Current state of the CRT display

[Toompra]

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..

I have used that dynamic contrast feature on a Samsung 226BW and found it very annoying to see the backlight switch between light and dark all the time. It looked rediculous.

As for backlight bleed the BenQ I tried also had an evenly uniform backlight with no light halos anywhere like so many other LCD's have. But that didn't really matter because the entire backlight was a uniform grey not a uniform black. So yes dark things still looked washed out. it isn't necessarily bleed which causes that effect, its the brightness of the backlight itself. Bleed just makes it worse.

My dad also bought a brand new 40" Samsung LCD HDTV last month and at first I thought the same as you about the blacks.. But that obviously had something to do with the lights in the store because once we took it home the blacks didn't look anywere near as good. It is better than an LCD monitor but the problem is still there.

 

[mathesar]

You're expecting people to track down old, small, heavy and bulky CRT's rather than buy a new, bigger, more space efficient LCD.....that's NOT HOT!!!!, it's a bizarre devotion to old technology.

I never said to do that did I? I just think Its kind of amusing (and sad) that a CRT made in 2001 still beats the latest and greatest LCD on the market in terms of overall performance.

But you're right.. at this point in the game there's not much *choice* but to go LCD for a PC monitor. I personally cant handle LCD's shortcomings anymore which is why I decided to go Plasma for my current HDTV, It's great having a 50" with CRT quality black levels, viewing angle's and response times.

 

[Dunan]

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.

no, you cant

i'm just comparing the black levels and picture quality. the sony FW900/HP A7217A is still king in gamer's land

 

[Dogmapog]

I have used that dynamic contrast feature on a Samsung 226BW and found it very annoying to see the backlight switch between light and dark all the time. It looked rediculous.

My dad also bought a brand new 40" Samsung LCD HDTV last month and at first I thought the same as you about the blacks.. But that obviously had something to do with the lights in the store because once we took it home the blacks didn't look anywere near as good. It is better than an LCD monitor but the problem is still there.

Based on the negatives I hear about smaller, cheaper TN panels, I can only surmise that there's a world of difference between my Acer and DELL27, and that's why I bought a 8 bit panel....also, I can't notice any fluctuation with my DC on

I would buy a plasma for typical TV use, ie, DVD, SDTV, but I'd buy a LCD for games and heavy daytime viewing.

 

[Dogmapog]

I never said to do that did I? I just think Its kind of amusing (and sad) that a CRT made in 2001 still beats the latest and greatest LCD on the market in terms of overall performance.
.

Trouble is, that's you're opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it, but under no circumstance would I ever have a PC monitor smaller than 26, ie, visible resolution definately kicks in and makes a world of difference to everything you look at, especially hi res photo's and games.

If you're the guy with the Kuro, then I'm sure you're having a good time, I just feel sorry for your CC

 

[mathesar]

Trouble is, that's you're opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it, but under no circumstance would I ever have a PC monitor smaller than 26, ie, visible resolution definately kicks in and makes a world of difference to everything you look at, especially hi res photo's and games.

It boils down to preference.. these arguments never end.. if you're happy with what you got then its all good

If you're the guy with the Kuro, then I'm sure you're having a good time, I just feel sorry for your CC

I paid cash (debit), It's been an amazing TV to say the least, It replaced my previous Sony XBR960 HDTV CRT which was Sony's highest end CRT HDTV (some pics I took here) so i was a bit skeptical at first but it turns out the reviews were right for once, Kuro's have by far the best black level performance on the market and do everything else right as well.

 

[Dogmapog]

It boils down to preference.. these arguments never end.. if you're happy with what you got then its all good
.

My whole POV has been that despite the "horror of the LCD" according to videophiles, I now have a massive upgrade over my small CRT....I'm also well aware of the problems associated with LCD, ie, black crush, shadow detail, ghosting etc, but in my case{Acer26} and in the case of Samsung 27 and DELL 27, people can buy these monitors and be very happy....people, not videophiles or pro-gamers, LOL.

There is talk of black crush with the DELL/Samsung, but I haven't seen these in the flesh, so I can't comment on that aspect, but on the proviso it isn't significant, then the size and brightness will crush kill and destroy all smaller monitors+ from memory, I think the black crush might have been a PS3 problem which may or may not have been fixed via firmware update.

Kuro sounds like a winner as far as PQ, but here in OZ....42in Panaplas=$1300, 42in Pioneer=$4000.....that's a whopping difference, in fact I can buy 50in pana or Samsung plas for $2000.

 

[StaticSurge]

Your first post that I agree with 100%. LCDs are very good now, I don't see the point of really hunting out a second hand CRT. They have advantages too like brightness, resolution and pure size. Sure CRTs can do high resolutions but they'll never look as sharp as an LCD. What I think everyone is trying to say here though is they just aren't better, not yet. Hopefully in the next coupe of years some technology will come to replace LCDs and plasmas (which are overhyped IMHO)

 

[Dogmapog]

What I think everyone is trying to say here though is they just aren't better, not yet. Hopefully in the next coupe of years some technology will come to replace LCDs and plasmas (which are overhyped IMHO)

The thing is, I’ve never ignored any of LCD’s weaknesses compared to CRT/plasma, but that said, my Acer has transformed my PC….so regardless of what the spec sheet says, and regardless of what any expert might say, large good quality 8 bit LCD is excellent for the PC right here and now{24-27}.

If someone agrees but thinks they’re still too expensive, then fine, wait till prices drop further, but if you do have a old and small CRT or LCD, then a 24-27 will give you a “fair dinkum” upgrade, ideally 26-27.

As I said, virtually everything has improved from my POV, so the idea that “experts” can constantly dump on these high quality LCD’s and get away with it is not on…..now of course, I’m all for improved black levels, faster screens where needed, etc, but I’ve yet to encounter a drama with my LCD, instead, I’m enjoying it each time I switch it on.

I also think that good plasma and LCD are not over-hyped, ie, they’re a meaningful way to improve your TV experience, bearing in mind that a 50inch PanaPlas is now $2000AUD, whereas it was $9000 4 yrs ago.

When I see plasma or LCD running either native HDTV or blu-ray, the PQ performance compared to my 68cm CRT via SDTV is sensational, 42inch plasma is also an outstanding performer with DVD……so whilst we might prefer that new technology totally overtakes old technology wrt specs, the fact is, new plas/LCD destroys old and small CRT TV, just as new LCD monitors destroy old and small CRT.

People paid $5000+ for 76cm CRT a few yrs ago, so from that POV, $5500AUD for a 50inch Kuro doesn’t seem so bad, and just as visible resolution plays a role in 19in vs 26inch PC monitors, same thing with 76cm vs 127cm…..how puny is a DVD with a OAR of 2.35 look on a 76cm{laugh}
Seems to me some videophiles aren’t happy with the improvement that these large screens bring, unless they exceed CRT specs.

 

[ZenOps]

I have high hopes for Laser - Mitsubishi should have a consumer Laser out by the end of the year.

Suprisingly, even a first generation 3-laser RGB should be strikingly similar to a conventional CRT. But with 3x less power consumption than LCD, or oppositely 3x brighter or a 3x larger screen size possible per watt. No vacuum tube needed, and it could technically be manufactured lighter than LCD's. Black levels would be perfect.

The main drawback is that the colour would be intense, but less accurate than CRT, much like many LCDs are now. That could be refined in the future with an 8-laser, or in a perfect world, a "stepped" laser design. It also paves the way for true uncompressed fiber transfer of infinite resolution and refresh rate (actually no different than looking through a camera lens, but imagine the lens being a fiber optic cable that is up to 10000 miles long)

One thing I'd like to see before my lifetime is up is a move away from pixel based screens (CRT and LCD and every display since the beginning have been pixel based) With laser, drawn images using fractal curves would be possible, much like the old asteroids game. If we can approximate motion with Mpeg codecs, we can certainly approximate objects with fractal curves, curves which scale much better into extremely large image sizes like say 50 feet or larger.

 

[Dan_D]

LCD's are better in some ways and CRT's are better in others. I don't see why people find this hard to grasp or why this still requires discussion. Finally CRT's are getting older and older and fewer companies are making them thus limiting the choices for buying new CRT monitors.

Like it or not LCD is now the dominant technology and though they are improving at a fast pace, they still haven't caught up to CRT and it is possible that they never will and we won't see a truly superior technology for some time in the consumer market. With all that said the LCD is good enough for probably 99% of the people out there. I can't even stand to look at CRT's anymore.

 

[EGGO]

LCD's are better in some ways and CRT's are better in others. I don't see why people find this hard to grasp or why this still requires discussion. Finally CRT's are getting older and older and fewer companies are making them thus limiting the choices for buying new CRT monitors.

Like it or not LCD is now the dominant technology and though they are improving at a fast pace, they still haven't caught up to CRT and it is possible that they never will and we won't see a truly superior technology for some time in the consumer market. With all that said the LCD is good enough for probably 99% of the people out there. I can't even stand to look at CRT's anymore.

Who still makes aperture grille CRTs? I'd still buy them if they weren't used.

 

[Dan_D]

Who still makes aperture grille CRTs? I'd still buy them if they weren't used.

I don't think anyone does. I think everything that's out there now is shadow mask.

 

[nigerian_businessman]

Never seen the Sony, but my Acer destroys any small monitor, LCD or CRT....why...because of it's size, ie, the visible res/detail improves and it makes quite a difference.
I'm currently watching "So you think you can dance Australia" on TEN HD and loving it

Another thing.....regardless of the superiority of the CRT blacks, most if not all old CRT's will have lost brightness, not to mention that after a while you forget what CRT looked like, IOW, perceived PQ is what you focus on, and as I've said, my Acer{and I assume DELL27/Samsung 27} kick ass in every area except black levels.....+I can't notice any ghosting on mine{played Far Cry, Q4, Timeshift etc}.

When I was thinking about buying a large LCD, I was reading the large DELL27 thread....I saw some photo's of what "photo's" looked like on the DELL and thought, nahh, it can't look that good, but it does.....so I've just finished downloading 800 1920x1200 wallpapers

I think you need to get your terminology straight. Visible screen size has nothing to do with visible resolution. When a CRT says it can do 1920x1080@85hz for example, you're not missing out on any of those pixels. You see all of that resolution. So your argument is unfounded. The difference is that, when you buy a 24in FW900, that is measured from one end of the bezel to the other. LCD monitors are measured from one edge of the screen to the other.

So really, you're arguing that on your 26" monitor, you actually get 26" of screen to look at. And you're right about that. But On the 24" FW900, you're getting the same resolution or higher in a smaller space and smaller pixel size. That means INCREASED detail. That's in addition to better contrast and smoother moving images.

You are correct about brightness degrading over time. Still, this is an issue on LCDs as well.

 

[Xpl1c1t]

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.

This, largely, is a great explanation for the most relevant question I've had with CRTs.... Why dont I play games anymore? Why haven't I been sucked into those awesome worlds like I once was?

I know that approximately 6 months after purchasing and converting to my LCD that my drive for gaming, even playing all the oldschool games in my collection which I thought I'd never bore of, has completely died. I haven't even bought the orange box... and I (excuse my language) fucking loved playing HL2 on my old dell trinitron.

It is this which is driving me to find a CRT replacement to my VX922 for the purpose of interactive media... and no i'm not going to buy a $x000+ piece of (in this respect) inferior technology to do so.

So... by looks of this thread's direction, it appears the CRT is no longer in production for the consumer...

 

[JVOBIKER]

i still have a 17" viewsonic crt from like 8-9 years ago that i use with my 360....and i have a one year old 57" flatscreen dlp in the basement that i could be using instead. doesn't look nearly as good as my crt.

 

[Dogmapog]

I think you need to get your terminology straight. Visible screen size has nothing to do with visible resolution. .

LOL, you're confusing dot pitch with visible resolution, ie, what you can actually see regardless of specs.

 

[Dogmapog]

I know that approximately 6 months after purchasing and converting to my LCD that my drive for gaming, even playing all the oldschool games in my collection which I thought I'd never bore of, has completely died. I haven't even bought the orange box... and I (excuse my language) fucking loved playing HL2 on my old dell trinitron.

...

As I've been constantly saying, you guys need to buy better LCD's, I can't wait to play HL Orange Box, as I know it will look awesome with all that detail and the open area's.

 

[jyi786]

As I've been constantly saying, you guys need to buy better LCD's, I can't wait to play HL Orange Box, as I know it will look awesome with all that detail and the open area's.

When gaming LCDs are mostly consisted of TN panels, which we've already established as being crap (in general), what the heck else are we going to get for gaming?

 

[Dainas]

When gaming LCDs are mostly consisted of TN panels, which we've already established as being crap (in general), what the heck else are we going to get for gaming?

Find the handful of non-TN panels good for gaming? No harder to track down than a good CRT these days.

 

[Dogmapog]

When gaming LCDs are mostly consisted of TN panels, which we've already established as being crap (in general), what the heck else are we going to get for gaming?

You could buy an Acer26, or a Samsung 27 rather than just bash all LCD's.
FYI, TN panels aren't that bad for games, especially smaller ones.....granted I'm no longer a fan of small anything

The average person would read threads like this, read your type of crap, eventually buy or see a decent LCD and wonder WTF you're talking about.

Remember folks, videophiles hate ALL LCD, they hate LCD technology even though my LCD is better overall than my old CRT.

 

[Dogmapog]

deleted

 

[Dogmapog]

Awesome.

I've just been viewing some 1920x1200 wallpapers, and the PQ is life-like....the ability of this Acer and presumably all good 24-27inch 8 bit LCD is truly outstanding+ my 5mp photo's look miles better than on my small CRT.

I also watched "Underbelly" on 9HD tonight.....beautiful PQ, clear and detailed, and this is with the lights "off".

How I laugh at people who can't comprehend something as simple as the value of visible resolution, on top of the fact, that as I suspected from reading literally scores of articles about HDTV/LCD etc, a small LCD such as mine{in relative terms}, doesn't require the mile high specs that a pioneer plasma might have to deliver outstanding performance.

Imagine how much happier I'll be when I update my whole PC and start gaming with the latest titles at 1920

 

[mathesar]

Perhaps due to the fact that Resolution isnt a major factor for someone that cares and knows what to look for in picture quality...

From AVS:

"Good Picture Quality Attributes:
1. High Quality Source (Most Important)
2. Contrast Ratio (black levels)
3. Color Saturation
4. Color Accuracy
5. Resolution (Least Important)"

Hate to say it but just about any CRT destroys an LCD in 2, 3 and 4 (*Especially* #2) Although the better LCD's can be calibrated for accurate colors, but out of the box they're usually an over saturated mess.

And im talking about a properly working calibrated CRT, not an old Shadow mask CRT that has lost all of its contrast punch.

 

[Dogmapog]

Perhaps due to the fact that Resolution isnt a major factor for someone that cares and knows what to look for in picture quality...

From AVS:

"Good Picture Quality Attributes:
1. High Quality Source (Most Important)
2. Contrast Ratio (black levels)
3. Color Saturation
4. Color Accuracy
5. Resolution (Least Important)"

Hate to say it but just about any CRT destroys an LCD in 2, 3 and 4

.

LOL, my friend, I’ve made 100’s of scaled down HDTV caps from my HDTV recordings, and on my old 19in CRT, I could see that raising the resolution from 720x400—960x544 made a TREMENDOUS difference to PQ, however, raising the res to 1280x720 made little difference….IOW, there’s a relationship between screen size and res, and there’s no doubt that hi-res makes the world of difference on my 26in LCD for EVERYTHING, but especially games and hi-res photo’s.

That said, if my screen was a 26 in HDTV with a native res of 1366x768, then it’s possible that DVD and HDTV might look the same as my 1080, but I most likely would have to move further from the screen to overcome the higher dotpitch….also, both games and hi-res photo’s would suffer at 768.

I’ve said many times at this very forum that 1080 res is overrated on large LCD and plasma HDTV’s…..the best PQ I’ve ever seen was a hi-bitrate 1080p HDD feed into 2 Sony 768 LCD’s, one a 40 and the other a 46……both produced PQ that was literally stunning and jaw dropping, however, the 46 utterly destroyed the 40 despite being feed the same feed at the same time…..now let me explain that…..when glancing between the screens, the 46 looked instantly sensational, but I had to stare at the 40 until my memory of the 46 dissipated, but once I fixed my view, the 40 also produced unbelievable PQ.

So this was a case of both a HQ signal matched to a good sized TV{46in} producing extraordinary PQ…..no bluray has ever come near what I saw on those Sony’s, and they were 2006 768p models…..the PQ on the 46 was so clear, detailed, colourful and life like, that extra res couldn’t possibly have made a difference at my viewing distance.

I also remind people that doubt the abilities of 8 bit 26-27inch 2008 LCD, to read the DELL 27 thread and you’ll find scores of happy owners.
Good quality 8 bit panels are under siege from pro-gamers, and self appointed videophiles, but fortunately, I’m someone who tells it like it is, I’m not the least bit interested in conforming or sucking up to pseudo experts who hate LCD technology.

If I and other DELL/Acer and Samsung owners had listened to these experts, we’d be forced to keep our old, small, dull, bulky and lifeless CRT’s to satisfy the wish list of our PQ masters…..thanks but no thanks.

I’ve also had to deal with other anti-LCD experts at other forums, so I’m well aware of their contempt for LCD…..that said, I’ve been very honest with my appraisal of my LCD, and I’ve never ever said smaller LCD’s are excellent, even though many people are happy with 22in TN’s, and if you’ve got a dodgy and small CRT or LCD, you’ll also get an upgrade moving to good quality 22in, but as I’ve said a 100 times, SIZE MATTERS, and this is why 24-27 will make a dramatic improvement in your PC experience.

Don’t forget that many of the anti-LCD brigade have seen or owned older large LCD HDTV’s, and are unimpressed….they’re unimpressed compared to the raw specs of CRT, and also compared to superior tech like plasma, DLP, but due to the relatively small size of 24-27inch LCD, you don’t require gigantic specs to achieve decent-excellent performance.

 

[Dan_D]

LOL, my friend, I’ve made 100’s of scaled down HDTV caps from my HDTV recordings, and on my old 19in CRT, I could see that raising the resolution from 720x400—960x544 made a TREMENDOUS difference to PQ, however, raising the res to 1280x720 made little difference….IOW, there’s a relationship between screen size and res, and there’s no doubt that hi-res makes the world of difference on my 26in LCD for EVERYTHING, but especially games and hi-res photo’s.

That said, if my screen was a 26 in HDTV with a native res of 1366x768, then it’s possible that DVD and HDTV might look the same as my 1080, but I most likely would have to move further from the screen to overcome the higher dotpitch….also, both games and hi-res photo’s would suffer at 768.

I’ve said many times at this very forum that 1080 res is overrated on large LCD and plasma HDTV’s…..the best PQ I’ve ever seen was a hi-bitrate 1080p HDD feed into 2 Sony 768 LCD’s, one a 40 and the other a 46……both produced PQ that was literally stunning and jaw dropping, however, the 46 utterly destroyed the 40 despite being feed the same feed at the same time…..now let me explain that…..when glancing between the screens, the 46 looked instantly sensational, but I had to stare at the 40 until my memory of the 46 dissipated, but once I fixed my view, the 40 also produced unbelievable PQ.

So this was a case of both a HQ signal matched to a good sized TV{46in} producing extraordinary PQ…..no bluray has ever come near what I saw on those Sony’s, and they were 2006 768p models…..the PQ on the 46 was so clear, detailed, colourful and life like, that extra res couldn’t possibly have made a difference at my viewing distance.

I also remind people that doubt the abilities of 8 bit 26-27inch 2008 LCD, to read the DELL 27 thread and you’ll find scores of happy owners.
Good quality 8 bit panels are under siege from pro-gamers, and self appointed videophiles, but fortunately, I’m someone who tells it like it is, I’m not the least bit interested in conforming or sucking up to pseudo experts who hate LCD technology.

If I and other DELL/Acer and Samsung owners had listened to these experts, we’d be forced to keep our old, small, dull, bulky and lifeless CRT’s to satisfy the wish list of our PQ masters…..thanks but no thanks.

I’ve also had to deal with other anti-LCD experts at other forums, so I’m well aware of their contempt for LCD…..that said, I’ve been very honest with my appraisal of my LCD, and I’ve never ever said smaller LCD’s are excellent, even though many people are happy with 22in TN’s, and if you’ve got a dodgy and small CRT or LCD, you’ll also get an upgrade moving to good quality 22in, but as I’ve said a 100 times, SIZE MATTERS, and this is why 24-27 will make a dramatic improvement in your PC experience.

Don’t forget that many of the anti-LCD brigade have seen or owned older large LCD HDTV’s, and are unimpressed….they’re unimpressed compared to the raw specs of CRT, and also compared to superior tech like plasma, DLP, but due to the relatively small size of 24-27inch LCD, you don’t require gigantic specs to achieve decent-excellent performance.

What the hell is up with the annoying font?

 

[Dogmapog]

I post in word first and the c&p it over

 

[jyi786]

What the hell is up with the annoying font?

rofl. Was about to say the same.

You could buy an Acer26, or a Samsung 27 rather than just bash all LCD's.
FYI, TN panels aren't that bad for games, especially smaller ones.....granted I'm no longer a fan of small anything

The average person would read threads like this, read your type of crap, eventually buy or see a decent LCD and wonder WTF you're talking about.

Remember folks, videophiles hate ALL LCD, they hate LCD technology even though my LCD is better overall than my old CRT.

You really are starting to show how thick of a skull you have.

What the hell does size or brand of a screen have to do with how well an LCD is going to perform in a number of games that I want to get the utmost experience out of? And if you're worried about how an "average" person would be "fooled" by our CRT arguments: well then, go right ahead. Be the LCD police. More power to you. /fail.

And your argument about "videophiles hate ALL LCD, they hate LCD technology even though my LCD is better overall than my old CRT", there are countless posts on this thread of people who are videophiles who use LCDs exclusively, CRTs exclusively, and some of both. I fail to see how your LCD experience should automatically equate to everyone else, no exception.

Your constant repetitive, unsubstantiated arguments are getting tiresome. It'd be best if you see the light, admit the fact that LCDs are simply not equivalent to CRTs in performance, enjoy what you've got, and move on. This argument can go on forever, with the same result. CRTs will always smash LCDs in performance, until some new tech comes out. Then we can argue on that point.

 

[Dan_D]

I post in word first and the c&p it over

Set your font in word to arial if you are going to do that. It will match what the site uses.

 

[ZenOps]

Ahah - the evil font looks fine on CRT, but probably pretty ugly on LCD.

Scaling issues with many LCD's at anything other than native are just ridiculous.

"I" either look too thick or too thin most of the time, even when using a font smoothing technology. Its particularily bad with PDF's as people tend to scale things to what they see, and not what it actually should be.

Its sort of like playing Civilization IV on XP (which actually uses a heavily modified optimized font corrected for the deficiencies of LCD screens) and Civilization IV on Vista which uses the "proper" font, although its a butt ugly font when pre-compensated for use on LCD screens (and no patch yet, ugh!)

Its not so bad with the english language, but when you have complex font characters like Chinese, it becomes increasingly apparant exactly how bad LCD is at times.

That Microsoft created a completely new technology cleartype *just* to help curb the deficencies that most people were complaining about with LCD says a lot.

 

[Dan_D]

Ahah - the evil font looks fine on CRT, but probably pretty ugly on LCD.

Scaling issues with many LCD's at anything other than native are just ridiculous.

"I" either look too thick or too thin most of the time, even when using a font smoothing technology. Its particularily bad with PDF's as people tend to scale things to what they see, and not what it actually should be.

I hate Times New Roman on LCDs or CRTs.

 

[jyi786]

I hate Times New Roman on LCDs or CRTs.

Ditto. I hate that font OVERALL.

 

[Dogmapog]

This argument can go on forever, with the same result. CRTs will always smash LCDs in performance, until some new tech comes out. Then we can argue on that point.

Pure rubbish, actually sheer bullshit......but it's cool, you're one of these self appointed experts who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
Nothing is more absurd than ass-uming an old and dull CRT can match a new and large LCD.

Keep it real bullshitter

 

[jyi786]

Pure rubbish, actually sheer bullshit......but it's cool, you're one of these self appointed experts who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
Nothing is more absurd than ass-uming an old and dull CRT can match a new and large LCD.

Keep it real bullshitter

Typical parting shot by the losing party. Self denial I take it.

Truth be told, it is always unfortunate CRTs were shoved out in favor of LCDs. I sure wish manufacturers at least had a small niche market for those of us who still want them.

 

[daveswantek]

Perhaps due to the fact that Resolution isnt a major factor for someone that cares and knows what to look for in picture quality...

From AVS:

"Good Picture Quality Attributes:
1. High Quality Source (Most Important)
2. Contrast Ratio (black levels)
3. Color Saturation
4. Color Accuracy
5. Resolution (Least Important)"

Hate to say it but just about any CRT destroys an LCD in 2, 3 and 4 (*Especially* #2) Although the better LCD's can be calibrated for accurate colors, but out of the box they're usually an over saturated mess.

And im talking about a properly working calibrated CRT, not an old Shadow mask CRT that has lost all of its contrast punch.

This list is from the Kuro thread on AVS, and is part of the marketing BS from Pioneer. If you read other threads on AVS you will find a number of people that see it differently.

Resolution may be least important to you, but to most gamers and graphic artists it means a lot. Color accuracy is the most important issue in print work. Like all technology; it depends on what you are using it for.

Best of luck

Dave

 

[Dogmapog]

Typical parting shot by the losing party. Self denial I take it.

You're making a fool of yourself pal......every person who's ditched small CRT or LCD for large 2008 8 bit LCD knows you're full of crap.
You're anti LCD, but that's based on your perspective on the march of technology, and also based on small and old TN panels......only a fool would try and rubbish the latest HQ LCD.

 

[jyi786]

You're making a fool of yourself pal......every person who's ditched small CRT or LCD for large 2008 8 bit LCD knows you're full of crap.
You're anti LCD, but that's based on your perspective on the march of technology, and also based on small and old TN panels......only a fool would try and rubbish the latest HQ LCD.

I find it funny that the accused is only running LCDs right now. Very anti-LCD that lad is.

The latest HQ LCD is all there is to offer. Period. It's about market availability. If there were a CRT in the market within the same market brackets of their LCD counterparts today, none of us would use the LCD, save those specifically looking for the slim size and weight. My perspectives reflect the majority of us who have been privileged to use the CRT. Until an LCD comes to market that can equate or surpass a CRT in EVERY aspect, LCDs will always hold the status of being second fiddle to the CRT. Until then, I will continue to use and recommend LCDs; THAT'S ALL THERE IS TO OFFER.

Glad that I still have my Trinitron to game on. Few more months, and I'll get back to gaming on it.

 

[HoppyChris]

The worst part of the CRT/LCD issue is that progress on CRTs has vitrually stopped. The pinnacle of CRTs according to many enthusiasts is the FW900, which was being made eight years ago. Had both technologies continued to exist and be developed I imagine we'd be seeing shallower CRTs with higher resolutions, unbelievable refresh rates, and support for things like HDMI.

As it is, we've got people thrilled that current LCD technology is approaching the quality of ten year old CRT monitors. um... congrats?

 

[Python49]

i hate CRTs

 

[thelead]

The worst part of the CRT/LCD issue is that progress on CRTs has vitrually stopped. The pinnacle of CRTs according to many enthusiasts is the FW900, which was being made eight years ago. Had both technologies continued to exist and be developed I imagine we'd be seeing shallower CRTs with higher resolutions, unbelievable refresh rates, and support for things like HDMI.

As it is, we've got people thrilled that current LCD technology is approaching the quality of ten year old CRT monitors. um... congrats?

I think people go for lcd's cause they are easy on the eye. I personally cannot stand the black levels of lcd's but would never go back to crts just because of it. I understand both sides of the argument... but at then end of the day, its almost all personal opinion and taste.