CRT vs LCD

[nweibley]

Draken, I also hope you understand my post was not generalized towards you or your character. It specifically addressed to the contents of the post(s) that immediately superceded it. I do not write to inflame.

To publicly and specifically address you: I do not understand your post. It is essentially an attempt to defame or discredit my character. The generalizations I make of course have exceptions, but they are often paralleled in real life...

Here is an example where I could not possibly disagree with you more. You said:

Your statment is flawed due to the fact that there's no correlation between people who buy televisions and people who buy cars.

You know what the correlation is? The exchange of money for a purchase. People have buying habits, that is a fact. If you do not think that many people who are willing to drop 11 grand on a nice TV when they can drop less than 1/11th that on something simply sufficient will also not tend to 'splurge' (often in opulent excess) on something like an automobile purchase then that says something, because to me there is an obvious and apparent connection.

The point, however, seems moot as you are not intrested in hearing my case at all... so I will stop and simply say that we have to agree to disagree... for many many people a Plasma set can be an excellent choice.

By the way: today I was playing FarCry on my XBR and had quite a fun fun time. The hurricane missed us, hence I was able to play, but it did completly obliterate our beach house... but that is what insurance is for.

-----Nate

 

[Drakensoul]

I do not understand your post. It is essentially an attempt to defame or discredit my character.

You're right, you don't understand it at all.

Your first post to me was absolutely 100% and unnecessarily rude and condescending, and I responded in kind. I made a post that did absolutely nothing but state that plasma televisions have a relatively short half-life, and that this fact should be made aware. That's all.

You then responded as if I were an idiot, talking about the "news flash" that people have disposable income and making generalizations about everyone who spends a lot on a television also splurging on automobiles, and saying that I'm trying to discredit the rich because I'll never own one, implying that I'm somehow jealous.

To reiterate: I said absolutely zero about people who buy plasmas, about buying habits, or about anything other than the fact that plasmas have a half-life. Given this, your response could only be taken, in my opinion, as someone who was taking his anger out across the internet on an anonymous target. I'll also point out that you are now being much more personable and respectful, as you were rude to not only me but others as well.

I don't need to disfame or discredit anyone, nor have I in any way attempted to do so. Your response was completely off topic and unnecessary, and you got the same in return.

I responded to your other (irrelevant) statements because a good friend of mine is a network manager for the university here; he owns a 50" Sony plasma TV and drives a Nissan Altima, which is far from a $100,000 car. He makes probably around $70,000 a year. The point being that there are some people with moderate incomes who choose to allocate more of their budget to things like televisions simply because they enjoy them, and that doesn't mean they're rich or that they drive $100,000 cars. People buy telvisions, and people buy cars. They aren't necessarily related in any fashion other than that they both cost money.

But, yeah, your attitude has definitely improved.
Your first few posts (go back and re-read them) were very cartman-esque, as in "I have it/want it, and so everyone else must have it/want it too, and if they say they don't they're lying and are just jealous," with statements like "news flash" "it's called disposable income" "if you think..." "is that enough of MY OWN EYES for you" "since you seem to know oh so much," etc, which are all very defensive and snide.

Compare that with your current post which is much more humane and 'equal' with the rest of us (as in, no longer condescending) with pharses like "I also hope you understand my post was not generalized towards you or your character. It specifically addressed to the contents of the post(s) that immediately superceded it. I do not write to inflame." and "we'll have to agree to disagree." Much better; something tells me you may have cooled down a bit and realized that you (as a plasma owner) were a little trigger-happy in attacking people who weren't singing the praises of plasma.

I have absolutely no problem listening to any point you wish to make so long as it is done respectfully and isn't going completely off the wall and attacking me. I really haven't been in any way angry or upset, I just figured I'd point out that your posts were unnecessarily rude. I appreciate that they seem to have lost that quality.

 

[nweibley]

The fact that, in your opinion, it's bright enough at 50% is completely irrelevant. It will be half as bright at any brightness setting, so if at 51% brightness it's well calibrated, 20K hours later, it would need to be at 101% to maintain the same level. And it will continue to dim.
...
The satement that under "sane" usage it will last longer is also completely irrelevant. Again, that's using your opinion of what "sane" is.This arguement would basically say to someone who came in to complain about their TV being half as lustrous as it was when he paid for it: "Well, you watched it too much." Uhh???

Now, I don't know you personally, but that sure seems condescending and otherwise belittling. My opinion is "completely irrelevant". My definition of "sane usage" is "completly irrelevant". I am seeing a trend... somehow, whatever I think or assert is utterly untrue and irrelevant.

Sorry, I don't buy that you were trying to reply in kind.

Then this:

...completely off topic and unnecessary, and you got the same in return. ...I responded to your other (irrelevant) statements ...

But, yeah, your attitude has definitely improved.

Your first few posts (go back and re-read them) were very cartman-esque, as in "I have it/want it, and so everyone else must have it/want it too, and if they say they don't they're lying and are just jealous," with statements like "news flash" "it's called disposable income" "if you think..." "is that enough of MY OWN EYES for you" "since you seem to know oh so much," etc, which are all very defensive and snide. ....(as in, no longer condescending) ... so long as it is done respectfully and isn't going completely off the wall and attacking me

Seems to me you are trying to elevate yourself above me. If you want to claim I acted irresponsibly, that is fine, but then, by the same definition, you did too. Lets share equal blame then, shall we not. To me it seems like you are trying to act like authority over me when you say "your attitude has definitely improved".

Indeed, I get passionate about certain things, but the fact is that I so completly disgree with you on this "Plasma lifetime" issue that I feel I need to take a very strong and swift stance. Once again, forgive my abrupt and not necessarily forgiving nature, but I still hold the exact same opinions as the post on the top of page 2.

Now, admit, you did chastise me for getting "off topic" but then again I was the one who asked for this whole interaction to be taken to private messages so as to not derail the thread, which you refused. Not attacking you... just pointing out a truth, yes?

So, I will again apoligize for anything you feel I may have done to you, but I will still stand by everything I have thusfar written.

As far as my attitude, if I get treated with respect, I treat the other party with respect. Likewise, if I get attacked or defamed, I am going to get angry. It is (at least my) human nature.
-----Nate

 

[ZenOps]

A CRT has infinite colour bit depth, it is after all analog.

IE: When someone says a display is capable of 24 bit or 16.7 million colours, its actually 256 levels of red, green and blue (256x256x256). When you output to a CRT screen each colour value of each pixel is referenced from 0 (value of 0, or black) to 0.7 volts (Value of 256 or solid red green or blue depending on which one you are using at the time.)

If you have a videocard that can output 32 bit (10 bit per pixel) or 1 billion colours, The values are referenced from 0 (value of 0, black) to 0.7 volts (value of 1024, red green or blue)

If you had a theoretical videocard that could do 48 or 64 bit colour, you would still see every gradient on a CRT.

Since LCD's require a digital connection, current manufacturing technology usually limits them to 16.7 million colours (many are only 65,536 dithered) many a PDA-LCD (handhelds) are even in the 8 thousand colour range.

So CRT's are ALWAYS more colour accurate until you factor in analog cable signal loss, but that is a different discussion.

 

[Drakensoul]

Now, admit, you did chastise me for getting "off topic" but then again I was the one who asked for this whole interaction to be taken to private messages so as to not derail the thread, which you refused.

No, I said I wouldn't, because there's nothing further to discuss.
You didn't want to derail the thread, yet you continued it.
Even now, you're continuing to take what I said out of context and twist it to suit your needs. People are free to read the entire original message and make up their own minds.
The end.

 

[Drakensoul]

A CRT has infinite colour bit depth, it is after all analog.

IE: When someone says a display is capable of 24 bit or 16.7 million colours, its actually 256 levels of red, green and blue (256x256x256). When you output to a CRT screen each colour value of each pixel is referenced from 0 (value of 0, or black) to 0.7 volts (Value of 256 or solid red green or blue depending on which one you are using at the time.)

If you have a videocard that can output 32 bit (10 bit per pixel) or 1 billion colours, The values are referenced from 0 (value of 0, black) to 0.7 volts (value of 1024, red green or blue)

If you had a theoretical videocard that could do 48 or 64 bit colour, you would still see every gradient on a CRT.

Since LCD's require a digital connection, current manufacturing technology usually limits them to 16.7 million colours (many are only 65,536 dithered) many a PDA-LCD (handhelds) are even in the 8 thousand colour range.

So CRT's are ALWAYS more colour accurate until you factor in analog cable signal loss, but that is a different discussion.

LoL, I am actually trying to decide between a VP201S and the NEC 2141SB and was leaning toward the LCD for its "coolness" factor, but all of this discussion about LCD limitations has pushed me back toward the CRT side.

 

[oqvist]

Of course the exception to all of this is the:

NEC-Mitsubishi FP912SB / FP2141SB

19" and it's bigger 22" brother.

Best computer displays available. Although the NEC ones are hard to come by, the Mitsubishi 920SB is the same model as the 912SB from NEC and still being made. I don't know about the Mitsubishi "2141SB" version though...

At any rate, they are the creme of the crop in the CRT world and better than the vast majority, if not all current tech LCD's.

There is more than those really. You have the Sony that though expensive is arguable better and you have philips 202p40 for example that has higher refresh rates and overall is quite similar to those but then they say it uses the same tube

NEC/Mitsubishi/Philips makes nice screens for a decent price. I went with Philips since where I live they where the cheapest if 760 $ is cheap that is

 

[steal]

CRT over LCD, regarding colour.
CRT over LCD, regarding constrast.
CRT over LCD, regarding price to screen size ratio.
CRT over LCD, regarding viewable angle.
CRT over LCD, regarding resolution (LCDs are fixed).
LCD over CRT, regarding size/weight.
LCD over CRT, regarding flickering.

by that logic there is absolutely no reason to buy a lcd

shit, i guess we're ALL idiots here, huh?

 

[Ice Czar]

Id agree that the 3 best reasons
to buy a top end LCD (QUXGA)
would be

heat
geometry
and resolution (3840 x 2400, 22 inch)

but then I cant even begin to consider a top end LCD
not even close to my price range at $7000

but in truth thats a very accurate list
CRT isnt cheap to replace if you need the quality

currently run dual 21 inch CRTs (and 4 computers via dual KVM IOGear extreme 4 ports)
Eizo F930 Invar Shadowmask
Viewsonic G220fb Apeture Grille

 

[oddlycalm]

A CRT has infinite colour bit depth, it is after all analog.
-snip-
So CRT's are ALWAYS more colour accurate until you factor in analog cable signal loss, but that is a different discussion.

No arguement from me on the technical details, however in actual use it's clear that a lot of the technical issues really aren't all that pivotal or we wouldn't have so many happy LCD user. Many demanding graphic artists have been able to get comfortable with LCD's as well.

At this point CRT or LCD is a hard decision for me, however in a couple years I think that CRT's will be nearly gone from the market. If a person wants a really good CRT, my advice would be not to wait until they are all out of production.

This reminds me of the tubes to transistor migration in audio and the tubes vs transistor arguements that rage on to this day. To my ears, the absolute best sound is still from tubes and analog sources and I was eventually willing to pay the fortune required for that pleasure, not to mention the periodic maintenance (tube bias and replacement) and long warmup time before good sound is achieved.

I imagine there will always be those that will hate anything but an analog CRT display for all the very valid reasons stated. One thing for certain, digital will never approach the absolute speed of analog. Whether response times get fast enough for the difference not to matter remains to be seen. It already has for some folks.

oc

 

[nweibley]

No arguement from me on the technical details, however in actual use it's clear that a lot of the technical issues really aren't all that pivotal or we wouldn't have so many happy LCD user. Many demanding graphic artists have been able to get comfortable with LCD's as well.

At this point CRT or LCD is a hard decision for me, however in a couple years I think that CRT's will be nearly gone from the market. If a person wants a really good CRT, my advice would be not to wait until they are all out of production.

This reminds me of the tubes to transistor migration in audio and the tubes vs transistor arguements that rage on to this day. To my ears, the absolute best sound is still from tubes and analog sources and I was eventually willing to pay the fortune required for that pleasure, not to mention the periodic maintenance (tube bias and replacement) and long warmup time before good sound is achieved.

I imagine there will always be those that will hate anything but an analog CRT display for all the very valid reasons stated. One thing for certain, digital will never approach the absolute speed of analog. Whether response times get fast enough for the difference not to matter remains to be seen. It already has for some folks.

oc

Keep in mind that in the coming years, many CRT-like displays are being made that are not as much like LCDs (for example, pixels emitting their own light)

I think within 5-7 years CRTs will be completly gone and display manufacturers will have created panels that can reproduce damn near any color with nearly perfect geometry, and no worry about convergence. They will certainly be exciting developments because displays are obviously something that are finding their way into daily life more and more.

 

[oqvist]

But really is TFT the technology to replace CRT? Me personally can´t see it. I mean I wonder when we will have a monitor better suited for gaming then a CRT based. I mean that doesn´t crap out if running lower or higher than the optimized resolution. For less money offering better color reproduction and more refreshrates?

Even if the response times want become an issue which I guess will be a non issue in some years how can they defeat those other drawbacks of TFT technology?

For TFT totally replacing CRT it has to become superior or else I am sure we will see at least professional highend CRT monitors at least perhaps it´s the smaller and cheaper CRT is the ones that will vanish? Since those the TFT can replace quite easily?

 

[nweibley]

I'm thinking more bleeding edge like oLED and beyond... LCDs have a future as lower cost multipurpose monitors like web browsing and word processing. Great for an office to buy 1,000 and be done with it. Not great for the enthusiast.