• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

do CRTs still have a future?

E

euteamo

n00b
Joined
Dec 21, 2003
Messages
55
i have a lcd, everybody has a lcd... do crts still have a future? new technology coming?
 
Hell yes.

1600X1200 costs a damn fortune flat. My Viewsonic P95fb+ is cheaper than a 15' LCD... and it looks a hell of a lot better.

CRTs also have better response times, no ghosting, more accurate colour and low price.

Until LCDs are as cheap as my new display I won't buy one for a while.
 
thanks for replying.

yeah i know about that, i was thinking about buying a large crt (nec 22 or sony 21 a whole lot less dinheiro). i wanted to know if crts have anything good coming out?
 
crts have been at a relative standstill for the last 8 years, not many advances. i would assume that the quality of the monitor will still be considered good for years to come. the only thing i see about crts in the future is that people will get tired with the bulky size. i think my lady friends agree with me though that bigger and thicker is better.
 
Crt's are going out quick in the business field. I am seeing swap outs like crazy at all the companies I visit. They save space and save energy. When you mulitply energy savings per monitor by 500 and get big discounts when buying at those quantities, its an easy sell to the chief when he sees the power bill. Thats how we got ours at work. Bye bye space heaters OOPS now the heating bill went up in the winter DOH!:D
 
I will buy an LCD when I can get a 18" for $150 with pixels that never die...
 
I will buy an LCD when I can get a 18" for $150 with pixels that never die...
Click to expand...

The price might come sooner than you think! Bad Pixels are usually DOA, not DAA

When you get that monitor, I will be in my own personal Holodeck with Naked women all around, OMG bust out the straight jacket for me.:D :D :D :D
 
Yeah, many offices are jumping to LCDs. If you're looking at a 22" CRT a 19" LCD often offers similar viewable size and isn't much more expensive (if any in certain cases) and certainly easier on the eyes. In smaller sizes it's not quite the case yet.

But in professional graphics, prepress or any area demanding color or tonal accuracty CRTs are still the best choice and any pro lab will have CRTs, if not they're pretty damn foolish. That said the LCDs are improving and either LCDs or OLEDs will eventually meet and exceet CRTs. They're no there yet though. So I have one of each, lol. (see: http://www.rit.edu/~cgs2794/files/pub/desk.jpg :))


And yes, I was in between making some new background images. I always prefer to make or take my own rather than use canned ones.
 
Standard business work? LCDs are great- take less space use less energy, easier on the eyes.

CRT will still have their niche untill color rendition in an LCD can compete. LCD displays still have a way to go before bettering my IBM p260. I tried to do some design work with a 2001fp. Bad experience.
 
emorphien my problem is that the large the lcd, the slower is the response time... only now benq is releasing large lcds with better response time... but at what price?

~GEO~, you right, the color "problem" is one thing that i feel they should fix it.
 
Originally posted by ~GEO~
Standard business work? LCDs are great- take less space use less energy, easier on the eyes.

CRT will still have their niche untill color rendition in an LCD can compete. LCD displays still have a way to go before bettering my IBM p260. I tried to do some design work with a 2001fp. Bad experience.
Click to expand...

Did you color-calibrate the 2001fp first? It's got red push, its slightly oversaturated (resulting in a bit too much green), and the white temp's a bit off.

But it's by no means horrible in terms of color reproduction. At least, not based on ISF tests of color reproduction, using industry-standard test patterns and techniques.

Or did you just take it out of the box, turn it on, and use your "perfectly-calibrated eyes" to judge whether the color reproduction is accurate? Did you even bother with a Pantone chart?

I'm sorry, but I just love all these "experts" who complain about color reproduction, and the only support they cite for their claims is that they "do design work". They never mention a single test done to accurately measure color variance from accepted standards.
 
First of all, skritch, why the hostility? I merely offered my opinion in a thread. A opinion that had relevence. You came and assumed that I was claiming to be and expert and also made some assumption as to my intelligence and as to what steps I took to form my opinion.

Everyone has a right to their opinion and assumptions, even if they aren't supported by a wide array of tests.

Again, who claimed to be and expert with perfectly calibrated eyes? I have mentioned that I can see the lines from 2 feet away in the 2001fp in another thread but that doesn't mean my eyes are perfect- it just means I'm sensitive to the lines. If you aren't then great then the monitor works for you.

As for what I used to form my opinion.

I ran a full set of displaymate test patterns which include a variety of Pantone charts both standard and non-standard that are designed to move past the limitations posed by the "standard" chart. I have run the same test patterns on both the 900nf and p260 in the past and have kept a log of my results.

As far as the color temp and saturation, I do not have a colorfacts system or other ISF calibration tool at home. If you do, then congrats- you can adjust the color temperature spot on. I had to make due with test pattens and standard techniques to adjust color. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I compared with other 2001fp users as well.

Lastly, I took out some of my favorite photos that exhibit varying levels of color and contrast and looked at both the 2001fp and the p260.

I do agree that testing monitors is somewhat subjective. But my thoughts on greyscale (and therefore colorscale) are documented by other reviewers- including "professional" reviewers. I actually think the colors on the 2001fp are better than many if not most LCD displays in the same price range. But, it falls short compared to many if not all CRT displays in the same and 150$-200$ lower price range.

Anyway, are you happy with my testing methods skritch? Please let me know if there are any other methods you would like my to try. Also, if you have ISF calibrated your 2001fp please let me know what your settings are.

I'm guessing you've recieved bad advice from "professionals" in the past or feel that you are a "professional" either way, please don't take your hostilities out on someone who is merely offering their opinion.
 
I've got a 21 inch Sony Trinitron CRT at work that I thought was wonderful until I got my 2001fp, which blows away anything else I've ever seen, hands down! Colors are brighter, richer and more saturated. Reading text is a breeze.

Now mind you, I've just reached the age where I sometimes need reading glasses, but when I get home and turn on the 2001fp, I need absolutely none. At work it's a totally different story. That's a testament to LCDs for me, period. The stuck pixel I can see without my glasses, big deal. Bothers me just because it reminds me that LCDs aren't 100% flawless, YET.

Oh yea, and that supposed ghosting while playing games, I ain't seen none of it on my 2001fp. Zero, zippo, nada, nothing!

Do CRTs still have a future? Hell yes, that is if you need an oversized electron, cataract, cancer causing space heater.

This CRT at work is history! Dude, I'm gettin a Dell.

JMHO:D
 
Originally posted by ~GEO~
First of all, skritch, why the hostility? I merely offered my opinion in a thread. A opinion that had relevence. You came and assumed that I was claiming to be and expert and also made some assumtion as to my intelligence and as to what steps I took to form my opinion.

Everyone has a right to their opinion and assumptions, even if they aren't supported by a wide array of tests.

Again, who claimed to be and expert with perfectly calibrated eyes? I have mentioned that I can see the lines from 2 feet away in the 2001fp in another thread but that doesn't mean my eyes are perfect- it just means I'm sensitive to the lines. If you aren't then great then the monitor works for you.

As for what I used to form my opinion.

I ran a full set of displaymate test patterns which include a variety of Pantone charts both standard and non-standard that are designed to move past the limitations posed by the "standard" chart. I have run the same test patterns on both the 900nf and p260 in the past and have kept a log of my results.

As far as the color temp and saturation, I do not have a colorfacts system or other ISF calibration tool at home. If you do, then congrats- you can adjust the color temperature spot on. I had to make due with test pattens and standard techniques to adjust color. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I compared with other 2001fp users as well.

Lastly, I took out some of my favorite photos that exhibit varying levels of color and contrast and looked at both the 2001fp and the p260.

I do agree that testing monitors is somewhat subjective. But my thoughts on greyscale (and therefore colorscale) are documented by other reviewers- including "professional" reviewers. I actually think the colors on the 2001fp are better than many if not most LCD displays in the same price range. But, it falls short compared to many if not all CRT displays in the same and 150$-200$ lower price range.

Anyway, are you happy with my testing methods skritch? Please let me know if there are any other methods you would like my to try. Also, if you have ISF calibrated your 2001fp please let me know what your settings are.

I'm guessing you've recieved bad advice from "professionals" in the past or feel that you are a "professional" either way, please don't take your hostilities out on someone who is merely offering their opinion.
Click to expand...


My sole point, which you seem to have missed, is that you claimed LCDs (the 2001fp in particular) do not have accurate color reproduction. Specifically, you claimed its color reproduction is worse than that of your CRT, thus implying that your CRT is properly calibrated and providing you with accurate color reproduction.

You failed to provide any sort of support for this claim. The claim you made was a statement of fact, not an opinion -- an opinion would be, "In my opinion, the color reproduction on LCD $FOO is poor". Even then, you should provide support for your opinion, otherwise people are going to think you make baseless opinions on the fly just to be contrary.

And seeing person after person slam this LCD and that CRT because "the colors suck", when all they've done is unbox the device, connect it, and turn it on, is annoying. Most people's opinions of color reproduction come from years of exposure to horribly-miscalibrated CRTs, displaying computer imagery and television signals. They take this woefully misguided opinion of what "good color" looks like, and when they apply it to a device whose color reproduction is fairly accurate out of the box, they think something's horribly wrong. When they see a device that's been properly calibrated, they KNOW something's horribly wrong -- it looks nothing like what they've grown accustomed to.

It's easy to spot these people: the first thing they do when they get a display is crank the contrast and brightness all the way up.


And, as for sharing my settings, if you do in fact know a thing or two about adjusting a display, you should know better -- the settings that work for one particular display have zero bearing on what will work on another. They are two unique units, each with its own manufacturing variances.


In the future, when you make a statement of fact, or even of opnion, have the decency to explain why you made that statement, if you don't want others questioning it. Yes, everyone's entitled to their opinion, even completely frivolous, baseless, content-free opinions. But others are free to believe that people who form opinions without good grounds for doing so are at best lazy, and at worst stupid.
 
Originally posted by skritch
My sole point, which you seem to have missed, is that you claimed LCDs (the 2001fp in particular) do not have accurate color reproduction. Specifically, you claimed its color reproduction is worse than that of your CRT, thus implying that your CRT is properly calibrated and providing you with accurate color reproduction.

You failed to provide any sort of support for this claim. The claim you made was a statement of fact, not an opinion -- an opinion would be, "In my opinion, the color reproduction on LCD $FOO is poor". Even then, you should provide support for your opinion, otherwise people are going to think you make baseless opinions on the fly just to be contrary.

And seeing person after person slam this LCD and that CRT because "the colors suck", when all they've done is unbox the device, connect it, and turn it on, is annoying. Most people's opinions of color reproduction come from years of exposure to horribly-miscalibrated CRTs, displaying computer imagery and television signals. They take this woefully misguided opinion of what "good color" looks like, and when they apply it to a device whose color reproduction is fairly accurate out of the box, they think something's horribly wrong. When they see a device that's been properly calibrated, they KNOW something's horribly wrong -- it looks nothing like what they've grown accustomed to.

It's easy to spot these people: the first thing they do when they get a display is crank the contrast and brightness all the way up.


And, as for sharing my settings, if you do in fact know a thing or two about adjusting a display, you should know better -- the settings that work for one particular display have zero bearing on what will work on another. They are two unique units, each with its own manufacturing variances.


In the future, when you make a statement of fact, or even of opnion, have the decency to explain why you made that statement, if you don't want others questioning it. Yes, everyone's entitled to their opinion, even completely frivolous, baseless, content-free opinions. But others are free to believe that people who form opinions without good grounds for doing so are at best lazy, and at worst stupid.
Click to expand...

Hmm.. So you would like everyone in this forum to completely define every statement they make? Provide exhaustive background for every opinion offered? Not a realistic demand. My friend, you would have everyone in this forum prefix their opinions with "In my opinion"? 90% of the posts in this forum are opinions and I guarantee 90% aren't prefixed! I laud you for trying to establish some set of rules but it isn't realistic especially when you have little or no authority and control.

My interpretation of this thread was to provide my opinion on whether CRT displays have a future, I gave my opinion and stated that color reproduction was not "up to snuff". Sorry if it wasn't prefixed but the context of this thread makes every response within an opinion - who is the "professional authority" amongst us?? Was I proclaiming 20 years as an ISF certified technician blah,blah,blah? Essentially, your reaction to "my baseless opinion" is equally as baseless since instead of politely asking me what the basis for my opinion was you immediatly assumed that my statements where "baseless" and tried to discredit my statements on your whim.

No, in the future, I will provide what I did: a light overview of my stance on a particular subject. Then if people are interested, a polite inquiry as to why and/or how I came about this opinion will surface and I will divulge the background information. This way, people asking for opinions and/or thoughts can pick and choose what information they may want from what users and they may keep it on or offline. But you are entitled to your opinion on how people should offer their opinions (or make statements). There is also a difference between "questioning" ones opinion and trying to "discredit" and "bash" one's opinion which is what your aggresive tone and choice of vocabulary was eluding to. So yes, people are free to "to believe that people who form opinions without good grounds for doing so are at best lazy, and at worst stupid." But people that attack others before learning the basis of their comments are simply childish, and self-absorbed at best, and straight ingorant at worst.

I agree that settings for dislays are never "exactly" the same. However, most displays have a range of similarity unless they are are manufactured incorrectly. It seems you have misinterpreted my comments- I stated that I "compared with other 2001fp users". I never stated that my settings were exactly the same as other 2001fp users.
 
LCDs are only good for saving space and power consumption, in every other field they are not as good as CRTs. If you disagree I would suggest you used crappy CRTs(or poorly calibrated ones), or spending so much money on an LCD has caused your view of it to change in order to deny its faults, maybe unconsciously.

CRTs will be around for a long time, especially with gamers.

OLEDs will eventually replace LCDs, maybe 5-7 years. More vibrant color, higher definition and you can view it from any angle without image quality loss. All the fanboys will come out and try to flame me, but my opinion is that once OLEDs are widespread LCD will go the way of the dodo.
 
skritch, ~GEO~ is right i agree. even when you "calibrate", the color "reproduction" is not the same as with an crt. i have 24bit wallpapers and when i try them with my lcd, color is not as good as with crts. lcds are sharper than crts for graphics/text but when it comes to color... it's almost like using 16bit instead of 32bit, on a crt.
 
LCDs are only good for saving space and power consumption, in every other field they are not as good as CRTs. If you disagree I would suggest you used crappy CRTs(or poorly calibrated ones), or spending so much money on an LCD has caused your view of it to change in order to deny its faults, maybe unconsciously.
Click to expand...

Please tell me of just one CRT that beats any LCD in picture geometry and detail at the LCD's native resolution. And while your at it please show more proof than your opinion. I am not saying your wrong, I want to be educated by facts.
 
It's true, an LCD can have superior geometry, however color and tonal issues, where accuracty and subtlety matter, CRTs are king and will be for a long time. OLEDs may challenge them however, but that's still a few years away at least.
 
LCDs are only good for saving space and power consumption, in every other field they are not as good as CRTs
Click to expand...

Let me clarify, Bop stated, "IN EVERY OTHER FIELD", my only question is in regard to geometry and clarity. NOTHING else. I am not disputing anything I am looking to be educated on geometry and clarity being better on a CRT vs LCD. Enlighten me!
 
Originally posted by euteamo
skritch, ~GEO~ is right i agree. even when you "calibrate", the color "reproduction" is not the same as with an crt. i have 24bit wallpapers and when i try them with my lcd, color is not as good as with crts. lcds are sharper than crts for graphics/text but when it comes to color... it's almost like using 16bit instead of 32bit, on a crt.
Click to expand...

Define "color is not as good".

32bit on a CRT is 24bit color + 8 bits for the alpha channel. And we now have LCDs capable of 24bit color (e.g., the 2001fp).
 
Originally posted by Ramfart
Enlighten me!
Click to expand...

*flips Ramfart off*

There is your enlightenment :p

lol, but on a more serious note I did not take that into consideration and I withdraw that statement, a mistake on my part.(You don't see this happen on the forums much, guess that means I'm not a fanboy:))

I should've said that CRTs are better in overall image quality, especially in motion. That is my opinion though, as I think when the colors are adjusted right and everything is calibrated that it looks more purdy than an LCD's clarity. And yes I owned an LCD monitor, but I gave it away to my parents.

Why do you think many(not ALL though) profesionals(game devs, graphic designers using PCs) use CRTs? LCDs don't compete with CRTs in gaming, I just happen to have eyes sensitive to ghosting and if I was stuck with an LCD while playing a fast paced game I would shoot the screen with my mauser.

Sure if they get response times down to around < 2-3ms and dramaticly improve color and tonal accuracy I'd probably pick one up myself. But in my opinion at the current moment LCDs are not worth the money for what they provide.

But given the stagnate progression of current LCDs the time that happens OLEDs will have replaced them.
 
Originally posted by Bop
[B Why do you think many(not ALL though) profesionals(game devs, graphic designers using PCs) use CRTs? [/B]
Click to expand...

Because these people need a large amount of screen real estate, and until very recently it wasn't possible to obtain an LCD the same size of the larger CRTs. Even today, when it is possible to obtain 23" and larger LCDs, the cost per inch in comparison with CRTs is still prohibitively high. Companies do not have an unlimited supply of money. Most, when presented with a choice between a 24" CRT and a 24" LCD will save the $2000-$3000 per screen and go for the CRT.

How many companies are you familiar with where the employees get to decide what they have on their desktop? They are few and far between, and that includes places like Dreamworks and Pixar. Purchasing decisions are not made by the rank and file, with very few exceptions.
 
Originally posted by Ramfart
Please tell me of just one CRT that beats any LCD in picture geometry and detail at the LCD's native resolution. And while your at it please show more proof than your opinion. I am not saying your wrong, I want to be educated by facts.
Click to expand...
And there you have it, a one-trick-pony. If you want facts on that, go to ANY store selling LCDs on home PCs or laptops, and go to the video properties to swap resolutions. There's your proof. Oh, for a specific monitor that will smoke an LCD, you can start with mine and move up to the NEC 2141. Include the better Sony's, too.

I'll be sticking with CRTs until LCDs can provide, to MY EYES, a better picture at varying resolutions with no ghosting, no 'dead' or 'stuck' pixels, and less obvious pixelation. Until then, NEC/Mit has a lifetime CRT customer.
 
Tell em Stevedave!

I completely agree with what Bitchnmoan has to say. I play my games at different resolutions so if I want to go from 1280x960 to 1024x768 the clarity advantage is lost(Too bad most LCDs don't even have a native 1280x960, the correct 4:3 aspect ratio)
 
I use a an oolllddd 15" monitor and i can actually see it flashing (refreshing). It is my primary monitor and after many long hours of playing CoD the bags (if i had bags i guess) under my eyes are extremey painful to the touch. I guess LCDs are good for old people if they don't destroy your eyes like this.
 
LCDs can be much better in the eyestrain department. I own an LCD and a CRT in my setup, it's the best for what I do. The LCD is for general things the CRT is for imaging and photography.

If you're not using a CRT that's calibrated in imaging, you're doing it wrong. Period.

edit: we have labs full of CRTs and LCDs and i've calibrated my fair share of both. The workflow on the CRT systems can be consistently better because the monitor can provide a more accurate representation of what will actually be printed than any of the LCDs can.
 
Crts have many attributes that are desirable. Quality displays can have excellent color, geometry, and most support multiple resolutions. That said the continued future of Crts is limited. We are already seeing manufactures drop Crt production. Just last year Sony stopped producing Crts smaller than 21", following the exit of Hitachi, Sharp, and Matsushita.

In the short term Crt prices will continue to drop as there is less demand. This will be followed by low end Crts being entirely replaced by low end LCDs. After which high end CRTs will become more expensive as fewer displays are manufactured for fewer consumers.

Who knows what technology will ceal the coffin on CRTs but its not LCD. However LCDs are at a point where they are good enough as evident in consumer trends.
 
Originally posted by kmeson
Who knows what technology will ceal the coffin on CRTs but its not LCD. However LCDs are at a point where they are good enough as evident in consumer trends.
Click to expand...

Probably be OLED displays. They are supposed to have even better color than crts. I know the contrast level is also better than lcds, not sure if it is upto crt standards though. Of course these displays are 2-3 years off.

And on the colors on lcds, yes they can display 24bit color on most, but the colors are more washed out or faded than on a crt. That is what we mean by not as good of colors. Also set your lcd to pure black, it can't do it. Its black is closer to a dark grey. Now a CRT isn't pure black either but it is much closer.
 
I won't be surprised if OLEDs can surpass CRTs.

Currently they've got some impressive supposed specs, such as 1,000,000:1 contrast ratios amongst the fast response, wide viewing angle and energy efficient nature of the technology.
 
Originally posted by CyberCRAP
And on the colors on lcds, yes they can display 24bit color on most, but the colors are more washed out or faded than on a crt. That is what we mean by not as good of colors. Also set your lcd to pure black, it can't do it. Its black is closer to a dark grey. Now a CRT isn't pure black either but it is much closer.
Click to expand...

That's not what I mean when referring to bad color. Specifically I mean gamut - the range of colors that can be produced. A large gamut can produce "washed out or faded" colors just as a small gamut can. A display that is not correctly calibrated may not achieve it's complete gamut and therefore be perceived as producing bad color. However a display with poor gamut is destined to stay so forever.
 
Originally posted by kmeson
That's not what I mean when referring to bad color. Specifically I mean gamut - the range of colors that can be produced. A large gamut can produce "washed out or faded" colors just as a small gamut can. A display that is not correctly calibrated may not achieve it's complete gamut and therefore be perceived as producing bad color. However a display with poor gamut is destined to stay so forever.
Click to expand...

See? This is why I make an issue of people explaining what they mean when they make qualitative or quantitative comparisons. Here're two people, each used to saying, "$X isn't as good as $Y", yet both mean something entirely different by that statement.

Without an explanation attached to a claim, the readers must make assumptions about the basis for the claim. And assumptions are often wrong, or faulty (not to say that the bases aren't also, but that's a different matter).

It's just an issue of clear communication.
 
I think it's safe to say color science/theory and color measurement are beyond many here.
 
Originally posted by emorphien
I think it's safe to say color science/theory and color measurement are beyond many here.
Click to expand...

It's not beyond people here, they've just not been introduced to the topic. :) A few have.

The products I develop require similar color in both display and print. In the consumer space this is a problem because most consumers don't calibrate their displays or printers. Also the source material they use often do not define a device indepent color space, usually just RGB. Assumptions have to be made.

What is amazing to me is how lenient most end users are. This is acutally part of color science as well. Color perception is influenced by recently percieved colors. The result is a user who's always looking at bad color, may infact think its pretty good.

For those who would like learn more, check this link:

http://www.poynton.com/Poynton-color.html
 
Please tell me of just one CRT that beats any LCD in picture geometry and detail at the LCD's native resolution. And while your at it please show more proof than your opinion. I am not saying your wrong, I want to be educated by facts.
Click to expand...

I guess no one can come up with the answer then, and let me clarify again for some of the obviously blind readers who responsed, I did say "Native resolution". I wanted facts, in writing, not going to stores or changing resolutions. What has changing resolutions got to do with native resolution. No one has yet answered my question, pease read it carefully so you can answer the original question. I guess Bop does not like my question so he acts childlike. You try to be nice in the way you ask a question and you get baby like responses. sheesh! I did not push my opinion here, I just asked a question, a simple one at that and still no clear answers to my question!
 
its you're, dammit.

Originally posted by Ramfart
Please tell me of just one CRT that beats any LCD in picture geometry and detail at the LCD's native resolution. And while your at it please show more proof than your opinion. I am not saying your wrong, I want to be educated by facts.
Click to expand...
 
With me, CRT's have a future until something superior to them comes out.

And I mean in all aspects, not just a few.
 
oleds will have a native resolution like in with lcds right?

for me i think i'll wait until oleds are out, anyone know when? 1-2 years?
 
While it sucks that Hitachi is no longer making CRT tubes (since they were the best), it will take something pretty amazing in the flat-panel arena to make me retire my 19" Hitachi monitor. Nothing compares that I've ever seen.

-Robert
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top