crt vs. lcd

[mathesar]

. In my opinion, CRTs are dull compared to LCDs.

This is what happens when you compare an average / shadow mask based CRT to an LCD, Get a Trinitron CRT (which are much brighter than shadow mask) next to an LCD and its a much closer comparison, You end up noticing all of the image quality advantages of CRT instead of dwelling on the 'dullness'.

 

[Scyles]

I wish someone would do a more modern side by side comparison. I'd like to see newer models, such as the VX2025WM and the FPD2185, right next to a good CRT.

Mathesar, your comparison of CRT vs. 2001FPW is really outdated. If you, or anyone for that matter, could perform the same type of comparison with newer LCD monitors, it would be extremely helpful and appreciated.

 

[Negative Decibel]

Wow... This has really become a great debate... I'm liking it...

 

[SH1]

I wish someone would do a more modern side by side comparison. I'd like to see newer models, such as the VX2025WM and the FPD2185, right next to a good CRT.

Mathesar, your comparison of CRT vs. 2001FPW is really outdated. If you, or anyone for that matter, could perform the same type of comparison with newer LCD monitors, it would be extremely helpful and appreciated.

I doubt it would be that much different today.

Under the right circumstances, the advantage CRTs have in full screen, on/off, contrast ratio remains totally overwhelming. (As much as a 15,000 to 1 contrast ratio for CRT.)

Here's an analysis on the ExtremeTech site that has some relevant information:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1930453,00.asp

 

[mathesar]

I wish someone would do a more modern side by side comparison. I'd like to see newer models, such as the VX2025WM and the FPD2185, right next to a good CRT.

Mathesar, your comparison of CRT vs. 2001FPW is really outdated. If you, or anyone for that matter, could perform the same type of comparison with newer LCD monitors, it would be extremely helpful and appreciated.

Im not interested in any current LCDs but I'm sure someone out there has a good LCD & CRT to compare, its annoying when so many people claim how much better there LCD looks compared to a crappy shadow mask CRT, A newer LCD vs. properly working Trinitron CRT would be an ideal compare. But I honestly don't think it would be much different than my 2001FP vs. G520P, Even the 1000:1 2405FPW LCD loses a ton of black level details (known as black crush) as shown here. black level details alone keep me away from lcd technology.

 

[Snowdog]

Im not interested in any current LCDs but I'm sure someone out there has a good LCD & CRT to compare, its annoying when so many people claim how much better there LCD looks compared to a crappy shadow mask CRT, A newer LCD vs. properly working Trinitron CRT would be an ideal compare. But I honestly don't think it would be much different than my 2001FP vs. G520P, Even the 1000:1 2405FPW LCD loses a ton of black level details (known as black crush) as shown here. black level details alone keep me away from lcd technology.

Poor black is a fact. It has not changed in current panels. They only do two things to get higher contrast. More powerful backlights, which doesn't help black at all. You just get so blinded by the bright colors that grey looks black.

The really advanced panels have adaptive contrast, that basically turns down the backlight on dark scenes. Does help on dark scenes, but still not as good as decent CRT and it doesn't do anything if you have both bright and dark on screen.

Personally I want OLED, which should have pefect black and viewing angles.

 

[Tanquen]

how is a LCD refresh rate outstanding? as far as i know all LCDs are at 60hz, while CRTs can go anywhere from 60-120hz typically..

It’s because the 60Hz is for the sync rate of the displays scaler or driver chipset. The LCD screen looks so solid because even if the screen image is static with no crystals moving it’s the backlight that you are seeing for the “refresh rate” not some electron beam going back and forth relighting each phosphor one at a time but the whole screen is relit at once at the speed or frequency of the backlight pulse. CRTs can run easily at most any resolution, have good blacks and don’t have ghosting or color shift from slow moving crystals and have better color depth potential (that most don’t really need) but LCDs are smaller, take less power, have perfect screen geometry and have supper sharp text really helps me with the old eye strain.

 

[Tanquen]

You just get so blinded by the bright colors that grey looks black.

That is what CRT’s do. They are just better at it. If you turn off a CRT or put up an all black image, many of them have a grey green look to them. It’s when you have an image with “contrast” on the screen that blacks look really back. I think LCDs have a harder time because of the backlight bleeding through the closed crystals where the CRTs phosphors are just not lit at all when something is flat black and the CRT is better at subtle shades of black as well.

 

[tys90]

CRTs do a lot better than LCDs in a lot of areas, but for some reason I just can't stand using a CRT anymore. I competitively play CS 1.6 (aka for money) and almost always play on a LCD (minus LANs /w CRT monitors). CRTs give me headaches really fast, but I think that's because I've become used to a LCD. LCDs used to bother me at first too. Black levels aren't as good, response times are a bit slower (I have a hard time noticing on my monitor), but they are much more comfortable for me to use, for whatever reason it may be. Personally, I would say try out both before making a decision, everyone has different preferences. Some of the disadvantages of either type of monitor bother certain people more than other people.

 

[Octave]

CRTs do a lot better than LCD in a lot of areas, but for some reason I just can't stand using a CRT anymore. I competitively play CS 1.6 (aka for money) and almost always play on a LCD (minus LANs /w CRT monitors). CRTs give me headaches really fast, but I think that's because I've become used to an LCD. LCDs used to bother me at first too. Black levels aren't as good, response times are a bit slower (I have a hard time noticing on my monitor), but they are much more comfortable for me to use, for whatever reason it may be. Personally, I would say try out both before making a decision, everyone has different preferences. Some of the disadvantages of either type of monitor bother certain people more than other people.

I think i was an early bird switching to LCD goodness because of much the same reasons. I tried CRTs of all different sizes and qualities, but they always hurt my eyes no matter how i tweaked them....and yes i even tried high end 21" and bigger (i think my friends was a 25in or something NEC...actually he had two...one NEC and one mitsubishi or something). Either way, they were like 600 a pop, and i still had horrible headaches/eye strain. My first LCD was the 1800FP from dell...ya it sucks ass compared to now a days standards, but it was awesome at the time. Mostly because i could stare at the thing all day and i wouldnt have to keep popping advil every 4 hrs. If you can stand CRTs, they're better but i cant handle them.

 

[SH1]

That is what CRT’s do. They are just better at it. If you turn off a CRT or put up an all black image, many of them have a grey green look to them. It’s when you have an image with “contrast” on the screen that blacks look really back. I think LCDs have a harder time because of the backlight bleeding through the closed crystals where the CRTs phosphors are just not lit at all when something is flat black and the CRT is better at subtle shades of black as well.

Yeah, it's especially apparent when off that my Trinitrons have a grey-green color when reflecting external light anyway. Ideally, one keeps the ambient light controlled and any light source should be placed behind the CRT to get the best results...

(This is also important with those new LCDs with the shiny coatings...)

 

[Snowdog]

That is what CRT’s do. They are just better at it. If you turn off a CRT or put up an all black image, many of them have a grey green look to them. It’s when you have an image with “contrast” on the screen that blacks look really back. I think LCDs have a harder time because of the backlight bleeding through the closed crystals where the CRTs phosphors are just not lit at all when something is flat black and the CRT is better at subtle shades of black as well.

Not really. You are now talking about reflected light off the CRT. Unless it is a black hole it will reflect some light. Use the CRT in the dark is it still grey-green when off? The difference is in the blacks is not that CRT is better at masking. CRTs top out at 100nits brightness. LCD's 500nits. Which one is trying to blind you so you think grey is black?

Your second part is correct and is the problem. Light always leaks through the LCD even when displaying black. A good CRT will essentially emit almost zero light when displaying black.

 

[Octave]

One thing also to note...if your paying the power bill....buy an LCD. A big expensive LCD will cost less in the long run than a big CRT thats cheaper from the start (doing a cost benefit analysis, replacing all the 19-21in CRTs in some university computer labs with equivalent 19-20in dell LCDs more than pays for itself in power savings within 2 years)

 

[mathesar]

One thing also to note...if your paying the power bill....buy an LCD. A big expensive LCD will cost less in the long run than a big CRT thats cheaper from the start (doing a cost benefit analysis, replacing all the 19-21in CRTs in some university computer labs with equivalent 19-20in dell LCDs more than pays for itself in power savings within 2 years)

When you're talking large quanities perhaps but for the average home user with 1 or 2 monitors the cost benefit is hardly worth mentioning, also image quality & performance is my priority (and im sure many others) so its worth paying the extra few bucks to power it.

 

[trek554]

One thing also to note...if your paying the power bill....buy an LCD. A big expensive LCD will cost less in the long run than a big CRT thats cheaper from the start (doing a cost benefit analysis, replacing all the 19-21in CRTs in some university computer labs with equivalent 19-20in dell LCDs more than pays for itself in power savings within 2 years)

let me know how much you actually save by cutting back 40-60watts on electricity.

 

[Snowdog]

One thing also to note...if your paying the power bill....buy an LCD. A big expensive LCD will cost less in the long run than a big CRT thats cheaper from the start (doing a cost benefit analysis, replacing all the 19-21in CRTs in some university computer labs with equivalent 19-20in dell LCDs more than pays for itself in power savings within 2 years)

1: I am not running a computer lab.
2: Power is included in my rent.
3: I tend to use my CRT in dim conditions and even the dark. When I tried LCD it killed my eyes as it was too bright and looks like crap in low light. The answer I got was add more bright lighting. Adding 200W of lighting will make CRT a winner in the energy sweepstake. So power equation is moot to me.

I like the packaging of LCDs, I like that you don't have to adjust the geometry, but actual image quality I vastly prefer a good CRT.

After trying a Dell 2405, Dell 2007FP and giving up on both as main displays I got a refurb 21" trinitron that I am happy with. I just ordered a Dell 1707 to serve as a small/cheap/light secondary window. That is all I feel LCD is adequate for right now. I hope OLED gets on the market soon. Because that should fix at least some of LCDs foilbles (black levels, backlight leak, viewing angles).

 

[Octave]

2: Power is included in my rent.

Me too!...heh...i definatly use more than my fair share....muuhahahaha.
/me looks around at piles of electronics sucking juice and the fact that both A/C units have been at full blast since it became 75 degrees outside.

let me know how much you actually save by cutting back 40-60watts on electricity.

This is different data than we were working with as we were using dell products...replacing old dell 19in CRTs (more like 160W and heavy as a fricken cinderblock) with 17 and 19in LCDs so our numbers were a little more exagerated. But when you look at this data courtisy of viewsonic
http://www.viewsonic.com/monitoruniversity/lcd.htm
and take the 21in crt and the 19in LCD, theres a cost savings of 91.03 per unit in 4 years. Or in our situation it was more like the 21in CRT here and the 17in LCD difference using 160W typical for our old CRTs (52.25 per year, 209.00 in 4 yrs) we would get a savings of 163.28 for the 17in and 150.20 for the 19in in four years, not to mention add in the fact that we were getting them for around 120 a piece and multiplying that by like 500. Once you add in temperture control for those rooms (god knows crts give off heat) your looking at even more savings...that is unless you live in alaska or something and heat your place with it. You can see that they just about pay for themselves.
Description 17" CRT 17" LCD 19" CRT 19" LCD 21" CRT
Power Consumption (Watts) 70W 35W 100W 45W 115W
Energy Cost (kw/hr) $0.157 $0.157 $0.157 $0.157 $0.157
Hours/Day 8 8 8 8 8
Days/Week 5 5 5 5 5
Annual Energy Cost (per unit) $22.80 $11.43 $32.66 $14.70 $37.46
Years of Operation 4 4 4 4 4
TOTAL Energy Cost (per unit) $91.20 $45.72 $130.64 $58.80 $149.83

Enough info for you trek554 or would you like a full 30 page report PDF'd, signed, and verified on your desk at the end of the week?
Just something to think about when making your purchases. (no i dont care which monitor you use, LCD or CRT, i just use LCDs cause i dont get headaches that way.

EDIT: now that i look at it, i think their estimate for energy cost (kw/hr) is a little high, i think the national average is around $0.101, but whatever...you get the point. Not to mention energy costs keep going up. Whatever, take it how you will, i dont care.

 

[trek554]

This is different data than we were working with as we were using dell products...replacing old dell 19in CRTs (more like 160W and heavy as a fricken cinderblock) with 17 and 19in LCDs so our numbers were a little more exagerated. But when you look at this data courtisy of viewsonic
http://www.viewsonic.com/monitoruniversity/lcd.htm
and take the 21in crt and the 19in LCD, theres a cost savings of 91.03 per unit in 4 years. Or in our situation it was more like the 21in CRT here and the 17in LCD difference using 160W typical for our old CRTs (52.25 per year, 209.00 in 4 yrs) we would get a savings of 163.28 for the 17in and 150.20 for the 19in in four years, not to mention add in the fact that we were getting them for around 120 a piece and multiplying that by like 500. Once you add in temperture control for those rooms (god knows crts give off heat) your looking at even more savings...that is unless you live in alaska or something and heat your place with it. You can see that they just about pay for themselves.

Enough info for you trek554 or would you like a full 30 page report PDF'd, signed, and verified on your desk at the end of the week?
Just something to think about when making your purchases. (no i dont care which monitor you use, LCD or CRT, i just use LCDs cause i dont get headaches that way.

EDIT: now that i look at it, i think their estimate for energy cost (kw/hr) is a little high, i think the national average is around $0.101, but whatever...you get the point. Not to mention energy costs keep going up. Whatever, take it how you will, i dont care.

i understand what you are saying and yes your estimate is too high. for a person that is happy with a crt that is still no reason to switch. just like it wouldnt make sense to buy a Civic to save gas if you actually really enjoy the benefits of using a full size truck.

 

[Octave]

i understand what you are saying and yes your estimate is too high. for a person that is happy with a crt that is still no reason to switch. just like it wouldnt make sense to buy a Civic to save gas if you actually really enjoy the benefits of using a full size truck.

note: its not MY estimate, its viewsonic's estimate. I cant find our cost benefit study we did...its around here somewhere...heh.
But as for switching, if you read the last part of my post, you'd realize i dont care what you use...i use what i use for the benefits i see...if those arent benefits enough to you then obviously your not going to switch, and theres no monitor police telling you to. But as a personal vendetta not to pay anymore to the power company than i have to when i get a diff place next month, anything that sucks uber power that can be replaced with a similar / cost efficient system, is gonna be sold and or traded away. I guess energy conservation (in terms of dollars out of my pocket) is built into me having a father in the electric utility buisness.

 

[trek554]

note: its not MY estimate, its viewsonic's estimate. I cant find our cost benefit study we did...its around here somewhere...heh.
But as for switching, if you read the last part of my post, you'd realize i dont care what you use...i use what i use for the benefits i see...if those arent benefits enough to you then obviously your not going to switch, and theres no monitor police telling you to. But as a personal vendetta not to pay anymore to the power company than i have to when i get a diff place next month, anything that sucks uber power that can be replaced with a similar / cost efficient system, is gonna be sold and or traded away. I guess energy conservation (in terms of dollars out of my pocket) is built into me having a father in the electric utility buisness.

a said "a person" and i meant that generally. i am looking for a widescreen monitor so my only real option is an lcd. there are many different ways to conserve energy but giving up a monitor you enjoy to save a few cents a week is probably not an option for a crt owner.

 

[Octave]

a said "a person" and i meant that generally. i am looking for a widescreen monitor so my only real option is an lcd. there are many different ways to conserve energy but giving up a monitor you enjoy to save a few cents a week is probably not an option for a crt owner.

eek, widescreen crt's are hard to come by....do they even exist with high enough resolutions? I mean a friend of mine has a 30in widescreen crt tv.....but obviously no one would want to use that for a computer monitor more than 15min a day.

 

[trek554]

eek, widescreen crt's are hard to come by....do they even exist with high enough resolutions? I mean a friend of mine has a 30in widescreen crt tv.....but obviously no one would want to use that for a computer monitor more than 15min a day.

theres really only one widescreen crt computer monitor and theres a huge thread about it on here http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=952788. they havent been made in years. i will probably end up with a dell 2007wfp.

 

[Octave]

theres really only one widescreen crt computer monitor and theres a huge thread about it on here http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=952788. they havent been made in years. i will probably end up with a dell 2007wfp.

170w aint bad for such a huge crt, thats for sure. Have fun with your 2007wfp, i like my 2005fpw, its a nice monitor (although i wish i had the 30in apple cinema display....but then again so does just about everyone)

 

[Tanquen]

Not really. You are now talking about reflected light off the CRT. Unless it is a black hole it will reflect some light. Use the CRT in the dark is it still grey-green when off? The difference is in the blacks is not that CRT is better at masking. CRTs top out at 100nits brightness. LCD's 500nits. Which one is trying to blind you so you think grey is black?

Sorry, I can’t disagree more. The CRT is blinding you into think that the screen is blacker than it really is (just to a lesser degree) when there is something bright (or with contrast) on the screen. It can’t be blacker than it is. Are you trying to say that the phosphors that are skipped when the CRT is on are blacker then when the CRT is off and none of the phosphors are lit? Are the dark areas of the screen magical black holes that reflect no light? If you are in a room with no light and the CRT is off then yes it has perfect blacks, so what. Even with no other light in a perfectly dark room once the CRT is on there is ambient light. It won’t be as bad as when the sun hits the screen but it there. So…

 

[Snowdog]

Sorry, I can’t disagree more. The CRT is blinding you into think that the screen is blacker than it really is (just to a lesser degree) when there is something bright (or with contrast) on the screen. It can’t be blacker than it is. Are you trying to say that the phosphors that are skipped when the CRT is on are blacker then when the CRT is off and none of the phosphors are lit? Are the dark areas of the screen magical black holes that reflect no light? If you are in a room with no light and the CRT is off then yes it has perfect blacks, so what. Even with no other light in a perfectly dark room once the CRT is on there is ambient light. It won’t be as bad as when the sun hits the screen but it there. So…

You initially said the CRT was just better at the contrast effect. This is not the case. Certainly there is some contrast effect happening, but the CRT has so much better native blacks because it EMITS almost zero light on black. There is a fundamental difference bettween one technology that has poor blacks because it actively emits a fair bit of light from "black" and one that emits almost none.

I watch video on my monitors and with the CRT black is black, the black bars are black in daytime or at night watching movies in the dark.

On an LCD in a well lit room with brightness on high, the black bars look black, but in most other situations they are revealed as grey. Especially watching video in the dark.

 

[Tanquen]

You initially said the CRT was just better at the contrast effect.

Sorry, never said just and I even talked about the LCD backlight bleeding issue.

This is not the case. Certainly there is some contrast effect happening, but the CRT has so much better native blacks because it EMITS almost zero light on black. There is a fundamental difference bettween one technology that has poor blacks because it actively emits a fair bit of light from "black" and one that emits almost none.

Yep, and the LCD is not as good at shades of black. The backlight bleeding don’t bother me as much as the odd colors that show up in a dark shadowy image. Lighter gray, lighter gray, lighter greenish/gray????

I watch video on my monitors and with the CRT black is black, the black bars are black in daytime or at night watching movies in the dark.

Then your settings are off. I have never had a CRT that was calibrated in the day not show a little grey when watching dark images at night. I have always had to adjust it if the set had an open profile configure one for day and one for night.You can set it low enough that it will look back in the day or night but you’ll be losing some detail during the day.

On an LCD in a well lit room with brightness on high, the black bars look black, but in most other situations they are revealed as grey. Especially watching video in the dark.

Agreed but for me I’d say only when watching in the dark. It varies from display to display.

 

[locutus24]

Ok, so sounds like since LCDs are owning with their great colors CRT lovers fall back on that they have solid "black" (hmm). To buy an LCD where i can see more colors better or a CRT where i can see no colour better i dont know seems hard to choose.\
Edit: I really love the glare of a crt when a light is placed behind me or anywhere in front of CRT, mm.. pure eye candy there
Second Edit: (Wikipedia w00t) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube now my point is towards the bottom of that page "Health danger" the tube could implode holy crap. Now going to place my 15" CRT in a solid concrete encasing just in case
Further Research leads to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_light-emitting_diode Sounds like CRT is definetly doomed This technology would offer the true black that CRTs are notorious for, just have to wait a few years it looks like

 

[SH1]

Ok, so sounds like since LCDs are owning with their great colors CRT lovers fall back on that they have solid "black" (hmm). To buy an LCD where i can see more colors better or a CRT where i can see no colour better i dont know seems hard to choose.\
Edit: I really love the glare of a crt when a light is placed behind me or anywhere in front of CRT, mm.. pure eye candy there
Second Edit: (Wikipedia w00t) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube now my point is towards the bottom of that page "Health danger" the tube could implode holy crap. Now going to place my 15" CRT in a solid concrete encasing just in case
Further Research leads to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_light-emitting_diode Sounds like CRT is definetly doomed This technology would offer the true black that CRTs are notorious for, just have to wait a few years it looks like

Huh? LCDs certainly do not "own" color. Don't kid yourself; image quality has taken a back seat to weight, form factor, and profit margins, these last few years. The best CRT's "own" overall image quality and can't even be bought new anymore. To many of us who prize performance above how delightfully slim a monitor looks -- this sucks.

Hopefully SED or OLED will indeed finally appear as a worthy successor to CRT. (And for large screens in the here and now , LCOS sets are worth checking out...)

 

[Snowdog]

LCOS is tough to beat. I was checking a ton of Big screens and a Sony SXRD stood above the rest. No SDE, No rainbows. It would be my benchmark for a big screen if I could spare the space/cash.

 

[TheCommander]

Ok, so sounds like since LCDs are owning with their great colors CRT lovers fall back on that they have solid "black" (hmm). To buy an LCD where i can see more colors better or a CRT where i can see no colour better i dont know seems hard to choose.\
Edit: I really love the glare of a crt when a light is placed behind me or anywhere in front of CRT, mm.. pure eye candy there
Second Edit: (Wikipedia w00t) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube now my point is towards the bottom of that page "Health danger" the tube could implode holy crap. Now going to place my 15" CRT in a solid concrete encasing just in case
Further Research leads to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_light-emitting_diode Sounds like CRT is definetly doomed This technology would offer the true black that CRTs are notorious for, just have to wait a few years it looks like

Image quality is better on CRTs. As for the argument about having a better "black," that is important to some people.
Anyway, CRTs and LCDs both have their pros and cons. CRTs may be doomed in the future but so are LCDs. There will be better technologies in the future.

 

[firebyyrd]

my CRT is too dark -_-

 

[firebyyrd]

CRTs implode??

 

[GreenMonkey]

LCDs having better "colors" and how the image "pops" and all this subjective stuff...here's an analogy.

It's like cranking up the bass on a radio. It drowns out the midrange & treble. Sure you *think* it sounds better with the extra bass, but in reality you're getting a distorted version of the music.

People at work always turn the Xtra bass on the radio. To me it sounds awful and drowns out the other parts of the music. But subjectively they hear it and says "now that sounds better". Same thing applies in the CRT vs LCD situation.


I think CRT fans prefer an accurate image over a "better" image.

LCDs may be bright and colorful, but they aren't accurate. Black levels are horrid and LCDs are highly subject to black crush. Colors aren't as accurate as a CRT. LCDs win at a subjective glance cause they look brighter or the visible Screen Door Effect makes 'em seem "sharper". This may lead to the conclusion that they have a better picture, but it's just like the Xtra bass situation - maybe you think it sounds better, but it's not an accurate reproduction.

And that's not even getting into things like ghosting and scaling non-native resolutions.

 

[locutus24]

Just wondering one thing, (really want to use Capslock on this) Why is black so important?
Edit: I threw up a blank black screen on my lcd and crt side by side, crt was sharper with black where as LCD was somewhat softer.

 

[brumwald]

During games and movies good blacks makes a difference. And of course image editing and so on.


TFT monitors could be quite good on blacks if they would have adopted the LED technology..
What about all those rumours about 24" LED screens that would cost lower than an ordinary TFT to produce?
I was fooled by that and I had plans on getting one late 2005. But when the time had come and you talked about LED noone knew what you were talking about and no product was available.

And until today there really is what, 1 LED monitor available? And thats a 19" with 1280x1024 (although the colors on that thing are supposed to be quite exceptional), not to mention that it costs like eight 24" displays or something. Oh and there are a few laptop displays, but they don't count.

Also I think SED is overhyped. It will be as good as an CRT (with a fixed resolution), the refresh-rate will be better but thats about it? (performance-wise) Is there anything that indicates that SED will be any better than CRT? One guys statement of seeing one in action? To me it sounds like LED TFT holds better promise.

As for todays TFTs vs CRT I'd really like TFTs to be better. I've had 1600x1200 capable CRTs for 7 years and really feel like an upgrade. But I feel I'm out of options. 24" TFTs has to much problems to be worth their money and I'm not that keen on buying an old used CRT (they do age and I want to get a monitor that lasts long) and there are barely no new CRTs at all and since I already have one 20" and one 22" CRT they won't offer much I don't already have.

One of my biggest complains about CRTs are that they tend to get out of focus when they age and thats just a shame. For that reason alone I was very eager to get a TFT which as far as I know are supposed to live longer and even after that you can replace the backlight and start all over. Although I've recently read that color quality degrades over time on TFTs..
The more I read about monitors the more I come to the conclusion. Both CRTs and TFTs suck...
But CRTs do have a lot less problems so I guess that the CRT wins in my book. Unfortunately I will move to my own place soon and that will probably force me to replacing my two CRTs with one TFT
Add to that that I don't have much of a budget to spend on my a TFT...

Another thing that really scared me was this article:
LCDs with persistent images
http://www.behardware.com/articles/615-1/lcds-with-persistent-images.html
As if there wasn't enough to blame overdrive for...

Thought that was a problem of the past (and plasmas)...

 

[Snowdog]

I tend to agree with Greenmonkey: The attitude is Brighter is better and SDE does give an even sharper look. Though a more continuous image like CRT is desirable and brightness of LCDs is harder on my eyes.

Locutus: Black is important for this reason:
http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1029736133&postcount=19

Brumwald: you views echo my own. I didn't even consider LCD for years because they were mostly 1280x1024, and I had been using 1600x1200 for those years. When my last CRT was starting to die, I thought hey, 24" LCD no more focus issues ever, they now are faster have 178 degree viewing angles. Was I in for a letdown. Heavy SDE effect and excess brightness (to mask poor blacks) killed my eyes. Viewing angles were so bad that the sides of the screen were washing out, so much for 178 degrees. Input lags etc. I tried one more before giving up and getting a Refurb. I learned a lot in the process.

SED: It doesn't need to be better than CRT. It will be CRT with no focus/geometry issues ever. That is plenty good for me. Only downside compared to normal CRT will be single resolution. SED I think may never make it to computer monitors, OLED will give a lot of the same benefits and be MUCH cheaper.

LED-LCD: Note that you dont' get the good black unless they do the grid array of LEDs and individually control them behind the LCD(I think someone patented this). I dont think NEC currently does this. NEC is using LED primarily to increase color gamut. LED still won't fix viewing angles in either case.

 

[kleox64]

OLED will make it in the small/medium display market however it suffers in response time which IMO will rival LCD but not CRT, SED will eventually appear in computer monitors. The only issue with SED is the fixed resolution which is fine.

 

[Scyles]

Thank you Brumwald, I feel about the same. I'm using a 19" Samsung 997DF CRT right now. It sucks, to put it lightly. The geometry is poor, there is some bad banding on any resolution other than 1600x1200, and the is an internal glare from the curved screen reflecting light to the flat glass panel in front of it.

The colors, and especially the blacks, are quite good, however. I bought a Samsung 913b (TN panel), and the display quality was horrendous. The colors were very inaccurate, the blacks were grey, the detail in dark areas of games was lost completely, the brightness was excessive and the backlight bleed was awful.

Now I am going to try one more time with either a Gateway FPD2185, Viewsonic VX2025WM, or the new Viewsonic 22" panel that is coming out, as long as its not a TN. These screens are much better than TN's. I can put up with 8-bit color. I can't tell that much of a difference between CRT and 8-bit panels. The blacks, however, are still my biggest concern. I know they will still be bad, and I'm willing to compromise some, but what I've seen, from even quality displays, is discouraging.

I do feel I'm forced to go to LCD. I would buy an FW900 and be happy, but that's a 4 year old monitor at the least and there's no telling how long its going to last. In addition, I bought a nice desk with a glass top...

 

[TheCommander]

Thank you Brumwald, I feel about the same. I'm using a 19" Samsung 997DF CRT right now. It sucks, to put it lightly. The geometry is poor, there is some bad banding on any resolution other than 1600x1200, and the is an internal glare from the curved screen reflecting light to the flat glass panel in front of it.

The colors, and especially the blacks, are quite good, however. I bought a Samsung 913b (TN panel), and the display quality was horrendous. The colors were very inaccurate, the blacks were grey, the detail in dark areas of games was lost completely, the brightness was excessive and the backlight bleed was awful.

Now I am going to try one more time with either a Gateway FPD2185, Viewsonic VX2025WM, or the new Viewsonic 22" panel that is coming out, as long as its not a TN. These screens are much better than TN's. I can put up with 8-bit color. I can't tell that much of a difference between CRT and 8-bit panels. The blacks, however, are still my biggest concern. I know they will still be bad, and I'm willing to compromise some, but what I've seen, from even quality displays, is discouraging.

I do feel I'm forced to go to LCD. I would buy an FW900 and be happy, but that's a 4 year old monitor at the least and there's no telling how long its going to last. In addition, I bought a nice desk with a glass top...

My friend had a 997DF and it was alright. It has a shadow mask tube though so that's why maybe it didn't look too great.

 

[SH1]

If a 21 inch Trinitron monitor is enough, AccurateIT still has some "New - Overstock" GDM class monitors left. (Though not for long I imagine, as the ones they had listed as "New" and presumably non-overstock are now apparently gone.)

So I guess the NEC is just using the LEDs as a normal backlight with all of them on, all of the time? That's a shame. I had hoped otherwise...