LCD? Convince me.

G

ghostfire99

n00b
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
33
So i have been using my trusty old NEC FE2111SB 22inch crt for what seems like ages now,
i own three of these.

I love her but she is gained a little weight since we married, as i am moving back and forth constantly i have to choose a machine to take with me. i recently built a shuttle sff and i love it to lug around. btw, i hate laptops, still not fast enough for me :)

But then comes the fat whore the NEC, not that i mind carrying her crippled ass to the car and back, i just don't think she appreciates me. lol

I am a die hard crt user, i just can't see the overwhelming benefits of a good lcd.

a few things that are on top of my list:

1. Color Accuracy, i do lots of RAW file editing in PS from my DSLR for very large prints.

2. Resolution, most games i play are no less than 1600x1200, min (1280x1024) or higher in some cases, depends on the game.

3. Response, Since no LCD manufacture like industry standards, i could care less, as long as its fast and smooth and no mouse lag.

4. Size, nothing less than 20", i do like the widescreen, maybe a 22-24" model.


So the question is, what should i get? I don't mind putting down some good coin to get a decent lcd.

I prefer those with actual user experience with any recommended model to reply.

Thanks in Advanced,

DIE HARD CRT USER.
 
I think the last line in your post pretty much says it all, and if that is really the case then you won't be satisfied with even a high end lcd. The technology has really come a long way in the past 2-3 years and we are now seeing a shift to color accuracy and features over the raw speed (response time) that many manufacturers were vying for not long ago. Personally I am totally sold on the flatpanel/widescreen format...here is my list: Widescreen Toshiba notebook, 20" WS Acer F-20, 20" WS Dell 2007FPW, 26" Sharp LCD (bedroom), 42" Panasonic plasma (living).....and not a single crt left in my posession. The strengths and weaknesses of both lcd and crt technology are well documented so I won't go into that...but it all comes down to compromise and if you heavily prefer one over the other than nothing will change your mind. My advice to you is to either keep what you have or get the best of the remaining crt monitors and wait a year or two until some of the new technologies (led backlight lcd, SED, laser etc..) becomes widely available and makes crt tubes completely obsolete.
 
I never consider myself a die-hard, but my first LCD experience was very negative (24" Dell 2405). Terrible viewing angles, brightness (at ZERO) that burns the retinas, input lag, motion smear etc... I got rid of it.

If you don't mind a glossy screen. I think you should start with the most CRT like LCD, the NEC 20WMGX2. Best response times, best viewing angles, great clarity from gloss screen, minimal to no input lag.

Essentially try this and if you don't like it give up. Tons of really crap LCDs out there that just aren't worth looking at. If you know it is going to be a hard sell, start with the best.

Or simply hang on for SED/OLED in a couple of years.
 
convince yourself.
Buy an LCD because you want an LCD not because some told you to get one.

I like my WS LCD and would never go back to CRT. The benefits outweigh the negatives.
 
Based on your post, I would say you already have a pretty good handle on the situation... No matter what, You need to decide this on your own, but here is my 2 cents.

Advantages of a good LCD -
Sharper clearer text
no need to calibrate screen for every resolution and refresh rate
Refresh rate not an issues (60-75hertz CRT bother my eyes, but not everyone's eyes)
desk space
lack of heat
widescreen
Size matters (dont let anyone tell you different a 24" LCD rules all (except the 30 inchers)

Advantages of a good CRT -
The colors, the colors
The blackest black
Response time (although any modern LCD with less that 10ms is fine for most even hardcore gamers)
Too heavy to be stolen

I am a gamer, and I was using CRT (Mitsubishi 2070SB which is about as good as it comes for a CRT) and I just went with LCD and got a 24" Dell 2407FP 1 month ago. I couldnt be happier. I dont notice any loss of color or clarity, although if I put them side by side I might be able to tell. All in all LCD is a cleat winner to me.

With that said, if absolute perfect color is on the top of your list, then stay with CRT. To my eyes, I would say LCD is 95% as good, and all of the ther benefits make it a clear winner.
 
There is no good enough LCD for hardcore CRT users unfortunatly.
I'm a die hard CRT user, and i've tried the best of the best LCD's in order to pry myself from the weight and heat of a crt, but an average crt still beats out a very good expensive LCD, for a few reasons:
Blacks
Color accuracy
input lag
millisecond times
dead pixels

LCD's still cant touch these, even though the colors on lcd's are getting much better than they use to be.
Blacks on lcd's have forever to go to catch up, since the lining on the back of a LCD is silver, and the best blacks an lcd are dark grey.

If they ever get those "problems" fixed, i'd be sold in a heartbeat :)
 
Dunan said:
Blacks on lcd's have forever to go to catch up, since the lining on the back of a LCD is silver, and the best blacks an lcd are dark grey.

If they ever get those "problems" fixed, i'd be sold in a heartbeat :)
Click to expand...

I dunno... My 2407WFP has a Samsung S-PVA panel, and its pretty darn Dark when adjusted properly. To me its a very close 2nd to a good CRT. I wouldnt say "forever to catch up" at all.
 
I've owned an HP-branded fw900 and a 2407fpw (rev A02). The fw900 was damaged during shipment, so I didn't get to experience it in all of its glory, but I do feel I'd still prefer my 2407fpw over it.

First and biggest difference is the amount of desk space I actually have now. The fw900 damn near took up my entire desk. I would have never thought this was an issue before getting the 2407fpw, but damn is it nice actually having a place to put stuff on my desk. . .

Second is actual screen size. The fw900 has something like a 22.4" viewable area, as opposed to the 24" 2407fpw.

This may have been a result of the damage, but the fw900 was nowhere near as sharp as the 2407fpw.

The extra inputs on the 2407fpw (component, VGA, DVI, composite) all have their uses for me (PC is hooked up via DVI, PS2 via component, XBox360 will someday be hooked up via VGA, Gamecube via composite).

I hated the native resolution of LCDs initially, though I don't see a huge loss in quality from the down conversion from using something like 1280x800 over 1920x1200.

I've seen no motion blur or input lag either, for what its worth.

Color reproduction might be a valid concern still--I'm not big into photography at all, so I can't comment. I have a revision A02 monitor, so there is some mild vertical banding, but I have no honestly noticed this outside of tests that are intended to exemplify the effect.
 
retrospooty said:
I dunno... My 2407WFP has a Samsung S-PVA panel, and its pretty darn Dark when adjusted properly. To me its a very close 2nd to a good CRT. I wouldnt say "forever to catch up" at all.
Click to expand...
We have 2407's all over work here. It's only a 1000:1 contrast ratio. My monitor is stated @ 15000:1 (CAD monitor) If the next best thing is 15x lighter in the blacks, then lcd's do have a long way to go. The blacks on my crt are REALLY black, with a gamma set to 2.2
I tried that one also, right beside my HP. Turn the lights out, bring up a picture you KNOW to have pure blacks in it and I guarantee it'll look dark grey at best.
Why? Because the silver lining says so, and is reflective to light.
Its impossible for something that is reflective and silver to produce accurate blacks.
LCD's do look like they can produce good blacks when the lights are on, but turn them off and its a whole different story. :)
 
Thanks for the input everyone, i really needed a confirmation on the state of LCD's today, i've tried them a few years ago with very bad results.

But after having spending some time with a few of the models you given, i can say that LCD's have got better. For General purpose usage, i can agree that that some models are pretty decent.

But if any of you ever worked with high quality prints on DSLR's know all about kelvin color temps, so for color accuracy, LCD's are still very far behind, i was very disappointed with temp matching on the models i tested.

I will eventually retire my CRT, just not quite yet.

But in the meantime i will purchase an LCD for my needs.

Thanks Again.
 
I'm a big advocate of CRT's and have held out for a long time. I use photoshop for my work, but nothing serious that requires the absolute best picture quality. I recently bought an LCD for one reason. I have been spending an increasing amount of time in front of my computer because of work. My eyes were very tired at the end of the day even with breaks to rest them. I've had the new LCD for a couple of weeks now, and my eyes feel much better. Yes, the CRT has better picture quality and is still the best choice for graphic designers and other professionals, but in the end, my health was more important to me.
 
Dunan said:
We have 2407's all over work here. It's only a 1000:1 contrast ratio. My monitor is stated @ 15000:1 (CAD monitor) If the next best thing is 15x lighter in the blacks, then lcd's do have a long way to go. The blacks on my crt are REALLY black, with a gamma set to 2.2
I tried that one also, right beside my HP. Turn the lights out, bring up a picture you KNOW to have pure blacks in it and I guarantee it'll look dark grey at best.
Why? Because the silver lining says so, and is reflective to light.
Its impossible for something that is reflective and silver to produce accurate blacks.
LCD's do look like they can produce good blacks when the lights are on, but turn them off and its a whole different story. :)
Click to expand...

Agreed CRT has better blacks. but its not as drastic as the 1000:1 vs. 15000:1 would lead someone to believe. If you are doing CAD, or are for some other reason very sensitive to perfect color representation and black levels, then CRT is certainly the best. But CRT is a dying industry, difficult to find any new CRT being manufactured at all. 99% of sales these days are LCD's and there is a reason for that. its not because they are cheaper, or inferior overall.
 
agreed, a good upper-end model LCD will just blow away a decent crt is so many catagories that the slightly-less color reproduction simply doesnt matter. even still, crt's arent the full color gamut anyway, either. Once you use LCD's you will see why CRT's are dead.
 
krupted said:
agreed, a good upper-end model LCD will just blow away a decent crt is so many catagories that the slightly-less color reproduction simply doesnt matter. even still, crt's arent the full color gamut anyway, either. Once you use LCD's you will see why CRT's are dead.
Click to expand...


CRTs are dead because they have been abandoned.. Nobody really makes them anymore. There will be a market gap for a few years now.

Not everybody has thousands of dollars for an upper-end model LCD to replace thier CRTs, so that isn't a great comparison. I personally think the CRT industry quit too soon, before there was a comparative technology at the same price point. Replacing something that is $500 with something that is $2000 leaves a lot of people twisting in the wind.

The current crop of 24" widescreen LCDs also seem to have a multitude of problems that like to crop up around 6 months after release. It's like LCD makers make a great product for 6 months to get rave reviews, then switch to the crappiest, cheapest components on the market to rake in the dough.

SED might finally bring a technology that will finally bring us CRT-like benefits, but so far has been vaporware.. It's taking forever for them to get to the market, and I bet the first few generations are going to cost $4000-$8000, and will be HDTVs.

So, really the CRT/LCD argument is becoming moot.. LCD is all we will have until around 2010.
 
Companies will sell whatever makes them the most profit. What "some" CRT's lovers will not admit to is that if the market had a demand for CRT's then they would still be on the shelf. No one banned CRT's. Even though a good CRT is better than an LCD in picture, as LCD's improved in quality and their price dropped... well people just put more stock in the size, weight, heat, power, look and sharpness that LCD's have over CRT's and less into the picture quality.

I grant you that a well tuned CRT has better color and viewing angles over current LCD's.

Most people have a level of "good enough" for PQ and once it becomes acceptable for them then they look at the other features. Most people sit in front of their monitor and do not use it as a TV. Most people use their desk for other reasons aside from just using the computer and the saved real estate an LCD offers them means a ton.

So if I was to tell you this....

Should I buy a CRT or LCD if I do not care about color or viewing angle? Would you say CRT or LCD?

We all buy things based on features that "we" place most important. What is important to me may not be important you you and so forth. Now if someone says that the size of the monitor is their number one prioity over accurate color representation of viewing angle then why is this consideration somehow less important? If all they do is WordPerfect then who the heck cares if the screen can do 16 colors or 16 zillion?

Did not mean to take this as far as it did.

-JB
 
retrospooty said:
Agreed CRT has better blacks. but its not as drastic as the 1000:1 vs. 15000:1 would lead someone to believe. If you are doing CAD, or are for some other reason very sensitive to perfect color representation and black levels, then CRT is certainly the best. But CRT is a dying industry, difficult to find any new CRT being manufactured at all. 99% of sales these days are LCD's and there is a reason for that. its not because they are cheaper, or inferior overall.
Click to expand...
The only reason they are selling is because the new technology push, like always. I say if its not broke, dont fix it. There is nothing wrong with a CRT monitor, but the industry says the people dont need them anymore and decide they dont want us to have them, so they phase them out, which I think is TOTAL BS.
The LCD market preys on people who care solely about desk space and weight, not picture quality.

LCD's are out and selling, fine, but give the people a choice and stop forcing new technology on those that dont care for it.
 
Dunan said:
The only reason they are selling is because the new technology push, like always. I say if its not broke, dont fix it. There is nothing wrong with a CRT monitor, but the industry says the people dont need them anymore and decide they dont want us to have them, so they phase them out, which I think is TOTAL BS.
The LCD market preys on people who care solely about desk space and weight, not picture quality.

LCD's are out and selling, fine, but give the people a choice and stop forcing new technology on those that dont care for it.
Click to expand...

I do see your point, but its not quite like a conspiracy to "prey on people who care solely about desk space and weight, not picture quality"

LCD's dominated the market quickly becasue most people prefer them over CRT. At first it was just the normal base windows/MS office/Internet users, but now, years later, LCD have dramatically improved, even gamers are on board. They are here to stay.

Its not that people didnt have a choice, they did, and the they chose LCD. Its much like an election where your candidate lost, and now you are forced to deal with this clown that we have elected president, and his poor descisions. sorry. Wrong forum for that ;)
 
I'm a writer and LCDs are a godsend for anyone who works with documents. My first experience with a desktop LCD was my Dell 2001FP. After about 10 minutes with that zero glare screen, I told my boss to get me an LCD for work or I'd quit. I now have the Dell 2405 and have been very pleased. I use it for work and games (even DVDs and HDTV once in awhile) with absolutely no complaints.

I'm not a rabid, die-hard gamer so I don't fret that my LCD may not have the blackest possible blacks, lowest possible response time, highest possible contrast ratio, etc. I play all the latest games at high settings and love the way they look on my 2405. I'm considering an upgrade to the 30" Dell or maybe even the 37" Westinghouse. Whichever I choose, one thing is certain: I'll NEVER buy or use a CRT again.

Oh, and for those who think industry is forcing LCD technology on consumers, when have you ever seen a CRT on a laptop, cell phone, watch or PDA? LCDs have been with us for a long time.
 
Mr. Wolf said:
I'm a writer and LCDs are a godsend for anyone who works with documents. My first experience with a desktop LCD was my Dell 2001FP. After about 10 minutes with that zero glare screen, I told my boss to get me an LCD for work or I'd quit. I now have the Dell 2405 and have been very pleased. I use it for work and games (even DVDs and HDTV once in awhile) with absolutely no complaints.

I'm not a rabid, die-hard gamer so I don't fret that my LCD may not have the blackest possible blacks, lowest possible response time, highest possible contrast ratio, etc. I play all the latest games at high settings and love the way they look on my 2405. I'm considering an upgrade to the 30" Dell or maybe even the 37" Westinghouse. Whichever I choose, one thing is certain: I'll NEVER buy or use a CRT again.

Oh, and for those who think industry is forcing LCD technology on consumers, when have you ever seen a CRT on a laptop, cell phone, watch or PDA? LCDs have been with us for a long time.
Click to expand...
I see your point, I agree they are fine for general use. They are not fine for people who work with photoshop or color critical apps. where color is important to thier paycheck :wink:
It's EXTREMLY important that colors onscreen match what prints out, or you're going to get something different than you wanted color wise.
Laptops were made for portable business use IMO, and you dont see people using CAD or anything remotly color intensive on them. They have only came out with gaming laptops in the last couple of years.
I would LOVE to get an LCD, but I feel they have a long way to go yet in getting them close to the picture quality of a crt.
I did try a samsung LCD when I was shopping for one and the colors were pretty awesome. Best picture on an LCD I ever seen and i'm a picky mofo.
3 main reason I didnt get it:
contrast ratio of only 500:1. The best blacks I could get out of it were a medium grey.
Input lag was horrible. Easily a half second delay in mouse movements.
10 MS was too slow. It made the input lag even worse.
Like I said, incredible picture though. Those all elusive blacks are the killer most of all, I really want to go LCD and get this behemoth off my desk but just cant, until they get them right. I think they will, I just dont think it'll be very soon. :(
 
They are not fine for people who work with photoshop or color critical apps
Click to expand...

What percentage of the population do you think this statement applies to?

I keep seeing this over and over and over as to why people should use CRT's so is it save to say that if you do not work with photoshop or critcal color apps that an LCD is the better choice?

*smiles*

-JB
 
jrb531 said:
What percentage of the population do you think this statement applies to?

I keep seeing this over and over and over as to why people should use CRT's so is it save to say that if you do not work with photoshop or critcal color apps that an LCD is the better choice?

*smiles*

-JB
Click to expand...
I dont think everybody should use CRT's but the people who would rather use them shouldn't be forgotten either. Let there be a choice, IMO. Plus, i'm one that kind of *needs* one :D
I have a couple crt's left to "live" off of if this one dies or until they come out with a new type of screen or lcd's get better :D
 
Well if you want an LCD with colour as good or better than almost any CRT you are likely to encounter, NEC does now have a solution for you. The MultiSync LCD2180WGLED will do the trick. Has a gamut of 103% NTSC. Uses LEDs instead of CCFLs for backlights to pull it off. Supports 10-bit per channel colour and all. The catch? It's like 6-7 grand.

But, it is out there if you want an LCD for colour critical work.
 
Sycraft said:
Well if you want an LCD with colour as good or better than almost any CRT you are likely to encounter, NEC does now have a solution for you. The MultiSync LCD2180WGLED will do the trick. Has a gamut of 103% NTSC. Uses LEDs instead of CCFLs for backlights to pull it off. Supports 10-bit per channel colour and all. The catch? It's like 6-7 grand.
Click to expand...

$7000 and it isnt even widescreen!! :eek: :eek:
 
Sycraft said:
Well if you want an LCD with colour as good or better than almost any CRT you are likely to encounter, NEC does now have a solution for you. The MultiSync LCD2180WGLED will do the trick. Has a gamut of 103% NTSC. Uses LEDs instead of CCFLs for backlights to pull it off. Supports 10-bit per channel colour and all. The catch? It's like 6-7 grand.

But, it is out there if you want an LCD for colour critical work.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've seen that before when I was looking for one. Too rich for my blood :D
I wonder what makes it so expensive? The contrast ratio is only 430:1 so there must be something in that monitor that is making blacks true black or something.
I'm curious :confused:
 
freakycody said:
convince yourself.
Buy an LCD because you want an LCD not because some told you to get one.

I like my WS LCD and would never go back to CRT. The benefits outweigh the negatives.
Click to expand...

exactly...there is no convincing here, if you like it then buy it. Everybody got their own opinions on what is ideal for them. As for me when I first got my LCD, I grab my old CRT and threw it in the trash; never look back ever since. The overall package and benefits of LCD is the answer I've been looking for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top