LCD vs. CRT - image quality?

R

Richard Dower

n00b
Joined
Mar 10, 2007
Messages
12
Guys, need some advice on this topic...i am coming from a 22" Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2070SB, which as you might know is one (if not the best) CRT on the market besides the Sony 24" Widescreen.

It cost me €970 in November 2003, yesterday i received my DELL 22" Widescreen LCD, i know it's an 6bit TN panel....but to my mind/eyes the quality of the image vs. CRT is just crap!

The CRT shows much more rich image depth, colors...i have the LCD and CRT side by side and have my 7900GS output the desktop to both monitors (clone)...even the default Vista desktop background seems washed out and subtle elements of the desktop image are just missing on the LCD.

Am i being too fussy?, is it because of the LCD model i purchased?, would the 8bit 2407WFP be any better in regards image quality?

Or is it that no matter what LCD i buy or budget NOTHING will compare to a high end CRT?, thing is...my Mitsubishi is 3 years 3 months old and is now out of warranty....but the unit is spotless/perfect and i've always taken very good care of it.

I'm trying to justtify to myself the purchase of the DELL 2407WFP would be a good one, the DELL 22" LCD cost me €405 but i can return it within 7 days for a full refund (got it Friday).

But then the leap to the 24" LCD is like €700 more expensive..so is €700 worth and extra 2 inches and an 8bit panel, compared to my very nice 22" CRT?

:(
 
Right now, the only thing that is LCD that will come close to your CRT is a LED backlight display that has local dimming and those are a year or two off. The 2407 doesn't have the image quality, but it saves space and looks very sexy compared to a giant box. But yes, I agree, CRTs are much superior. Unfortunately they consume tons of space and power.
 
The DELL 22" is lot smaller the the huge a** Mitsubishi...easier to move and repack if needed to move. But my issue is image quality, the DELL dosen't have any dead pixels and the backlight bleeding dosen't seem too extreme compared to some of the images of other DELL 22" models i have seen posted here.

One issue is colors, black...blanks don't seem "black", they don't seem as deep or rich as the Mitsubishi CRT. The blues don't seem as deep or rich.

I have tried to calibrate the DELL using tools and links provided here, confusions reigns supreme...... :confused:
 
My advice, If the Dell 22" disappoints you that much then you may as well return it, and NO i don't think you're being fussy. The problem here, as you well know, is that you're comparing it to one of the best crt monitors ever made. What i would do next is research what LCD monitors graphics and video professionals are using, then research the pro-sumer equivalents, then base your next purchase on your findings. Or you could wait for whatever's coming down the pipeline/

Stick with retailers that offer an honest and good return policy, and it'll all work out ... eventually :D

Good luck either way
 
Your experience seems a lot like mine...for my first lcd experience I went from a fairly high end 19" NEC crt to a low end Benq TN panel. Needless to say I loved the look of the form factor and extra desk space but I couldn't quite get used to the difference in picture quality. It wasn't until I got an Acer Ferrari F-20 (P-MVA, glossy panel) and then a Dell 2007WFP (S-IPS) that I finally got rid of the old crt for good.
 
I found 2007wpf's image quality to be way too problematic. I returned it and continued using gool ol Samsung 959NF, it beats 2007wfp in everything except sharpness.
 
There is no equivalent technology to CRT where black levels and color saturation/depth are concerned. People have been seduced by the thinner screens and lighter weight of LCDs (and Plasma and DLP in the home theater arena). And, truth be told, most consumers aren't discriminating enough to care much about what they're giving up for those thin and light screens. But, for pure image quality, nothing beats the tried and true CRT technology that your grandfather used.

LCDs have improved to the point where the difference isn't as stark as it once was. But I still can't stand gaming on anything but a CRT. I once had a Mitsubishi 2020u. Then I moved up to the only widescreen CRT ever made (the Sony 24" FW900) when my Mitsubishi finally died. When I compare Lord of the Rings Online between my wife's LCD and my Sony CRT, the difference is just night and day.

The only category besides weight and size that LCDs surpass CRTs is in text sharpness at high resolutions. But, where black levels and color saturation/depth are concerned, even a low-end CRT beats the highest-end LCD. And remember, CRTs are more flexible because they don't have a native resolution. :D

This is just how things are until SED or some similar CRT-like technology comes around.
 
At the very least, you should try out a couple of higher end LCDs before throwing in the towel. Still, if you have a top notch CRT that isn't showing any age related problems you probably will not be happy with any of the cheap options that are out there. I'm waiting to see if dell makes a 24" HC display like the 30". Hopefully that will be reasonable priced and show a significantly wider color gamut than the current version. I think it would be good enough to hold me over until the LED backed displays with local dimming become available.
 
One of the problems for CRT's is size and shape, ie, I can't imagine too many people would not keep a decent 24in LCD with it's size, and widescreen advantage.
LCD's are also brighter, which would help with HDTV via capture card.
 
Richard Dower said:
Guys, need some advice on this topic...i am coming from a 22" Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2070SB, which as you might know is one (if not the best) CRT on the market besides the Sony 24" Widescreen.

It cost me €970 in November 2003, yesterday i received my DELL 22" Widescreen LCD, i know it's an 6bit TN panel....but to my mind/eyes the quality of the image vs. CRT is just crap!

The CRT shows much more rich image depth, colors...i have the LCD and CRT side by side and have my 7900GS output the desktop to both monitors (clone)...even the default Vista desktop background seems washed out and subtle elements of the desktop image are just missing on the LCD.

Am i being too fussy?, is it because of the LCD model i purchased?, would the 8bit 2407WFP be any better in regards image quality?

Or is it that no matter what LCD i buy or budget NOTHING will compare to a high end CRT?, thing is...my Mitsubishi is 3 years 3 months old and is now out of warranty....but the unit is spotless/perfect and i've always taken very good care of it.

I'm trying to justtify to myself the purchase of the DELL 2407WFP would be a good one, the DELL 22" LCD cost me €405 but i can return it within 7 days for a full refund (got it Friday).

But then the leap to the 24" LCD is like €700 more expensive..so is €700 worth and extra 2 inches and an 8bit panel, compared to my very nice 22" CRT?

:(
Click to expand...

Ive got a 20WMGX2 LCD (8bit) sitting next to my FW900 CRT and notice the exact same differances you describe especially when watching movies (color richness / depth is much nicer on the CRT) however when comparing color gradient test patterns the LCD does a really good job as long as its adjusted with specific settings.(no banding is noticed) My biggest gripe with the LCD is black level performance especially when trying to watch movies in a darker room. In these situations the LCD does lose shadow details in darker scenes and overall looks 'washed out' compared. From the sound of your response I dont think you'll be happy with any LCD on the market but I could be wrong. I pretty much use my CRT for everything lately.
 
Just last week I upgraded from a Sony 24" FW-900 CRT to the new Benq 241WZ 24" LCD. My biggest gripe is the loss of true black with the LCD, otherwise the LCD has superior color (other than blacks/darks) and far better desktop text clarity than the CRT. The LCD actual viewable screen is also bigger by an inch or more.

I'd never have gone with the LCD except that the Sony was starting to exhibit symptoms of its age that made me realize it is near the end of its life. So I had to make the move to LCD.
 
altho space limitations requires an lcd I sure miss 100hz on the crt. its buttah!
 
DRen72 said:
Just last week I upgraded from a Sony 24" FW-900 CRT to the new Benq 241WZ 24" LCD. My biggest gripe is the loss of true black with the LCD, otherwise the LCD has superior color (other than blacks/darks) and far better desktop text clarity than the CRT. The LCD actual viewable screen is also bigger by an inch or more.

I'd never have gone with the LCD except that the Sony was starting to exhibit symptoms of its age that made me realize it is near the end of its life. So I had to make the move to LCD.
Click to expand...
Why did you do that??
 
Basically what it comes down to is that LCDs and CRTs are good at different things. CRTs unquestionably have the best black levels and generally get better colour gamut (I say generally because high end LCDs that are properly calibrated can out do them, but they are real expensive). LCDs offer a perfectly stable image, a brighter display, better colour saturation, and razor sharp pixels.

You have to decide which is more important to you. In my case, I decided on the LCD. I had a fairly high end CRT but I was just tired of the blurry image. We aren't talking super blurry, but in the corners and such it lost convergence tracking and that drove me up the wall. Also I had to have my room dark, as the CRT was calibrated to only about 90cd/m^2. Now I have an LCD. The colour isn't as good, but I am happy with the tradeoff (or I would have gone back).

There isn't a perfect display, or even a "best" one. You have to make tradeoffs.

Also, in every market, you get what you pay for. You went for a cheap LCD, so you get cheap quality. One of those things is going to be colour that isn't as good. Get a good PVA or IPS panel and you'll get better colour, but of course then you are talking $700-1200 for a nice 24" widescreen. For even more you can get a LED backlight which is even better.
 
Hurin said:
There is no equivalent technology to CRT where black levels and color saturation/depth are concerned. People have been seduced by the thinner screens and lighter weight of LCDs (and Plasma and DLP in the home theater arena).
Click to expand...

I read that plasma works in a way that it is able to get true blacks like a crt, because the lighting in the pixels is actually capable of turning off unlike the way that lcd pixels perform.
 
Fading Phoenix said:
I read that plasma works in a way that it is able to get true blacks like a crt, because the lighting in the pixels is actually capable of turning off unlike the way that lcd pixels perform.
Click to expand...


It's technically capable of doing that, but none of the manufactureres do so. They tend to keep a small charge to the pixels so that the response time is much faster, making the blacks grayish instead of true black.
 
Truth be told .

Crts are better when it comes to image quality especially when it comes to
"true" black representation. Offer no input lag when gaming and don't require high end video cards. Cause you can scale down your resolution and still achieve quality results.

LCDs do have native resolution and the bigger the screen the higher native resolution they have. Which means that now you have to run video
games at max native resolution ( mine is 1900 x 1200 ) , cause scaling down doesn't work well at lcds. ( Image Quality ). So you need high end video card with your new monitor.

But seriously what choice do we have anyway. CRTs are on they way
out ( try to get one at BestBuy , nearly impossible) Many companies are discontinuing CRT from they line up. This is now . In a year or two they won't be selling any ,especially when new technology appears.

So if you have one now and you still happy with it keep it. If not try to get one while you still can. Maybe it last you 3 years. If not buy top
quality LCD cause low end ones stink to high heaven.
 
I love all the people making bold "predictions" that CRTs will be extinct. It's already happened at the high end. You simply can't buy high-end CRTs of the same quality that were available just four years ago (Sony FW900, Mitsubishi/NEC 20x0 series, etc.).

The "end" is already here. Those who want high-end CRTs already have to buy used.

As for the rest of the Nostrodamuses around here, how do you feel about 8-track? Any future there? :D
 
Hurin said:
I love all the people making bold "predictions" that CRTs will be extinct. It's already happened at the high end. You simply can't buy high-end CRTs of the same quality that were available just four years ago (Sony FW900, Mitsubishi/NEC 20x0 series, etc.).

The "end" is already here. Those who want high-end CRTs already have to buy used.
Click to expand...
Ya, the good ones were stopped at least a year ago or more. But grade "A" units are so cheap now that almost anyone can afford to pick up a few as backups. There are still a few leftover "new unused" units floating around, just saw a few listed on ebay the other night. Tempting, but i already have two backups ;):

- Nokia 445x pro 21", high end Hitachi shadow mask tube. Love the colors, sharp text and graphics.

- Dell P1130 21", unused unit, picked it up locally for a song. Good all around trinitron imho, like it better than the P1110. New P1130's can still be found on ebay.

- Nec 2141sb-bk 22", the mitsubishi 2070's twin brother, supposedly top knotch. "hardly used" and hopefully with lots of life left in it.

They were practically being given away at the prices i got them for. Now hopefully they'll last till the next big advancement comes along. Now to find these calibration tools i've lost somewhere...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top