the OP regarding this issue.

 

[LW07]

I like CRT.

 

[Shamrock]

CRT for me. I was going to buy an LCD a while back, and I was playing around on a PC with a Sony 19" w/X brite. After about 20 mins, I had to sit down and an employee had to help me get to the chair. I got dizzy. So I'll stick with my NEC FE1250+ at 120Hz

 

[Zebo]

People that know me for three years I've been hating on LCD's much prefering AG CRT's.. Not anymore.. The monitor in my sig owns CRT's even the best ones like my NEC 2070... Advanced Super-IPS owns...

 

[cbehnken]

Why are you guys having such trouble with brightness? You know you can go into your video card control panel and pull brightness down to almost nothing, even on the 2001FP.

Oh, and try to use regular font smoothing. Cleartype looks blurry to me.

 

[Zebo]

Cleartype is for people that want that CRT fuzziness back. Idiots if you ask me.

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Cleartype is for people that want that CRT fuzziness back. Idiots if you ask me.

Cleartype may help overcome the deficiencies of lower quality or older LCD panels that have that 'pixelated' look because the pixel or dot pitch is not very fine. It does next to nothing for a good LCD. And of course, its for text, not graphics.

 

[xtknight]

Personally I like the anti-aliased look of it. It helps smooth out text because LCDs do not inherently. But Linux does a better job than Windows of the subpixel blending IMO. Still a lot clearer than my CRT, adjusted or not adjusted.

 

[Navid]

Originally posted by: cbehnken
Why are you guys having such trouble with brightness? You know you can go into your video card control panel and pull brightness down to almost nothing, even on the 2001FP.

I was going to ask why they do not just reduce brightness on the monitor or basically calibrate the black point and white point on your monitor!!

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: xtknight
Personally I like the anti-aliased look of it. It helps smooth out text because LCDs do not inherently. But Linux does a better job than Windows of the subpixel blending IMO. Still a lot clearer than my CRT, adjusted or not adjusted.

Just use non native res - anti-aliasing look- performance cost is free- on everything - games too. :roll:

You're robbing one of LCD paramount advantage over CRT. It's crisp clean convergence. "cleartype" is a misnomer. Should have been called Blurtype.

 

[xtknight]

Read up on this: http://grc.com/ctwhat.htm

Also you need to use MS's ClearType tuner to set correct gamma for text, then it looks very good and clear.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: Zebo
Cleartype is for people that want that CRT fuzziness back. Idiots if you ask me.

Cleartype may help overcome the deficiencies of lower quality or older LCD panels that have that 'pixelated' look because the pixel or dot pitch is not very fine. It does next to nothing for a good LCD. And of course, its for text, not graphics.

It does worse than next to nothing it blurs font buy putting subtle grays around font where white is supposed to be. Sometimes I wonder if people in these forums are partially blind... cleartype, ghosting, motion blur and other arguments I can never understand some peoples POV.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: Zebo
Cleartype is for people that want that CRT fuzziness back. Idiots if you ask me.

Cleartype may help overcome the deficiencies of lower quality or older LCD panels that have that 'pixelated' look because the pixel or dot pitch is not very fine. It does next to nothing for a good LCD. And of course, its for text, not graphics.

It does worse than next to nothing it blurs font buy putting subtle grays around font where white is supposed to be. Sometimes I wonder if people in these forums are partially blind... cleartype, ghosting, motion blur and other arguments I can never understand some peoples POV.

lol

I dunno man...while not as clear it still looks very clear to me. Linux's does a better job. Theoretically this tech is supposed to make the text sharper, at least from what I see on the grc page.