• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

CRT vs LCD

i wonder if sed will be as painfull as crt.


lcd user hear, i got used to the blur.
i quit using a crt cause it killed my eyes.
i bought an lcd with a 40ms response time.
i got used to gaming on it. it wouldnt display more than 25fps :)

no i have a dell 2005fpw. works great for me all around. big improvement in real estate and frames delivered. but i still see the blur in everything. things hop from one place to another as opposed to sliding across.

as for ghosting, i never cared about it, only time i ever see it is when i move my white cursor over a completely black screen. its not noticable because my eyes see ghosting anyway when i look away from the sun or something.
 
i have a nec 17 in lcd. i mean yeah no response time from CRT but seriously, takes too much room, hurts the eyes. lcd so much better. so i loose 8 ms. big whoops. my eyes can't adjust that fast anyways
 
pigwalk said:
The power draw and weight on CRT's are a big problem for me. In south america electric gets hella expensive, and I've had to lug 19 inch CRT's up 3-4 flights of stairs to lan it up. Not fun at all.

Not to mention there aren't alot of widescreen CRT's on the market.

That said, I still buy CRT's, mainly because I get more monitor size per dollar. Rather spend 180 bucks on a 19" CRT than the same amount on a 17" LCD.

-wil
Click to expand...


Um, a 17inch lcd offers the same realestate as a 19 crt lol. Most if not all19 inch crts are 17 viewable
 
Have stuck with CRT's because I like the flexibility of being able to set whatever resolution I want depending on how demanding future games are. I dont want to be tied down to a particular resolution so that I have to upgrade every 6 months to ensure I can play at full details at the native resolution.

Will continue to use CRT's until SED becomes available
 
jacuzz1 said:
LCD, because my eyes got tired of blurry text on the multitude of CRT 's i have used including the best that Sony has to offer. The simple reality is that while many of us do alot of gaming, we spend more time with day to day use and the LCD spanks any CRT for text period. I game alot as well and I have absolutely no issues and so for me its hands down......LCD. Once you go LCD you will never go back I can assure you. Oh and refresh rate on an LCD is not the same so you cannont compare
Click to expand...

I sold my 2405FPW because against the best Sony has to offer, an FW900, it got it's teeth kicked in. 1920*1200 at 98Hz. 1680*1050 100+Hz. No input lag. No smearing. It loses in text in weight. That's it. I think most would feel the same. Side by side comparison test it's very easy and the FW900 will beat every other LCD too IMO. Want to get an LCD have a reason like a gigantasaur Westinghouse or space. Your face won't be right up against it. As is LCDs make better TV's and work monitors. Matter of opinion I suppose. I know tons of the lcds brought up smear. I'd see it after getting poked in the eyes. A monitor is right in my face and I'm not blind. Hop in a buggy in BF2 take a nice turn, and watch the mountainside smear city. You can keep it. Bring on SEDs. LCDs are not the future folks.
 
texuspete00 said:
As is LCDs make better TV's and work monitors. Matter of opinion I suppose. I know tons of the lcds brought up smear. I'd see it after getting poked in the eyes. A monitor is right in my face and I'm not blind. Hop in a buggy in BF2 take a nice turn, and watch the mountainside smear city. You can keep it. Bring on SEDs. LCDs are not the future folks.
Click to expand...

Yes, the smear. And bad colours. But I agree on the work bit. I use my lappy for any seriosu work I do on computers, simply because the LCD screen is much easier on the eyes. But for gaming it is unequestionably CRT 4TW.
 
I just think it's funny that everyone thinks CRT guys don't have an LCD. We're even talking about gaming where a CRT has some definitive advantages that might not matter for other uses. Like insane refresh rate and instantaneous response. On top of that, the most demanding visual bastages are using professional grade CRTs. Of course, there is only one guy that uses a CRT in the office. And it's not me. The non techies that work on pamphlets and stuff always go to the guys desk to take a last look at what the colors will REALLY look like after print. Getting past things that aren't IQ, they have nearly every advantage. Geometry being the only IQ loss. Check out the rediculously great FW900 folks. 1920*1200 in BF2 one moment, Oblivion at 1680*1050 the next.

The refresh makes tearing less noticeable to me as well. Oh well, biggest thing for me was smear. All the lcds are all doing it. A select few lcds might be quick enough for me but they are 19" tops. Every big one rides into the 20ms territory for some transitions. Don't believe the hype. If you can work on an LCD and play games on a CRT you are getting the best of both worlds. I don't think I game enought o go blind at near 100Hz even at 1920*1200. LCDs native res makes them wicked sharp for text. It would lead to sharp games but in motion the response chucks the "sharp" advantage aside. Unfortunately now it's all about the gray to gray or whatever sounds good.
 
CRTs are too big and cumbersome. I'm interested in that flat CRT technology that Samsung is working on :)
 
I currently own a 22" NEC monitor, and I've been pretty satisfied with it so far. However, I've been thinking about using LCDs pretty damn soon. IMO, I think that the pros of LCDs outweigh their cons. The only thing I really worry about LCDs would be dead pixels.

The brightness of LCDs is something I really enjoy seeing. Some people dog the notion that its one of the ways to lure in a buyer, but it really DOES make the picture look better, to me at least. When my dad and I were comparing a DVD movie on an LCD TV that he bought versus my NEC monitor, the brightness made a big difference in the immersion of the movie. Sure I noticed a lack of color contrast, but the picture stood out much more, especially during bright scenes like daylight. Ghosting wasn't something to nitpick either. Looking back at the CRT, the image just looked "ordinary". I'm not saying that I'll get used to LCDs in the same way. They still stand out even after all these years.

Glare reduction is one of the more noticeable things to me. The LCD seems to provide a more tangible vivid image, while the CRT looked like a printed picture in motion hidden behind a glass frame.

For desktop usage, I'd really like to have the high refresh rates of LCDs. Even if it's capped to 60 Hz in sofware, the light source used has an extremely high refresh rate, and doesn't strain the eyes. 60 FPS in games with vsync ain't bad.

I could go on and on with pro/con stuff, but I really like what LCDs are offering right now. It will only get better.
 
The only true gripe I have about my LCD is that it struggles with very dark images, i.e. it's hard to discern things in, say, a dark dungeon or something in a game. While this is annoying, the IQ is still excellent outside of these extreme dark settings, and the response time is fast enough for me to not notice any ghosting at all. Another problem is the inherent loss of quality under native res, which I've only started to have to deal with while running Oblivion.

Also, where the CRT beats my LCD in IQ purposes, the LCD is the hands down winner in terms of both practicallity (I live in a tiny ass dorm room, and move my computer often from school/home or other places) and aesthetics. If I wanted a CRT the size of my 19 inch LCD, I'd be looking at a box weighing 40-50 pounds, taking up about four times the desk space that is currently given to my display. Although it's not that important, it's still nice to have people comment on how nice my monitor looks, and I doubt they'd be thinking the same thing with a monster CRT.
 
Yoshiyuki Blade said:
For desktop usage, I'd really like to have the high refresh rates of LCDs. Even if it's capped to 60 Hz in sofware, the light source used has an extremely high refresh rate, and doesn't strain the eyes. 60 FPS in games with vsync ain't bad.
Click to expand...

Lol. The lightsource used does not have a refresh rate as such, it just A light, like a lit torchlight. That is why LCD pictures are so comfortable to look at. The constant flickering of a CRT screen is a strain on your eyes, and it is created by the electron canon continually moving the electron beam from top to bottom, side to side.
 
I have a 24" CRT Viewsonic I bought a few months back for $800 CAD, this thing would have cost me +$2600 or more a few years back. It came in a box that my whole family could stand in, msybe have room for the dog.

Your typical CRT is the size of 3 LCDs, and probably twice as heavy. That means if you are shipping from an overseas manufacturing location you can fit 3 times as many units at half the weight per container. Lower shipping costs means higher profits.

An LCD has accurate screen geometry, slim size, text display and power consumption, that's about it. A CRT does everything else better: this isn't a chest thumping thing, it's just something they can do: at three times the size and twice the weight.

Companies must love to push LCDs because the the cost to move them is so much lower so they can get more money: I don't remeber seeing any LCDs being more affordable because of all these swell advantages: I just see more advertising telling you, they are great.
 
General Crespin said:
CRT, but I'm looking forward to SED.
Click to expand...

Same here man... though if someone offered me one of those big dell or apple LCD's i'd gladly take it... :D Likewise, i'd love to have one of those behemoth 24 inch crt sony monitors.
 
I love CRT because it's cheap, faster response, better colors,

I hate CRT because it emits heat with long use especially bigger monitors, and hurts my eyes with long period of use.

I love LCD because it's easier on the eyes, stays cool

I hate LCD because it's still expensive, slower response, looks weird on non native resolutions,



It's a toss up for me. If I wanted to work I would use LCD. If not CRT all the way.
 
XamediX said:
my viewsonic only draws about 35w, looks better than most crts i've seen, and it has a refresh rate of 6ms. 4 year old arguments are really 4 years old at this point. but the issue with performance in dark areas i agree with. either way my lcd is still 10x sexier than these crt beasts im hearing about.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824116355
Click to expand...
I have this one as well and have been happier with it than any CRT I've used. Desk space, refresh time (NEVER, EVER seen ghosting anywhere on this display), and no refresh rates to worry about to screw your eyes up. Running at native resolutions isn't that much of a problem with my setup and non-native like 1024x768 scales really well. I think the bottom line here is that the actual LCD technology, if you can afford both a quality LCD and system to back it up, beats CRT. I'm sorry, but I don't like staring at a 50-pound box of radiation.
 
See I think differently. You buy an expensive gpu or SLI to run 1920*1200, then your supposedly also leet display smears it. :( SEDs is really too far away.

And get it right.... my FW900 weighs 92lbs sans packaging. :p Still, not what I'm worried about in a display. Most passerbys thought my Dell LCD was sexy, but they have a different set of expectations. I love my FPS games and I like big. I see an afterglow and smear in my shooters. Hey if the 24" could catch up to the smaller ones I'd give them a second look, but new tech will save the day. I'll wait for it with this. I always get too involved in these. But I mean c'mon.... radiation? I'll survive with out a nuke suit.
 
jacuzz1 said:
Once you go LCD you will never go back I can assure you. Oh and refresh rate on an LCD is not the same so you cannont compare
Click to expand...

That's not true at all. I used to work for NEC/Mitsubishi. I had access to the best monitors, and while I used an LCD at work due to space restrictions, my primary display at home is still an NEC FP1370 CRT.

Even at my current job I was using a CRT until a short time ago, and now have a 19" LCD. Other than space, this LCD has ZERO, ZIP, NADA on that CRT I had.
 
Radiation? lol, so much ignorance in these forums about CRTs. It is absolutely not an issue at all, my father is an engineer who worked on CRTs in the early 80s. Also his eyesight hasn't changed at all even after working in front of a trinitron for so many years. People get poor eyesight when looking at crappy CRTs that are unfocused, focusing is a big issue with displays and eyestrain.

No matter what your opinions are there are just a certain number of facts that are undisputable:

Color reproduction: CRTs are better
Response time: CRT
Black levels: CRT
Geometry: LCD
Text Clarity: LCD

If you are a gamer or a photographer CRTs are better. That is a fact, there should be no dispute about that. Facts outweigh opinions here. Sure gaming is decent and certainly nice on a LCD but there is no denying that it is factually better on a CRT.

For work LCDs are better. Over years there will be a smaller electric bill and text is sharper on the screens. But as stated before, a high end LCD has a peak wattage difference of 40w compared to a 22" CRT, not a huge savings if you buy expensive monitors.

If you are going for the best image possible you will not make compromises and go for some technology that is mostly just trendy and will be replaced by SEDs. Sure for the average consumer LCDs are fine, the average consumer looks at things like size and weight and holds them in high regard, even in higher regard to picture quality. But for us that demand the very best we are willing to put up with the weight of CRTs to get close to perfection.

I know like I may seem like some CRT evangelist, but I do own several LCD monitors myself and a 50" LCD RP TV.( I do regret buying it though, screendoor and sparkliness are annoying) They are good, but picture quality is what should matter most in a display and right now CRTs still the best in town until SEDs.
 
I vote for the LCD. It was and still is a rarity for CRT to come in widescreen. I will take the true black/gray issue if I can get peripheral vision in a game. I can't imagine going back to 3/4 for games. It just doesn't seem natural and always bothered me until I purchased a widescreen LCD.
 
Khaos Kid said:
monitors are not my forte, so i have to ask, what is SED?
Click to expand...


instead of having one electron (cathode ray) gun at the end of a Cathode Ray Tube lighting up all the pixels (and different colored sub pixels of this phosphorous coated screen) from 2 feet away, millions of mini electron guns are just (2 millimeters) behind the screen, one for each subpixel.

bright, stable, distortion free, high contrast, high response times, flat screens, and should be really cheap eventually.
 
Bop said:
Radiation? lol, so much ignorance in these forums about CRTs. It is absolutely not an issue at all, my father is an engineer who worked on CRTs in the early 80s. Also his eyesight hasn't changed at all even after working in front of a trinitron for so many years. People get poor eyesight when looking at crappy CRTs that are unfocused, focusing is a big issue with displays and eyestrain.

No matter what your opinions are there are just a certain number of facts that are undisputable:

Color reproduction: CRTs are better
Response time: CRT
Black levels: CRT
Geometry: LCD
Text Clarity: LCD
Click to expand...

Color reproduction: arguable either way with high end models.
Response time: TIE

People can read facts all they want, but i hope you are comprehending what you are reading.
 
XamediX said:
Color reproduction: arguable either way with high end models.
Response time: TIE

People can read facts all they want, but i hope you are comprehending what you are reading.
Click to expand...

It still is no contest. I belive it is you who does not have your facts straight.

Response time: tie? You must be joking! CRTs have a < 1ms response time black to white. (so fast it does not even matter at all) The BEST response time I've seen for an LCD is 2ms GRAY TO GRAY. Usually ends up being 6ms black to white.

Color reproduction is still better on a CRT. Just because LCDs may look more vibrant doesn't mean it is ACCURATE. If you want vibrant color on a CRT you could just use digital vibrancy. Are they getting closer as time goes on? Sure, but not yet. 16.7 million colors compared to infinite sure is a huge gap to fill...
 
Lol... i was just about to commend Bop for his earlier no nonsense post. Then someone brings up Color/Contrast Ratio and response time. Heh.. and i thought if we were talking about gaming it might play into a pro-grade CRTs hands. Those two topics are orders of magnitude better. I also think the FACTS that are out there would lend to the CRT being better for faced paced games. XamediX picked the FACTS themselves to dispute. Oh brother.......
 
jacuzz1 said:
Um, a 17inch lcd offers the same realestate as a 19 crt lol. Most if not all19 inch crts are 17 viewable
Click to expand...

My 997DF's got 18" viewable room. Only slighter larger, but still more bang for the buck.

-wil
 
I agree with the CRT guys out there. I have a Samsung 997DF that I got for only $150 at BestBuy (they had like 20 of them that they couldn’t get rid of). For the price it is simply amazing. Anyway, I was planning on going to the dark side and getting the Dell 2407, but after seeing those SED’s, I am thinking otherwise.

But can I wait? I know the article says end of 06 or beginning of 07, but I will be amazed if there are no production delays or shortages with such a radical new technology. And besides, if it is as good as they say, demand will be staggering at first and even with good production prices will be high.

Another thing to consider is the investment that most major display manufacturers have made in LCD. It is in their interest to keep SED prices artificially high to maintain strong LCD sales and get their moneys worth out of the new LCD production facilities.
How much more expensive do you think SEDs will be compared to LCDs? (Dell 2405 for only $799 right now :) .
 
if you think 1ms and 4 - 6ms is a difference than i guess one could say crts are better in response time. But to me that's not better and barely noticable. I still have seen arguments go both ways mostly because discussing displays is heavily subjective. I just hate when people use old arguments like lcd still have these enormous response times like the first ones that debuted around 30ms.
 
CRTs may be better but after getting a 19" LCD there is no going back. So much less space, so much less heat, easier to get off my desk so I can work on the comp etc.


Initially switching to my 8ms LCD I did experience some ghosting(I don't believe there is any LCD that won't have some visible problems from someone with a sensitive eye switching from a CRT), but I now no longer notice any ghosting or anything wrong and I love the size of it. I used to have a little 15" CRT and this thing is so much more than 4" bigger because on a CRT they measure the cabinet size and on an LCD they tend to measure the viewable size.
 
texuspete00 said:
I just think it's funny that everyone thinks CRT guys don't have an LCD.
Click to expand...

Excellent point. We've got a number of LCDs and they're nice to work on, but I'm quite happy with gaming on my ViewSonic G90f.
 
Bop said:
Color reproduction is still better on a CRT. Just because LCDs may look more vibrant doesn't mean it is ACCURATE. If you want vibrant color on a CRT you could just use digital vibrancy. Are they getting closer as time goes on? Sure, but not yet. 16.7 million colors compared to infinite sure is a huge gap to fill...
Click to expand...

Brightness adds to the vibrancy or vividness as well, and I haven't seen a CRT remotely close to the brightness of LCDs. You can make any type of monitor display different levels of color vibrance, but CRTs can only go so far in brightness. I'm not implying a washed-out picture or anything... just brighter.

I sure as hell hope that the new SEDs will be capable of that kind of brightness as well, and i hope that there won't be a thick wall of glass between the picture and our eyes either... Glare reduction + brightness is one of the things that I really like in LCDs. It really makes the picture stand out.
 
another point being, a 30" LCD isn't going to have 2 lines running from left to right acrossed it, and YES, I DO notice them. no matter how much I try not to.
 
boredguyatcomp said:
i totally agree once you have used LCD you cant go back CRT hurts my eyes way to much even a really good CRT.

i really dont know what any of you are talking about with teh gameing and LCD but gaming looks just fine on my LCD.
Click to expand...

Just monitor setup... I've noticed some CRT's with blurry text. In my university half the displays have annoyingly blurry text/screen in general. A lot of people feel this is normal but i've never had this issue with my own monitors.

I have owned many crts and just setting the resolution lower decreased the blurryness. Some monitors just can't handle certain high resolutions. In ancient times when I had my 14inch color monitor just a setting change from 640x480 -> 800x600 vastly. Set your frequency and resolution at a optimal rate and you'll be fine. Important things to consider when setting your resolution is the dot pitch and the screen size. Setting a resolution higher then what the screen will optimally show will cause blurriness, going lower doesn't cause any issues however.

My text is almost perfect it looks somewhat sharper on lcds but that because of artificial sharpness from the pixel borders not due to a better picture. Any graphics I design looks much more vibrant on my CRT then the LCDs I have. The colors on my LCD's just seem dead.
 
2gigs said:
What do you like better


I perosonally will never buy a lcd, ever, as the response time is so high, and crts are cheap, and pulls higher resolutions.
Click to expand...


I have always loved cRT more cause LCD's just don't deliver the clarity, but they do save room... thats why I changed from Dual Dell M992's to a Single 2405. I miss the 2nd monitor, cause single monitors just don't cut it. I need to always have a side monitor to monitor my junk. ;-)
 
DaCoOlNeSs said:
another point being, a 30" LCD isn't going to have 2 lines running from left to right acrossed it, and YES, I DO notice them. no matter how much I try not to.
Click to expand...

Who the heck needs 30" for a personal computer anyways :eek:

To quote shrek: "You think he might be compensating for something?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top