CRT vs. LCD

D

DeutscheDemRepublik

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
70
I use my PC and a CRT 21'' only for gaming. I use a resolution of 1600x1200, and a gfx card ATi 4870x2. I am wondering if I should some day move to using a LCD display instead, but I don't know what are the benefits of a LCD over a CRT.
I want to see if I could achieve higher resolutions with my gfx card, maybe more eye candy.
On the other hand, if there are not any real benefits, I might just continue using my CRT until it dies.

So far I have just read that LCDs have input lag whereas CRTs don't.Maybe the CRTs are just better, lol :eek:
 
LCD Pros
Sharper
Brighter
Small profile
Light

LCD Cons
Input Lag
Low refresh rate

CRT Pros
No Input Lag
High refresh rate

CRT Cons
Huge profile
Heavy
Not as bright as LCD
Not as sharp as LCD
 
CRT >>> LCD in response time, color reproduction, black levels, viewing angle, even brightness, no backlight bleeding, even picture, don't have native resolution like LCDs, don't require scaling, etc. Pretty much every area aside from pure sharpness.

LCDs are no match except that LCDs are lightweight, bigger, thinner, and just cheaper and more prevalent.
 
Many interesting points but let us not forget that LCDs can be bigger....:)

I believe this thread already sums up most of the points mentioned on this forum. If you use the search, you will find 1000s of other threads asking CRT vs. LCD. Go look, go play and find something you like I'd say. Your probably not going to come to a conclusion by surfing forums IMHO.
 
I too have kept my 22" NEC CRT as my primary gaming display. It is superior in many ways to any LCD out now (for my particular gaming needs.)
However, to be fair, I also have an LCD at home and at work I use two LCDs side by side. Since users have already listed the CRT benefits (and there are many,) the LCDs have it over the CRT in these ways:

Sharper, easier to read text. Some LCDs are a little better than others in this matter, but end of the day, LCDs have the most readable text.
No geometry issues. My CRT picture geometry is close to perfect, but it is very slightly bowed on the right edge. Once in great while I'll notice it and be annoyed.
My LCDs pivot. That is awesome, because I can read web pages, newspaper articles, comics lengthwise.
Much lighter, bigger displays and take up less desktop real estate.
DVI/HDMI inputs. PS3 on your CRT? Not without an intervening gadget or in low res.
Widescreen resolutions upto 2560x1600. My CRT does high resolutions, but past 1600x1200 flicker is a problem.

As always, there is no single answer. Look at your individual needs and decide what works best for you.
 
I use primarily CRTs because I can't stand looking at LCDs for extended periods of time (dry eyes, headache, trouble focusing). Some people are more sensitive to the backlight flicker and polarized light of LCDs than others. Non-native resolution on an LCD has about the same effect on me as 60 Hz refresh on a newer CRT; after a few minutes I have to look away or start feeling sick.

CRTs are big, bulky and use more power than LCDs, yet on the other hand they have perfect blacks, near-perfect colours, 180 degrees viewing angle (side to side), and the mild blurring induced by the imaging stage makes for smoother, more pleasant to read text (a kind of AA).

Personally I'm waiting for OLED displays to appear later this year :)
 
I'm assuming you are talking about image quality benefits, and not things like weight, since that is fairly obvious and also something that may not matter to you at all.

So the biggest area that an LCD shines in is image geometry. It is always perfect. There are basically two sub categories to that:

1) Shape of the image. There is no need to adjust settings like size, keystone, bowing and so on on an LCD. The image is always full sized, and it is always square. There is no geometric distortion of any kind, at all, ever. It doesn't fall out of calibration, or have trouble with the shape.

2) Accuracy and focus of the pixels. Again and LCD is perfect. Each pixel is in the right spot, there is no bleed in to adjacent pixels, they don't have shape problems or anything like that. This means the image is clear, crisp, in focus always, and is so over the whole display. You don't get areas that go fuzzy and such.

That is by far the area the LCD shines in the most. It is perfect, or at least as perfect as manufacturing can make it, and CRTs are lousy. It is just inherent to how they work. Also means that it is true of even cheap LCDs. A $200 LCD has great image geometry just like a pricey one. As a corollary, even if you buy a top of the line graphics CRT, and spend lots of time calibrating it, its' still not perfect, though it can be much better than a cheap one.

Another area LCDs are superior in is brightness. CRTs don't do bright very well. When you turn up the brightness past a point, it starts to get a lot of image bleed going on and wash out. For pro CRTs, often 90 nits is as bright as you want to go. This often necessitates keeping your room quite dark. No problem for LCDs, in fact they often can't even get that dark. Most LCDs can produce plenty of light so you can set the room lights as you like them, and then set your LCD to match.

After that, image stability would be the next biggest one. While LCDs do function on a refresh cycle for updating their image, the display itself doesn't refresh. It is a steady image. There's no flicker. This means you don't have to worry about refresh rate being too low and straining the eyes, or beat patterns/interference with lights/EMF.


Those would be the top three things that an LCD is unquestionably better than a CRT at. They are also things that basically every LCD is better than every CRT at since they are just inherent parts of the technology. So you can be coming from an extremely high end CRT to a rather low end LCD, and that's all still true.

One other area that LCDs can be better than CRTs in is color gamut. This isn't universally true, nor does everyone want it, but CRTs have a very limited gamut. With the exception of multi-thousand dollar pro displays, sRGB is as good as it gets (and some cheap ones fell short of that). LCDs with wider gamuts (more displayable colours) are not hard to find. This isn't univerals, there are plenty of sRGB LCDs, but there are farm more wide gamut ones, and you don't have to spend $4000 to get one (as you did with a CRT).
 
CCFL backlights most LCDs use do flicker and can cause eye strain. The frequency differs between CCFLs, so some may be nearly impossible to look at for someone who is sensitive to it. Interference with fluorescent lighting can thus also occur.

Most LCDs use TN panels which are 6-bit colour and thus can only display a fraction of the 16+ million colours any CRT can display. Interpolation is used to make it appear to be 8-bit, which again leads to increased flickering and can in less than excellent implementations lead to colour shift, bleeding and eye strain.

There is a reason why people get told all the time to only pick an LCD after seeing it for themselves.
 
The major benefits of CRT(most other areas LCD ahead, especially Geometry):

Superior Response time. (Not so bad these days if you aren't too sensitive)
Superior input lag. (Not an issue for most non serious gamers)
Multi-Native-Resolution. (Big difference between native non native on LCD, CRT everything is native)

The critical ones for me:

Superior Black level. (You won't be happy watching movies in the dark on LCD)
Superior Viewing angles. ( Only the NEC 2490 has made me happy)

With my NEC I am finally content to kick my CRT to the curb, but I am hoping OLED will be ready in 2012 when my warranty is over and my backlight will likely be fading. I dream of pure luscious blacks. OLED is the essentially the best of both worlds but likely will face burn in issues that keep it out of monitors for years to come. :(
 
Overall, for raw PQ performance, I think LCDs were almost wholly unworthy of being CRT's successor. I can't really imagine that anyone planned to take away black level performance and dynamic range that folks took for granted for decades. Happened due to the larger market forces I guess...

Oh well, at least LCDs have gotten better, and I do appreciate the perfect geometry and especially that they can be much bigger...
 
LCD was born to make companies a lot of money (they're lighter & a lot cheaper to make vs CRT) Unfortunately for consumers they're just not as good as a properly working CRT.

But at this point in the game we don't really have a choice but to buy LCD.

IMO the only real advantage LCD has is much larger screen size if you wanted.

Personally i'm hanging on to my CRT until something worthy comes along.
 
mathesar said:
Unfortunately for consumers they're just not as good as a properly working CRT.
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree with you. The majority of people using computers probably don't even notice or care about the difference between CRT and LCD technology. When consumers and businesses are looking to purchase a monitor they want something with a small footprint and a light weight, most aren't going to check black levels or input lag when deciding to purchase them.
 
Elledan said:
CCFL backlights most LCDs use do flicker and can cause eye strain. The frequency differs between CCFLs, so some may be nearly impossible to look at for someone who is sensitive to it. Interference with fluorescent lighting can thus also occur..
Click to expand...

Only if your LCD is bad and/or broken. While it is technically true that power is pulsed in the ballast, they use electronic ballasts with a very high frequency, in the 20-30kHz range (occasionally higher). This is done primarily for efficiency reasons but also means that you can't see the flicker. That is waaaaaay outside of the limits of human visual perception.

So while a problem can occur and cause visible flicker, in a properly designed and functioning, there won't be any.

Flicker in florescent lights was really only a problem back when magnetic ballasts were common. They don't increase the frequency through the roof like electronic ballasts do, so flicker could be visible. They hummed for the same reason.

However now electronic ballasts have taken over because they are so much more efficient (they also usually last longer) so it isn't a problem. They only flicker when there's a problem, like the ballast is damaged, or the tube is going out and so on.
 
For general use, LCDs are excellent due to their larger size and screen space (assuming widescreen), and also have a brightness and clarity that CRTs just can't match. When it comes to gaming, their image quality and size really help the details pop out in games that would get muddied up with a smaller CRT. Refresh rates are also a non-issue. I used to get eye strain after extended CRT use, but with my LCD that problem is gone as there is no discernible flickering for me. The smaller form factor and lower power consumption are nice, but not essential.

That said, colours on cheaper models are less accurate and banding may be slightly more noticeable in certain situations. Some models of LCD screens have backlight bleeding and they have universally poor black levels, meaning that while they can look great showing bright scenes or pictures with lots of contrast, they won't look so hot in darker situations, even muddy at times. Viewing angles can be poor and colours will change somewhat depending on both horizontal and vertical position. You also have to deal with defects such as dead pixels, although in most cases they are not a problem and barely even noticeable; this makes warranty quite important if you're sensitive to such a thing (some manufacturers offer a zero-tolerance policy on their higher-end displays). Response rates with LCDs in my opinion should not be an issue these days with any TN panel, and "ghosting" is not nearly as pronounced as some would have you think; I even enjoy the subtle effect in some cases, almost like a mild motion blur in fast games, though I am sure this is particular to my own model and some cheaper LCDs suffer for it.

All in all, I would say that the upgrade may surprise you. Widescreen is a huge boon for both entertainment and work, because you can fit more on screen at once (I recommend 16:9, but 16:10 is still more common). I think, going from 1600x1200 to a 1080p resolution or similar will be more drastic a jump than you expect, especially if you use a 22-inch or 24-inch display with a high pixel density. Your HD4870 X2 is being wasted on 1600x1200, to be honest, and can easily push higher resolutions with almost no performance impact. I thought that I would need a better video card going from a 1280x960 monitor to 1680x1050, and was very much mistaken as games perform nearly identically for me, except for Crysis, which gives my 8800 GT a bit of trouble (though in general the card has held up exceptionally well, considering it's essentially three years old).
 
Sycraft said:
Only if your LCD is bad and/or broken. While it is technically true that power is pulsed in the ballast, they use electronic ballasts with a very high frequency, in the 20-30kHz range (occasionally higher).
Click to expand...
No, that's wrong. LCDs flicker in the 0.1-1kHz range (but almost always between 170 and 300 Hz).
 
Snowdog said:
I dream of pure luscious blacks. OLED is the essentially the best of both worlds but likely will face burn in issues that keep it out of monitors for years to come. :(
Click to expand...
Actually, OLED is immune to burn-in. As there is no phosphor layer being nuked by electronics, or crystals being twisted, there are no elements which can get 'stuck' in some undesired state. Each (sub) pixel is just like a small LED, and thus it's either on, off, or broken ;)

mathesar said:
LCD was born to make companies a lot of money (they're lighter & a lot cheaper to make vs CRT)
Click to expand...

You're right on the first count, companies switched to LCD production because the profit margin on LCDs was (and still kind of is) obscene compared to the margin on CRTs. CRTs are however much cheaper to produce than LCDs. LCDs have an ungodly number of layers which all have to put produced and assembled perfectly, or stuff breaks. CRTs consist basically out of the 'tube' (the part which produces the image) and one or more PCBs. Simple, effective and cheap.
 
Pick which ever one is more convenient for you. Do you need desk space or not?? Do you want larger screen or not?? Do you like to use less power or do you even care?? You won't notice much (if any) difference between the two IF you buy a good brand.
 
Elledan said:
Actually, OLED is immune to burn-in. As there is no phosphor layer being nuked by electronics, or crystals being twisted, there are no elements which can get 'stuck' in some undesired state. Each (sub) pixel is just like a small LED, and thus it's either on, off, or broken ;)
Click to expand...

You are confusing Silicon LEDs with Organic LEDs.

The major weakness of OLED is that they wear out quickly. The organic goop breaks down with usage. Used unevenly they will wear unevenly and create burn in.

Currently it is MUCH less durable than phosphor on CRTs or even plasma.

OLEDs are the least durable, most burn in prone technology that is in the market in it's current state.
 
Yeah, it can't be mentioned enough that most LCDs in the market, especially the ones that seem like a good price point are TN panels. These are 6-bit panels and they can ONLY DISPLAY 262,144 colors.

Yes that's right, slighly over 260 thousand versus 16,777,216 for 8-bit LCDs and even many more millions for CRTs. 6-bit panels use interpolation tricks to fake other colors but it can sometimes be quite obvious it's not cutting it.

As far as input lag, don't confuse that with response time. Some LCDs have virtually no input lag (LG 204WT) but still have 5 or 2ms response time. CRTs work at the speed of light so there is zero response time which is exponentially much faster but not neccesarily noticible to the human eye. I can see it though and it gives me headaches on certain LCDs.
 
Snowdog said:
You are confusing Silicon LEDs with Organic LEDs.

The major weakness of OLED is that they wear out quickly. The organic goop breaks down with usage. Used unevenly they will wear unevenly and create burn in.

Currently it is MUCH less durable than phosphor on CRTs or even plasma.

OLEDs are the least durable, most burn in prone technology that is in the market in it's current state.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLED
The biggest technical problem for OLEDs is the limited lifetime of the organic materials.[35] In particular, blue OLEDs historically have had a lifetime of around 14,000 hours (5 years at 8 hours a day) when used for flat-panel displays, which is lower than typical lifetime of LCD, LED or PDP technology—each currently rated for about 60,000 hours, depending on manufacturer and model. Toshiba and Panasonic have come up with a way to solve this problem with a new technology that can double the lifespan of OLED displays, pushing its expected life past that of LCD displays.[36] A metal membrane helps deliver light from polymers in the substrate throughout the glass surface more efficiently than current OLEDs. The result is the same picture quality with half the brightness and a doubling of the screen's expected life.[37]
Click to expand...

There's nothing on that page about burn-in. The description of the working of the technology reveals nothing which is even prone to burn-in. OLED suffers from 'fading', but that is an issue which is rapidly becoming irrelevant as listed above. At this point an LCDs backlight will fail before an OLED screen will start dying.
 
Spare-Flair said:
CRT >>> LCD in response time, color reproduction, black levels, viewing angle, even brightness, no backlight bleeding, even picture, don't have native resolution like LCDs, don't require scaling, etc. Pretty much every area aside from pure sharpness.

LCDs are no match except that LCDs are lightweight, bigger, thinner, and just cheaper and more prevalent.
Click to expand...

Some of what you said about the LCD vs. CRTs in simply no true anymore. First the real advantage for a CRT that you can buy now are:

* Superior Response time and less input lag
* Multi-Native-Resolution
* Superior contrast (black levels)

The fact is there is not a single high quality CRT made anymore. The only ones that can be bought now are low grade consumer monitors. Any good monitor that has been in regualr use would be at the end of its life cycle. So unless you have an old model setting in a sealed box, CRTs are out of the question for top end reproduction. This is way every design house I know use LCDs exclusively.

The fact is if you want the most accurate color, its going to be a high end LCD.

As for the other issues, if you go IPS, I think most of those issues have reached the point that very few users will notice. When I first looked at LCDs seriously back when the Dell 2001 FP was a big deal, the black levels and scaling were a joke. Now, with my PX2611 the scaling is very good, black levels and colors are excellent. A NEC 2490/2690 would be even better.

The only logically reason I can see for staying with a CRT is if you are CAL Main or a Pro gamer level player. The fact is if you have a fast LCD the input lag / response time is not enough (1 or 2 frames) that most players, even really good ones will not notice. I am willing to bet that 99/100 gamers holding on their CRTs because of this reason are deluding themselves.:D
 
Why not just use the CRT till it dies? Thats what I did with mine. When I bought my first lcd I also had to buy another desk because my crt had turned its once flat surface into a shallow "U" shape. I also have enjoyed the fact that re-arranging my monitors doesn't feel like doing an olympic deadlift, and I don't have to by a desk 10 feet deep.
 
Elledan said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLED
There's nothing on that page about burn-in. The description of the working of the technology reveals nothing which is even prone to burn-in. OLED suffers from 'fading', but that is an issue which is rapidly becoming irrelevant as listed above. At this point an LCDs backlight will fail before an OLED screen will start dying.
Click to expand...

:confused: You are unfortunately very mistaken.

I don't know what propaganda you are reading, but Fading is burn in.

The screen wears out faster than any technology on the market. Any emitter technology that wears out/fades will be susceptible to burn in. The faster it fades/wears, the more it will be susceptible to burn in.

Given it lasts only about 1/5 as long as current plasmas, it will likely burn in 5 times faster. It is simple physics. If it wears out with use, it will burn in.

CRT>Plasma >>>> OLED. By which I am indicating CRT is slightly better than plasma, both are MUCH better than OLED.

From the Sony OLED manual says it burns in. Note they don't talk about temporary image retention like Plasma can get. They are talking permanent burn in.
http://www.sonystyle.com/wcsstore/SonyStyleStorefrontAssetStore/pdf/XEL1_Manual.pdf
http://www.crutchfield.com/S-IPmBUsHEo4R/p_158OLEDXE1/Sony-XEL-1.html?tab=detailed_info
Image Retention — Due to the characteristics of the material used in an OLED screen for its high-precision image, permanent image retention may occur if still images are displayed in the same position on the screen continuously, or repeatedly over extended periods.
Click to expand...


Beyond that display search reports all kinds of issues with colors fading at different rates:

ttp://www.oled-info.com/sony/displaysearch_sony_s_oled_lifespan_rated_at_17_000_hours
“The RGB architecture is very sensitive to the image and has a 5,000 hour lifetime for white and a 17,000 hour lifetime for the typical video image, well below the published specifications of Sony,” the report concludes. “Moreover the panel suffers from differential aging: After 1,000 hours the blue luminance degraded by 12 percent, the red by 7 percent and the green by 8 percent.
Click to expand...

I am in love with the idea of OLED, but it isn't ready for monitors by a long shot. It will always be susceptible to burn, just like every emitter technology we have (CRT/PLasma) and currently it is MUCH worse than CRT/Plasma. I have commented that I hope OLED monitors are ready when my NEC warranty runs out in 2012. But I think that is too optimistic. Unless there are massive improvement of the lifespan of all colors, it may never make the transition to computer monitors, which get more abuse than any other usage pattern.
 
LCD no question for me. The sharpness and image quality make up in SPADES for any minor input lag that is present.
 
Im another CRT holdout. Dreading the day I start to hear a whine signalling the impending downgrade to a LCD. Though I have to admit LCD's are nowhere near as disappointing as they used to be, the prices are much more reasonable and I do long for more real estate.
 
I still see terrible backlight bleed and bad black levels on every LCD I've ever looked at. There's nothing worse than the shimmering grey that passes for black on LCDs, especially for dark movies and dark games.
 
Elledan said:
I use primarily CRTs because I can't stand looking at LCDs for extended periods of time (dry eyes, headache, trouble focusing). Some people are more sensitive to the backlight flicker and polarized light of LCDs than others. Non-native resolution on an LCD has about the same effect on me as 60 Hz refresh on a newer CRT; after a few minutes I have to look away or start feeling sick.

CRTs are big, bulky and use more power than LCDs, yet on the other hand they have perfect blacks, near-perfect colours, 180 degrees viewing angle (side to side), and the mild blurring induced by the imaging stage makes for smoother, more pleasant to read text (a kind of AA).

Personally I'm waiting for OLED displays to appear later this year :)
Click to expand...

Listen to this guy. Keep your CRT so you can skip right over LCD and jump to OLED. In ten years people will be wondering why that miserable technology even existed.

Edit* - well that was a little harsh, LCD does have benefits liek better text, smaller footprint, and less energy use.... but I still hold my thought that LCD will not be remembered favorably, I think it will be remembered as a transition display from analog to the final displays that will be SED, OLED, FED.
 
UnclePauly09 said:
Listen to this guy. Keep your CRT so you can skip right over LCD and jump to OLED. In ten years people will be wondering why that miserable technology even existed.

Edit* - well that was a little harsh, LCD does have benefits liek better text, smaller footprint, and less energy use.... but I still hold my thought that LCD will not be remembered favorably, I think it will be remembered as a transition display from analog to the final displays that will be SED, OLED, FED.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. Few people owned decent CRTs, and the ones that weren't great were really horrible.
 
Spare-Flair said:
CRT >>> LCD in response time, color reproduction, black levels, viewing angle, even brightness, no backlight bleeding, even picture, don't have native resolution like LCDs, don't require scaling, etc. Pretty much every area aside from pure sharpness.

LCDs are no match except that LCDs are lightweight, bigger, thinner, and just cheaper and more prevalent.
Click to expand...

General image quality is better on LCD's now. The few best LCD's have no input lag, great color and dark blacks. No widescreen crt's to speak of.
 
Snowdog said:
:confused: You are unfortunately very mistaken.

I don't know what propaganda you are reading, but Fading is burn in.

The screen wears out faster than any technology on the market. Any emitter technology that wears out/fades will be susceptible to burn in. The faster it fades/wears, the more it will be susceptible to burn in.

From the Sony OLED manual says it burns in. Note they don't talk about temporary image retention like Plasma can get. They are talking permanent burn in.
http://www.sonystyle.com/wcsstore/SonyStyleStorefrontAssetStore/pdf/XEL1_Manual.pdf
http://www.crutchfield.com/S-IPmBUsHEo4R/p_158OLEDXE1/Sony-XEL-1.html?tab=detailed_info
Click to expand...
No, you're the one who is mistaken. Burn-in is image-retention as that Sony manual lists. Fading doesn't occur if you leave a still image on for a few hours/days/weeks. This is the first time I have heard about image-retention/burn-in occurring with OLED as well, and I wonder whether it's just due to Sony's implementation of the technology.

Beyond that display search reports all kinds of issues with colors fading at different rates:

ttp://www.oled-info.com/sony/displaysearch_sony_s_oled_lifespan_rated_at_17_000_hours
Click to expand...
Yes, we all know that for years now. Blue OLED sucks compared to red and green. Nothing new there, however the issue is now at a point where it's largely irrelevant as blue OLEDs now outlast an LCD's backlight. How many people do you hear complain about their backlight dying on them after 5+ years of usage?

You are being far too negative.

UnclePauly09 said:
Listen to this guy. Keep your CRT so you can skip right over LCD and jump to OLED. In ten years people will be wondering why that miserable technology even existed.

Edit* - well that was a little harsh, LCD does have benefits liek better text, smaller footprint, and less energy use.... but I still hold my thought that LCD will not be remembered favorably, I think it will be remembered as a transition display from analog to the final displays that will be SED, OLED, FED.
Click to expand...

Yup, probably correct. SED/FED will be awesome when they're released (FED next year... hopefully). OLED will be making waves much sooner and it should be interesting to see how people receive it :)

BTW, I'm not a guy :p
 
Malakai said:
General image quality is better on LCD's now. The few best LCD's have no input lag, great color and dark blacks. No widescreen crt's to speak of.
Click to expand...

These LCDs are also found in the 'Huge Size and Huge Price Tag' categories :p
 
Elledan said:
No, you're the one who is mistaken. Burn-in is image-retention as that Sony manual lists. Fading doesn't occur if you leave a still image on for a few hours/days/weeks. This is the first time I have heard about image-retention/burn-in occurring with OLED as well, and I wonder whether it's just due to Sony's implementation of the technology.
Click to expand...

I'm the one who is mistaken? You are they one who started this discussion claiming "OLED is immune to burn-in". This clearly shows you don't have the foggiest notion how technology works. Any emitter technology that fades will be subject to burn in.

As it is being used, it is being consumed. Use some pixels more than others and they are consumed more. You get uneven wear and burn in. This is true of Plasma/CRT/OLED and always will be.

The only technologies that are immune to burn in are those that use a separate light source and modulate it: LCDs/DLP/LCOS.


Yes, we all know that for years now. Blue OLED sucks compared to red and green. Nothing new there, however the issue is now at a point where it's largely irrelevant as blue OLEDs now outlast an LCD's backlight. How many people do you hear complain about their backlight dying on them after 5+ years of usage?
Click to expand...

Based on what, some theoretical lab number somewhere. Claims are based on low duty cycles, low brightness. The above was an independent look at the claims. They estimate 17000 hours if babied, 5000 hours if given hard use (like a computer monitor).

You are being far too negative.
Click to expand...

You are living in dreamland. You don't even understand the basics of how something like burn in happens and you make completely unsupportable and clearly completely wrong claims like "OLED is immune to burn-in".

Like I said. I am a big OLED fan, but I understand it warts and all. I would be willing to trade lifespan for it's superior image quality and I realize they never may make monitors as they would need to be babied more than the original plasmas. Burn in will always be an issue, no one is predicting OLED will ever be as robust as phosphor.
 
Malakai said:
General image quality is better on LCD's now. The few best LCD's have no input lag, great color and dark blacks. No widescreen crt's to speak of.
Click to expand...

LCD Dark Blacks? Where? After purchasing 5 LCDs (6 with my TV), I would say they have "adequate" blacks in well lit conditions, where the lighting hides the true nature of LCD black.

In darker conditions they have glowly gray "black". In no way do I call this "Dark blacks".

Watching movies with "black bars" is quite disappointing if you like to watch in a dark room.

This is a big part of the reason I would love to have an OLED TV. The best of both worlds, the sharpness and perfect geometry of LCD, with luscious true blacks.

Black remains a weakness of ALL LCDs unless you are talking some kind of local dimming LCD, which is VERY expensive, rare and has it's own issues.
 
well discussed topic, no right answer, i just cant give up that much desk space to a crt... so lcd it is for me, although to be honest, do miss my crt, games jsut use to look better, but i cant prove that.
 
If the market had any decent widescreen CRTs out there, I would have bought one. Right now the only option is a bunch of Sony/HP 22" CRTs that were made 5-10 years ago and are only on the surplus market. I can't get one to ship here to Canada so I am stuck with LCD.
 
No-one has dealt with a major problem with LCDs: limited frame-rate.The biggest problem with LCD’s is that they will not allow you to go past 60hz or 75hz in any resolution, so at best, you will only see 75 frames per second in game. Crt’s have the ability to go as high as 150hz in lower resolutions, making them better for gaming. Source:
http://www.nextlevelgamer.com/tweaks/got-a-crt-use-refreshlock

This is a major disappointment for me.Using my 4870x2, I can achieve easily more than 60 fps in my games with my CRT (max. 120Hz) and it does make a difference. Especially with the racing games that I usually play, the physics is dependent on fps, so the game feels much better with higher fps........I think I will not choose a LCD at the moment.
 
Only poor games use FPS as an reference for physics or anything like that...

My 3008WFP has 85 Hz in 1920x1200 and lower - also true 120 Hz displays are available now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top