i thought really high refresh rates(above 100Hz) actually made things fuzzy on a crt. also what would be the point of an lcd that could do 120Hz?blksun000 said:Personally I wouldn't be without my CRT right now. Don't get me wrong, I think LCDs are great (I do have a couple), but if you want to run a really high resolutions with very good refresh rates you need a lot of change. I run mine at 1600x1200 @ 120Hz and it is impecable. I would run it higher for it's native is a good bit higher, and it can still handle something like 80-100 hz, but it gets to the point where everything is way too small for normal work unless you up the font sizes. Anyway, I have a Viewsonic P91f+ and it is amazing. When it comes to running at high resolutions with fast refresh rates, if money's an issue CRT is the way to go. Though, with everyone talking about this, does anyone know of an LCD that has a native resolution above 1600x1200 @ 120hz and is under $600? That would be great. It would have to be at least 21". Anyway, i'll check back if anyone knows any good ones. Good luck with your purchase.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
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
- Thread starter Negative Decibel
- Start date
I'm not sure about the fuzzy thing with the CRTs. Mine doesn't look fuzzy at all. As far as having the 120 Hz it would allow you a broad range of choices. I don't think it would look really great running at 1600x1200 at 60hz, though 120 might be excessive. I really don't know a lot about res/refresh rates with and lcd, but I would think that high resolutions as low refresh rates wouldn't look too hot. More I was just wondering if anyone had any lcds that had a comparable resolution that didn't look horrible and wasn't about as much as a plasma tv 
most 19 inch crt makers recommend 75 to 85Hz at 1600x1200 so yes 120Hz is very excessive.blksun000 said:I'm not sure about the fuzzy thing with the CRTs. Mine doesn't look fuzzy at all. As far as having the 120 Hz it would allow you a broad range of choices. I don't think it would look really great running at 1600x1200 at 60hz, though 120 might be excessive. I really don't know a lot about res/refresh rates with and lcd, but I would think that high resolutions as low refresh rates wouldn't look too hot. More I was just wondering if anyone had any lcds that had a comparable resolution that didn't look horrible and wasn't about as much as a plasma tv
also you need to do a lot more research about refresh rates on lcd monitors. its not the same thing as on a crt.
LCD's excel at text and have perfect geometry.
But overall, quality CRTs clobber LCDs for image quality. Biggest example -- the full screen contrast of a CRT can be literally 15 times as great as that of an LCD. (GDM-F520 CRT has been tested for such a contrast ratio and yielded 15,000 to 1.)
Of course, in a typical office environment with bright florescents overhead, the CRT image will be partially drowned out anyway and an LCD may look better in that case. A CRT needs a semi-darkened environment to really show it's stuff...
But overall, quality CRTs clobber LCDs for image quality. Biggest example -- the full screen contrast of a CRT can be literally 15 times as great as that of an LCD. (GDM-F520 CRT has been tested for such a contrast ratio and yielded 15,000 to 1.)
Of course, in a typical office environment with bright florescents overhead, the CRT image will be partially drowned out anyway and an LCD may look better in that case. A CRT needs a semi-darkened environment to really show it's stuff...
A
altcon
Guest
CRT's:
Pros-
Better more accurate colors
Better response Time - no ghosting
Cons-
Massive Power Consumption
Massive Bulky Size
More Eye Strain (not 100% Conclusive)
LCD's:
Pros-
Small and Compact
Low Power Consumption
Better for Eyes (provided right calibration)
Sharp for reading
Cons-
Lower Color accuracy- 16.7 Mil Colors achieved through Dithering
Ghosting - most models display some ghosting (2ms models are debatable - check specific reviews)
My take- I upgraded to a 19" Vx922 and will NEVER go back.
My review is on the LCD forum (I first bought a VP930 which I returned for ghosting and backlight bleeding).
Pick models and do specific comparisons-thats the best thing to do.
PM users, read NewEgg Customer reviews.
In Short - do some research b4 U buy.
Good luck!
Pros-
Better more accurate colors
Better response Time - no ghosting
Cons-
Massive Power Consumption
Massive Bulky Size
More Eye Strain (not 100% Conclusive)
LCD's:
Pros-
Small and Compact
Low Power Consumption
Better for Eyes (provided right calibration)
Sharp for reading
Cons-
Lower Color accuracy- 16.7 Mil Colors achieved through Dithering
Ghosting - most models display some ghosting (2ms models are debatable - check specific reviews)
My take- I upgraded to a 19" Vx922 and will NEVER go back.
My review is on the LCD forum (I first bought a VP930 which I returned for ghosting and backlight bleeding).
Pick models and do specific comparisons-thats the best thing to do.
PM users, read NewEgg Customer reviews.
In Short - do some research b4 U buy.
Good luck!
Not all LCD's use dithering altcon, only a the 6bit ones. The true 8bit panels don't use it. So thats not really a disadvantage of LCD tech in general, its just a disadvantage with your 6bit ViewsonicVX922.
You can also add
CRT
Cons
image blurs at high resolutions, refreshrates
imperfect geometry, screen available is usually smaller then advertised and due to poor geometry is unable to even use all of that.
Many trinitron CRT's have to have image modes text/image/movie which result in overly bright images, extremely dull desktop and fuzzy media depending on the mode used.
You also get weird faint lines across the screen with Trinitron CRT's, I forget what there called.
LCD
Cons
Lower contrast, although you wouldnt notice this on the better panels without direct comparsion.
input lag, i've never noticed it
viewing angles, unless you use your display viewing from a stupid angle then this is a non issue.
You can also add
CRT
Cons
image blurs at high resolutions, refreshrates
imperfect geometry, screen available is usually smaller then advertised and due to poor geometry is unable to even use all of that.
Many trinitron CRT's have to have image modes text/image/movie which result in overly bright images, extremely dull desktop and fuzzy media depending on the mode used.
You also get weird faint lines across the screen with Trinitron CRT's, I forget what there called.
LCD
Cons
Lower contrast, although you wouldnt notice this on the better panels without direct comparsion.
input lag, i've never noticed it
viewing angles, unless you use your display viewing from a stupid angle then this is a non issue.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2005
- Messages
- 1,590
I much prefer a good quality CRT over any LCD ive witnessed. If my FW900 CRT stops working ill just order another off Ebay
Shocky said:Not all LCD's use dithering altcon, only a the 6bit ones. The true 8bit panels don't use it. So thats not really a disadvantage of LCD tech in general, its just a disadvantage with your 6bit ViewsonicVX922.
You can also add
There is so much wrong with you post, I'll take them one at a time:
CRT
Cons
image blurs at high resolutions, refreshrates
Ah no. Any refresh to monitor supports, is absolutely sharp, unless there is something wrong with the monitor. Most monitor I have used get too small to see when you uses them over the recomended, but again still sharp. But at recommended resolution they are sharp and a reasonable size. Mine is meant to run at 1600x1200 which is very sharp.
imperfect geometry, screen available is usually smaller then advertised and due to poor geometry is unable to even use all of that.
Ah no. They advertise the tube size part of which is actually covered. That is the reason for the size difference. Geometry is fully adjustable. On a flatscreen trinitrons like I use home and work. I use ever available bit of screen space. On a 21" CRT space is essentially identical to a 20" LCD.
Many trinitron CRT's have to have image modes text/image/movie which result in overly bright images, extremely dull desktop and fuzzy media depending on the mode used.
Again. Out to lunch. Some have superbright mode, if it is too bright don't use it. They don't have dull fuzzy mode, but I wonder about your brain.
You also get weird faint lines across the screen with Trinitron CRT's, I forget what there called.
Wow you actually got something correct. There are two support wires that are nearly invisible. If these bother you, good luck with LCDs, they have 1000+ of these lines in both directions. AKA SDE.
LCD
Cons
Lower contrast, although you wouldnt notice this on the better panels without direct comparsion.
Wrong. You will notice. I have a little something called memory. If you never used a CRT,you might not notice. You will notice crappy black if you use the computer in darkened room even then.
input lag, i've never noticed it
So? From all your mistaken observations. I would say what you do or don't notice doesnt really matter much. It is a well documented problem with some LCD's Notably 24" samsung panels (I had one, it was real).
viewing angles, unless you use your display viewing from a stupid angle then this is a non issue.
This is the biggest piece of repeated nonsense. You don't have to view from an angle at all. PVA/MVA screens are so bad that if you are perfectly centered the sides of the image will be starting to wash out. TN screens are slightly better than PVA/MVA horizontal but much worse on the vertical. Only S-IPS screens have decent real world viewing angles. It is kind of funny to see this argument here, because Hardforums colors contribute to this and several people have noticed the wierd effects of LCDs with this background.
I haven't bothered to add to your LCD con list, there are many more. There is a reason that everyone is waiting for SED as some kind of holy grail. Because it is supposed to have the superior CRT image quality with superior flat packaging like LCD/Plasma. CRT has the best image quality of any display technology invented so far.
Ah no. Any refresh to monitor supports, is absolutely sharp, unless there is something wrong with the monitor. Most monitor I have used get too small to see when you uses them over the recomended, but again still sharp. But at recommended resolution they are sharp and a reasonable size. Mine is meant to run at 1600x1200 which is very sharp.With pretty much all CRT's i've ever used the higher the resolution and refreshrate above the recommended the worse the sharpness gets and also the geometry gets worse too making it even harder to use all the screen available to you.
Yes they advertise the tube size which is not the actually screen size you get which I hope most people understand., the geometry is adjustable yes but you will never be able to adject it to use all the available screen especially at higher resolutions and refreshrates of 100hz+ which usually makes the problem even worse.
All the trinitron monitors I've used have these three modes, sometimes under a different name but there usually there. Having to swap different modes for desktop, games and media is a huge inconfience.
Your opinion, much like mine and I don't agree.
The viewing angle on my 2407 which I think is PVA is great, no complaints at all, and I notice no problems with background of this website.
You would never notice them in normal use but the horizontal lines using trinitron tubes are very clear and easy to spot.
I've never noticed it, so I can't really comment but its still under cons as its a real issue.
Shocky said:
Well I don't know what kind of wacky monitors you use. Have you actually really owned a decent Trinitron? Because you make all kinds of comments that don't make any sense. If so which ones? I use a Dell p1110 at work all day everyday. I use a Philips 202P4 at home. Both are 21" trinitron tubes with 20" viewable area. Both are maxed to the edge at maximum refresh. Neither have three modes you refer to as text/image/media or any other name. These sound more like the modes on your LCD.
Tell me exactly which CRT you owned which had all these terrible modes and didn't work properly at high refresh. Because this certainly not what I have encountered in any decent quality CRT. I have no doubt crap exists, but I wouldn't base my decisions on crap. Quality CRT's don't do what you claim they do.
Diamond Pro 2070SB, iiyama VM Pro 514 and also the sony F500 which wasnt bad either.
Its true, the LCD's based on samsungs latest panel do have image modes but you don't need to change from desktop mode. With the CRT's i've used you really have to use the different modes since the image/brighter mode is to bright for desktop and the text/desktop mode is to dark for images/games.
Its true, the LCD's based on samsungs latest panel do have image modes but you don't need to change from desktop mode. With the CRT's i've used you really have to use the different modes since the image/brighter mode is to bright for desktop and the text/desktop mode is to dark for images/games.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2005
- Messages
- 1,590
Shocky said:
Oh come on! it's a single button press to toggle through the various brightness modes lol ,my Sony G520P has this feature and its something I wish ALL CRT monitors had, Dynamic mode is great for gaming (increased contrast / color vibrancy) and Standard mode is nice for web browsing / text. You're reaching for excuses here..
Snowdog said:
Theres really no point, since you obviously wont beilieve me even if I did.... All you need to know is I've been though allot of monitors over the years, both CRT and LCD. It took me a long time to move over to LCD's and to be honest the first few I tried were awful but the latest ones are a huge improvement and enough for me to start moving away from CRT's.
krameriffic
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2006
- Messages
- 3,214
Shocky said:Which is technically a 19"
Just buy an LCD, spending money on a CRT right now is like flushing money down the toilet.
I got a 22" AG CRT monitor from www.azatek.com for $240 shipped. This monitor would have been $600 at least back when it was still made and it is a superior monitor to almost any today. LCDs are far too expensive still to get a really good one.
Actually these guys are blowing smoke on the refresh. I generally run at the highest rate and there is no degredation. 85Hz is fine for everything unless you are a very competetive gamer.
The only real reason to go with very 120Hz is if you are playing an FPS and you really want to maximize reaction time. But you also need a graphics card that can get close to 120 FPS. I have seen numerous FPS gamers do this.
You drop your Res to something like 1024x768 to maximize FPS and set your monitor refresh to 120Hz for the fastest posible reaction time. I just tried this setting on my work monitor and it works perfectly, RAZOR sharp, and there are no geometry issues (why would there be).
If you are a serious competetive FPS player, this is definitely an edge.
None of the monitors I use supports 120Hz at 1600x1200, you have to drop down to lower res to take advantage of super high refresh, which is ok, since you are going to need to drop res to get the max framerate out of your card to go with that high Refresh.
The only real reason to go with very 120Hz is if you are playing an FPS and you really want to maximize reaction time. But you also need a graphics card that can get close to 120 FPS. I have seen numerous FPS gamers do this.
You drop your Res to something like 1024x768 to maximize FPS and set your monitor refresh to 120Hz for the fastest posible reaction time. I just tried this setting on my work monitor and it works perfectly, RAZOR sharp, and there are no geometry issues (why would there be).
If you are a serious competetive FPS player, this is definitely an edge.
None of the monitors I use supports 120Hz at 1600x1200, you have to drop down to lower res to take advantage of super high refresh, which is ok, since you are going to need to drop res to get the max framerate out of your card to go with that high Refresh.
I have a Sony G520P with the 3 picture effect modes. I don't find them inconvenient at all, quite the opposite in fact, i find them very useful. The 1st mode is perfect for desktop use and the 2nd and 3rd modes make games and movies look fantastic. Switching through them is quick and easy, just takes the press of a button.
I only wish my FW900 had the same feature..
I only wish my FW900 had the same feature..
No, CRTs will be blurrier than LCDs. That is the nature of the beast. It is true that a CRT is sharpest near its recommended resolution but even then it's blurry compared to LCDs:Snowdog said:
http://www.behardware.com/articles/511-6/screen-comparative-test-crt-vs-lcd.html
You're really happy with your Trinitron but that still doesn't change the reality.
As for the geometry, LCDs are always perfect and CRTs (Trinitrons and Diamondtrons especially) can never be. You can tinker with it and make it pretty acceptable but never perfect. That also is the nature of the beast.
Also, I can easily see the support wires from six feet away. Not anywhere near invisible. I was able to live with it just fine though and I see you can too.
they are not comparable, both have drawbacks and each will be better or worse at specific tasks.
IMO anything which involves motion, CRT wipes the floor period it doesnt matter what it is i.e. games, movies, animations or whatever.
LCD's are superior when displaying anything static/slow moving and thats when sharpness and geometry kick in.
I should add that you cant have the best of both worlds, you trade one for the other. Only SED offers the ideal display technology at least on paper.
IMO anything which involves motion, CRT wipes the floor period it doesnt matter what it is i.e. games, movies, animations or whatever.
LCD's are superior when displaying anything static/slow moving and thats when sharpness and geometry kick in.
I should add that you cant have the best of both worlds, you trade one for the other. Only SED offers the ideal display technology at least on paper.
Not sure if you have looked at any specs for LCDs, or if noone has informed you but all LCDs run 75hz. I run a trashed Dell 1905fp from ebay for $250, i love it so much compared to my Dell 15" crt at least. Probably have already purchased your 21" crt, but really LCDs are going to be the future. IMO anything above 85hz for refresh is seems retarted, have been using 75hz since i bought my 15" crt dell and havent ever wanted anything moreSnowdog said:
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2005
- Messages
- 1,590
Although LCDs dont "flicker" @ 60hz running a higher refresh rate still has its advantages, mainly when it comes to gaming and disabling Vsync, with LCD you're pretty much forced to run with vsync enabled to prevent screen tearing, on a CRT you can run with a higher refresh rate to eliminate screen tearing (or at least minimize it) ive been running without Vsync for years without any issues.
And on the other hand if you prefer running with Vsync enabled you can achieve a higher framerate when running a higher refresh rate.
Flexible refresh rate's is just one of the many reasons CRTs are better for gaming.
And on the other hand if you prefer running with Vsync enabled you can achieve a higher framerate when running a higher refresh rate.
Flexible refresh rate's is just one of the many reasons CRTs are better for gaming.
locutus24 said:
Ever hear the phrase, "they don't build them like they used to"? Who gives a crap what the future is. Image quality is just so much better I'll be happy to hang on to it as long as possible. I tried two LCD's and they weren't close.
Refresh tends to get more obvious on a bigger screen. When running 1600x1200 on a 21" CRT I can just barely detect it at 75Hz, 85Hz clears that up.
I had the following monitors:
14" crt unknown brand
15" crt unknown brand
17" iiyama
19" acer tft (25ms pva)
22" iiyama crt
I wanted the 22" Iiyama because it only costs 150 euros and the resolution was like crazy. Plus you don't have ghosting, you don't have lag, you have super sharp image quality at every resolution. So i choose to try it out. I loved the resolution. But though i played some games at 1600x1200 at 85Hz, it still hurted mym eyes.
I was just used to TFT cause i used that 19" for like 2 years or so, CRT's just hurted my eyes when i was looking at it for more then 30 minutes. So i sold it again (for 200 euros, lol..) and then bought some Iiyama 19" as dualscreen. I-IPS screen it was.
Then now a week ago i solled both 19" tfts and bought one 24".
I won't go to CRT anymore because TFT is much more relaxed for my eyes, plus the design is better and the space is just to big with a crt screen.
I'm not saying TFT is superior to CRT, but the advantages for TFT's are better then the advantages for CRTs for me.
14" crt unknown brand
15" crt unknown brand
17" iiyama
19" acer tft (25ms pva)
22" iiyama crt
I wanted the 22" Iiyama because it only costs 150 euros and the resolution was like crazy. Plus you don't have ghosting, you don't have lag, you have super sharp image quality at every resolution. So i choose to try it out. I loved the resolution. But though i played some games at 1600x1200 at 85Hz, it still hurted mym eyes.
I was just used to TFT cause i used that 19" for like 2 years or so, CRT's just hurted my eyes when i was looking at it for more then 30 minutes. So i sold it again (for 200 euros, lol..) and then bought some Iiyama 19" as dualscreen. I-IPS screen it was.
Then now a week ago i solled both 19" tfts and bought one 24".
I won't go to CRT anymore because TFT is much more relaxed for my eyes, plus the design is better and the space is just to big with a crt screen.
I'm not saying TFT is superior to CRT, but the advantages for TFT's are better then the advantages for CRTs for me.
Snowdog said:
Since LCD monitors do not employ phosphors, refresh rate is not a concern. Basically, the transistors in the LCD remain open or closed as needed until the image changes. This can be a point of confusion for allot of users, however, since most graphics cards still "ask for" a refresh rate setting. This is due to the analog nature of existing graphic cards and their support for CRT displays. While refresh rates do not apply to LCD monitors, most LCDs are set up to accept any settings from 60Hz and above.
Shocky said:
Refresh rate on LCD is still important when anything on the screen changes. Most LCD's operate exclusively at 60Hz, while they will accept a higher refresh VGA, the screen updating doesn't change. Even at 60Hz LCD can't keep up, they smear at this level, so driving a higher refresh will serve no purpose on LCD.
CRT scans so the screen will be dark on static scenes unless you rescan (refresh) as the phosphor fades, LCD on the other hand just holds constant voltage at each pixel. 60Hz is generally too low on a CRT, especially a big higher resolution one. Flicker will be percieved by many as the screen drops to black in between refreshes. 75Hz solves this for most people, 85Hz for just about everyone. I can just barely detect 75Hz under some circumstances.
Higher than 85Hz is only really needed for hardcore gamers who like vsync on at high frame rates. When I game I usually set my CRT at 1280x960, 100Hz. Overkill refresh for me, but what the heck. My video card runs smoother and the monitor looks amazing at this resolution. I also can run all my old games at whatever resolution they support and the screen will adapt.
For gaming there is just no contest. CRT wins it hands down. For text there is an argument, but for me, LCD was harder on the eyes.
DusanV said:
Support wires bother you, don't get a trinitron. Pretty simple.
Exactly what is the issue with perfect geometry? Where do you need it? I can adjust to the point where I don't see a problem, then what is the problem? I am not taking measurments off the screen. Squares are square, circles perfectly round.
Sharpness. Yes LCD is sharper, but my CRT is certainly sharp enough and sharper than the one in the example you show (that one looks dead). I much prefer the smoother image quality which I find looks more realistic on CRT than the SDE you get of obviously visible pixels on LCD. When I had my LCD, especially the 2405 with its big pixels. Pictures from DSLRs started looking full of jaggies. Not an advantage IMO.
I suppose if I had dropped $2000 on a big LCD and card to support it, I would be an ardent LCD fan as well. I prefer to save for a house downpayment instead.
Snowdog said:
The point was you can't really perseve flickering on LCD's at 60hz as you would with a CRT. The main disadvanage running at 60hz to gamers is screen tearing in 3d applicatons but you can force most LCD's to 75hz which usually resolves it. Only problem with that is some modern RTC (overdrive) enabled panels often suffer as a consequence with the overdrive application being adversely effected, and response time therefore being reduced.
Snowdog said:
Look Snowdog, I hear you. If I had to choose between the 3007 and a house, I'd go for the house (good luck!). 2405 versus FW900 is also an easy choice. But staring at text all day long is my line of work (working right now) so 3007 is an easy choice (it was about $1500 shipped and $130 for the ATI x1600 AGP). As for the geometry, I out of two dozen Trinitrons/Diamondtrons (G400/G500/21TX) I have seen there wasn't one that was close to perfect but that didn't really bother me too much and I used them for years. Still, a good LCD is king of shapness and geometry (quick shot of the 3007, no jaggies):
When I read that I am just reminded of why I returned my LCDs.....way too contrasty and bright....like that white text against the black background (despite the fact it's blown up).
BTW, if I am reading this on a CRT will I see jaggies of your LCD image 'cause I'm viewing it with a CRT even though is a pict of an LCD.
LOL.
BTW, if I am reading this on a CRT will I see jaggies of your LCD image 'cause I'm viewing it with a CRT even though is a pict of an LCD.
LOL.
DusanV said:
I have been working as a programmer for 10+ years, so I also spend all day looking at text. With a lot of surfing and gaming after work. When I had my LCDs my eyes were killing me. Realize there are people who are different. I never had eyestrain from computer use in my life until I got my first LCD and this carried onto the second LCD. Like the guy above no matter where I set the brightness, white fonts on dark burned into my eyes. Those were my work session colors, and when I logged in remotely for the first time it was like, "Argh! it burns!".
On top standard annoyances, like poor blacks, terrible viewing angles (PVA) smears and the rest. I noticed unmentioned aspects image quality of CRT that no one really talks about that I appreciate. For whatever reason. CRT to me looks like a printed image it is that easy to look at. CRT is as easy on my eyes as is reading printed materials. LCD on the other hand is like looking at a transparency with weird shine through effects. Granted I think these effects are worse on PVA screens, it just looks wrong to me. Like the greys here. On my CRT they look dark like they emit no light, like a printed grey on a page. On my LCD they look lit up. Kind of hard to explain unless you really know what I am talking about.
I am not some tech hating luddite. I thought I would love LCD, wanted to love LCD, but in the end, no love. I think we are just very particular about different aspects of image quality. Yeah I would like perfect geometry, mainly because I wouldn't have to adjust it, because once adjusted I don't understand the big deal. As far as high per pixel sharpness, I am still not convinced that isn't partially related to eyestrain I experienced. I think are perfect display would be closer to CRT were the pixels smooth into one another. I would like to see OLED. As an emissive tech it should not have viewing angle issues or other artifacts associated with looking through light polarizing filters and have perfect blacks as well. SED would be great too, but all indications this will come to computer monitors very late if at all. Neither will have the resolution independance of CRT.
For games, CRT without question. For text, LCD without question for some, CRT without question for others such as myself.
TheCommander
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2003
- Messages
- 2,999
CRTs are way better for gaming and also have better image quality. LCDs are better for text. If you have the room, go for the CRT. You can find top of the line CRTs for good prices these days.
Shottah_king
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2005
- Messages
- 557
Everybody has different opinions but I say LCDs are leaps and bounds better than CRTs regarding static images. This includes, word processing, web surfing and everday day tasks. My Dell 1905fp has great image quality and the text is ultra sharp and very easy to read. The contrast and brightness is perfect. The only thing wrong with the monitor is that it can't display moving objects without losing detail (blurring). I still say LCDs are a better technology they just haven't fully matured like CRTs. The image quality on my 19" LCD is superb when compared to my 19" CRT. The colors are just amazing. When I fired up UT2K4 I saw things that I didn't see before. The textures were rich and vibrant; I just can't explain it. In my opinion, CRTs are dull compared to LCDs.