CRT Displays are a dying breed [Will be totally gone within 3 years] Long live TFT

R

robert

Weaksauce
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
96
After reading many articles and forums it seems that the humble CRT is in demise, and I give it max 3 years or less before it is totally replaced by the TFT.

What are your views on this?
 
Personally, I think it depends on what new technologies come out for LCD's & just how cheap they can eventually make them. I wouldn't mind getting rid of my CRT's.

What wouldn't surprise me is if we start getting more combination tv/monitors being sold as dual-purpose displays vs. tv that's also a monitor, or monitor with a tv tuner. With more and more computers ending up in the living room, it just makes sense to blend the two together, imho.
 
Another good thing for the average TFT user is that it produces only slight Radiation from it's back lights...where as the CRT produces a much more significant amount of Radiation and in my opinion and that of a vast number people doing research into the effects of using a CRT. I would also say people who use the CRT day to day year in year out are at risk of getting certain types of cancers. Just my opinion of course and that of others.
 
crt is on its way out and in about 3 years time most gamers will probably be using LCDs. LCDs are currently at a good point to convert from CRT; im going to be making the jump in a few weeks now myself (probably vp201b). modern LCDs are fast, slim, have decent picture quality, no eye strain, and for most of us, the pixel response times are good enough. in 3 years were going to see alot of improvement in pixel response/price/IQ areas which are probably the 3 reasons that hold any potential buyers back.
 
I don't think so. TFTs still have too many problems to completely replace CRTs.
 
I agree, Samsung has made a CRT as almost as thin as a LCD.

Only way is if LCD Technology becomes cheaper, better quality control (no risk of getting a dead pixel smack right in the middle of your display), Long lasting as CRT, No ghosting. faster pixel respone times! :)

If this happens Count me in on the Bandwagon for a LCD! till then I will hang on to my CRT (Sony G410R) R is for Racing! VroOOm VrOOOmm :D :)


Roger said:
I don't think so. TFTs still have too many problems to completely replace CRTs.
Click to expand...
 
I disagree. Some of us like black blacks, and even brightness across the screen. LCDs have uneven backlights, their contrast ratio sux, and ghosting is no fun. Sure they will get better, but there is no way a technology almost a century old is going to dissapear in the next 3 years.
 
The days of the CRT may be numbered, but the TFT is far from being its killer. TFTs may be easier on the eyes, and use less power. It may be visually more striking to some people, and it may appear contrastier and there are no concerns about geometry; but TFTs have more trouble producing subtle tonal and color variations, viewing angles are inferior and a true black is essentially impossible with the technology.

The technology that likely will kill the CRT is OLED. Response times are near instataneous (similar to CRT), blacks are truly black as the pixel is actually off, they are emissive rather than transmittive meaning you get true blacks and better whites. OLEDs also offer the same low eyestrain enjoyment that TFTs do and higher potential contrast range than either (some have reported ranges over 1000000:1). Currently the battle for OLEDs is product longevity. Blue OLED technology is the furthest behind with lifetimes ranging from 10000 to 15000 hours and in some circumstances up to 20. LCDs are said to last 30000 however obviously they can last much longer. OLEDs actually decay with exposure to oxygen and must be encapsulated currently. New electrodes can help reduce the occurrance of this however they're not ready for prime time yet. OLEDs are currenlty being used mostly at small sizes because they're easier to make that way and encapsulate that way without exposing them to oxygen. Additionally most products they're being put in have a relatively short expected life time. People don't keep cell phones for 5+ years usually for example.

Anyway, CRTs will eventually fade out most likely, but it will be at the hands of the OLED, not the TFT and this likely won't happen for several years at least. At the consumer level TFTs will be dominating but they are not technically superior in all ways.
 
Samsung has already disproved you. Their announced slim CRT roadmap takes them into 2006, and you can tack on another 12 months when you factor in the shelf life.

OLED and SED are going to be the death knell for LCD, but the CRT will stick around for years to come. Too many graphic artists and gamers demand the accuracy of the CRT for it to go away anytime soon. CRT televisions outsell newer technologies by a factor of 15-1. No one is going to relinquish such a huge market to their competition.
 
CyberCRAP said:
I disagree. Some of us like black blacks, and even brightness across the screen. LCDs have uneven backlights, their contrast ratio sux, and ghosting is no fun. Sure they will get better, but there is no way a technology almost a century old is going to dissapear in the next 3 years.
Click to expand...

First, the CRT is about 60 years old, not 100. There is no more profit in it for the manufactures, so they will, and have announced, they will stop making it. I’ve been preaching that in the forum for almost a year now. I hear it over and over again at every manufactures meeting I attend.

The Sony plant in Pittsburgh has all but totally switched over to “light engine” production and dropped all of its CRT production with the exception of a few specialty items.

Mitsubishi, the largest of the TV makers dropped CRT sets and production back in 1998, they set the standard. This year almost all of their rear projection TV’s are light engine, next year they will all be light engine.

As for OLED, that’s been on the market since 1995 and has never made it past the cute gadget stage. DLP (same age) and LCD (much older) are in wide use. Again, those same manufactures are working on many many other technologies for your viewing pleasure. I’ve even seen the 3-D in gas displays, now that is way cool.

Do I feel LCD has come of age? No, I don’t. However, here is a case where you can blame the consumer who accepted crap products before their time. In almost every case it’s been a price issue. Bigger is better so if you can get a 44” LCD projector for the same price as a much better 32” CRT that’s the way the manufactures will continue to respond. The picture may suck, but it’s bigger damnit.

Oh, and don’t forget plasma, it’s just starting to get good, and it’s been around for almost 20 years, about 15 years in the consumer market.

Anywho, what we got will continue to get better and the old will go away, that’s just the way life is. What looks to us like slow progress is actually a multitude faster then what we have experienced in the past. Get used to change, it will always be a part of your life.
 
OTL said:
Samsung has already disproved you. Their announced slim CRT roadmap takes them into 2006, and you can tack on another 12 months when you factor in the shelf life.

OLED and SED are going to be the death knell for LCD, but the CRT will stick around for years to come. Too many graphic artists and gamers demand the accuracy of the CRT for it to go away anytime soon. CRT televisions outsell newer technologies by a factor of 15-1. No one is going to relinquish such a huge market to their competition.
Click to expand...

I don't agree...one of us will be correct but only time will tell. Personally like I said in my original post 3 years will be max life time for the crt.
 
OTL said:
Samsung has already disproved you. Their announced slim CRT roadmap takes them into 2006, and you can tack on another 12 months when you factor in the shelf life.
Click to expand...
I'll be interested once a company other than Samsung is manufacturing them.
 
Are you talking about all CRT displays... PC monitors and televisions?

Prices need to drop fast if LCD will replace home televisions. It's ridiculous to pay $700 for a 17" LCD television... "Oh it's so thin..." "Shut the fuck up!"

Living rooms are still designed around a thick ol' CRT television. I'd much rather look at my $400 32" CRT TV than look at my empty wallet after purchasing a $3000 30" LCD TV.

Time will tell... Maybe after thin TVs, we'll get slim refrigerators, slim stoves, and slim washing machines. If your house is so small that you NEED a thin TV... you need a bigger house. :)
 
MScrip said:
Are you talking about all CRT displays... PC monitors and televisions?

Prices need to drop fast if LCD will replace home televisions. It's ridiculous to pay $700 for a 17" LCD television... "Oh it's so thin..." "Shut the fuck up!"

Living rooms are still designed around a thick ol' CRT television. I'd much rather look at my $400 32" CRT TV than look at my empty wallet after purchasing a $3000 30" LCD TV.

Time will tell... Maybe after thin TVs, we'll get slim refrigerators, slim stoves, and slim washing machines. If your house is so small that you NEED a thin TV... you need a bigger house. :)
Click to expand...

No but we need to move along with the times :D
 
new thin CRT tv's just came out the same tech will be used for PC monitors and thin CRT ( 5 inches)will probaly becomes the norm for gamers in 3 years time. so CRT is not dying.
 
I personally like my trinitron CRT better than an LCD of comparable size. The colors are better, brighter, more contrast, and I actually have options as far as which resolutions I can game at or set my desktop too. No crappy interpolation needed.

This may be good news for me. As people get rid of thier CRTs there will be a ton of great CRTs on the market for cheap or free. Hell, I got my current two monitors free from work cause they replaced them with flat panels.
 
MScrip said:
Are you talking about all CRT displays... PC monitors and televisions?

Prices need to drop fast if LCD will replace home televisions. It's ridiculous to pay $700 for a 17" LCD television... "Oh it's so thin..." "Shut the fuck up!"

Living rooms are still designed around a thick ol' CRT television. I'd much rather look at my $400 32" CRT TV than look at my empty wallet after purchasing a $3000 30" LCD TV.

Time will tell... Maybe after thin TVs, we'll get slim refrigerators, slim stoves, and slim washing machines. If your house is so small that you NEED a thin TV... you need a bigger house. :)
Click to expand...

You may be too young to remember but in 1997 when Sony brought out the 27" Vega TV is sold and sold well for $1500. Oh, and in 96 a 21" View Sonic was about $1695.00.

Shit happens ;)
 
There are just too many people like me that love our CRTs to death. I've said before that they may eventually be relegated to niche status, but top-end CRTs have their purpose and place. They said the same thing about the American full-size, body-on-frame land barge, yet we still have the Lincoln Town Car today.

What we can do is all reconvene here 3 years from now and see who's right. We should post a sign-up sheet somewhere!....The Skeptics Vs The Sophists...

Thanksgiving 2007

I bet there will still be CRTs in production.

There. I am throwing my hat in the ring.
 
BillR said:
First, the CRT is about 60 years old, not 100.
Click to expand...

Hate to break it to you but the CRT was invented in 1897. Now of course the first crt based display somewhat similar to modern tvs wasn't invented till 1929. 75 years ago. But the cathode ray tube is much older.

Now LCD technology comes from the late 60's and early 70's. So CRTs have over half a century advantage on them.
 
CyberCRAP said:
Hate to break it to you but the CRT was invented in 1897. Now of course the first crt based display somewhat similar to modern tvs wasn't invented till 1929. 75 years ago. But the cathode ray tube is much older.

Now LCD technology comes from the late 60's and early 70's. So CRTs have over half a century advantage on them.
Click to expand...

Actually it was Heinrich Geissler in 1855 that “figured it out”. I should have been more specific. It wasn’t until the 30’s that the Brits actually got a “picture” on one.
 
I have yet to meet an LCD I like. Even some of the $800 ones we got for the graphics design department at work didn't really twist my nipples. Give me a nice 19" Aperture Grille monitor and I'm happy. Something like the NEC/Mitsubishi line.
 
I'm not going to switch to LCD until I can get a good one for less than I spent on the rest of my computer, AND they're much more reliable. The probability of dead pixels is too high for me to justify spending that kind of money. The monitor I'm using how has served me for the last 7 and a half years, with zero problems. It seems that most LCDs don't have that kind of reliability and I don't think that's going to be happening anytime soon.
 
Well with LCD technology improving everyday, I see them gone in 3 years also. Plus it is better for the enviroment(other than the stock piles of obsolute crt with mercury in landfills). But the savings in energy would be awesome.....
 
LCD was forced upon the consumer far too early. If anything, right about now is when the first ones should have hit the market, as a more mature product with at least equivalent quality of the existing CRT products.

LCD might have the shortest life as a display ever, as the move to direct RBG LED (even better power consumption and contrast) is just a few years off now too.

Moving from LCD to CRT - Its like trying to replace incandescent light bulbs with CCFL or LED light bulbs, its gonna be a long and hard transition. Everyone knows that flourescent, CCFL and LED light bulbs have advantages over the old light bulb, but everyone still is used to the old way.
 
I would gladly move to using LED light bulbs if they didnt cost so frickin much! :)

I think thats the biggest issue with new technology transitions. New toys are always WAY too expensive at first.

After experiencing my Samsung 172X DVI LCD, I will never go back to CRT. My old CRT was a ViewSonic P225f. It was considered one of the best ViewSonic made almost 4 years ago. My LCD kicks its ass in my opinion!
 
Crts aren't going away until Lcd monitors for the pc stop even showing ghosting.

Near cutting it doesn't count ;)

Many gamers i know all say that they use Crts over Lcds :p and their all Counter-Strike players :cool:

The fastest atm is 8ms response time ?

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20041015/index.html



But, the real question to ask is: Should a panel get a latency rating of 8ms if the actual latency value is really 20ms much of the time?

According to the ISO standard, the monitor's latency value is still 8ms, despite the variations during actual use. But you have to admit that the gap between what the user sees and what the standard dictates is widening into a gulf. When a 20ms panel measures at 28ms, the gap is 35% compared to the theoretical rating. But when an 8ms panel gets near 23ms and 24ms, that gap widens to 200% of the nominal value, which is absurd. This doesn't mean that the monitor is bad - it's not at all. But users have to be given a point of comparison that's representative of the use they make of the product. It makes you wonder what the real motivation is behind why the ISO standard for TFT monitor reactivity remains unchanged....
Click to expand...


And dead pixel defects ?? Manufacturer policy of needing how many dead pixels before you can replace it.


difficulties with dark areas and with certain shades.
Click to expand...


Cannot change to another resolution outside it's native resolution without the image being stretched ....


With these sorts of problems heh i'll stick with a crt with high refresh rates so my eyes don't tire too fast



Heck i could buy a 19''Crt at the cost of a high end 17' Lcd that has ghosting talk about ironic :D
 
Speaking of light bulbs.. I'm gonna be setting up a cheap prototype solar lighting system using solar panels, a cheap 12 volt car battery, and CCFL lighting. PM me if anyone is interested.

CCFL lighting (like used inside of computer cases to show off) is finally starting to hit good whites at extremely low power and reasonable cost. 18,000 nt (cd/m2) at 3.6 watts, 15,000 hour life CCFL with 12V voltage regulator costing approximately $10 Cdn.

Makes it an interesting low-light substitute for low power incandescents.
 
There's a lot of graphic designers and people that require true-to-life color that don't like LCDs, because of the issues with displaying a TRUE black. Until a technology can fix that, CRTs will still be around. :)
 
Dead pixels seem to be a big problem with LCD monitors... I've seen a bunch of them on various people's displays.

I've never seen a dead pixel on a laptop, though. Any reason why? Or is that just a coincidence? I know tons of people who have laptops in college... Weird?
 
MScrip said:
I've never seen a dead pixel on a laptop, though. Any reason why? Or is that just a coincidence? I know tons of people who have laptops in college... Weird?
Click to expand...
You must just have lucky friends. I know quite a few people that have dead pixels. A lot of older laptops on eBay have 1 or 2 dead pixels.
 
the only way i'm gonna give up my CRT is if the cost and performance of a flat panel are roughly the same as a CRT.
 
lorcani said:
There's a lot of graphic designers and people that require true-to-life color that don't like LCDs, because of the issues with displaying a TRUE black. Until a technology can fix that, CRTs will still be around. :)
Click to expand...

That would be of course why Apple is the biggest supplier of LCD to the graphics industry, an industry Apple is happy to own?

Your CRT is only as black as you see it when it’s off. My LCD is way blacker then that. It’s called “Calibration”, something it seems no one wants to take the time to do.
 
BillR said:
That would be of course why Apple is the biggest supplier of LCD to the graphics industry, an industry Apple is happy to own?

Your CRT is only as black as you see it when it’s off. My LCD is way blacker then that. It’s called “Calibration”, something it seems no one wants to take the time to do.
Click to expand...
Apple doesn't supply LCDs, they rebadge them. Additionally, they are far from being the best on the market and really aren't better than any other higher end LCDs, but they cost more. It's one of the biggest fallacies in displays that Apples are among the best. They are certainly good but not the best. In fact before Apple redesigned their displays and used new panels the technology they were using was over two years old and made their displays drastically inferior at almost any price. If you want to look at high end LCDs go look at Eizo ColorEdge displays. Otherwise just about any NEC, or Viewsonic or Sony or LaCie or lower level Eizo display will offer equally good and sometimes better color and tonal quality than an Apple display, at a lower cost. Granted better is relative because CRTs are still superior in this regard.

Regardless, calibration cannot help the fact that LCDs have more problems with uneven lighting and that they can in fact not produce as broad a grayscale as a CRT. Calibration can only adjust a relative correction to the given deficiency in forming good blacks (and whites) with LCDs, but CRTs when calibrated are better still. CRTs are fussier to calibrate and require more upkeep but they are superior still. The belief that an LCD, even when calibrated, is going to be as good as you're saying it is created the big issues in color correction good output labs have to deal with. They get media from idiots who think they've got it all solved on their LCD display but they really don't.

In short: I'm sorry but you're wrong.
 
Yeah, even if you calibrate your LCD it still won't have truly black blacks, let alone blacker than on a CRT. My 193P comes pretty close to that but in total darkness I can still see some light passing through. But then, the 193P uses a PVA panel which are known to have the darkest blacks (and thus highest contrast ratio) of all LCD technologies. TN and IPS panels are way worse than that.
 
After using my Sony 23" widescreen LCD, I don't see how people can use CRT's anymore. I haven't had a CRT in my house for god knows how long. LCD or projection all the way!
 
robert said:
After reading many articles and forums it seems that the humble CRT is in demise, and I give it max 3 years or less before it is totally replaced by the TFT.

What are your views on this?
Click to expand...
My views on this are you can take your views and shove em. Fuck LCD's. I apologize for the nature of my views but I feel very strongly on the subject. I will be buying a CRT identical to the one I have now for my next machine so I have two. My current CRT gives LCD sharpness a run for its money.
HRslammR said:
the only way i'm gonna give up my CRT is if the cost and performance of a flat panel are roughly the same as a CRT.
Click to expand...
Right fucking on. LCD's are too much for too little. Lets not get into the whole ghosting/motion blur issue...
 
I wont use a CRT ever again since getting my Hercules Prophetview 920 Pro. In fact, I'm getting the 23" sony with my next student loan payment :D

I'm too lazy and blind to notice any form of ghosting ;)

One of the biggest factors of CRTs demise will be how the prices of TFTs and LCDs drop over the coming years. Once they are mainstream, nobody will want one due to their horrific foorprint and the fact that notebook PCs will make up a much larger percentage of computers sold than desktops over the next few years as well.
 
emorphien said:
Apple doesn't supply LCDs, they rebadge them. Additionally, they are far from being the best on the market and really aren't better than any other higher end LCDs, but they cost more. It's one of the biggest fallacies in displays that Apples are among the best. They are certainly good but not the best. In fact before Apple redesigned their displays and used new panels the technology they were using was over two years old and made their displays drastically inferior at almost any price. If you want to look at high end LCDs go look at Eizo ColorEdge displays. Otherwise just about any NEC, or Viewsonic or Sony or LaCie or lower level Eizo display will offer equally good and sometimes better color and tonal quality than an Apple display, at a lower cost. Granted better is relative because CRTs are still superior in this regard.

Regardless, calibration cannot help the fact that LCDs have more problems with uneven lighting and that they can in fact not produce as broad a grayscale as a CRT. Calibration can only adjust a relative correction to the given deficiency in forming good blacks (and whites) with LCDs, but CRTs when calibrated are better still. CRTs are fussier to calibrate and require more upkeep but they are superior still. The belief that an LCD, even when calibrated, is going to be as good as you're saying it is created the big issues in color correction good output labs have to deal with. They get media from idiots who think they've got it all solved on their LCD display but they really don't.

In short: I'm sorry but you're wrong.
Click to expand...

Apple was an example, but if you take the time to visit a small or large graphics production house, or a movie production studio you will see LCD, not CRT. I'm not saying you have to like it, it's just a fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top