after hearing all you guys answers. makes me feel like lcds are trash (still).
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
CRT
- Thread starter twoblueeyes78
- Start date
after hearing all you guys answers. makes me feel like lcds are trash (still).
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
didnt know they did. its probably just luck of the draw. as of this week my 9 year old GE 19inch TV now has a rainbow effect on it yet 3 CRT monitors all work. in fact just for fun I dragged out a 14inch CRT from 1996 and it works fine but damn its ugly.
Whoisthisreally
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 1,143
Probably because of different pixel structure and density, miniaturization and people ignoring the recommended resolution and rate.
Originally Posted by xorbe
Why do CRT TVs seem last forever, but computer monitor CRTs seem to drop like flies?
A TV requires far less precision to operate correctly than a PC Monitor, because it operates at a lower resolution. Also a TV operates at one resolution and refresh rate, as opposed to (most) crt monitors which operate across a wide range. This is in general of course, and some TVs are cheap and low quality and will not last that long, and some PC monitors are high quality and will last for a good long time without trouble. And then there's luck of the draw like cannondale06 mentioned.
Dustin
Why do CRT TVs seem last forever, but computer monitor CRTs seem to drop like flies?
A TV requires far less precision to operate correctly than a PC Monitor, because it operates at a lower resolution. Also a TV operates at one resolution and refresh rate, as opposed to (most) crt monitors which operate across a wide range. This is in general of course, and some TVs are cheap and low quality and will not last that long, and some PC monitors are high quality and will last for a good long time without trouble. And then there's luck of the draw like cannondale06 mentioned.
Dustin
HOLY SHIT.
I just found out my 21" CRT monitor does more than just 2048x1536 @ 60 Hz. I've been playing with 1920x1200 on it, and I realized its refresh rate depends only on the vertical pixel count. That makes sense, since the work it has to do per frame is proportional to the number of rows it has to trace.
In any case, it also does 1920x1440 (4:3 AR) at 72 Hz. So lo and behold, it can also do 2304x1440 @ 72 Hz (16:10 AR).
This is about 0.17 mm pixel pitch by my calculations, and it's still very sharp and readable.
P.S. My eye sight's pretty good, and I don't mind high-density small-pixel resolutions. Quite the contrary. Obviously I won't be using this on day-to-day basis, but it's still awesome.
P.P.S. The widescreen resolution looks fine, it's not stretched. I just had to adjust its size so there are black bars on top and bottom.
Edit: Unfortunately, I wasn't able to get 2458x1536@60Hz working properly, which should've been doable in theory. I did get the resolution running, but it was displayed with sides cut off. Perhaps it's possible with different timings.
I just found out my 21" CRT monitor does more than just 2048x1536 @ 60 Hz. I've been playing with 1920x1200 on it, and I realized its refresh rate depends only on the vertical pixel count. That makes sense, since the work it has to do per frame is proportional to the number of rows it has to trace.
In any case, it also does 1920x1440 (4:3 AR) at 72 Hz. So lo and behold, it can also do 2304x1440 @ 72 Hz (16:10 AR).
This is about 0.17 mm pixel pitch by my calculations, and it's still very sharp and readable.
P.S. My eye sight's pretty good, and I don't mind high-density small-pixel resolutions. Quite the contrary. Obviously I won't be using this on day-to-day basis, but it's still awesome.
P.P.S. The widescreen resolution looks fine, it's not stretched. I just had to adjust its size so there are black bars on top and bottom.
Edit: Unfortunately, I wasn't able to get 2458x1536@60Hz working properly, which should've been doable in theory. I did get the resolution running, but it was displayed with sides cut off. Perhaps it's possible with different timings.
That's pretty sweet. I found my P1110 maxed out at 1800x1440, so I cannot push 1920x1200 on it. I can, on the other hand, increase to 1800x1125 and maintain 16:10. It's terrifically dense
That's pretty sweet. I found my P1110 maxed out at 1800x1440, so I cannot push 1920x1200 on it. I can, on the other hand, increase to 1800x1125 and maintain 16:10. It's terrifically dense
Are you sure it won't scan 1920x1200? If it can scan 1440 lines it should be able to scan up to 1920x1440. The horizontal resolution doesn't really matter. It may not report it to the OS as an available resolution but I would guess it'd work perfectly if you forced it. It'd be sweet for 1080p video.
I have an old 14" Trinitron monitor as a spare that on paper maxes out at 1280x1024 @ 60hz but it will scan 1920x1080 @ 60hz without a complaint (Though the vertical size won't adjust small enough for proper 16:9 aspect)
I thought the same might be true but it simply won't cooperate with me. I suppose I could try it with rivatuner or something.
This post will be updated.
I still use one of them occasionally, but not for watching anything - it's for input lag testing.
I got rid of my Sony Trinitron (donated, in a very good condition) in favour of LCD monitors. I am very happy with that transition.
Now I use one of the best screens consumer market ever seen.
Nowadays best LCD monitors beat older CRTs (including formerly best CRT consumer screen Sony FW900) in every aspect of practical use with a liitle exception.
Reasons? Let's go step by step.
#1 Design and Mechanics
It goes without saying: nothing looks more awkward than a CRT behemoth on your desk.
CRT provide neither height adjustment nor portrait mode.
#2 Connectivity
It's a unique case if a CRT has anything more than a single analog connector.
LCDs offer several digital connectors (up to 3560x1600 resolution supported) to work with several video signal sources at the same time.
#3 Screen Management
CRT menus look just miserable next to advanced or even mid-level LCDs.
Most of CRT menu tools are intended to counterbalance analog signal shortcomings rather than work on picture management itself.
#4 Brightness Distribution and Other Issues
It's a mistake to think that CRT screens have even brightness distribution just because they are CRT. This mistake comes from the lack of info and poor memory. Any of CRT and LCD may have uniformity issues.
Test images from behardware.com:
Dead pixels on CRT? Why not?
Read this Sony F520 owner report:
I've had to change F520's 3 times, 1st time because of bluriness, 2nd time because of dead pixel, 3rd time because it just died, and now I have one that i wish i could change because the ghosting is more than 2.5cm/1.0 inch
There were no holy cows among CRTs even at their best times.
One can find similar reports abou present LCDs. Neither technology guarantee 100% production quality.
BTW LCDs have features to reduce uniformity imperfections...
#5 Viewing Angles
LCD monitors can offer same viewing angles as CRTs:
#6 Measurements and Calibration
6.1 Color Quality
Thanks to behardware.com, this is an example of comparison of above average CRT and above average LCD. LCD provides better color quality in this case. This sort of performance depends on the model, not the technology. Nowadays LCDs are capable of dE=0.2 or less and don't yield CRT even a grain in color quality.
6.2 Black Level and Contrast Ratio
What is what here ( CRT or LCD)?
See the answer at the end of this chapter.
There is misunderstanding (constantly provoced by CRT fanatics - this forum has seen worst of them) in this department too.
Facts.
No display produces true black.
Best LCD monitors now are capable of black level as deep as 0.05 cd/m2 and CR up to about 1000:1.
For LCDs: Dynamic Range (full screen white over full screen black) is practically equal to Display Contrast (measured within an image).
CRTs have problems here. Due to technology specifics, CRTs are prone to flare.
CRT Dynamic Range is very high - up to about 15000:1 with black level measured on an empty black screen 0.1 cd/m2
Unless the user stares at the empty black screen as a sheep at the newly painted gate, this level of black is not available on CRTs for practical use due to flare effect.
The lie about CRT black level and CR is the use of Dynamic Range instead of Display contrast. Display contrast is what we actually see on the screen. For CRTs Dynamic range and Display Contrast differ dramatically.
Due to CRT flare, white from bright details bleeds onto dark details. The smaller dark details are, the more bleed, the more greyish black, the less CR. So 15000:1 for CRT is absolutely abstract number that has nothing common with real CR on real images.
Note: reference resources compare CRTs of their best times with prehistoric LCD at their early stage of development.
Black level and CR measurements from a research on displaymate.com:
CRT contrast ratio collapses from 17600:1 on unreal full black screen down to 419:1 on more realistic test pattern, and then further down to nothing (75:1) on more "busy" pattern.
Below is a sumulation of how similar test pattern would look on CRT (Note: low quality monitors may not show the difference between the full screens. PVA/MVA users please see from an angle):
Now you are not surprise to know the answer (What is What?).
A quote from behardware.com professional review (CRT Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 930SB at its best next to a rudimentary TN LCD):
6.3 Color Space
LCDs offer wide color gamut for specific needs of pre-print professionals.
CRTs lack that feature.
6.4 Image Details
LCDs offer hardware (12-bit LUT) calibration providing reference quality grey scale rendition and variety of calibration options.
Below: a movie scene on Sony FW900 CRT (from this thread) and about the same frame (1-2 frames apart) on LCD. The image from sony FW900 CRT thread has loss of dark details (reflection on the side of the car, car wheels, shop entrance..)
Note: PVA/MVA users please look from an angle.
#7 Sound
LCDs may come with built-in or optional speakers
#8 Responsiveness
CRTs render moving images with no delay (input lag), at higher refresh rate (over 60Hz), has lower response time (no blur on extreme motion).
LCDs have level of responsiveness well enough to render top quality blu-ray video and comfortable regular gaming.
CRTs advantage in responsiveness has zero value for practical use except for certian type of computer games.
#9 Resolution
LCDs provide higher resolution than CRTs.
Both LCDs and CRTs have recommended resolution for their best performance. The first fact to remember about the use of so-called not recommended (non-native) resolution is that no one in his right mind uses a monitor other than in recommended resolution, again except for some games.
Those who requires more legible text can use dpi settings to enlarge fonts.
Lower resolution (interpolation) on LCDs decreases sharpness of text while CRT typically does not.
What it means practically text wise and how "decreased sharpness" of LCD compares to "standard sharpness" of CRT - we'll see in Office use chapter.
#10 Scaling
LCDs may have different scaling options like Full, 1:1 and Aspect. High end LCDs provide unlimited scaling. Recommended video.
Sorry about CRTs.
#11 Screen geometry
How can it be a problem? Oh, well, CRTS are here.
Yes, screen geometry is a chronic problem of CRTs.
Not applicable to LCDs...
#12 Applications
12.1 Office use
For office use LCDs provide more real estate in screen size (the largest CRT is just 22.5" small) and resolution, have better than CRT contrast ratio and deeper black,
more eye friendly.
Behardware.com again helps us.
Now you know why text on CRT looks that bad - flare effect.
Now the photo of interpolated text on LCD (recommended 1920x1200 and 1680x1050 interpolated to the full screen):
It's fair to say that interpolated text on LCD is still better than "standard" on CRT!
It's not necessary to interpolate lower resolution on LCD.
LCD scalar can be used to get lower resolution image on higher resolution screen dot-to-dot without interpolation:
Using LCD screen menu, 1680x1050 image can be interpolated to any degree between 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 or even larger.
12.2 Multimedia
In this regard CRTs are totally helpless in comparison with LCDs.
12.3 Photo and video editing.
LCDs are again head and shoulders above with industry top image quality, viewing angles, higher resolutions and larger screens, connectivity and scaling options.
12.4 Games
12.4.1 Strategy games
All LCDs advantages work here.
12.4.2 Action games
The only area of interest where CRTs better responsiveness and higher refresh rate can be materialized into advantage over LCDs. Even here some prefer the impression from larger screen with excellent colors to somewhat lower response time.
Video.
12.4.3 Bord games
All LCDs advantages work here.
12.4.4 Adventure games
All LCDs advantages work here.
12.4.5 Sport games
All LCDs advantages work here.
12.4.6 Simulation games
All LCDs advantages work here.
12.4.7 Various console games (PS3)
All LCDs advantages work here.
#13 Blu-ray and DVD
99% of CRTs are simply out of consideration due to miserable size, "square" format and minimal compatibility with modern digital video devices. As a unique exception we can mention Sony FW900 that is conditionally compatible (through converters) with some external video devices to display up to 1080i video. Again, even this dinosaur has just 22.5" diagonal -
the point where CRTs died.
Again, even this formerly best screen suffers from CRT flare.
As we know from tests, in practical use CRTs have whiter black and lower display contrast ratio. The only situation where CRTs' potentially better black can play it's role is watching dark video in dark room.
Modern LCDs offer hardware calibration that is valid for external video devices such as BD players and PS3.
CRTs lack that.
Unlike LCDS, CRTs do not support 24p signal. So the whole branch of Full HD technology that is based on 24p+Pull down Algorythm is dead for CRTs.
Do we forget LCDs uncomparably larger screens? No, we don't.
Blu-ray on 24" LCD.
#14 Ergonomics
It's pretty obvious that CRT ergonomics is close to zero while LCDs are full of features from that department.
LCDs have eyestrain reducing technologies (auto brightness, dynamic brightness), much less aggressive flickering, effective and convenient screen management, integrated sound, remote control as addition to already mentioned height/tilt/rotate/pivot.
LCDs provide a choice between glossy and matt screens.
All CRTs have reflective panel finish.
#15 Conclusion?
This picture says everything.
Last edited:
Ugh, I'm not going to even bother reading that, but you really are mistaken about many things. The FW900 will do as high resolutions as pretty much any LCD out there (sans the T221). Colours are far superior. Blacks are of course far better as well. You can also run things at whatever resolution you want. You forgot another important thing too...cost. My FW900 cost me $175 and a high end LCD will set you back 10 times that. Anyway, if you want to preach about LCDs, there are far better places to do it as we just really don't care...
novemberrain
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2007
- Messages
- 102
Just swapped a "like new" condition FW900 on my table. I like it. I'd be ready to pay 2000€ easily for a perfect lcd, but such a thing just does not exist. There are many good ones yes, but I'm not paying that much for a 60hz screen which will hopefully be obsolete in a few years. If there was a 26" or smaller 2560x1600 lcd with 120hz and good panel with nice colors and black I'd take it right away.
albovin, nice post but I cant really understand why would someone be so biased. Honestly, I don't care about color "accuracy" as long as it looks good. LCD's are very good at that, unfortunately they need to be very bright to achieve that. If someone has not noticed, crt is literally pitch black when displaying black, there is no light coming out at all, so in theory contrast is infinite, this is nice for dark rooms and gaming. Also, IMO fw900 is too big for fps. I sit pretty close to it because I can (I couldn't with an lcd because of pixel pitch and brightness) and it is too big to see everything without moving my eyes.
albovin, nice post but I cant really understand why would someone be so biased. Honestly, I don't care about color "accuracy" as long as it looks good. LCD's are very good at that, unfortunately they need to be very bright to achieve that. If someone has not noticed, crt is literally pitch black when displaying black, there is no light coming out at all, so in theory contrast is infinite, this is nice for dark rooms and gaming. Also, IMO fw900 is too big for fps. I sit pretty close to it because I can (I couldn't with an lcd because of pixel pitch and brightness) and it is too big to see everything without moving my eyes.
Whoisthisreally
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 1,143
There's no sense with you lot, is there?
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2005
- Messages
- 1,590
lol ya that was a pretty elaborate post which unfortunately has errors and obvious bias. The way he twists the truth on CRT black levels was pretty comical to.
A properly working CRT is still far superior in the black level department vs. any current PC LCD.
Dead pixels on a CRT? Its absolutely impossible based on the way CRT technology works. I've heard of dust or dirt particles being stuck on the inside of the glass giving the impression of dead pixels (which would be a result of dirt/dust entering the CRT tube during manufacturing.)
This is an actual color calibration result from a PC CRT:
To tired to continue...
With the industry abandonment of CRTs I can just hope my FW900 continues to run without issues (so far so good).
I dont think all LCDs are absolutely terrible but there happens to be a huge amount of crappy models out there, when my FW900 finally does decide to croak I'm sure ill end up buying another LCD (Ive owned several) but its not something i'm looking forward to.
A properly working CRT is still far superior in the black level department vs. any current PC LCD.
Dead pixels on a CRT? Its absolutely impossible based on the way CRT technology works. I've heard of dust or dirt particles being stuck on the inside of the glass giving the impression of dead pixels (which would be a result of dirt/dust entering the CRT tube during manufacturing.)
This is an actual color calibration result from a PC CRT:
To tired to continue...
With the industry abandonment of CRTs I can just hope my FW900 continues to run without issues (so far so good).
I dont think all LCDs are absolutely terrible but there happens to be a huge amount of crappy models out there, when my FW900 finally does decide to croak I'm sure ill end up buying another LCD (Ive owned several) but its not something i'm looking forward to.
*tempted to make albovin the first entry on her ignore list*
Anyway, I'm on the look-out for another 20" (Iiyama) CRT at the moment to add to my current dual-screen setup. Never can have enough screen space, and who can refuse a 20" monitor which does 1600x1200 and beyond with excellent image quality for just 5 Euro?
Anyway, I'm on the look-out for another 20" (Iiyama) CRT at the moment to add to my current dual-screen setup. Never can have enough screen space, and who can refuse a 20" monitor which does 1600x1200 and beyond with excellent image quality for just 5 Euro?
albovin's not necessarily wrong, but he seems to focus 99% of his attention on the advantages of LCDs and 1% on the advantages of CRT.
The fact is, both have certain advantages in different areas. For some uses, one or the other is the clear better choice. For other uses, it's more of a tie, so people's preferences come to play.
Can't you people accept that?
The fact is, both have certain advantages in different areas. For some uses, one or the other is the clear better choice. For other uses, it's more of a tie, so people's preferences come to play.
Can't you people accept that?
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2004
- Messages
- 27,021
I swithched my FW-900 for a 24" LCD last month.....I will be switching back again real soon.....like as soon as I get some free time....
This is the 3rd time I tried to replace it and each time I end up going back......
This will be the last time also.....they just do not make an LCD that compares to the Sony FW-900....
This is the 3rd time I tried to replace it and each time I end up going back......
This will be the last time also.....they just do not make an LCD that compares to the Sony FW-900....
Are you sure?
I have reviewed about 25 areas to compare.
Professional tests provided (not my work, most just quoted).
Feel free to add your "certain advantages in different areas".
What are they?
What LCD did you buy?
Do you seriously not know?
I'll quote what I said on 1st page of this thread.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2004
- Messages
- 27,021
I have had a Dell, an HP and an Acer....
Acer_Sheep
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- May 18, 2007
- Messages
- 1,201
I also did downgrade from LCD back to CRT, still have LCD monitor on table but it is disconnected and in use is very rarely. Main monitor is CRT, low eye strain and low brightness are the best advantages of CRT(for me), regardless of input lag, reponse time and viewing angles. Set it to 100Hz and it's great, just like times before I had LCD. I also discovered that image of LCDs is way too much sharp, CRT image is little blurred, which is better to watch.
Probably the main reason why some users moving back to CRT is their experience, LCD monitors wide-spread started in 2000s. Information on internet or tech-related media is not real experience, because every person have different sensations for this. CRT itself is way older technology than LCD, older and more development time made it more advanced. But in fact, for wide use, LCD monitors are better - small dimensions and lower power consuption is the hint for wide use in homes, offices or frequent places.
Probably the main reason why some users moving back to CRT is their experience, LCD monitors wide-spread started in 2000s. Information on internet or tech-related media is not real experience, because every person have different sensations for this. CRT itself is way older technology than LCD, older and more development time made it more advanced. But in fact, for wide use, LCD monitors are better - small dimensions and lower power consuption is the hint for wide use in homes, offices or frequent places.
-usually higher refresh rate than 60 hz, especially at lower res
-no ghosting
-zero input lag
-image tearing less noticable with vsync off
-more than just one "native" resolution that looks good
That has been addressed in the review already.
#12.4.2
Importance of those details is limited to just one of about 25 areas to compare. Namely: fast pace shooter games.
Nothing new so far.
drtc
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 19, 2008
- Messages
- 239
Although I do respect your meticulous reviews and insight, I am surprised too, on some imho biased for no reason statements in this thread.
From little things like:
So do many CRT's. From 14'er Sony's to 21'er Philips Brilliance line that I happen to have. and others use a multimedia base like lcd's do...
to...
Only high end ones. Even crappy Crt's have good viewing angles.
I do agree with that.
Can't help to recall though that in all other threads you advocate against wide color gamut monitors, (in favor for the 2490) whereas in this thread you use WG as a feature...
Yes but a single CRT can offer many usable resolutions that a single LCD cannot!
An attempt to diminish CRT's multiple resolution advantage.
I can use my 21'er at 1920x1440 @75Hz without stressing it, and with visible type, not as sharp as on an LCD. I normally use it @ 1600x1200@100Hz its default setting. I also use it @ 1280x1024 @120Hz for viewing from a distance or when I want to proof web pages. One needs 3 Lcd's to do this...
then you took off:
If there is one area where CRTs still hold, is for photo & video editing, and grpahics use...
Why do video pros still use CRT RGB monitors to proof their work?
LCD head and shoulders above CRT in viewing angles? & scaling?...
Closing, just to clarify that I am not some CRT junkie or fanatic that holds on, refusing tech changes or evolution...
I love LCD's or LED's or whatever new will come for:
- Big screen sizes.
Actually I would prefer larger PC monitor sizes than 30", even with higher pixel pitch for viewing from some distance.
This new 42" JVC VC LT-42WX70 might look promising.
This new 42" JVC VC LT-42WX70 might look promising.
- Portrait use. Pivoting rules!
- Thin bezels for better multimonitor setups.
- Text clarity.
- Lightweight.
- Power Consumption.Less power hungry @ equivalent sizes that is...
Correction accepted! I don't want to go deeper in that. Obviously that is direct sound from HDMI and audio output for external speakers - advantages of the digital world.
Correction denied.
LCDs do have same viewing angles. The main point: viewing angles are not LCD technology limitation for this comparison. That is important.
I underlined the purpose of WG use.
No contradiction with posted before.
No WG for regular use, please.
Almost: to be more realistic about it. You do have a particular reason to use it for your work. Most users when asked are not able to invent anything meaningful to justify lower resolution other than some gamers tricks.
The key reason for the use of lower resolution is text readability.
The review is pretty much illustrative of the text quality comparison.
Typing this post, set to1680x1050... What am I talking about? Interpolation is just superb and it is usable!
This is simply to encourage some CRT fanatics to keep their mouths shut about CRT supremacy in that department.
Why not use a couple of high-end CRTs for pro work if they still fit someone's needs?
Cinema laboratory at work. A legendary black and white movie is been converted in full color:
Sorry, please please read the whole sentence.
Scaling? Sure. 100%
Absolutely. Neither do I.
As I've said many times, my preference is a quality universal screen (no LCD, no CRT, etc.)
I would applaud CRT enthusiasts for their efforts in keeping their old friends running.
But when some of them appear here to scream about CRT while demonstrating their fanatical ignorance - that must be addressed.
Thanks for your excellent post!
Last edited:
Synful Serenity
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2004
- Messages
- 1,256
Please show me an LCD that looks the same at any angle, has no visible motion blurring or input lag and at least sub-4ms maximum any-color-to-any-color response time, black level close enough to true black to be indistinguishable, color reproduction accurate enough to calibrate to at least commercial CRT standards and I will accept all assertions without question. These are the the important things to me in a display.
That's really the problem here...There are some great LCDs out there, but there are none that are all of these things. There are CRTs that are all of these things. I really hate having to agonize over my LCD decisions weighing the pros and cons of each screen over another, as much as I want to embrace them.
That's really the problem here...There are some great LCDs out there, but there are none that are all of these things. There are CRTs that are all of these things. I really hate having to agonize over my LCD decisions weighing the pros and cons of each screen over another, as much as I want to embrace them.
This is a limited and subjective selection of requirements. None of CRTs or LCDs meets all of them in all conditions.
My CRTs:
- look the same from any angle
- have no motion blurring whatsoever (<1 ms of lag)
- modern phosphor beats mechanical motion (crystals) any day for speed
- 8-bit colour? You bet.
Oops, I just responded to a troll
My CRTs are big, heavy and make great heaters for colder days, but I simply can't find an LCD screen outside of the heavily-professional (>5k Euro) market which match the performance of my CRTs. And that all for nearly zero Euros spent. I love my CRTs.
+1. This is just in the exact same way I have my setup.
CRT's is still and will be superior in certain tasks, until maybe OLEDs or something similar with low response time and fast refresh rates comes. Been dreaming of SED displays for a long time already.
Cyberbeing
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2007
- Messages
- 570
I know what you mean, it's really hard to find any LCD that beats/matches a CRT in nearly all aspects plus has a slew of additional advantages until you get into things like broadcast grade monitors. Though if you only care about working on still images doing something like graphic design or pre-press, high quality monitors for that purpose are much cheaper.
Just the other day I was looking to see what was new in the LCD market and was pleased to see some new monitors using a 22.5" 1920x1200 IPS (choice of WCG-CCFL or LED backlight) 10bit panel 120hz (with black frame insertion) and the ability to emulate the primaries of multiple color spaces with 97%+ coverage (sRGB, SMPTE-C, BT.709, EBU, AdobeRGB), only to be disappointed they are being targeted toward the broadcast market only. Broadcast market only means the WCG-CCFL backlight versions will go for $10-15K (Eizo ColorEdge CG232W, Sony PVM-L2300) and the LED backlight versions will go for $20-30k (Sony BVM-L230, Barco RHDM-2301P). All I could say was &#!$. Bring something like that to the mainstream, and I would never think twice about using a CRT ever again. Yet, considering those are just hitting the broadcast market, it's probably wishful thinking to see anything comparable trickle down into the sub-$2K market within the next 5 years.
Any flat panel which comes into the realm of becoming a true CRT replacement will cost as much as a car long into the future, but that is just life. There is still a large demand for CRT replacement flat panels in the high-end broadcast market, and companies figure it's in their best interest to restrict innovations to that segment alone and charge an arm and a leg for anything that comes close. If FED monitors ever come out. the broadcast market is likely the only place where they will be headed for a very long time as well. Who knows, maybe when OLED comes out things will be different.
Edit: To stay on topic, I'll chime in as well that I still use a Sony GDM-F520 CRT as my monitor and have a second brand-new GDM-F520 in reserve.
Last edited:
UnclePauly09
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2009
- Messages
- 523
In a week I'm going to pick up a rarely used GDM F-520. Albovin can spit numbers out of his ass all day long and try to fool the people that haven't seen one of these in person, but those that have seen the glory know he's full of shat. He's bitter about something I dunno maybe cause he's spent all this time and money and a friggin 6 yr old dinosaur completely obliterates anything he can muster up?
Yea, I agree with you, the guy is coming off as either a troll or smug douche bag, basically anything that is not his monitor is garbage.
PolygonGTC
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2006
- Messages
- 1,791
None of my systems still run on CRTs though I still have a couple sitting around.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2005
- Messages
- 1,590
Diamond Pro 930SB, You can get the same results with most CRTs after hardware calibration.
daveswantek
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,231
You have it right. He has no knowledge or experience with a high-end Sony GDM series CRT. those of us that have one know the truth, so we can just laugh at his limited knowledge. I do not mess with him any more, because he has gotten boring.
Dave