Current state of the CRT display

[Luthorcrow]

He clearly doesn't know what he is talking about the only category that CRTs still kick LCDs are contrast ratio. In each of the other categories LCDs have surpassed the best of the old CRTs. Also keep in mind that there are no high quality CRTs still made.

 

[mathesar]

It's funny how he keeps pointing out the fact he's comparing his brand new LCD to an old and tired CRT, God forbid he did a fair comparison with a properly working CRT that still has its pop & contrast punch.

Keep in mind the FW900 can go up to 2304x1440 resolution so playback of 1920x1080 (1080P) HDTV material is no sweat for this CRT and looks fantastic / crystal clear.

 

[Kaldskryke]

i hate CRTs

Really constructive arguments! You've totally convinced me, thanks!

Every once in a while I consider switching from my 20" TN to my old 17" diamondtron... it wasn't even that good of a CRT. I just can't stand how crappy the black levels are on my LCD. It drives me nuts. If it were possible to find a good-as-new aperture-grill 1600x1200 CRT for less than $400, I'd want to buy it...

 

[mathesar]

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

That list has nothing to do with Pioneer. But I'd have to agree with it considering the Kuro 768P plasma is beating every 1080P display currently on the market in terms of overall PQ, Sound & Vision had a recent HDTV roundup (DLP / LCD / SXRD / Plasma etc.) and even tho the majority were 1080p sets the Kuro 768p model placed #1 and mainly due to Contrast ratio which effects every other aspect of PQ. It's also #1 on Cnet's "Top HDTV's Overall" list: http://reviews.cnet.com/4370-6485_7-168-101.html

But for PC specific displays I'd have to agree higher resolution is nicer especially on a larger screen.

I have no issues running 1920x1200 desktop res on this CRT, Ive been doing so for nearly 3 years straight now.

 

[Xpl1c1t]

I guess you guys want this to be locked. ^^

So i found a Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2060u 22" on Craigslist. Seems like a few years ago this was an amazing monitor; oldschool PCWorld editors liked it, Amazon's informed customers seem to be drooling, hell, even those dorsal finned and razor toothed people like it. Hoping, as it is a trinitron tube relative, for the best. I'll bear the gory details out soon. $30!!!

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,47773/article.html
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/B00005AASQ/ref=cm_cr_pr_redirect
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/guides/EGBG/article.php/10721_1550051__5

 

[daveswantek]

I guess you guys want this to be locked. ^^

So i found a Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2060u 22" on Craigslist. Seems like a few years ago this was an amazing monitor; oldschool PCWorld editors liked it, Amazon's informed customers seem to be drooling, hell, even those dorsal finned and razor toothed people like it. Hoping, as it is a trinitron tube relative, for the best. I'll bear the gory details out soon. $30!!!

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,47773/article.html
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/B00005AASQ/ref=cm_cr_pr_redirect
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/guides/EGBG/article.php/10721_1550051__5

For 30 bucks you can not go wrong, but I am not sure that Mitsubishi used Sony Tubes. I know they made their own and they were good, just not as good as the Sony. If the screen is not perfectly flat then it is most likely a Mitsubishi tube.

Dave

Edit

The PCWorld artical says "Diamondtron NF tube" in the summery.

/Edit

 

[jyi786]

He clearly doesn't know what he is talking about the only category that CRTs still kick LCDs are contrast ratio. In each of the other categories LCDs have surpassed the best of the old CRTs. Also keep in mind that there are no high quality CRTs still made.

You forgot color reproduction. There is still no LCD that can match a good (not great) CRT in color reproduction.

And resolution scaling. Show me a current rig that can let you game at 2560 x 1600 with all eye candy on without you having to resort to SLI or some other type of hack. What you'll end up doing is downscaling the resolution, or lowering eye candy. Which debunks "BIGGAR = BETTAR". And anyone who says they can't see aliasing at resolutions higher than 1600x1200 needs glasses. It's so prevalent that gaming becomes painful. With LCDs, you can only look backwards, whereas with CRTs, you can look forward. If a resolution is too hard on a brand new game, you can simply lower the resolution and not have to deal with crappy blurry resolution scaling. Not so with LCDs. You'll have to deal with slow frame rate, getting a brand new (if not yet unreleased) video card, or deal with the crappy looking resolution.

And viewing angles. Save the pro LCDs that are based off SIPS variants (and that incidentally run really expensive), almost all LCDs have viewing angle degradation. It's just the way it is.

But I do see what you are saying. We have to keep in mind that CRT production had stopped. If it hadn't, we'd probably have CRTs that are as thin as, draw equal to or less power, have perfect geometry, and consequently weigh equal to or less than LCDs.

Most certainly, LCDs today are "satisfactory", and that's all they are. They are not "knockout, wow!" that we've come to expect. Heck, looking at overall PQ on my old Trinitron screen makes me jealous when I turn back and look at my LCDs.

 

[daveswantek]

The biggest issues us CRT buffs have to face up to, is that Sony and others will stop repairing them soon. If they have not already. I think the biggest reason they stopped making them is because of support costs. How much does it cost to support LCDs? They just send you another one. That and CRTs are made with some rather toxic chemicals. Of course that is probubly true for LCDs as well.

For all of those that think that LCDs have surpassed CRTs. Find someone with a 34 inch HD Wega and have them demo HD from a good source. Even Standard DVDs look fantastic. I am still kicking Myself for not buying one when I talked my buddy into buying his. The only catch is they weigh a ton. It is built in theft provention.

Have fun

Dave

 

[Dan_D]

It's funny how he keeps pointing out the fact he's comparing his brand new LCD to an old and tired CRT, God forbid he did a fair comparison with a properly working CRT that still has its pop & contrast punch.

Keep in mind the FW900 can go up to 2304x1440 resolution so playback of 1920x1080 (1080P) HDTV material is no sweat for this CRT and looks fantastic / crystal clear.

Agreed. The FW900 is probably the finest CRT ever constructed. I'd have gotten one instead of going LCD but they were still rather expensive on Ebay and I've had horrible luck with refurbished or used monitors, so the LCD was the only realistic choice. It was several years before LCDs came out that were worth a shit for gaming. Until they made decent monitors over 20" viewable LCDs with 16ms or less, I wasn't making the switch. Since I made the swith though, the monitors have only gotten better.

I'm very pleased with gaming on the Dell 3007WFP. Great response times and no discernable input lag. (All things I'm quite sensitive to.) LCD's aren't comparable to CRT's in every way, but in most areas they are or are in fact superior. The only areas where the modern LCDs haven't caught up is black levels. The color gamut on the 3007WFP-HC and 3008WFP is about where it needs to be. The 3007WFP isn't that bad either despite its' age. I use mine for photo editing and video work. Though not so much professionally.

Again I think there are clear advantages to using CRTs but most of those advantages have severely diminished. CRTs really are almost specialized hardware at this point. It is a shame though that they aren't really a viable option outside of the used market. I can see why competitive gamers want them, and why they are still desirable for video work and some graphics use. For regular gamers and most users I think the LCDs of today get the job done nicely.

The largest disadvantage to LCD (even beyond the black levels) is the poor scaling below native resolution.

 

[mathesar]

The biggest issues us CRT buffs have to face up to, is that Sony and others will stop repairing them soon. If they have not already. I think the biggest reason they stopped making them is because of support costs. How much does it cost to support LCDs? They just send you another one. That and CRTs are made with some rather toxic chemicals. Of course that is probubly true for LCDs as well.

For all of those that think that LCDs have surpassed CRTs. Find someone with a 34 inch HD Wega and have them demo HD from a good source. Even Standard DVDs look fantastic. I am still kicking Myself for not buying one when I talked my buddy into buying his. The only catch is they weigh a ton. It is built in theft provention.

Have fun

Dave

Yea I have a Sony 34" XBR960 CRT HDTV and it does indeed produce an amazing HD image. These models can display 65% more detail than other CRTs due to their extra fine pitch tubes. I posted a link somewhere in this thread with some pics I took.

Here's one from a Bluray movie (Crank):

 

[thelead]

Yea I have a Sony 34" XBR960 CRT HDTV and it does indeed produce an amazing HD image. These models can display 65% more detail than other CRTs due to their extra fine pitch tubes. I posted a link somewhere in this thread with some pics I took.

Here's one from a Bluray movie (Crank):

http://ded.zenblue.net/XBR960/Crank_Bluray_1080i.jpg

Don't get me wrong, that looks damn good, but I think the new samsung 71 series looks just as good if not better... all opinion of course.

This is such a stupid arguement because it is all purely opinion... most people think bose are the best sounding speakers ever made... well, it is to them and thats all that matter.

 

[mathesar]

Don't get me wrong, that looks damn good, but I think the new samsung 71 series looks just as good if not better... all opinion of course.

This is such a stupid arguement because it is all purely opinion... most people think bose are the best sounding speakers ever made... well, it is to them and thats all that matter.

I was looking at the Samsung LED 71 / 81 series LCDs and even tho they have good black levels they're still behind CRT and Kuro plasma's (which I ended up buying). There's a recent LCD vs. Plasma article which puts a Samsung 81 against a Kuro: http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/features/779/plasma-vs-lcd-round-ii.html

"We started this final part of the face-off by cueing up a couple of nighttime and dark interior scenes from Black Book. In an early scene where a black sedan pulls up to a red-brick building's circular drive as night descends, there were some obvious differences between the TVs. As the car moved through the near-darkness, the Samsung LCD looked pretty good, delivering substantial blacks in the car itself and the letterbox bars that framed the screen.

But when we looked over at the Pioneer, we immediately knew we were seeing something special. The same features were so deep that it made the blacks on the LCD look gray — even though this Samsung had the best blacks we've ever seen from an LCD. On the plasma, the car appeared more etched and dimensional against the dark background, thanks to the extra low-level detail, and the letterbox bars virtually disappeared into the set's black frame."

 

[thelead]

I was looking at the Samsung LED 71 / 81 series LCDs and even tho they have good black levels they're still behind CRT and Kuro plasma's (which I ended up buying). There's a recent LCD vs. Plasma article which puts a Samsung 81 against a Kuro: http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/features/779/plasma-vs-lcd-round-ii.html

"We started this final part of the face-off by cueing up a couple of nighttime and dark interior scenes from Black Book. In an early scene where a black sedan pulls up to a red-brick building's circular drive as night descends, there were some obvious differences between the TVs. As the car moved through the near-darkness, the Samsung LCD looked pretty good, delivering substantial blacks in the car itself and the letterbox bars that framed the screen.

But when we looked over at the Pioneer, we immediately knew we were seeing something special. The same features were so deep that it made the blacks on the LCD look gray — even though this Samsung had the best blacks we've ever seen from an LCD. On the plasma, the car appeared more etched and dimensional against the dark background, thanks to the extra low-level detail, and the letterbox bars virtually disappeared into the set's black frame."

Yeah, the kuro does kick ass

 

[TRex]

I guess you guys want this to be locked. ^^

So i found a Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2060u 22" on Craigslist. Seems like a few years ago this was an amazing monitor; oldschool PCWorld editors liked it, Amazon's informed customers seem to be drooling, hell, even those dorsal finned and razor toothed people like it. Hoping, as it is a trinitron tube relative, for the best. I'll bear the gory details out soon. $30!!!

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,47773/article.html
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/B00005AASQ/ref=cm_cr_pr_redirect
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/guides/EGBG/article.php/10721_1550051__5

Mitsubishi has even a higher spec monitor than the 2060u if your interested. If you can find the Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2070SB or the NEC 2141SB I would recommend that. These two monitors are some of the best 22" CRTs money can buy.

 

[Toompra]

I guess you guys want this to be locked. ^^

So i found a Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2060u 22" on Craigslist. Seems like a few years ago this was an amazing monitor; oldschool PCWorld editors liked it, Amazon's informed customers seem to be drooling, hell, even those dorsal finned and razor toothed people like it. Hoping, as it is a trinitron tube relative, for the best. I'll bear the gory details out soon. $30!!!

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,47773/article.html
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/B00005AASQ/ref=cm_cr_pr_redirect
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/guides/EGBG/article.php/10721_1550051__5

The first used CRT I ever bought was a 2060u, and I recall those same reviews are what made me buy it over a Trinitron, which ended up being a big mistake on my part. The picture on the 2060u was very dull in terms of contrast. Upping the rgb gains helped a little but it still wasn't that good. I also could not get the geometry to stay put, the screen size would periodically shrink or expand by itself, and when i switched resolutions it would not remember the geometry setttings of the previous resolution and would reset them back to default, VERY annoying. After about a month of constant re-adjusting I gave up on the thing.

If I were you I'd try to find a Trinitron instead, In my experience they are much better than Diamondtrons. I've also owned a 2141SB so I know what I'm talking about. Aside from having better color, contrast and text quality the main reason I prefer Trinitrons is tweakability, if you get yourself a Windas cable you can make the picture look ASTOUNDING.

Most CRT's (espeicially used ones) have pretty nasty convergence problems that can't be fixed via the OSD controls, but using the dynamic convergence procedure in Windas you can completely fix it up, I'm talking perfect convergence across the entire screen. Diamondtrons can also be tweaked in the service menu but you will never get it looking anywhere near perfect, especially in the corners.

 

[Dogmapog]

Mitsubishi has even a higher spec monitor than the 2060u if your interested. If you can find the Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2070SB or the NEC 2141SB I would recommend that. These two monitors are some of the best 22" CRTs money can buy.

Are they widescreen?

 

[Dogmapog]

And viewing angles. Save the pro LCDs that are based off SIPS variants (and that incidentally run really expensive), almost all LCDs have viewing angle degradation. It's just the way it is.
.

As the solitary user of my LCD, I have no complaints regarding the viewing angles.
And it still seems as though people are whinging about crappy 20in TN's, and ass-uming that larger 8 bit panels aren't better.

 

[TRex]

Are they widescreen?

C'mon dude. You already know that answer. I can tell you are a fairly intelligent individual.

This thread isn't about the Current state of the CRT display. It's about Dogmapog sharing his experience coming from a mediocre 19" CRT monitor to an 26" Acer LCD. Of course your Acer is going to blow chunks all over the 19".

This is HardForum. A lot of folks here are hardcore and we won't settle for less especially when it comes to gaming. No one here is argueing that you don't have a great monitor. It's great but overall it's not the best or better than some of the larger CRTs.

One other thing, using words like "puny" when down talking the FW900 is completely false and unnesessary. I don't know if you have noticed but there is a thread in here dedicated strictly to this monitor and has serveral posts going strong since 2005.

 

[Dogmapog]

C'mon dude. You already know that answer. I can tell you are a fairly intelligent individual.

This thread isn't about the Current state of the CRT display. It's about Dogmapog sharing his experience coming from a mediocre 19" CRT monitor to an 26" Acer LCD. Of course your Acer is going to blow chunks all over the 19".

.

The thing is, I'm also someone who criticizes LCD tech, in fact, in most cases, if someone asks me about HDTV, I almost always recommend plasma, so I have no problem with professionals of any persuasion making various comments regarding LCD, however, I've seen plenty of LCD and CRT, and so has my brother{he works with them}, and my Hitachi 19in CRT was a good CRT, granted it lost some brightness down the track.

I repeat my message again.....I don't think the average person should be worried about buying HQ 24-27in LCD, especially 26-27 because the size improves visible resolution, ie, everything will look more detailed and easier to see because of the size+res.....also, my 26 made my 68cm CRT look small and lifeless, and that's a Sharp running SDTV{not analogue}.

The importance of widescreen is being able to take advantage of more natural viewing angles, and a larger image, ie, despite being a 22inch CRT, the actual image is small compared to a 25.5-27in actual screen size in either 16:10 or 16:9.

 

[jyi786]

This thread isn't about the Current state of the CRT display. It's about Dogmapog sharing his experience coming from a mediocre 19" CRT monitor to an 26" Acer LCD. Of course your Acer is going to blow chunks all over the 19".

This seems like the most plausible definition of this thread.

so I have no problem with professionals of any persuasion making various comments regarding LCD

I'm pretty sure that's what I've been doing this entire thread.

You can top off all of this with the fact that LCD manufacturers are doing panel lottery. This makes it much harder for your average (since you reiterate that segment so much) user to really get a grip on what they are going to be getting. If not for likes of the [H]ardforums, they'd probably be accepting less than they should, and I'm not even talking about CRTs now. I understand an LCD manufacturer wanting to cut costs, but a panel LOTTERY??? Come on now, just make a separate line of value monitors.

But when you used to buy a CRT, it's exactly what you got. All you had to do was calibrate it.

 

[Dogmapog]

, but a panel LOTTERY.

Which panel swaps are occuring on ACER26/DELL/SAMSUNG 27?
I've spoken out against the panel lottery elsewhere, I think it's a farce as well........but your problem is you HATE all LCD, otherwise you'd be on my side wrt my specific advocacy

 

[jyi786]

Which panel swaps are occuring on ACER26/DELL/SAMSUNG 27?
I've spoken out against the panel lottery elsewhere, I think it's a farce as well........but your problem is you HATE all LCD, otherwise you'd be on my side wrt my specific advocacy

Plenty threads on these forums about Dells and other monitors with panel lottery. I don't need to elaborate. Example on page 2 of this thread:

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1269182&page=2

And about the comments that I "HATE ALL LCDs"...

...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.

Personally, I'm moving to a new room soon. I'm going to get another video card. So then, I'll run 4 monitors. Here's what I'll be running:

1. Viewsonic VP201b for internet/graphics work/everything in general.
2. Viewsonic VX922 for photos and sometimes games.
3. Gateway Sony Trinitron 19" CRT for competitive/dark moody gaming.
4. Overhead Sharp projector for movies/presentations.

Voila. Best of everything dudes!!!

...The only LCDs that come close are SIPS based LCDs.

...Granted, LCDs have come a long way...

LCDs can be made to look good...

...I'm all for LCDs...

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.

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! This what I'd shoot for.

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

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...

...You like your LCDs, that's fine. I like mine also.

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".

The VP201b, an SIPS based LCD, is absolutely stunning in PQ...

In addition, you're right; the 2490 is a nice piece of hardware.

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

There. There are all my posts in this thread. I can't exactly see how I "HATE ALL LCDs". Please get all your facts straight before you post, and don't spread FUD about something/someone until you do.

And no, I don't/won't ever subscribe to the "BIGGAR = BETTAR" mentality. If that's what you subscribe to, so be it. I'll be 100% satisfied with any new LCD tech that comes out that can match/surpass normal CRT characteristics, and so far, no LCD has done that. They've come close, but do not match or surpass. I don't know how much more clearer I can make it, I've already got it in writing.

 

[Ikasu]

LCD's will never surpass CRT's I'm sorry to say. too many disadvantages, input lag, response times, crushing blacks, inferior color accuracy, ghosting, etc. The LCD technology is just flawed, now that isn't saying they don't have their strengths. They are still great choices, but when compared to a high end CRT...they just can't compare.

I've said it many times, and I'll say it again, LCD/Plasma is just a transitional product to the true flat panel displays IMO, such as FED and OLED...Which will beat all the strengths of a CRT, with the benefits of a LCD. Although we'll have to end up waiting a couple of years before they are available/affordable.

 

[Dogmapog]

And no, I don't/won't ever subscribe to the "BIGGAR = BETTAR" mentality.

That's your problem, but anyone who upgraded from small CRT/LCD to large HQ LCD will consider you to be delusional......many of the people who bought DELL27's at premium price points love them and will laugh at your comments.

Also, based on my reading of HDTV forums, 99% of people who bought 42in plasma wish they bought a 50inch.....the general concensus is that you never drop back in size.

 

[Dogmapog]

, but when compared to a high end CRT...they just can't compare.

I've said it many times, and I'll say it again, LCD/Plasma is just a transitional product to the true flat panel displays IMO, such as FED and OLED...Which will beat all the strengths of a CRT, with the benefits of a LCD. Although we'll have to end up waiting a couple of years before they are available/affordable.

You should have said..."when compared to puny high end CRT"....so despite the protests, as a 26inch owner, I'm informing people that size does matter+ you'll also find people making very, very positive statements about both DELL and Samsung 27.

Plasma and LCD might be transitional, but until superior products become available and affordable, they offer outstanding PQ compared to an old and small CRT with either analogue or SDTV.

 

[daveswantek]

You mean puny like this:

Yea I have a Sony 34" XBR960 CRT HDTV and it does indeed produce an amazing HD image. These models can display 65% more detail than other CRTs due to their extra fine pitch tubes. I posted a link somewhere in this thread with some pics I took.

Here's one from a Bluray movie (Crank):

Get a grip

Dave

 

[Dogmapog]

I was referring to PC monitors+ a 36 is puny compared to a 50in or larger screen.

 

[daveswantek]

I was referring to PC monitors+ a 36 is puny compared to a 50in or larger screen.

I really doubt that you have any experience with high end CRTs. The whole reason this thread was started is because one or more gamers were looking for a display that had no input lag and a great picture. They found such a display in the Sony GDM-W900, which is a 24 inch wide aspect monitor. Not puny by any stretch.

As far as screen size goes; anything bigger than 24 inches makes you move back further, so it defeats the purpose when you give up PQ.

LCDs are good for things like programming, web browsing, network administration, and documentation. When it comes to pictures, video, and color critical work, a CRT is still king.

Like I said in the CRT verses LCD thread. Old low end CRTs make good boat anchors. When it comes to high end CRTs that are still in good working order the PQ is much better than any LCD available today.

LCDs are catching up, but they are still not their yet.

I own and use both.

Dave

 

[nigerian_businessman]

You should have said..."when compared to puny high end CRT"....so despite the protests, as a 26inch owner, I'm informing people that size does matter+ you'll also find people making very, very positive statements about both DELL and Samsung 27.

Plasma and LCD might be transitional, but until superior products become available and affordable, they offer outstanding PQ compared to an old and small CRT with either analogue or SDTV.

Why don't you quit assuming what suits you suits everyone else. Seriously, we're all happy that you like your LCD. Nobody is trying to convince you that you made a bad decision. What suits you doesn't suit me. Agree to disagree and stfu already.

And size only matters to some extent, before you raise that worthless argument again. I had a 20in widescreen LCD and went back to CRT when I could have purchased a 24in LCD instead. I've got a 42in LCD TV that I could easily hook my computer up to and play games on, but I choose to play on my CRT instead, for all the same reasons -- no ghosting, more detail, faster response times.

 

[Dogmapog]

, but I choose to play on my CRT instead, for all the same reasons -- no ghosting, more detail, faster response times.

DOH!!!, you used a shitty TN based LCD, I can't blame you for wanting to go back to CRT.
Btw, if my powerful comments disturb you, stay the hell out of the thread.

Whether you like it or not, HQ large LCD are a great upgrade from small LCD and CRT, and that's the truth no matter how you want to slice and dice it.

As if you can see more detail on a small CRT than on a large LCD.....HAHAAHHAAHAAA

 

[Dogmapog]

I
As far as screen size goes; anything bigger than 24 inches makes you move back further, so it defeats the purpose when you give up PQ.

Dave

The problem I have with puny CRT's is that when running either bluray or DVD in 2.35 OAR, the image is too small, so once again you suffer from decreased visible res.

 

[daveswantek]

DOH!!!, you used a shitty TN based LCD, I can't blame you for wanting to go back to CRT.
Btw, if my powerful comments disturb you, stay the hell out of the thread.

Whether you like it or not, HQ large LCD are a great upgrade from small LCD and CRT, and that's the truth no matter how you want to slice and dice it.

As if you can see more detail on a small CRT than on a large LCD.....HAHAAHHAAHAAA

Dude! This is a CRT Thread "Current state of the CRT". You clearly have nothing to add, so move on already.

Yes you can see more detail on a good CRT; that is the hole point. The CRT is the only display that actually shows depth, where LCD looks flat like a piece of paper. My CRT can show a higher resolution and a higher contrast ratio than any LCD ever made.

Laugh all you want, cause the joke is on you. You can not learn anything when you insist on being a lamer.

Come back when you grow up.

Later

Dave

 

[Nicolaskl]

I didn't realize CRTs were all holographic.

 

[jyi786]

That's your problem, but anyone who upgraded from small CRT/LCD to large HQ LCD will consider you to be delusional......many of the people who bought DELL27's at premium price points love them and will laugh at your comments.

Also, based on my reading of HDTV forums, 99% of people who bought 42in plasma wish they bought a 50inch.....the general concensus is that you never drop back in size.

This guy is hallucinating. I pwned his ass on my previous post, and now he uses some hypothetical scenario to come back at me.

None of them will laugh at my comments. They'll simply wish their LCDs could do EVERYTHING , not some, everything their old CRT could do, then move on. You've clearly got a problem doing that.

 

[daveswantek]

I didn't realize CRTs were all holographic.

"Depth" as in some things look further away. "holographic" would show dimnsion where you can view things from a different angle. If you have used both you would know what I mean.

This guy is hallucinating. I pwned his ass on my previous post, and now he uses some hypothetical scenario to come back at me.

None of them will laugh at my comments. They'll simply wish their LCDs could do EVERYTHING , not some, everything their old CRT could do, then move on. You've clearly got a problem doing that.

He is trippen; no doubt. I have seen some of his posts get deleted out of other threads. I am not going to push it any further. I have stured the pot enough. It is hard to figure why CRT haters come into this thread. The title is self explanitory.

Who knows maybe we can get this thread back on topic.

Dave

 

[Gorankar]

Who knows maybe we can get this thread back on topic.

Dave

I don't think that will happen. The haters will make sure of that. In any case, I enjoy my 2405, and I also enjoy my Viewsonic p220f. Each is used in the ways that they excel. 2405 for web surfing and standard office type chores and the p220f for games and movies.

I still can't figure out how 22" can be considered puny from 3 feet away. Oh well..

Cragslist, pawnshops, E-bay and a few e-tailers selling used/refurbs are just about the only options for a good ag crt these days. Unless you want to spend new car sums on a broadcast grade.

 

[PGHammer]

Yep the bottom line is that EVERYTHING will work good and look good on a CRT, the same cannot be said for an LCD regardless of how large the screen is.

As a CRT owner (now a 19" Micron Electronics CRT, originally built by Panasonic), I have to humble *disagree* with the "everything looks good on a CRT" comment. The CRT (especially in 19" and above sizes) has a rather nasty weakness that first gets exposed when installing Windows (and more so Vista than XP, because of the higher default resolution). While older versions of Windows (2000 and lower) typically have an graphical setup that runs at 640x480, that of Windows XP runs at 800x600. However, the last stage of Windows Vista's entirely-graphical setup can run as tall as 1024x768; worse, the *default* refresh rate at that resolution is actually typically too low for larger CRTs (my 19" actually has issues with refresh rates at 1024x768 lower than 85 Hz, and is most comfortable at that resolution at 120 Hz). The only choices to work around this problem are to use a smaller CRT for install, or to use a lower-powered graphics card for that section of setup. How many of you (especially technicians) keep a lower-end PCI graphics card and smaller monitor because of such refresh-rate mismatches?

A larger CRT thus typically *demands* higher-resolution work (1024x768, if not 1280x1024), simply because lower resolutions look awful. (I have my Vista desktop at 1600x1200 @ 75 Hz, the CRT's tallest resolution; quite frankly, I *hate* having to drop down below 1024x768 for anything.) LCDs, however, are more *forgiving* of lower refresh rates (especially larger LCD panels) because an entirely digital display (such as an LCD) has a lower equivalent refresh rate than an analog display at the same resolution (such as a CRT).

Lastly, a larger-screen CRT (in most cases) has both a longer neck (due to the yoke) and is, quite frankly, heavier, than the 17" and 15" CRTs that were still prevalent in the days of Windows 9x. Flat-panel displays are just that: flat and neckless.

 

[Dogmapog]

This guy is hallucinating. I pwned his ass on my previous post, and now he uses some hypothetical scenario to come back at me.

None of them will laugh at my comments. They'll simply wish their LCDs could do EVERYTHING , not some, everything their old CRT could do, then move on. You've clearly got a problem doing that.

Get back to me when DELL/Samsung27/Acer 26 owners want to go back to their small CRT/LCD

Your problem is that you're deeply annoyed that a new affordable tech didn't replace CRT, ie, beating or at least equalling CRT specs in all areas+ being flat panels.....and because of that, you can't stand the idea of anyone thinking that a new HQ large LCD is superior to old and puny CRT unless they beat every CRT spec.

But as I've said, I wouldn't dream of going back to small CRT aftering living with my big and beautiful LCD.

 

[Dogmapog]

" I have seen some of his posts get deleted out of other threads. I

If you're referring to me, that's complete nonsense....

 

[Gorankar]

Get back to me when DELL/Samsung27/Acer 26 owners want to go back to their small CRT/LCD

Your problem is that you're deeply annoyed that a new affordable tech didn't replace CRT, ie, beating or at least equalling CRT specs in all areas+ being flat panels.....and because of that, you can't stand the idea of anyone thinking that a new HQ large LCD is superior to old and puny CRT unless they beat every CRT spec.

But as I've said, I wouldn't dream of going back to small CRT aftering living with my big and beautiful LCD.

Dude then don't go back. We ain't forcing you. Look, in your opinion your lcd is the bomb, I am happy for you. Having used one, I actually agree. I still found it lacking when watching movies and gaming. However, what does all this have to do with this thread? Could you read the title and original post again?

And yes people do switch back. I certainly did. My 2405 does not compare well against my 22" p220f and even worse against my 21" Sony. And yes it sickens me that I paid nearly a grand for a LCD that compares poorly against a 22" crt that sold for well less than $600 new 5 years ago. I'm sure it sickens many people who were used to superior pq that this is the state of display tech. The new LCDs are better than the old LCDs, but still after all this time, they have not quite caught up to a technology that is old enough to collect social security. How ludicrous.

Just go enjoy your HUGE monitor and stfu. Your "my monitor is huge and your monitor is puny" spiel makes you look like an idiot and troll. Please re-read the tread title and the original post, then read all of your own posts and then try to tell me you have been on topic at all in this thread.

Start your own thread called "my HUGE monitor pwns you" or something.