LCD for a CRT fanatic?

L

Lomic

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Messages
185
Yes, in the age of LCDs I still use a CRT. I have worked in the LCD TV industry, I have a 52" LCD TV that I'm okay with, but for a gaming monitor I've had nothing but disappointment with LCDs. I'm currently using a HP P1100 21" CRT that I saved from the scrapheap at work and it works great and has a clean picture.

However, I will soon be moving and in my new place I'd rather not have to haul around a CRT and honestly it doesn't look very good cosmetically.

I've taken a dip into buying an LCD previously - a Dell 24" Wide LCD about 3 years ago. I set it up, loaded up BF2 and tried watching a movie. It was terrible in every respect (in my opinion). At the lowest setting it was blindingly bright (I keep my room fairly dark) and obviously the black level was non-existent; even with the backlight at its lowest setting and the brightness calibrated. There was also what I felt was noticeable ghosting.

So, what I'm looking for is fellow CRT fanatics who have taken the plunge into LCDs and managed to find something they could stand. I'd say the most important thing is the best black level available in an LCD, followed by a fast panel, and of least importance is color reproduction. Price isn't an object as long as we're staying in the consumer range and not the professional range.

Thanks for the help.

Also: Why, oh why, can't SED make it to the market? I'd pay out the butt for it :(
 
My prejudice isn't based on one experience. Like I said, I've been around LCD technology and used LCDs a lot - but only once have I tried on in my home environment, with disastrous results. I simply didn't want to try again if people's reactions were "yeah, it's not going to be any better this time around, sorry."

I also did a topic search for CRT and didn't find any threads along this line, as I try not to start on topics that have already been well covered, but alas.

Also you didn't mention what LCDs you have :p
 
Lomic said:
Also: Why, oh why, can't SED make it to the market? I'd pay out the butt for it :(
Click to expand...

SED was going to be released on the market in 2006, but patent issues delayed matters. At this point it's not deemed economically wise to release a new type of TV on the market (didn't seem to stop LG with its OLED TVs, though). Maybe once the economy improves :)

As for going from CRTs to LCDs, prepare for disappointment. I have done some research into it, mostly for professional LCDs, and unless you're prepared to put down $1,200+ for a professional LCD, you're in for a world of compromises. Heck, even the H-IPS panels of those professional LCDs trade in GTG transition times for colour accuracy.

I'm using only CRTs with my desktop systems as well, and I haven't found a single convincing reason to switch to LCD other than that it'd free up a lot of space on my desk. I like the CRT's picture more, the blacks are crucial for my work (colour accuracy!), the non-polarized light and non-fixed pixel grid is much easier on my eyes (85 Hz refresh) and in general I much prefer sitting behind a good CRT than even one of those $1,000 LCDs :)
 
FW900 CRT is your savior ..its widescreen, pretty decent size (22.5" viewable) and widescreen (16:10 aspect) it also happens to be Sony's highest end consumer PC CRT (color accuracy / black levels etc. are top notch)... The only issue is finding one thats still in good working condition, BUT they are out there if you're willing to pay the price...

I to have tried various (many) LCD's only to be absolutely disgusted with there performance vs. a properly working CRT.

All I can say is whatever you decide to do, Good luck.
 
Since you want to have the best black levels available, you will need a PVA screen. TN & IPS screens have other advantages, but PVA screens have the best black levels. Color is a moot point compared to CRT screens in my opinion, since pretty much all LCD screens on the market can display the sRGB space properly. And if you don't do any color critical work (like most people), that's all that matters. Response times are important, but not nearly as important as in the early days of LCD screens. If you can find a screen with around 5ms response time and little input lag you will be good.

And lets not forget that CRT screens have many disadvantages too. CRT screens:

-Ugly
-Oversized
-Power hungry
-Poor brightness
-Moiré interference
-Analog connection
-Smaller screen size
-Affected by magnetic fields
-Phosphor streaking/afterglow
-Bad sharpness; sometimes even blurry
 
obobski said:
few questions for xeltic:

how are the following marked disadvantages:

- poor brightness
Click to expand...
Good brightness allows the monitor to be used in brightly lit environments. Most work places are brightly lit. And people complain that LCD screens have poor black levels, but they forget to mention that the higher brightness has the advantage of being able to produce better white values too.

- analog connection
Click to expand...
No HDMI/DVI and therefore no HDCP support. And perhaps more importantly, with a digital connection you no longer have any geometric distortion, the screen is perfectly stable.

- smaller screen size (??? compared to what?)
Click to expand...
19 inch CRT only has 18 inch viewable area. 19 inch LCD is always 19 inch viewable. And I believe the biggest CRT computer monitor is 24 inch, compared to quite a few 30 inch LCD screens.

- ugly
Click to expand...
This is a matter of preference of course, but I do believe I speak for the majority of people. CRT screens are very bulky and you have little choice as far as aesthetics go. With LCD screens you have plently of options in that department.

- oversized (??? compared to what?)
Click to expand...
Compared to LCD screens obviously. How is this even a dispute? CRT screens are very big and bulky, LCD screens are very thin and can even easily be mounted on the wall.

- power hungry (you do realize some LCDs can use equal or more power than some CRTs, right?)
Click to expand...
Yeah some, but the majority consume more power. On average, CRT screens use more power. Especially compared to LED backlit monitors and LCD screens with power efficient power supplies.
 
Obobski, I'm not going to reply to all your comments, I think I made my point and I don't want to hijack this thread. What I do want to say though, is that for some people, these things do matter. For some people, higher brightness levels, HDCP over DVI/HDMI, the smaller size of LCDs, better power efficiency and more options from an aesthetics point of view are important. And you can argue that LCDs having these things don't have an advantage compared to CRTs, and that it doesn't matter, but clearly, that's not the case.

I'm also somewhat surprised that you are arguing against some of these things now, despite agreeing on some of these points in your second post:
obobski said:
honestly I've been using LCDs more or less interchangeably with CRTs since around 2004 and the only monitor I would question quality wise is a monitor actually from 2004 (with a spec'd response time of something like 28 ms and stated contrast ratio of 500:1); ghosting has never really been an issue for me (yes I can identify it and yes it bothers me to a point, but depending on how bad it is, I just don't care), black level is a concern but I'm alright accepting "good enough" with the other benefits of LCDs (smaller, less power, less heat, etc) and general colors are fine for my purposes (I don't need pre-press accuracy, if red looks red I'm happy)
Click to expand...

And finally, I do disagree with you if you say that CRT screens are better. Surely, CRT screens have advantages compared to LCD screens, but similarly, LCD screens have advantages compared to CRT screens. It really depends what you want. And LCD screens are constantly evolving, and getting better all the time. 120Hz monitors, with 3D capability, is just one recent innovation.
 
You completely fail to understand my point. I'm not saying that LCD screens are superior to CRT screens, I'm saying that both screen types have cons and pros. Outlining these cons and pros, it really depends what you want from a screen. And I'm certainly not saying that LCD screens are flawless, where did I say that? Compared to CRTs, LCDs have many disadvantages too.

It's also somewhat ironic that you say that my points are generally based on flawed pretenses, while that's exactly what your 'rebuttals' are based on. I said: higher brightness is an advantage. Your reply? Higher brightness burns my retina. I said: HDCP is an advantage. Your reply? Buy an HDCP stripper (HD Fury).

And how am I misrepresenting your posts? In your second post you say that one of the benefits of LCD screens is that they use less power and in your later posts you are arguing that CRT screens have no power disadvantage. If I'm misrepresenting that, what do you mean then? Clear the inconsistency of your posts up for me.
 
obobski said:
actually, for exact clarification (Because again you insist on cutting up my posts):

I said that the higher brightness complaint doesn't matter in the case of 99% of users, you insist its a problem "workplaces which are brightly lit", but I cannot honestly think of any workplace, production line, warehouse, broadcast booth, control room, retail establishment, airport, move theatre, arcade, etc that I've been in where a CRT is somehow unusable due to brightness
Click to expand...
If it matters or not is completely irrelevant, I was talking about advantages of LCDs and higher brightness is clearly an advantage.

as far as HDCP support, not all LCDs support HDCP, in fact the majority of cheap ones do not, so it isn't an across the board advantage, if HDCP were required by a user wanting to use a CRT monitor or unsupported LCD, there are workarounds, so there really is no issue with the analog connection or the technology
Click to expand...
Again, this is completely irrelevant. Having HDCP is an advantage; minor or major, that's for you to decide.

you completely took my words out of context
I stated that IN MY SCENARIO they had an advantage of power consumption, re-read the entire post, figure out what the number four means, multiply it by 81, and then subtract 76, and you've got roughly my power savings in watts, however if you wanted to compare a single monitor to a single monitor, its 80W or less (as I stated)
Click to expand...
Perhaps thats what you meant to say in your post, but that's not what you did say. You clearly said: ...other benefits of LCDs (smaller, less power.... You were talking - intentionally or not - about LCDs in general, not about your LCD.

I'm honestly done arguing this with you, based on your posts in other threads you just seem to want to create flamewars about why analog/CRT/whatever else is "bad" based on your personal beliefs, welcome to the ignore list
Click to expand...
A shame, I'm always in for a good discussion. I just think you misunderstood me. Again, I'm not saying CRTs are inferior or anything, both screen types have cons and pros.
 
obobski said:
you get one more reply and then onto the ignore list, because I positively hate people putting words in my mouth, here's my exact quote:

"with the other benefits of LCDs (smaller, less power, less heat, etc) and general colors are fine for my purposes"

proper context -> I flat out said "for my purposes", never think you can tell me what I said again

cheers
Click to expand...
That was not left out on purpose though. In fact, I mentioned the complete passage in one of my previous posts. Even with that passage, my point remains. You are talking about LCDs in general, not about your LCDs. You said:

...other benefits of LCDs...

This is what you meant to say:

...other benefits of my LCDs...

Nothing wrong with my reading comprehension, and I'm not leaving out things on purpose, it's just what you wrote.
 
You might need to try some IPS screens. Maybe from Dell. A good calibrator might be needed. If you don't like, you can just return it.
 
Black levels:
VA panels have the best black levels, IPS panels are almost as good as VA panels, and TNs have black levels that are significantly worse than the other two. That being said, no LCD panel can even get close to CRT black levels; it's a basic nature of the technology and that is not ever going to change.

Speed:
Look at the new 120Hz monitors first; CRT fanatics have been quite happy with their speed. However, they are all TN panels, and thus have poor black levels. Among the 60Hz monitors, the TN panels are the fastest, IPS panels can be almost as fast, and VA panels are generally very slow. Unfortunately, the VA panels with the best black levels also tend to be unacceptably slow for gaming, even for those who aren't CRT fanatics.

Color reproduction:
Both VA and IPS panels are pretty good at this. TN panels are not. The TN panel's gamma shift from the top of the screen to the bottom is a problem.

You may want to try one of the new 24" 120Hz TN panels to see if its speed outweighs the negatives. If they don't, you'll be stuck waiting for the possibility of a 120Hz IPS panel, which so far has not even been rumored yet.
 
Elledan said:
I have done some research into it, mostly for professional LCDs, and unless you're prepared to put down $1,200+ for a professional LCD, you're in for a world of compromises.
Click to expand...
Technology is all about compromises. All technology involve compromises. You may prefer the CRT compromises over the LCD compromises, but there are always compromises.

Just saying.
 
This thread is, in so many words, about "how modern LCD's compare to CRT's".

I'd personally recommend reading up on the latest and greatest LCD displays. I currently own both a 21" Dell Trinitron and 24" dell LCD (2007-08 model).
I bought my 21" Dell Trinitron from work for $5 about a year ago. Yes Five dollars! :D

Comparing motion between the two the CRT wins. I have a little bit of input lag on my 24", nothing I would have noticed until I had the same window on both monitors at the same time and compared up and down movement between the two.

For blacks, that's tough... I know my CRT needs to be calibrated because it is more of a dark bluish gray then "black" on a all black screen. If I adjusted the brightness levels down to where the blacks are black I loos alot of shadow/darker color detail. The LCD is much more of a deep neutral gray on a black screen making it more pleasing to watch even if the blacks aren't inky.

I do notice overdrive ghosting with my 24" LCD. I had a earlier model that I had to RMA due to a quality control problem that did not exhibit this issue so I know first hand that ghosting isn't a issue with every LCD monitor.
 
This thread is confusing with all of obobski's deleted messages.

For brightness, I think some CRT's can get just as bright. I run my NEC FP2141SB @ 45% brightness, regularly.. If I were to turn it up to 100%, it is blinding. And then from there it has two "Super-Bright" modes that increase the brightness even further!

Size isn't a big issue for me - my office desk is huge.

The electricity savings and sharper text are two nice advantages of LCD's (IMO).

Other than that, I am still quite pleased with my CRT and will probably hold onto it until it dies.
 
Other than that, I am still quite pleased with my CRT and will probably hold onto it until it dies.
Click to expand...

At home I still have my 21in CRT that I bought in 1997 for $350 on auction. I acually bought 2 of these but the second died a year or two ago (well had to be retired because the degaussing circuit stuck on causing a fire hazard). At work I have 3 19in monitors on my desk. This works fine for me. However with that said I may invest in a 24in LCD soon if I can find one that pivots so I can use it in portrait mode which I prefer for programming.

John
 
I think there's a good point in favor of LCD to CRT: availability.

I'd love to know where you people are getting your CRTs. Back from 2000 to 2004 I had a massive 24" crt that I paid some $700 for, and have since lost due to a spiteful ex. I've never gotten a chance to compare side-to-side a good CRT with a good LCD.

Then again, I'm colorblind; TN panels do just fine for me, blacks nonwithstanding. :p

I consider CRTs to be something like the Chevy v12 of the computer world. They have qualities that newer technology can't easily reproduce (OLED and Plasma can beat them in colors/blacks, the new screens can do 120, etc), but you arn't going to find a screen with (1) good black (2) high frequency (3) resolution over 1080 all in the same monitor. But that big-block engine sucks down fuel, and maintenance/repairs become more and more of a dick sad joke.

I can personally take the trade offs. CRTs, if nothing else, are too damn big and archaic in design. Yes, it's been 10+ years for LCDs to catch up in a lot of regards, but what advances would you be expecting CRTs to have made in that time?

*shrug* Late night rambling. Oh, and as I've mentioned, I'm colorblind; so feel free to decide "your opinion doesn't count" as I've gotten more than a few times before.
 
All I know is; I tried a low-end CRT monitor that blew me away with it's colors compared to the washed out mess that is my LCD. I simply didn't want to play on the LCD anymore, and that CRT was 17".
Unfortunately, that CRT is defective so I have to sell it. Now I'm faced with this choice then:

1) Pay about $200, buy an amazing FW900 that will wipe the floor with everything
2) Pay a gajillion for an LCD that won't be up to par to even this 17" CRT.

Guess which I'll pick.
 
I'm in the same boat, still using my 19" dell CRT for gaming. I use IPS monitors here at work, they are nice for text/web browsing, but my guess is that it will suck for FPS games. I'm trying to hold out for the new HP monitor coming out in hopes that it might pass as a decent gaming monitor.
 
I run a NEC ea231wmi a 23 inch IPS side by side with a Mitsubishi diamontron 19 inch. Side by side you can't compare black levels, the CRT is so much better, dark scenes and shadows. As for colors, I find my NEC to have better more accurate colors, and much sharper text and the diamondtron isn't a slouch. If I didn't have them side by side then things wouldn't be so apparent. I work on two 19 inch TN LCD's at work and the backlighting is absolutely horrific. I would not want to game or watch a movie on a TN monitor.

I would never buy another CRT though, from a convenience, ergonomic, desk real estate, heat, size, and an absolute rectangular picture, and wide screen support. From a gaming perspective, I see no perceivable input lag problem, and I play COD, CS:S, and LFD, all FPS shooters where input lag would be perceivable. (Though I can on occasion blame my death on it :D)

PS Though every once in awhile I'll watch a movie on the CRT and be saddened by how great the picture looks, but oh so tiny compared to my 23" display.
 
Sorry dude, no such substitute. Whatever you buy, the first thing that will go through your head is "ick, this sucks" then you'll get used to it. At least that's how it was for me, but unfortunately my Diamondtron tube CRT died and had to replace it with either a 10 year old monitor or an LCD. Sadly, those are your 2 only options, it's a downgrade either way. I would suggest a nice TN LCD for gaming, they are fast and cheap, and not as bad as the fanboys make them out to be. Or go high-end with an IPS, still good for gaming and are a bit better but they will cost you double to triple what a similar TN will.
 
+1 for the NEC EA231wmi. After this baby I would never go back to a CRT.

Everything looks better on the NEC. ;)
 
quantum112 said:
All I know is; I tried a low-end CRT monitor that blew me away with it's colors compared to the washed out mess that is my LCD.
Click to expand...
Modern desktop LCDs are perfectly capable of displaying all the colors on a low-end CRT. Here are a few possible causes, followed by my recommendation.
  1. Your LCD is a lemon. Visit your neighbor and see if their LCDs are any better.
  2. Your CRT has a high gamma curve, which artificially increases the perceived constrast. Adjust the gamma curve for your LCD in the video card driver.
  3. You really want more colors than a common LCD can display. Get a wide-gamut LCD monitor.
  4. You are emotionally attached to CRTs. Keep using your CRTs until they die.
 
Last edited:
I was a CRT "snob". As a matter of fact I still have two minty Sony GDM-F520s in boxes in my basement which I've owned since new.

Since tripping over a deal on an NEC LCD2490WUXi they're in their boxes.

It took me a week to get used to a little bit of sparkle and a bit of screen door effect from larger dot pitch. The GDM-F520 is "the best monitor ever made" according to many (smaller and continuous dot pitch over the Artisan and the GDM-FW900, but it's disadvantage is it is 4:3) but my 2490 has better gamma tracking and calibrated colour with its built-in LUTs than my colour calibration package could manage with video card LUT correction. The perfect geometry, focus, convergence and sharpness of an LCD is also a huge advantage.

I do notice that blacks could be better. However if it isn't night time and my home office has any daylight in it, it doesn't stand out when doing work. Games like Bioshock and Doom3 show it pretty clearly, but those are "only" games. LCD black levels and contrast don't affect my photography work whatsoever.

I'm sure my experience wouldn't be the same with "any old Dell", still using video card LUT profiling and calibration. The pro-level features of the NEC 90 series (particularly Colorcomp) make it a pretty easy move from the CRT.

Up against the GDM-F520, I had a tough time letting go of the better blacks but nothing else held me back from embracing the 2490. If I had been using "some old CRT" I wouldn't give it a second thought. Now it's my favourite piece of kit and I "embrace" it regularly.

If your LCD is a "washed out mess", you need a better LCD, or you have some skewed perceptions of true colour. I was thinking about looking for an FW900, but you run a risk of that $200 "find" flaming out the day after you found it. Then you need to find another, and another. Finding one in good condition is hard enough. I'm not putting up with huge gouges in the bezel or scratches in the AR coating necessitating that I peel it off to see through it just to say I have an FW900 for e-peen purposes.

My number one tip for not making it glaringly obvious that LCD's blacks aren't as good - stop working in the dark.
 
You'll find a lot of us CRT guys recommending an FW900.

I love this frickin' monitor. If you can find one. All you need is the space for it.

I don't do LCD. For work, fine. For secondary monitor, fine. My projector is DLP though (better). Have a 37" LCD for the daytime - not too picky about what Dora and Oprah is displayed on.

Too bad they don't make <30" plasmas.
 
Skakruk said:
In the case of TN LCD's, I doubt it. But we really need him to define 'low-end CRT', before passing any judgement.
Click to expand...
There is nothing that prevents TN panels from displaying 100% of the sRGB color space, which I assume is the limit of consumer CRT displays (because I have never heard anyone complaining about wide-gamut CRT displays). Heck, there are wide-gamut LCD displays that use TN panels. Modern TN panels are perfectly capable of covering the entire sRGB color space, which is all that most users need.
 
Surly73 said:
My number one tip for not making it glaringly obvious that LCD's blacks aren't as good - stop working in the dark.
Click to expand...

Haha, but then why did I buy my backlit KB. :cool: Even at work we turn off the lights and I just use some backlighting behind my monitors. Granted it makes the backlighting on the TN panels that much worse.
 
Skakruk said:
With respect, any IPS panel without the ATW polarizer is going to look 'washed out' in dark scenes. Weren't there only two such panels ever made, and aren't they now both discontinued (and even when they were available, they were out of most peoples budgets)?
Click to expand...
Consumer displays, perhaps. Last I looked at NEC professional LCDs (H-IPS) they used the ATW polarizer. Of course, for these displays $1,200 is cheap and gets you about 22" :)

Sure, you can get a VA based monitor, but then you have gamma shift etc. I don't think TN s even worth a mention...
Click to expand...

TN has faster switching and less ghosting. It still has a 6-bit colourspace and thus wastes a lot of that speed on dithering colours to fake having 8-bits. The vertical and horizontal gamma shift ensures that the screen never looks the same for multiple people looking at it (170 degrees vertical doesn't mean that at 170 degrees it looks the same as from viewing it straight on, that viewing angle is much smaller). TNs have gotten pretty good at faking looking like a proper display, though.

IPS without ATW polarizer gets you this IPS glow, which can be off-putting. Viewing angles aren't perfect yet and it's definitely not a gaming monitor or great for watching fast-paces movies on.

MVA is like IPS only with some other pros and cons.

I think the annoying thing about LCD compromises is that if you look at a proper CRT you get good image quality, fast refresh, no ghosting, accurate colour reproduction, 180 degrees viewing angle all around with no shifting and essentially no trade-offs in terms of the produced image. Getting the geometry right isn't rocket science either, I have two old Iiyama CRTs and with the OSD menu I was able to tweak them to within tolerances.

I also notice that the picture my CRTs produce is so much more pleasant and less hard on my eyes than that of my laptop's LCD and that of my housemate's LCDs (20" Samsung TNs).
 
CrazyCuz2k said:
I run a NEC ea231wmi a 23 inch IPS side by side with a Mitsubishi diamontron 19 inch. Side by side you can't compare black levels, the CRT is so much better, dark scenes and shadows. As for colors, I find my NEC to have better more accurate colors, and much sharper text and the diamondtron isn't a slouch. If I didn't have them side by side then things wouldn't be so apparent.
Click to expand...

Perhaps a lot of people havent actually tried running a properly working CRT side by side with an LCD? Ive always done it this way and the FW900 I'm currently running always destroys any LCD's ive sat next to it... Yes the LCD is "sharper" and "brighter" but when you actually play games or watch movies you realise these aspects aren't the most important factors to overall picture quality, not by a long shot .... The CRT looks so much nicer overall and higher framerates look so much more fluid on the CRT its ridiculous.
 
mathesar said:
Perhaps a lot of people havent actually tried running a properly working CRT side by side with an LCD? Ive always done it this way and the FW900 I'm currently running always destroys any LCD's ive sat next to it... Yes the LCD is "sharper" and "brighter" but when you actually play games or watch movies you realise these aspects aren't the most important factors to overall picture quality, not by a long shot .... The CRT looks so much nicer overall and higher framerates look so much more fluid on the CRT its ridiculous.
Click to expand...
After pulling a Dell P1130 from storage to use as a second monitor on my desk I forgot how a nice CRT can look!

My current LCD is a 2407WFP-HC. So it's not like I'm comparing the dell Trinitron to a "crappy" LCD

Reason I quoted your post mathesar is because if I found a FW900 for a good price and in good shape I'd pick it up (with the help of a friend ;) ) without a second thought.
 
The problem with the MVA and PVA panels being recommended is that they generally have the worst input lag of any panel type out there. A big advantage of CRTs is their response time. You won't get that with a *VA panel. TN panels will get you as close as you can get to CRTs but along with the worst image quality.

My recommendation is finding an IPS with good input lag (several either have Overdrive modes or natively have low times, 2 frames or so). You'll get hands down the best image quality out there (I really don't like the motion artifacts and relative contrastiness you get with *VA panels), the only problem is that you'll pay quite a bit for them compared to a TN or *VA.

Here is a handy list of IPS panels out there: http://www.pchardwarehelp.com/guides/s-ips-lcd-list.php

Several are now in the $200-$300 range, finally.
 
On a side note, the ideal situation would be a plasma like the Panasonic G series (or my 60" Kuro, drooool...).

The problem is that they eat up loads of power, throw off quite a bit of heat, and the minimum size is 42". Unless you can have it away on a wall and not sitting on your desk, its probably not the way to go. :)

No LCD would be able to beat it in terms of black levels (especially the Kuro, beats CRTs), color accuracy, or input lag.
 
well darn -- I saw this thread and was hoping that there would be a resounding "It's not 2007 anymore" answer to the question. Looks like I'll be sticking with the big Nokia monitor at home for a while longer. 1920x1440 is a hell of a resolution.
 
Unfortunately, you still must be ready to compromise black levels, viewing angles, and motion clarity, if you intend to go LCD. On the plus side, the newer IPS based displays make the compromise much less severe than only a few years ago, since their response time and black level have improved, and they have become much more affordable as well.

I went from a CRT (Samsung DF1100), to a Dell 2005fpw a couple of years ago, because it was the cheapest gauranteed IPS widescreen, then to a NEC 20WMGX2, and there was significant improvement there (at a cost, $600 for one of the last new ones). Last year about this time, I went with a HP LP2475w, and I am quite impressed with it's performance and quality.

Yes, there are still the compromises, but they are much more tollerable now than before. Plus you still gain viewing area and sharpness of still images and text, and if you care about energy usage and space (I don"t) there is always that to factor in.
 
Serpico said:
On a side note, the ideal situation would be a plasma like the Panasonic G series (or my 60" Kuro, drooool...).

The problem is that they eat up loads of power, throw off quite a bit of heat, and the minimum size is 42". Unless you can have it away on a wall and not sitting on your desk, its probably not the way to go. :)

No LCD would be able to beat it in terms of black levels (especially the Kuro, beats CRTs), color accuracy, or input lag.
Click to expand...

Yea I hear ya I'm running a 50" 5080HD Kuro plasma only a foot or so away from my FW900 (hooked up to PC as secondary) and the Kuro is definitely an amazing piece of technology.

I just got done playing a session of Bioshock 2 PC on the Kuro and its amazing how good it looks, Having CRT quality black levels on a 50" screen is something LCD will probably never achieve on the same level (I always play at night with all lights out which is where LCD's fail miserably).
 
mathesar said:
Yea I hear ya I'm running a 50" 5080HD Kuro plasma only a foot or so away from my FW900 (hooked up to PC as secondary) and the Kuro is definitely an amazing piece of technology.

I just got done playing a session of Bioshock 2 PC on the Kuro and its amazing how good it looks, Having CRT quality black levels on a 50" screen is something LCD will probably never achieve on the same level (I always play at night with all lights out which is where LCD's fail miserably).
Click to expand...

LCD has inherent flaws that will keep it behind display technologies like CRT and plasma that are based around glowing phosphors. Things like 120hz or 240hz, local dimming, etc etc, are bandaids on problems that even then won't go away completely, or they introduce other problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top