LCD vs CRT - I'm lost

[vox87]

It's about that time for a new monitor. My Viewsonic E790 was a dissappointment, when I bought it about four years ago, the brightness was and still is just pathetic (well at least on mine). But, I've dealt with it and just made due, by tweaking the gamma and such for the video card. I have another monitor but, its not the greatest but, it does serve its purpose.

Probably about 6-8 months ago, I was ready for two new monitors. I did a lot of researching on the forum and the buzz back then was to stick with a CRT. I guess, at the time, the LCD's were just known for too much ghosting, horrible text, and not refreshing as good as a CRT. Or, if you had to have a LCD (at the time), go purchase a DELL.2001FP (think that was the LCD of choice).

But, now it seems everyone is going to a LCD and the CRTs are fading. I personally would rather have a LCD just due to the heat of a CRT. I have 3 monitors on at any given time and the CRTs ( (2) 19" and (1) 17") just cook my room.

Typical applications for me are games (Halo, BF1942, Doom3, etc..), graphic programs (photo and 3d graphic), and visual studio for C++. Basically, I have dependencies on both gaming and text. Not really a hardcore gamer but, I do like playing some CTF for shooters.

One of my computers is a Dell C840 laptop and the LCD has a native res of 1600x1200 (ultra sharp display) but, I usually put it down to 1280x1024. Not bad but, not sharp. Only thing I notice is the pale yellows and whites look the same. But, thats my only experience with LCDs.

So...For the past two days I've been reading the posts here and trying to figure out which way to go for my daily usage.

Guess I'm looking at the following:

1. Are there any other LCDs or CRTs to consider.
- From the looks of it....the Samsung 701T and 193P, Dell 2001FP (minus getting one that has dead pixels), Sony SDM-HS94P or, a ViewSonic VX910 are the top pics?
- For CRTs the NEC FP912 or Mitsubishi DP930 SB.

2. I have this little voice/bug in my head, mostly from the anti-LCD posts I've read, that says buy a new CRT and look at LCDs in another year or two. Maybe I shouldn't admit to voices in my head but...am I just reading too much into the negatives of LCDs?

Thanks.

 

[Pcrepairman]

I had the Samsuing 710T and it sucked did not like it at all, It was terrible in games. The text was amazing

I know have the Mitsubishi DP930 SB and it is by far the best monitor Ive ever used, It kills the 710T is game performance and color reproduction

Just get the Mitsubishi DP930 SB

 

[towert7]

Ok, here is my opinion on LCD vs CRT.

If you have the room and capability to hold the weight (some are 50+lbs)....... get a CRT.
If you are on a very tight budget, get a CRT.
If you demand accurate color reproduction, get a CRT.
And if you have a hard time viewing text on your current CRT, stick with a CRT.

Having said that, ill go into the specifics as much as i can.

I have used a Sony trinitron 19" CRT that is 4 years old now, ive had it for 4 years........ it was AWSOME. I had it at 1280x960 @ 85Hz with a 18" viewable screen size. I belive it had a dot pitch of .20 or .24 ^_^

I am going to college in about a month, and i NEEDED the room.... i could'nt fit my CRT sadly, so i bought a Samsung 710T.

The samsung 710T is "ok"........ nothing i would Jump up and down over. Its colors are more vivid then the CRT, its much lighter, it uses less power and produces less heat, and it takes up much less space. That is where the benifites stop as far as im concearned. LCD's are more expensive then CRT's now, and for good reason. My 710T does not produce text as good..... even with microsoft cleartype..... My CRT displayed text Much better, without using any font minipulation software.
Another reason for this might be because the LCD is 17", with a higher resolution then my CRT was with a 18" viewable. Still though......

I notice no ghosting with my 12ms. But then again, i did'nt notice any ghosting with my CRT (lol, joke).

Color reproduction might be good, but just the concept of an LCD is flawed. When i look directly at the monitor at a 90º angle to the screen, i can STILL see color shift from top to bottom. not much, but its there. (this is why i do not recommend LCD for graphic design). Also, the specs on this monitor said a viewable range of 160º, or 80º each way. HA!!!!!!!! if i even move 45º in eaither direction, the color becomes soo distorted.... i would never want to do that. so mine has a more realistic viewable angle of 90º. the CRT can be viewed from any angle and colors stay ture.

Then of course we have the issue of "Dead pixles". My 710T came with 1 main dead pixle, and 6 minor ones.... so a total of 7 broken pixles, but i don't mind them. Heck, when i use the monitor, i can only notice 1.... the other 6 i can only find if i LOOK for them.

My dot pitch of 0.264 is good though for graphics and games, but like i said..... text is small for me.
I think i should have gone up to a 19" LCD with the same native resolution.

All in all, if you have the space, ide stick with a quality CRT.

The reason CRT's are being fazed out, it because of their size and weight mostly.... and also the fact that Sony has stoped making their trinitrons for the general public.... that does'nt help much eaither.
http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1026428321&postcount=2

~Hope this helps

 

[vox87]

Perfect..thats what I was looking for.

My biggest interest this time was heat. I have plenty room for any type of CRT. Just tired of hearing the roar of the fans and having the sub zero room temps but, I've gone this long with it.

I've been to CompUSA, Best Buy, Circuit City, and Staples and just really wasn't sold on the LCD. And I just really couldn't see being able to test all the available LCDs to find that one I could be happy with.

I figured the CRT was going to be my best option for what I do. I'm kicking myself now for selling my Compaq P900 Trinitron. Should have sold the E790.

In your reference link, are those the 3 monitors that impress you? Seems like that Samsung has the best specs. I'll have to check it out at Best Buy. The IBM seems nice too and, I have access to a discount program with them (may just op for that big C220)

Thanks again, realy appreciate your reply.

 

[towert7]

ive never personally used eaither of those 3 for any length of time. But the IBM 19" is as close to the 4 year old CRT i have. There practically the same thing.

there is a big diffrence in price from the IBM 19" and 22"... about 400$, but surprisingly, when your talking about the price of a LCD... 400$ is'nt that much.

Then again there is always the HP P1230 22" CRT. Suggested price is about 570$ with the Diamondtron screen.... much like the Sony's Trinitron. Reduces glare, all that stuff.

Im not sure how the samsung with 0.20 dot pitch grill is compared to the DiamondTron or Trinitron 0.24 dot pitch........ but like i said, ive lived with the trinitron 0.24 for a long time, and i just loved it.

NEC/Mitsubishi also use the DiamondTron. So eaither of those (diamondtron/trinitron) will be a good bet.

But like i said before, the trinitron is no longer made............. so the diamondtron is what's left.

~Hope this helps

 

[BombermanX]

I don't know what towert is seeing, but the text on the 710T is clearer than my Sony Trinitron , and any CRT I've seen for that matter. Different gamma modes will provide better text, of course, and so will DVI. Analog uses a much less accurate method of displaying pixels thus text will not be as clear on a CRT (at least theoretically, and in my experience). As long as the panel is able to display 24-bit color, the colors on an LCD should be superior due to the digital interface.

Towert does have a good point about the viewing angle. However, to be quite honest with you, if rotating the monitor a little bit depending on your chair's position is too hard for you, then color distortion isn't the only problem you have.

The 710T is actually far superior to my Trinitron in color reproduction. And the best thing about it is the pivot feature, which can display a full document (8 1/2 x 11) at its actual size. I use my 710T for graphic design now and the color to print difference is so much better; it's stunning.

 

[wtburnette]

I agree that I'd go with a CRT. I'm going to be looking for a new monitor soon myself and I'm not even considering an LCD. Way too expensive, esp. when you can get a very good CRT as cheap as $300. What's a good 19" LCD, $500 or more at a minimum? No thanks. I don't need to spend that kinda money just for a thin screen. Thankfully my desk has enough space to accomodate up to a 22" monitor if needed...

 

[canislupy]

Color reproduction might be good, but just the concept of an LCD is flawed. When i look directly at the monitor at a 90º angle to the screen, i can STILL see color shift from top to bottom. not much, but its there. (this is why i do not recommend LCD for graphic design). Also, the specs on this monitor said a viewable range of 160º, or 80º each way. HA!!!!!!!! if i even move 45º in eaither direction, the color becomes soo distorted.... i would never want to do that. so mine has a more realistic viewable angle of 90º. the CRT can be viewed from any angle and colors stay ture.

Mine seems fine at greater than 45 degrees.

http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.p...7&postcount=456

Not all LCD's are created equal, and neither are CRT's for that matter. Your best bet is to view the monitor in question before you buy if you have any doubts.

LCD's for graphic design can be had, albeit for $$$$.

http://www.eizo.com/products/graphics/index.asp

 

[towert7]

Towert does have a good point about the viewing angle. However, to be quite honest with you, if rotating the monitor a little bit depending on your chair's position is too hard for you, then color distortion isn't the only problem you have.

The 710T is actually far superior to my Trinitron in color reproduction. And the best thing about it is the pivot feature, which can display a full document (8 1/2 x 11) at its actual size. I use my 710T for graphic design now and the color to print difference is so much better; it's stunning.

Well, let me explain.

If im working on my computer, and my dad wants to look beside me to watch what im doing, its distorted. Can't have 1 monitor point in 2 directions at one ^_^.

As with the color, it is better then my CRT was. more vivid. the monitor displays the color good, its just like i said......... the concept of an LCD just makes color distortion.

~Hope this helps

 

[figgie]

Mine seems fine at greater than 45 degrees.

http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.p...7&postcount=456

Not all LCD's are created equal, and neither are CRT's for that matter. Your best bet is to view the monitor in question before you buy if you have any doubts.

LCD's for graphic design can be had, albeit for $$$$.

http://www.eizo.com/products/graphics/index.asp

This is not to start a flame, this is more of an informative post that are based on facts.

I am sorry but the inherit nature of LCD prevent TRUE color reproduction. Reason is G2 levels are fubared as LCD tries and create black by blocking light. That don't work to well when it comes to grey scale. Only way is to minimize lamp intesity which in turns screws up WHITE levels now. No matter how much it cost. DLP is much better at it as it can almost turn light off by turning the mirror away and LCOS is even better than DLP because the polarization actually comes to the point of shutting of the light completely. Though all three digital technologies still fall very short of CRT color reproduction and contrast. This is of course with the CURRENT digital technology (8/11/2004)

 

[BombermanX]

This is not to start a flame, this is more of an informative post that are based on facts.

I am sorry but the inherit nature of LCD prevent TRUE color reproduction. Reason is G2 levels are fubared as LCD tries and create black by blocking light. That don't work to well when it comes to grey scale. Only way is to minimize lamp intesity which in turns screws up WHITE levels now. No matter how much it cost. DLP is much better at it as it can almost turn light off by turning the mirror away and LCOS is even better than DLP because the polarization actually comes to the point of shutting of the light completely. Though all three digital technologies still fall very short of CRT color reproduction and contrast. This is of course with the CURRENT digital technology (8/11/2004)

The odd part of your post is that CRTs use analog which lacks the capacity for so-called TRUE color reproduction. Furthermore, the 710T can actually display a true black (down to at least #010101 - there is no noticeable difference in print). It is, in fact, the only LCD to display such accurate grays. Indeed, the colors on the 710T far exceed any CRT I have seen, and even beat my Trinitron in a side by side comparison (my friends agreed as well).

Don't forget OLED, which far exceeds the technologies that you've mentioned.

 

[towert7]

Don't forget OLED, which far exceeds the technologies that you've mentioned.

You said a mouth full right there. I can't wait till OLED's are mass produced ^_^. There's just so much OLED's can do. you can put them on tin foil, transaprent (can't wait till our cars have HUD displays), and general applications.

I hope they get here soon.

Oh, that's another thing i forgot to mention. MY 710T does display Blacks better then my trinitron. The trinitrons were notorious for having trouble with blacks. (mine always had a red tint to it....... unless the monitor was on for over 30min's... but even then it was'nt black).

 

[figgie]

The odd part of your post is that CRTs use analog which lacks the capacity for so-called TRUE color reproduction. Furthermore, the 710T can actually display a true black (down to at least #010101 - there is no noticeable difference in print). It is, in fact, the only LCD to display such accurate grays. Indeed, the colors on the 710T far exceed any CRT I have seen, and even beat my Trinitron in a side by side comparison (my friends agreed as well).

Don't forget OLED, which far exceeds the technologies that you've mentioned.

Light is a wave and a photon. Analog is a wave. Digital is a representation of the REAL analog wave

we can discuss the pro's and cons of lcd vs crt in a civil manner in private (forget posting a thread as those always blow out when the monkeys put their two cents in like Crt suck because they generate heat or LCD ghost blah blah blah. )


Speaking of OLED.. the combination that might actaully work better is DLP based chip with led lights that can be turned off and on in a blink of an eye. The only problem is that the leds are not small enough and definetly not powerful (not enough luminance per bulb) enough to do this..... YET.

 

[vox87]

Light is a wave and a photon. Analog is a wave. Digital is a representation of the REAL analog wave

we can discuss the pro's and cons of lcd vs crt in a civil manner in private (forget posting a thread as those always blow out when the monkeys put their two cents in like Crt suck because they generate heat or LCD ghost blah blah blah. )


Speaking of OLED.. the combination that might actaully work better is DLP based chip with led lights that can be turned off and on in a blink of an eye. The only problem is that the leds are not small enough and definetly not powerful (not enough luminance per bulb) enough to do this..... YET.

No..No.. Keep going. I'm learning.

Real quick though...So, by using the DVI (I'm assuming not for every LCD), you're able to get a truer black and a crisper text vs. a CRT (via analog)?

towert7 you're confusing me now. Sounds like you're loving your 710t all over again vs trinitron.

 

[inbedwithhomer]

I'm well aware of the color reproduction values of LCDs vs. CRTs.. not what I'm commenting on .

Text on even a bad LCD is always superior to the best CRTs.. flat out. Hard focus and precise pixel reproduction cannot be outdone.. in any way. The text is simply perfect. The micro-jitter and soft pixel reproduction that ALL CRTs do pales in comparison.

...and then there's geometry

 

[figgie]

No..No.. Keep going. I'm learning.

Real quick though...So, by using the DVI (I'm assuming not for every LCD), you're able to get a truer black and a crisper text vs. a CRT (via analog)?

towert7 you're confusing me now. Sounds like you're loving your 710t all over again vs trinitron.

oh no it is not that.

every single LCD vs CRT thread that i have read here goes into a flame fest quite fast. Mind you that both camps spit of opinions and not facts. Then it gets out of hand and eventually locked by the mods/admin. That why i stated that pm me to debate such issue in private... hehe

and to answer your question and complicate matters even more

If the DVI is sending a PC RGB colorspace. It sends a Y=0 as being black and y = 253 as being white but in reality in the the IRE scale those Y value = 7.5 and IRE 90 on the high end. If the by chance you are sending a STUDIO RGB Color space. Then y = 16 for black and y = 230 for white. This leaves 0-16 and 231-253 for blacker than black levels and whiter than white.or IRE = 0 and IRE = 100. Now alot of fixed pixels displays can not display true blacker than black. So there remedy is to shift the ENTIRE Y value up so IRE is never below 7.5 CRT on the other hand can do BTB and WTW without shifting. That is the nature of both technologies technlogy.

you want to learn more than you ever imagined on PC RGB colorspace vs Studio RGB color space and what IS black?

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=416292&perpage=20&pagenumber=1

In that thread there are two posters from Microsoft themselves. They go into GREAT detail. Read it and learn Probably have a headache after it is all said and done.

 

[figgie]

I'm well aware of the color reproduction values of LCDs vs. CRTs.. not what I'm commenting on .

Text on even a bad LCD is always superior to the best CRTs.. flat out. Hard focus and precise pixel reproduction cannot be outdone.. in any way. The text is simply perfect. The micro-jitter and soft pixel reproduction that ALL CRTs do pales in comparison.

...and then there's geometry

inbedwithhomer

my post wan't directed at you but at bombermanX

 

[Bones]

I recently switched from a Trinitron CRT to two Samsung 193Ps for graphics work. The color reproduction on the LCDs is excellent, although they do not quite reproduce full gamut sRGB. That is OK. The color tones are accurate, so the perceptual rendering of the colors is correct.

My colorimeter measures the black level of the 193Ps at about 0.01 candelas, and the white level is at 88.7. The black is measurably (and visibly) darker than my old CRT in a side-by-side comparison. Native white point measures at about 7000K, gamma is about 1.9 (corrected to 2.2 after calibration).

While LCD color isn't quite up to the CRT gold standard, it is good enough for photo and most publishing work. The LCDs are definitely easier to work with for hours straight!

 

[BombermanX]

every single LCD vs CRT thread that i have read here goes into a flame fest quite fast. Mind you that both camps spit of opinions and not facts. Then it gets out of hand and eventually locked by the mods/admin. That why i stated that pm me to debate such issue in private... hehe

Yeah, that usually happens when one side brings no facts to the table and then other readers join in with their biased arguements. In the end, most debates end up completely subjective.

Now alot of fixed pixels displays can not display true blacker than black. So there remedy is to shift the ENTIRE Y value up so IRE is never below 7.5 CRT on the other hand can do BTB and WTW without shifting. That is the nature of both technologies technlogy.

The point was merely that CRTs are less accurate, not necessarily that they couldn't be better. It's just that they are an estimation instead of per-pixel. Digital is true; analog is an average.

you want to learn more than you ever imagined on PC RGB colorspace vs Studio RGB color space and what IS black?

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=416292&perpage=20&pagenumber=1

Gonna check that thread out later, reading can never hurt, thanks

 

[Synful Serenity]

The 710T is actually far superior to my Trinitron in color reproduction.

That may be true according to your eyes, but if you actually went to the expense to get a spectrometer and calibration software like Colorvision Optical, compared alongside a calibrated high-end crt like a 2141sb, you would find the spectrum is anything but broad for the LCD, and many colors would be off with no way of ever getting them close enough to meet calibration standards. This has already been done many times before and is a result of the inherent technology in LCDs, just like the fact they will probably never be able to display true black. Even colors like red are off by way too much than graphics professionals are willing to accept. The backlighting might give a livelier vibe to the colors, but that doesn't make them truer to what they are supposed to be.

LCD's, with their hard focus, zero geometry issues, and sharp text, will be superior for those that primarily use them for those purposes and for those who like lighter, less heat producing, and less desk-hogging screens. The other people like me, who want real colors and who cannot tolerate any blurring on the screen at all, must continue to wait for future technologies such as SED and OLED displays, or until LCD makers find a way to bring down their response range so that the slowest any pixel will change, regardless of the colors involved, will be its rated ms, not 40, 50ms or more like many 16ms displays do with grays.

Oh yes, I made a post about it before, but I'll repeat it again. It seems some people use the word 'ghosting' to mean only an actual visible onscreen afterimage, while others use it to include motion blur as well. The problem is that while a display might not show "ghosting" in the literal sense, it is still slow enough to blur the screen because the pixels are not switching over fast enough into the next frame, so parts of 2 or more frames are on the screen at once. But not slow enough to see the actual "ghost" afterimage...see the problem here if people are thinking 2 different meanings? Whether you take ghosting to mean blurring or not, blurring is my biggest pet peeve on a monitor, and I have yet to find an LCD that doesn't blur at all for my uses. Like I said, if all you do is work like word processing and business apps, by all means get an LCD, the text sharpness is more than worth the tradeoff in speed. But for me, the 2141sb was pretty close in terms of text sharpness to LCDs like the 2001fp and 213t, and the geometry was almost perfect but not quite as perfect as the LCDs. But both LCDs (especially the Samsung) were horrendous in terms of blur in fast motion, nowhere near the 2141. Guess which tradeoff made the most sense for me?

 

[BombermanX]

That may be true according to your eyes, but if you actually went to the expense to get a spectrometer and calibration software like Colorvision Optical, compared alongside a calibrated high-end crt like a 2141sb, you would find the spectrum is anything but broad for the LCD, and many colors would be off with no way of ever getting them close enough to meet calibration standards. This has already been done many times before and is a result of the inherent technology in LCDs, just like the fact they will probably never be able to display true black. Even colors like red are off by way too much than graphics professionals are willing to accept. The backlighting might give a livelier vibe to the colors, but that doesn't make them truer to what they are supposed to be.

LCD's, with their hard focus, zero geometry issues, and sharp text, will be superior for those that primarily use them for those purposes and for those who like lighter, less heat producing, and less desk-hogging screens. The other people like me, who want real colors and who cannot tolerate any blurring on the screen at all, must continue to wait for future technologies such as SED and OLED displays, or until LCD makers find a way to bring down their response range so that the slowest any pixel will change, regardless of the colors involved, will be its rated ms, not 40, 50ms or more like many 16ms displays do with grays.

Oh yes, I made a post about it before, but I'll repeat it again. It seems some people use the word 'ghosting' to mean only an actual visible onscreen afterimage, while others use it to include motion blur as well. The problem is that while a display might not show "ghosting" in the literal sense, it is still slow enough to blur the screen because the pixels are not switching over fast enough into the next frame, so parts of 2 or more frames are on the screen at once. But not slow enough to see the actual "ghost" afterimage...see the problem here if people are thinking 2 different meanings? Whether you take ghosting to mean blurring or not, blurring is my biggest pet peeve on a monitor, and I have yet to find an LCD that doesn't blur at all for my uses. Like I said, if all you do is work like word processing and business apps, by all means get an LCD, the text sharpness is more than worth the tradeoff in speed. But for me, the 2141sb was pretty close in terms of text sharpness to LCDs like the 2001fp and 213t, and the geometry was almost perfect but not quite as perfect as the LCDs. But both LCDs (especially the Samsung) were horrendous in terms of blur in fast motion, nowhere near the 2141. Guess which tradeoff made the most sense for me?

The 213T is a 25 ms gray panel, so of course it ghosted. Once again, the point was that properly calibrated LCDs using a digital connection will display the actual color as it is interpretted instead of the approximations found in CRT analog. And while your calibration tools may tell you that it's off; the print/display difference is greatly improved on this LCD compared to any (well-calibrated) CRT that I've used.

Here's a quote from a paper written by the IEEE:
(http://www.ece.rochester.edu/~gsharma/papers/lcdvscrtprocieee.pdf)

"This level of error is acceptable for most imaging applications....for all but the most critical imaging applications." (p.11)

"From the preceding sections, it is clear that LCDs and CRTs are similar in several respects from the perspective of color calibration. Identical models based on channel independence and channel-chromaticity constancy can be used for the calibration of either type of display and the runtime mapping of images to display color coordinates can also be performed using the inverse model of Fig. 2 in either case. For the CRT, these models provide extremely good accuracy, whereas for LCDs, the accuracy is good enough for most applications." (p. 14)

Note that the prototype used in the article (2002) is now lesser mainstream technology, and the 710T is a vast improvement upon it.

 

[Happy Hopping]

Not really trying to be off topic, but why don't the industry make:

Plasma computer display with high res. like 1920x1200?

surely plasma technology is way better than CRT or LCD.

 

[Drakensoul]

Current plasma technology has an average half-life of 20k - 30k hours.

Meaning that at that point, the display will be half as bright/vivid as it was when it was first purchased.

 

[figgie]

Current plasma technology has an average half-life of 20k - 30k hours.

Meaning that at that point, the display will be half as bright/vivid as it was when it was first purchased.

not for anything but CRT are supposed to have a MAX life span of about 10k hours before they start burning the phospor (Nastry brown color). So 20k hours is still a crap load of time but at the current price. It SHOULD be a hell of alot more than that though. This is of course my opinion on the price to performance ratio

 

[figgie]

Not really trying to be off topic, but why don't the industry make:

Plasma computer display with high res. like 1920x1200?

surely plasma technology is way better than CRT or LCD.

they do

have you seen what Apples display's cost though? LCD upto 1280x1024 is relatively cheap. Once you start adding more resolution the price start to skyrocket FAST.

Also plama falls short, even worst then LCD when it comes to contrast, response times. Color IS vivid but still lacking.

 

[Synful Serenity]

Note that the prototype used in the article (2002) is now lesser mainstream technology, and the 710T is a vast improvement upon it

True, but also keep in mind that the writer of the article used a "commercially available" CRT and we're at a loss to know just what its capabilities would be with the best CRTs out at the time.

I'm surprised though, that the writer failed to note the fact that CRTs have the ability to display an effectively infinite amount of colors, while digital displays are numerically limited by however many bits they use. This is not a 32-bit vs. 24-bit color argument, I'm just pointing out that CRTs are not restricted in that way. The digital interface doesn't mean it can display the color exactly as it is, only that it can tell the hardware to display the same one color that matches the parameters given...this color could still be well off from what it should be...However, all this will be rendered moot once LED-backlit and SEDs and OLEDs appear. I read that NEC is coming out with an LED-backlit LCD in Q4 2004....which is very close indeed! I'm definitely going to have a look at it. But pixel response really needs to be taken care of. Then I'll be a happy LCD camper!

surely plasma technology is way better than CRT or LCD

I don't know where to start with this. Not only would it almost burn a hole through your desk and fall through with all the heat it produces, but you'd get burn-in just by barely doing anything. And plasma looks terrible and blocky up close, especially as it ages...and it doesn't age well. That half-life figure is for the brightness only, it doesn't factor in the breakdown of the pixels themselves. If you've seen a worn plasma display, you'll know what I mean. Plasma has too many problems that LCDs don't have, and plasma's benefits will be null and void once SED and OLED displays hit the market. In other words, consider it an expensive interim plaything.

 

[Happy Hopping]

where is the link to read more on SED, OLED?

 

[towert7]

where is the link to read more on SED, OLED?

http://newstrove.com/cgi-bin/search...ht+Emitting+Diods&category=science&alias=oled
www.universaldisplay.com
www.emagin.com

 

[BombermanX]

The digital interface doesn't mean it can display the color exactly as it is, only that it can tell the hardware to display the same one color that matches the parameters given...this color could still be well off from what it should be...

That's why I said "as it is interpretted" and "well-calibrated" I was just using that article to point out that the error is really only significant enough to ward off the most critical graphic designing, and is not as damning as it may seem or be portrayed.

Yeah... the future technology for displays does look damn amazing.

 

[Happy Hopping]

thanks for the link, towert7.

 

[PoW]

towert7 said it perfectly, i also have a 4 year old 19" sony monitor probably the same one which i run at 16x12 @ 85hz and i dont want to get rid of it, taking it the 400+ miles to school is a bitch but i really dont want to get an lcd. imo lcd tech isnt quite there yet, its very close mind you but just not at crt level yet.

give it a year or two i say

 

[DirtyApe]

i have the samsung 173P LCD and its awesome..great color and a really bright screen that lights up my room. playable with games and it comes with software to adjust the picture instead of using onboard controls. i love it so much. id never go back to a CRT. but i was very skepticle when i first looked into a LCD but afteri did some research and shopping i had finally found the perfect LCD for me..the samsung 173P. the 172X has a 12ms refresh rate whereas mine is a 16ms. hope i can help you with this bit of info

 

[JackieO]

I don't know where to start with this. Not only would it almost burn a hole through your desk and fall through with all the heat it produces, but you'd get burn-in just by barely doing anything. And plasma looks terrible and blocky up close, especially as it ages...and it doesn't age well. That half-life figure is for the brightness only, it doesn't factor in the breakdown of the pixels themselves. If you've seen a worn plasma display, you'll know what I mean. Plasma has too many problems that LCDs don't have, and plasma's benefits will be null and void once SED and OLED displays hit the market. In other words, consider it an expensive interim plaything.

Huh?

Plasma's produce no more heat than any CRT TV, most produce noticably less. Almost all current 42 and 50 inch displays do not even contain fans, and the ones that do run them only some of the time. I own 2 LCD tvs and 1 Plasma. Both LCDs have fans, the plasma does not. The plasma consumes 45w more power.

Current plasmas are as unlikely to burn in as a CRT, also. There is documentation about this on the internet. Older plasmas would burn in and did have image retention. Currently this is the one major area where LCD has a distinct advantage, they will almost never burn-in.

The half-life is the phosphor decay of the pixels - they get less bright over time, they do not break down and they do not change in size. The resolution remains the same throughout its life. Most current plasmas are rated at 30,000 hours to half life, Fujitsu, Hitachi, and Panasonic are all rated 60,000 hours. At 8 hours a day that's 14 years, and that's half brightness, not death. Plasma's also have no moving parts so unless the power supply dies they are not prone to electircal failure.

To the person that mentioned plasma response time, contrast and brightness. Current plasmas have much higher contrast rations than any LCD, anywhere. Most are rated 2000:1 or higher. Panasonic and Fujitsu are rated 4000:1, and 5000:1, and the brightness is well within the 300+ cmd level (similar to LCD). They also have a 0ms response time, as in none. They do not ghost or smear. They do have banding issues in the grey scale, though (as do LCDs).

I am not going to argue with anyone about display technology, I am just trying to inject a little fact back into this thread.

 

[towert7]

Jackie, if it has a response time of 0ms, its time we start using new units.

Does it have a response time of 999.9Micro Seconds? (999.9µs) LOL, and yes, i know he was not being honest.

Also, with plasma, its not JUST the backlight that degrades with time. People complain that the quality of the picture actually degrades.

Just thought his post was funny

 

[JackieO]

Jackie, if it has a response time of 0ms, its time we start using new units.

Does it have a response time of 999.9Micro Seconds? (999.9µs) LOL, and yes, i know he was not being honest.

You know what I mean. There is no appreciable delay as the pixels change color, be it black to white or the grey scale (where, incidentally, LCDs take much longer than their states response times).

Also, with plasma, its not JUST the backlight that degrades with time. People complain that the quality of the picture actually degrades.

Just thought his post was funny

There is no backlight. See, no offense but this is the problem - people misunderstand the technology. LCD's use a backlight which will need to be replaced at a pre-determined number of hours. Plasma's have no replaceable parts related to the actually picture creation (they have removable internal parts like the power supply, of course), that's why they are so unlikely to have a mechanical failure and why they are absolutely 100% devoid of maintenance. A plasma that doesn't have a mechanical failure will last at until the phosphors burn out. Phosphors are what creates the image - they create their own light and color based on an electrical charge. The amount of time that will take is (on current plasma's) anywhere from 30,000 to 60,000 hours to *half life*, so more than that till absolute death. But assuming you won't want to look at it anymore at half life (which is actually a bad assumption since you might) that's well over 10 years at 12 hours of viewing a day.

As for the picture degrading, I don't know what to say aside from that being absolutely false. There is no scientific or speculative explanation for this. Phosphor decay is the loss of brightness in a phosphor - the pixel size will not change, the contrast will not change, the glass will never change.

As a reference (assuming you guys trust my knowledge on this) here at my place of employment right now, within 10 steps of me, are 32 pdps that have logged just over 19,000 hours each. To the naked eye they have *zero* reduction in brightness or picture quality. Using instruments to measure their brightness levels you can find that they have lost about 18% of their "out of the box" brightness. 5% of that was within the first 500 hours (during the first 500 or so hours the phosphors have an increased rate of burn off, which is 100% invisible to the human eye), so 13% brightness loss in the 18,500 hours since. As they approach 60,000 hours the speed with which they lose brightness will increase until they (presumably) will be at 50% at 60,000 hours - which should be in about 5 more years (we run them 24/7).

Do plasma's have a downside you ask? Yes of course, they have quite a few the first of which is the fact that some people downright dislike the image they produce. I am just trying to correct some incorrect assumptions in this thread.

Anyway, I implore you guys to follow up on rumors with some research - there is a ton of misinformation about plasmas, lcd's, dlp's, etc. I am willing to bet at least one person who reads this post still thinks plasmas need to be "re-filled" because a Best Buy employee told them so. Have a nice night fellas.

Edit - number was wrong

 

[emorphien]

so much to say here but no idea where to begin

edit: That said, OLED is the closest upcoming technology that can combine the CRTs contrast range, tonal and color accuracy and response times with the low eyestrain, superior geometry, and space saving of an LCD. Not to mention they use even less energy.

 

[JackieO]

so much to say here but no idea where to begin

edit: That said, OLED is the closest upcoming technology that can combine the CRTs contrast range, tonal and color accuracy and response times with the low eyestrain, superior geometry, and space saving of an LCD. Not to mention they use even less energy.

You are very likely 100% correct, but for all the claims about how revolutionary it will be OLED has issues too. Unfortunately no one has been able to measure OLEDs color accuracy or range reliably yet (although I certainly believe it will be the standard when it is released). Sharp had a demo unit at CES '03 but it wasn't available for testing because it was a hand made unit. If I'm not mistaken they expect to have 15 inch OLED (PLED actually) out in late 2007, with production 'ramping up' around 2010. I also believe they aren't expecting to have units large enough to enter the HT market until after the end of the decade. And since we're on the topic of 'burn-out', OLED's blue emitter lifetime is currently lasting a maximum of 10,000 hours (although Sharp says they should be able to make it 20,000 soon). I am sure by the time they make it to market that will be improved, but by then LCD and PDP will have improved also.

Anyway this is off topic and I apologize for hijacking the thread. If someone disagrees with me or wants to chat more please feel free to PM me.

 

[emorphien]

Yes, the blue emitter has been limited to around 10k hours. However last fall I did some research and they've been able to improve some samples to 20k. So they're getting closer to what they need.

Also as you mentioned some of the other polymer alternatives may offer a longer servicable life.

OLED stands to one up even CRT on tonal capabilies. Off is totally black, but the range is analog like a CRT, and can possibly achieve a much greater output. Scaling can occur so that in a dark room its not too bright and outside in sun they don't appear washed out. Some speculate 1000000:1 contrast ratios. I think that's optimistic but they will be an advancement over current technology.

 

[JackieO]

Yes, the blue emitter has been limited to around 10k hours. However last fall I did some research and they've been able to improve some samples to 20k. So they're getting closer to what they need.

Also as you mentioned some of the other polymer alternatives may offer a longer servicable life.

OLED stands to one up even CRT on tonal capabilies. Off is totally black, but the range is analog like a CRT, and can possibly achieve a much greater output. Scaling can occur so that in a dark room its not too bright and outside in sun they don't appear washed out. Some speculate 1000000:1 contrast ratios. I think that's optimistic but they will be an advancement over current technology.

I never get tired of talking about this stuff. OLED does look promising, I am totally onboard with the contrast ratios, it's part of the reason I like plasmas (the ability to achieve CRT-like contrast). The thing that worries me, as I mentioned above, is the blue emitter problem. Sharp did say they were able to achieve 20,000 hours but at the trade-off of less pure blues. The two major problems with that is you have less pure short lived blues that burn out faster than the greens (which last over 100,000 hours) so the screen will eventually take on a greenish hue. Luckily they have solutions in mind (like pushing the blue to 30,000 hours and having it produce the red and green emitters, thereby making the overall life of the display 30,000 hours so there is no uneven color burn) - which is good.

Personally I am more hyped about FED. It's the only 'in progress' technology I've seen that actually seemed like it could be produced at a reasonable cost at large sized. Plus, if it were to come out we would all save a ton of money, and I like that.

Anyway my entire point in this thread was that plasma's 1) dont run hot 2) dont die fast 3) dont degrade in picture quality over time 4) can be used as computer monitors without fear of burn-in and 5) look pretty.

 

[emorphien]

Fortunately for OLED it's already being looked at to be produced by printing. With the progression of technology it may not be too many years away before flexographic presses can print them fast enough and cheap enough that when your blue fades you just recycle it and get another display.