Current state of the CRT display

Logan321 said:
I've still got my 19" panasonic SL-95 from 1999. Has a bit of a buzz to it now, could probably go and get it recalibrated if I knew a place that still does that... Next to it is my 21" Gateway LCD widescreen... Blacks look ... black on the crt... they don't on the LCD. Deep grey, yes but never a true black. Still, for the space it takes up on the desk and the size an LCD display can reach it's worth letting go of the old...

And yet, I still keep my CRT. :D Guess it's nostalgic.
Click to expand...

Well I will be using a CRT in a few months, that's for sure. I can understand your nostalgia. :p
 
ajm786 said:
I don't think you truly understand the virtues of a CRT. I was a diehard CRT user, but had to switch over to LCD about 4 years ago, and, honestly, am satisfied with the experience my LCDs provide me with. But to claim that an LCD is superior to a CRT for the reasons you mentioned? Nonsense. !!!
Click to expand...

The only nonsense is the mentality that many have adopted, ie, LCD must beat CRT is all aspects of performance otherwise they'll be unhappy and bitch and whine.

My hi res photographs look heaps better on my LCD.
My HDTV recordings looks better on my LCD.
Games look better on my LCD.
DVD looks better.
Banners and photo's at websites look better.

FYI, I've already mentioned that I have a Acer26 IPS, and that I'm talking on behalf of the home user, not professionals.....I appreciate professionals may want higher specs, but IMO, any good 8 bit 24inch or larger LCD{up to 27inch only} will make the home user very happy.
 
Im a home user and still prefer my 24" FW900 CRT, Especially when it comes to HD & DVD playback quality. Perhaps you've never used a high end CRT before? :) btw the FW900 retailed for $2,300.
 
mathesar said:
Im a home user and still prefer my 24" FW900 CRT, Especially when it comes to HD & DVD playback quality. Perhaps you've never used a high end CRT before? :) btw the FW900 retailed for $2,300.
Click to expand...

You prefer a 22 inch diagonal over a 25.5-27…..thanks but no thanks, I’m not interested in puny.
 
Dogmapog said:
You prefer a 22 inch diagonal over a 25.5-27…..thanks but no thanks, I’m not interested in puny.
Click to expand...

You're a good example of someone who prefers screensize over anything else which is no big deal ,however a videophile stick's with what looks best.

Anyhow when Im watching Bluray or playing 360 / PS3 I use a 50" Kuro plasma these days ;) (pic here)
 
mathesar said:
You're a good example of someone who prefers screensize over anything else which is no big deal ,however a videophile stick's with what looks best.

Anyhow when Im watching Bluray or playing 360 / PS3 I use a 50" Kuro plasma these days ;) (pic here)
Click to expand...

LOL....on the contrary, I prefer the impact of size, the effect of VISIBLE resolution{something most people seem to be oblivious to}, the extraordinary difference in performance wrt hi res photo's and games compared to small LCD and CRT.

Btw, there seems to be a fundamental and unresolvable dissconnect between self appointed videophiles, and the average user who wants value out of their PC experience, also black level performance is just one performance criteria, and IMO, the black level capabilities of my Acer{and presumably DELL/Samsung27's} mated with the impact of size overcomes any "videophile" focused deficiencies.

I reiterate that I'm not an advocate of large TN panels, but I'm of the view that most people will be happy with a decent 2008 8 bit 24-27inch LCD for typical PC use, and that despite some panels having their unique quirks, their performance is excellent for the home user....videophiles need not apply.

Alos, why don't you just wait till LED based LCD hit your pricepoint?.....but there's no need to rubbish good quality LCD on the basis of some of the junk that's out there......if I wanted a poor PC viewing experience, I would have bought a shitty 20inch TN panel.
 
Dogmapog said:
LOL....on the contrary, I prefer the impact of size, the effect of VISIBLE resolution{something most people seem to be oblivious to}, the extraordinary difference in performance wrt hi res photo's and games compared to small LCD and CRT.

Btw, there seems to be a fundamental and unresolvable dissconnect between self appointed videophiles, and the average user who wants value out of their PC experience, also black level performance is just one performance criteria, and IMO, the black level capabilities of my Acer{and presumably DELL/Samsung27's} mated with the impact of size overcomes any "videophile" focused deficiencies.

I reiterate that I'm not an advocate of large TN panels, but I'm of the view that most people will be happy with a decent 2008 8 bit 24-27inch LCD for typical PC use, and that despite some panels having their unique quirks, their performance is excellent for the home user....videophiles need not apply.

Alos, why don't you just wait till LED based LCD hit your pricepoint?.....but there's no need to rubbish good quality LCD on the basis of some of the junk that's out there......if I wanted a poor PC viewing experience, I would have bought a shitty 20inch TN panel.
Click to expand...

That's funny. "Videophiles" are the ones who get you the majority of the content you use your "quality" LCD to view. Unless you spend all your time looking at your own shot "high-res" photos.

Here's what it all boils down to. A simple CRT of the past can still outdo a current LCD in almost all facets, save geometry. Doesn't that speak volumes for LCDs themselves? Why should I have to settle for something less than what previous technology gave me for granted? That doesn't make sense. Technology is supposed to move forward. Instead, with LCD, we went backwards in favor of aesthetics.

I'm all for LCDs. The issue is that it's developed ever so slowly, due to people who have your type of mentality: users that are willing to accept less for more money. That is EXACTLY what the manufacturers want, so they push specs that are of no meaning, confusing terminology which is nothing but a fancy way of lying (good example, contrast ratios and "native" contrast ratios :rolleyes: ) and large screen sizes and hide all the rest of the important specs. This is the reason why LCD technology has been so stagnant in general.
 
ajm786 said:
Here's what it all boils down to. A simple CRT of the past can still outdo a current LCD in almost all facets, save geometry. Doesn't that speak volumes for LCDs themselves? Why should I have to settle for something less than what previous technology gave me for granted? That doesn't make sense. Technology is supposed to move forward. Instead, with LCD, we went backwards in favor of aesthetics.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with some of what you said, but had I listened to you, I'd still be using my old, small, dull and lifeless CRT....but now, I've got a big and beautiful LCD on the same desk as my old and dull CRT, and my chair is in the same position, ie, I moved my LCD to the edge of my desk, but I haven't had to alter my desk nor my seating position.....works for me.

I'm not going to diagree that LCD PC monitors are overpriced compared to LCD TV, but unless you're prepared to wait till LED LCD's hit reasonable pricepoints, then there's no need to withhold the purchase of a 8 bit LCD, ideally 26-27inch IMO.

When I first got my 26, I thought I'd have to "put up" with text being small, but I kid you not, it now essentially looks the same as viewing text on my old 19in CRT at 10x7, so I've got excellent text/web surfing peformance, improved HDTV/DVD/games and photo performance...what's not to like?

I don't mind if videophiles demand more from manufactures{I'm waiting on the next gen of Panasonic plasma before I buy a big screen}, but I do object to the idea that the average person won't appreciate a large LCD just because CRT might have some higher specs.....my old, small, and lifeless CRT didn't offer me useable brightness levels, nor did it offer me visible resolution, ie, DVD/HDTV and photo's often looked the same regardless of whether I ran my desktop at 10x7 or 16x1200, IOW, I couldn't take advantage of the resolution because of the small size of the CRT{with the exception of games}.

The large DELL 27 thread is full of happy campers.
 
Dogmapog said:
I tend to agree with some of what you said, but had I listened to you, I'd still be using my old, small, dull and lifeless CRT....but now, I've got a big and beautiful LCD on the same desk as my old and dull CRT, and my chair is in the same position, ie, I moved my LCD to the edge of my desk, but I haven't had to alter my desk nor my seating position.....works for me.

I'm not going to diagree that LCD PC monitors are overpriced compared to LCD TV, but unless you're prepared to wait till LED LCD's hit reasonable pricepoints, then there's no need to withhold the purchase of a 8 bit LCD, ideally 26-27inch IMO.

When I first got my 26, I thought I'd have to "put up" with text being small, but I kid you not, it now essentially looks the same as viewing text on my old 19in CRT at 10x7, so I've got excellent text/web surfing peformance, improved HDTV/DVD/games and photo performance...what's not to like?

I don't mind if videophiles demand more from manufactures{I'm waiting on the next gen of Panasonic plasma before I buy a big screen}, but I do object to the idea that the average person won't appreciate a large LCD just because CRT might have some higher specs.....my old, small, and lifeless CRT didn't offer me useable brightness levels, nor did it offer me visible resolution, ie, DVD/HDTV and photo's often looked the same regardless of whether I ran my desktop at 10x7 or 16x1200, IOW, I couldn't take advantage of the resolution because of the small size of the CRT{with the exception of games}.

The large DELL 27 thread is full of happy campers.
Click to expand...

Dude, I understand everything you are saying. I reiterate: I'm not against LCDs at all. As a matter of fact, it'll be a cold day in hell before anyone can pry my Viewsonic VP201b from my hands. No way I'm letting go of it. So glad I got it while I did.

The issue is that when I got it, I got it as a single screen. I'd never had dual screen before. I was literally forced to buy a second screen to play games on. The issues at hand were twofold: the lag and the contrast ratio. Both only two of the many limitations of LCDs.

And viewing angles on LCDs are incomparable to CRTs. I can stand anywhere I want in a room and the picture on a CRT will be the same: that can't be said of any LCD, I don't care what kind it is. It's just simply a limitation of the technology.

It is unfortunate, as I said in one of my earlier posts, that we have to settle for what we've got. CRTs are obsolete; there's no disputing that. We are merely stating our desire for a technology that can mesh the best of all technologies and give us what was taken away from us with the demise of the CRT.

Nevertheless, as there are a few of us who still have a CRT, as I do, I can't wait to get back to it. Not for everyday use, but for specified use ONLY (competitive gaming, dark environment gaming, and precise color reproduction).
 
As I said before, I simply don’t like the idea of people{regardless of who they are wrt technical knowledge} rubbishing good quality LCD….I define good quality LCD as 2007-08 8bit 24inch-27.

All of the objections you raised towards LCD are either irrelevant or exaggerated, at least as far as my LCD is concerned {Acer 2616W}, ie, I have no problems with viewing angles as the solitary user of the PC, and I get ZERO vertical contrast shift, so the switch between forward seating when typing, or backward seating when viewing a DVD produces ZERO contrast shift.

I can’t see a hint of ghosting, nor can I detect any input lag based on my gaming with Far Cry, Timeshift, Q4, Shadow ops.

As far as your own example of needing 2 screens, I’m not going to dispute the need for that in your case…I’ve seen 2006 19in LCD, and it had it’s strengths and weaknesses compared to my 19in CRT, but I wouldn’t have bought a 19in LCD based on the performance of a 2006 19in LCD….however, based on the positive feedback from the Dell 27 thread{and also the quality of reviews for the Samsung 27 and Acer26}, I decided to buy the Acer as there was a $450 price difference between it and the DELL in my neck of the woods.

http://tvcalculator.com/index.html?935da4e2036c8ca7c23b0d4c6cd38c86

Look at what I’ve gone from, LOL.

I’ve watched many DVD’s in total darkness, no big deal to me….also, I’m not a competitive gamer, so I still think it’s an unfair case of a videophile vs a home-user, whereby the videophile has set the criteria and by that criteria, all LCD’s will fail to some degree.

IMO, if you have a small LCD or CRT, and you have an interest in a range of multimedia usage, you’ll fall in love with a 8 bit 26-27inch LCD…..and all this talk about dot pitch will become meaningless as you’re viewing beautiful images and enjoying HDTV/DVD/games on your PC.

Apart from having superior black levels, my old, small, dull and lifeless CRT has no advantage over my LCD, and when the LCD does shine, it’s performance is in another league, ie, games and photo’s, not to mention the advantage of a larger screen for the purpose of visible resolution, but granted some people may have a 768p HDTV for HDTV and DVD.

If you’ve got a small LCD or CRT, sure you could wait another year, and new models will be out and prices will drop, but if you want to move into the 21st century, large 8bit LCD will take you part of the way, lol.
 
Dogmapog said:
/snip
Click to expand...

None of what I said is irrelevant or exaggerated at all. It all comes down to acceptance: whether you're willing to accept something that is flawed by its very nature or not. Everything comes in degrees. You are comparing what can be considered top of the line LCDs to crappy old CRTs. You can't do that. You have to compare apples to apples, and oranges to oranges. Like mathesar said earlier, compare to something like a FW900, then we can talk.

And no, if I go out and buy an LCD TODAY, I wouldn't touch an 8 bit panel with a 10 foot pole. 12 bit or nothing! :D This what I'd shoot for.

http://www.necdisplay.com/Products/Product/?product=4af7b335-9302-4429-8d73-74c35a363b57
 
I plan on getting a TV that can handle the Super Hi-Vision resolution of 7680 x 4320p ;)
It will only cost me $2.5M:p
800px-UHDV.svg.png
 
ajm786 said:
None of what I said is irrelevant or exaggerated at all. It all comes down to acceptance: whether you're willing to accept something that is flawed by its very nature or not. Everything comes in degrees. You are comparing what can be considered top of the line LCDs to crappy old CRTs. You can't do that. You have to compare apples to apples, and oranges to oranges. Like mathesar said earlier, compare to something like a FW900, then we can talk.

http://www.necdisplay.com/Products/Product/?product=4af7b335-9302-4429-8d73-74c35a363b57
Click to expand...

No offense, but I think you've lost the plot...I don't want an ugly, bulky small CRT on my desk ever again, and FYI, my Hitachi CRT won a PC mag award in 2001, that's why I bought it.

Show me a 25.5 or 27 inch CRT and we're in business......anyway, I've already mentioned that I was comparing my LCD to old CRT and LCD.

Your objections don't apply to me, nor do they apply to the guy at OCAU forum who just bought a Samsung 27 and says he's in love with it.

When people read these forums, they must be thinking all LCD are crap.....all I'm doing is correcting that misconception for the benefit of anyone who understands the value of a 26-27in on their desk.

I'm not disputing that lower cost and spec LCD might be of mediocre quality, but then again, I think that some of the good 22's would satisfy heaps of people, but according to you, they need to buy $2200 LCD's before they can be happy.....sounds like a bad case of e-penis exposure my friend.





 
Dogmapog said:
/snip
Click to expand...

There's no need to get your panties in a wad. I said before: to each his own. You can sit here all day an argue with me about CRTs and never get anywhere. I fully stand behind my comments; I think YOU are the one missing the points here. I am merely stating facts.

As an industry whole, we are accepting LESS than we should. LCDs were half assed, incomplete baked cookies that were shoved on us whether we liked it or not. When my CRT died and I couldn't find any other on the market, I had to go out and spend over $1500.00 on LCDs, only to find out that they didn't come close to the CRT that I had. That is ashaming and appalling, my friend.

I am perfectly fine recommending LCDs to people; heck, LCDs are all I work on. And I will not recommend any CRT, save those like the high end Mitsubishis and the FW900, if they can be found. That still does not cover for LCDs' obvious and glaring shortcomings. And it is certainly not a "mentality". As a professional, it's imperative to have excellent color reproduction. You won't TRULY get that, except with a CRT. It's why my graphics reproduction department at my company are all still running Mitsubishi 22" Diamondtron CRTs: all 50 of them, each one properly calibrated by Spyder colorimeters.

You like your LCDs, that's fine. I like mine also. But don't try and vouch for the fact that an LCD is superior to a good CRT, because it's not, and that's the crux of our argument. Rather, admit the opposite, and move on.

And by the way. The comment about that 30+inch NEC was my OWN preference. In no way was I stating that that's what people should buy, so don't put the label on me that that's what I'm trying to do. I may be a die-hard CRT fan at heart, but I'm not stupid. I've built over 60+ rigs for customers, and everyone has been with an LCD. Wow. I guess that's a real case of "e-penis exposure". :rolleyes:
 
ajm786 said:
I can't gauge whether or not you're being sarcastic. Smileys may help in this case.

If you are not:

I fail to see how screen size equates to something looking good. :rolleyes: This screams of "BIGGAR = BETTAR!!!" mentality.

LCDs can be made to look good. So can CRTs. But in the vast scheme of things, LCDs cannot equal their bulky display counterparts in certain aspects. They very well may come close, but, so far, have been unable to equal them.
Click to expand...

Uhh I think you misunderstood me. I was pretty much saying exactly what you just did lol. My screen size comment was a vague reference to what Dogmapog was claiming, he is clearly the one with the "bigger is better mentality" not me.

Heck if you put 2 computers running Thief in front of me, one with a 15" CRT and the other with a 37" LCD and gave me the choice of which to use I would pick the 15" CRT without hesitation. Screen size is meaningless to me if whats on the screen doesn't look good.
 
Toompra said:
Uhh I think you misunderstood me. I was pretty much saying exactly what you just did lol. My screen size comment was a vague reference to what Dogmapog was claiming, he is clearly the one with the "bigger is better mentality" not me.

Heck if you put 2 computers running Thief in front of me, one with a 15" CRT and the other with a 37" LCD and gave me the choice of which to use I would pick the 15" CRT without hesitation. Screen size is meaningless to me if whats on the screen doesn't look good.
Click to expand...

:D Ok, just making sure. We are on the same page. :p

Yes indeed. A good CRT is definitely nicer than a huge LCD that can't display the images correctly.
 
ajm786 said:
As an industry whole, we are accepting LESS than we should. LCDs were half assed, incomplete baked cookies that were shoved on us whether we liked it or not. When my CRT died and I couldn't find any other on the market, I had to go out and spend over $1500.00 on LCDs, only to find out that they didn't come close to the CRT that I had. That is ashaming and appalling, my friend.

I :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That's not my fault, nor have I ever disagreed over the state of LCD development, in fact, I've been calling many LCD's junk till quite recently.

It's like you see me as a representative of the LCD industry, when in reality, I'm just a guy with a HDTV capture card in his PC, LOL.

My point is this....regardless of the dodgy development of the LCD industry, and regardless of how bad or mediocre small TN panels are, large 8 bit 24-27 are excellent for most people.

If you're a professional, then you've got to bite the bullet and buy a NEC or Eizo and make some money with it.

The only point I've ever tried to make, and still stand by, is that good quality LCD is ready for primetime, even if you have a 768p HDTV, the 1080 LCD's will favour photo's, games and web-surfing.
 
Toompra said:
Heck if you put 2 computers running Thief in front of me, one with a 15" CRT and the other with a 37" LCD and gave me the choice of which to use I would pick the 15" CRT without hesitation. Screen size is meaningless to me if whats on the screen doesn't look good.
Click to expand...

How about if it looks better.....games look better to me than they did on my 19in CRT.
You're also totally oblivious to the advantages of VISIBLE RESOLUTION.

Black levels are just one factor in perceived PQ, and perceived PQ is all that matters to the home user.
 
I am not oblivious, I once bought a 24" BenQ FP241WZ and I've seen bigger monitors in person so I am well aware of their advantages. To a certain extent I agree with you, many games did look better on those LCD's than they do on my CRT's, but not games with any dark areas thats for sure.

Have you even played a game like Thief on your LCD? or one where you entered a cave or something? In that situation any backlight issues your LCD has are exposed and very visible during the gameplay. Now I dunno about you but when I play games I like to look at pretty graphics and be immersed into a virtual world. How the heck am I supposed to do that when I keep seeing backlight bleed and a mess of washed out grey shadows? Its a complete joke and totally ruins the experience.

I think the same about watching movies on an LCD. Any dark scenes (like the starwars space battles) are guarenteed to look like crap and black bars certainly don't look very black do they. PLUS compression artifacts are far more noticeable on LCD's, certain video formats like xvid look very blocky if you are sitting close, I had to move really far back to avoid seeing that. Yes I know this is because LCD's are sharper than CRT's but its a killer for me since I watch a lot of xvids.
 
Hitachi CRT's were based on Shadow mask which is by default considerably dimmer / darker than a Trinitron / Aperture grille based CRT..also Shadow mask based CRT's were known to lose there brightness 'punch' much sooner than a Trinitron over time, for example my FW900 is now 6 years old but I still never run the Contrast setting any higher than 90, (79 when browsing to save my eyes and 90 when gaming or watching a movie) The Hitachi may of won an award but its still no match for a high end Sony.
 
Toompra said:
I am not oblivious, I once bought a 24" BenQ FP241WZ and I've seen bigger monitors in person so I am well aware of their advantages. To a certain extent I agree with you, many games did look better on those LCD's than they do on my CRT's, but not games with any dark areas thats for sure.

Have you even played a game like Thief on your LCD? or one where you entered a cave or something? In that situation any backlight issues your LCD has are exposed and very visible during the gameplay. Now I dunno about you but when I play games I like to look at pretty graphics and be immersed into a virtual world. How the heck am I supposed to do that when I keep seeing backlight bleed and a mess of washed out grey shadows? Its a complete joke and totally ruins the experience.

I think the same about watching movies on an LCD. Any dark scenes (like the starwars space battles) are guarenteed to look like crap and black bars certainly don't look very black do they. PLUS compression artifacts are far more noticeable on LCD's, certain video formats like xvid look very blocky if you are sitting close, I had to move really far back to avoid seeing that. Yes I know this is because LCD's are sharper than CRT's but its a killer for me since I watch a lot of xvids.
Click to expand...

QFT.

There's simply no LCD currently that can come close to a CRT in these respects. Imagine when I enter a cave in Oblivion and I can't see anything but muddy backlighting. :rolleyes:
 
mathesar said:
Hitachi CRT's were based on Shadow mask which is by default considerably dimmer / darker than a Trinitron / Aperture grille based CRT..also Shadow mask based CRT's were known to lose there brightness 'punch' much sooner than a Trinitron over time, for example my FW900 is now 6 years old but I still never run the Contrast setting any higher than 90, (79 when browsing to save my eyes and 90 when gaming or watching a movie) The Hitachi may of won an award but its still no match for a high end Sony.
Click to expand...

You're expecting people to track down old, small, heavy and bulky CRT's rather than buy a new, bigger, more space efficient LCD:rolleyes:.....that's NOT HOT!!!!, it's a bizarre devotion to old technology.
 
Toompra said:
I
Have you even played a game like Thief on your LCD? or one where you entered a cave or something? In that situation any backlight issues your LCD has are exposed and very visible during the gameplay. Now I dunno about you but when I play games I like to look at pretty graphics and be immersed into a virtual world. How the heck am I supposed to do that when I keep seeing backlight bleed and a mess of washed out grey shadows? Its a complete joke and totally ruins the experience.
.
Click to expand...

My Acer has a dynamic contrast ratio which I have switched on, so that's probably helping me, but the only dark game I've played is Q4, and I didn't have a problem with it's performance, as I said, overall it looked better than on my CRT, and that was despite it only being at 1600x1200 rather than 1920.

The manner in which you describe the backlight bleed leads me to believe that it was appalling, so I can appreciate you not enjoying it, however, the backlight bleed on my Acer is even over the screen**, so certain sections of the monitor do not look washed out.

**every PC LCD I've seen has backlight bleed to some degree....that said, the latest Samsung LCD HDTV's look midnight black, I was very impressed by it.

As for xvids, they look okay on my Acer, {Video: XVID 720x416 25.00fps 1898Kbps} looks very good either at 200% or fullscreen.....if you're watching 624's at 1000kbps, then the PQ won't be as good, but I still watch American Idol as 624's on my Acer.
 
LOL. My Panasonic 34" HD CRT OWNS my Dell 2707WFP when it comes to video. Sure it might be missing a bit of resolution compared to a fixed pixel display but at 34" it doesn't matter. Contrast and colors are so much better, with an LCD shades of gray are missing. It doesn't matter what kind of LCD it is, they will always lose when it comes to contrast ratio. Personally I think LCDs are better computer monitors now (finally) due to them being easier on the eyes and very sharp. However until new technology comes out I simply won't waste my money on an LCD TV. Bigger + Inferior Picture doesn't equal better A lot of the hardcore LCD defenders are people in their teens that equate newer = better. However as most of us twenty somethings ( and older) know that isn't necessarily true
 
Dogmapog said:
You're expecting people to track down old, small, heavy and bulky CRT's rather than buy a new, bigger, more space efficient LCD:rolleyes:.....that's NOT HOT!!!!, it's a bizarre devotion to old technology.
Click to expand...

A sensible consumer would read that and then go out and try to find a CRT. Once he sees that it is basically obsolete, he would then start looking for an LCD. Best to do that than to be cram-fed information about LCDs from the get go.

And about it being "NOT HOT"? Save that for Ms. Hilton.:eek:
 
Both, why would I put a 34" CRT on my desk? I can see it from my desk.. Anyone that comes over comments on how much nicer my TV is then their LCD.. And I can afford a 60" LCD if I felt like it, it's just not interesting
 
Dogmapog said:
My Acer has a dynamic contrast ratio which I have switched on, so that's probably helping me, but the only dark game I've played is Q4, and I didn't have a problem with it's performance, as I said, overall it looked better than on my CRT, and that was despite it only being at 1600x1200 rather than 1920.

The manner in which you describe the backlight bleed leads me to believe that it was appalling, so I can appreciate you not enjoying it, however, the backlight bleed on my Acer is even over the screen**, so certain sections of the monitor do not look washed out.

**every PC LCD I've seen has backlight bleed to some degree....that said, the latest Samsung LCD HDTV's look midnight black, I was very impressed by it.

As for xvids, they look okay on my Acer, {Video: XVID 720x416 25.00fps 1898Kbps} looks very good either at 200% or fullscreen.....if you're watching 624's at 1000kbps, then the PQ won't be as good, but I still watch American Idol as 624's on my Acer.
Click to expand...

Dynamic contrast ratios are probably one of the most gimmicky inventions ever for an LCD. Your eyes will get tired out so quick it's not even funny. Imagine going into the sunlight then the shade, then back and forth. Your eyes will get tired. Not to mention I can't see how you can play games that have HDR with dynamic contrast ratios on. They will destroy the ability for HDR to function properly. You'll get double the wash out effect, and double the dimming effect.
 
You can count me among the people who still cling to their CRT. I have a Sony FW900 - and a spare FW900 in the closet in case my primary goes kaputt. In response to the post above, there's nothing "bizarre" about the commitment to old technology. I'm a competitive FPS player and I'll use whatever monitor allows me to play best. It's really as simple as that. If they release an LCD/OLED/whatever screen tomorrow that exceeds the performance of my FW900, I will upgrade on the spot.

I'm fairly price insensitive. If there was an LCD under $2k that could match or beat my CRT, it would be sitting on my desk. I've tried switching to LCD's a half dozen times over the past few years for all of the obvious reasons (e.g. sleek, big screen, pixel-perfect image, high brightness, easy to move around, etc.) But for competitive FPS gaming, there's simply no comparison between CRT and LCD. Even the 'modern '07/08 LCD's' with the lowest input lag and fastest response times aren't nearly as good as a CRT.

If they made an LCD with zero input lag and 0ms response time, it still wouldn't compete with a CRT due to the current digital interface restrictions. There's simply no workaround for the low refresh rate bottleneck. (This is usually where someone chimes in with "but LCD's refresh differently - refresh doesn't matter!" followed by "and your eye can't even see the difference!")

Utter nonsense. As far as gaming is concerned, 60hz = 60fps. It doesn't matter if your video card can produce a silky smooth 150fps. You're going to get 60fps, because that is what the DVI interface is capable of sending and what your LCD screen is capable of displaying. (Yes, I know there are a few rare exceptions of LCD's that can do an incrementally better 75hz without dropping every 5th frame.)

As far as 'what the eye can see' with respect to FPS gaming, I'll just give my personal experience since everyone is different and some people seem to be far more sensitive than others. For me, the tipping point is 120hz. That's the point at which in-game movement appears fluid and I can focus on the game without being distracted by the monitor. I normally play on my CRT with a refresh rate of 120-150hz, depending on what resolution I'm using. I can tell the difference between 150hz and 120hz, but its not nearly as dramatic as the difference between 90hz and 120hz.

60hz is garbage.
 
Dogmapog said:
You're expecting people to track down old, small, heavy and bulky CRT's rather than buy a new, bigger, more space efficient LCD:rolleyes:.....that's NOT HOT!!!!, it's a bizarre devotion to old technology.
Click to expand...

Man, I don't mean to sound offensive but you're being pretty irrational. He didn't any of that, just stated his view of the facts.

I think Toompra pretty much nailed it with this statement:
Have you even played a game like Thief on your LCD? or one where you entered a cave or something? In that situation any backlight issues your LCD has are exposed and very visible during the gameplay. Now I dunno about you but when I play games I like to look at pretty graphics and be immersed into a virtual world. How the heck am I supposed to do that when I keep seeing backlight bleed and a mess of washed out grey shadows?
Click to expand...

I think the best answer to the CRT versus LCD debate has always been that each excels in certain areas. Most people don't play moody games with the lights off, so that particular flaw with LCD's is irrelevant to them. To others, it is very relevant. I don't see how that can be argued, but I'm sure you'll find a way!
 
dz.Doze said:
I'm a competitive FPS player and I'll use whatever monitor allows me to play best. It's really as simple as that. .
Click to expand...

None of what you've said diminishes the fact that my Acer is better and preferable to my old 19inch CRT, and also much better than my brothers Mitsubishi 22 in CRT....it's also a shitload better than my buddies 19inch 12x10 LCD.

I'm glad you mentioned that you're a pro-gamer, cause it seems you guys are ludicrously hard on LCD's either by neccesity, or as a e-penis game of I've got the better specs.
 
Scyles said:
Man, I don't mean to sound offensive but you're being pretty irrational. He didn't any of that, just stated his view of the facts.

I think Toompra pretty much nailed it with this statement:


I think the best answer to the CRT versus LCD debate has always been that each excels in certain areas. Most people don't play moody games with the lights off, so that particular flaw with LCD's is irrelevant to them. To others, it is very relevant. I don't see how that can be argued, but I'm sure you'll find a way!
Click to expand...

I've been yelling and hammering this ever since I first started posting in this thread. :p

Dogmapog said:
...cause it seems you guys are ludicrously hard on LCD's either by neccesity, or as a e-penis game of I've got the better specs.
Click to expand...

You bet your ass. Inferior = gets bashed. Well not exactly bashed, but enough to expose its obvious flaws. I don't know why you can't accept it, and I don't know why you keep referring to "e-penis". Because my LCD won't do what my CRT would, I automatically have an e-penis? Sounds like you are the one with it, since you are so in love with your toys that any exposure of their obvious flaws sounds like denigration to you.
 
*sigh* my CRT is starting to show a little color because it's so old. I would get a used one but I have no idea what condition those are in as well.

I just wish they still made CRTs, and kept them cheap just because people prefer LCDs. I would love the Apple Cinema Display, for example, but man too expensive for a college kid that would love that colour reproduction for his work.
 
dz.Doze said:
...

60hz is garbage.
Click to expand...

I've been continually amazed by how many people either don't even know that most LCDs are limited to 60 frames per second or aren't bothered by it. For me, this is the biggest reason why I would never be happy with an LCD for gaming, and why I've kept my Trinitron running at 100Hz around for that purpose. There's just no comparison between 60 and 100 or more frames per second.
 
Dogmapog said:
How about if it looks better.....games look better to me than they did on my 19in CRT.
You're also totally oblivious to the advantages of VISIBLE RESOLUTION.

Black levels are just one factor in perceived PQ, and perceived PQ is all that matters to the home user.
Click to expand...


What 19" crt are we talking about? I am very curious to know whether it was a lowend shadow mask or a medium to highend flat Diamondtron or Trinitron crt. I have owned many shadow masks and many flat ag screens. The difference in pq between them, while not as big as the difference between a TN and a S-IPS, is quite large.

EGGO said:
*sigh* my CRT is starting to show a little color because it's so old. I would get a used one but I have no idea what condition those are in as well.

I just wish they still made CRTs, and kept them cheap just because people prefer LCDs. I would love the Apple Cinema Display, for example, but man too expensive for a college kid that would love that colour reproduction for his work.
Click to expand...


Try craigslist, you can usually pick up a good used crt for less than $100. More importantly, you can test the thing to see how it works b4 you buy since craigslist is local.
 
GORANKAR said:
What 19" crt are we talking about? I am very curious to know whether it was a lowend shadow mask or a medium to highend flat Diamondtron or Trinitron crt. I have owned many shadow masks and many flat ag screens. The difference in pq between them, while not as big as the difference between a TN and a S-IPS, is quite large.
Click to expand...

This man speaks the truth. I have both a shadow mask Viewsonic CRT and a Gateway AG (aperture grille) Trinitron CRT. There is no comparison in image quality between the 2; the Gateway kicks the Viewsonic's ass all over the place.

But you can multiply this by 2 when you are comparing images between my VX922 and VP201b. The VP201b, an SIPS based LCD, is absolutely stunning in PQ, arguably 2+ times better than the VX922, which is a TN.
 
mathesar said:
Eh I cant agree especially when you expose the NEC to a dark room (the way I like watching movies) its true black level capability is revealed here and it isnt anywhere near my FW900 CRT.

On the other hand my Kuro plasma has VERY close black levels to my XBR960 HDTV CRT (even in a dark room) which really surprised me.The Kuro is rated at a true 16,000:1 ratio which is a far cry from my NEC's 1600:1 ratio.

EDIT: Here's a pic I took awhile back with my FW900 CRT vs. NEC 20WMGX2 LCD, no lights where on in the room and I actually had the LCD's brightness set to 0! Im not trying to bash the NEC in fact it has far better black levels than my previous Dell 2001FP ..Im just saying its got a ways to go vs. a properly working CRT:

crt_left_lcd_right_blacktestrs.jpg
Click to expand...

but here's the thing....you're comparing a 20WMGX2, i'm comparing a 2490 - they are vastly different monitors, the 20WMGX2 is a gaming monitor, the 2490 is a pro monitor. night and day in everything, even black levels.
i'm telling you, i'm a picky black level snob and the black levels on the 2490 are quite impressive. i have your same CRT - all i'm saying is look at a 2490 calibrated with spectraview and a one eye. i believe you'd be quite impressed.
 
Dunan said:
but here's the thing....you're comparing a 20WMGX2, i'm comparing a 2490 - they are vastly different monitors, the 20WMGX2 is a gaming monitor, the 2490 is a pro monitor. night and day in everything, even black levels.
i'm telling you, i'm a picky black level snob and the black levels on the 2490 are quite impressive. i have your same CRT - all i'm saying is look at a 2490 calibrated with spectraview and a one eye. i believe you'd be quite impressed.
Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaken, mathesar already calibrated both screens. In addition, you're right; the 2490 is a nice piece of hardware. But can you game with it (competitively)? It's surely bound to have some type of lag or ghosting associated with it, because it's a pro LCD, not truly catered toward fast response times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top