LCD's vs CRT's

[Atamido]

I talking about broadcast TV, which is NTSC format in the US. Thus, 30fps.

Not exactly. Usually when you are dealing eith it on a computer, it will be 30fps (29.97 fps, or frames per second) but that is only because most decoders de-interlace the video. Essentially everything recorded for TV through the 90s, and most things recorded for TV today, are recorded interlaced. In reality, this means the video is 60fps at half height.

A regular NTSC broadcast viewer will typically have a display that is about 640x480 (ignoring overscan, the fact it is an analog broadcast, etc, but easier for the sake of argument). It first displays a 640x240 picture, starting with the first line and then displaying using every other line (1, 3, 5...639). Then it displays a second 640x240 image starting at line 2 and usinge every other line (2, 4, 6...640).

The key here is that with the exception of High Definition recording, all recording for TV is done at about 60fps, so the first part of an interlace image will be recorded 1/60th of a second from the second part of the image, which in turn is recorded 1/60th of a second from the first part of the next image. So yes, it really is recording/display at 60fps (60 Hz/1.001 fields per second). And due to the way interlacing is interpreted by the brain, it will display a moving object smoother than 480p @ 30fps.

The first difficult arises with computers, which haven't been designed around interlaced signals as their primary output in almost two decades. They will take the two parts of an image, blend the lines together to reduce jagged edges from moving objects, and display it as a single frame at 30fps.

The second difficulty is that increasingly more content is recorded in a high definition progressive format that takes all of the rows at once instead of alternating. When 480P@30fps is transmitted over NTSC, you are doing 30fps, but drawing it in a wierd way. It is the same for pretty much any other HD recording formats.

Film is recorded in 24fps progressive, so to get it to display on an NTSC dislay, they do all sorts of evil things that should never be brought up like forced field flags or actually encoding it as interlaced content. For PAL, they usually just speed things up by about 4% to have it match framerates.

Most NTSC CRT displays will display NTSC as 60fps interlaced. Most fixed pixel displays (plasma, LCD, etc) will deinterlace and display at 30fps.

So yeah, any old NTSC content is 60fps, a lot of new (and progressively more) content is 30fps, and movies are 24fps.

 

[DaKozMan]

it comes down to this plain and simple. If your a hardcore gamer then stick with a CRT. If your like the other 95% of us and you get a good flat pannel you will not notice the diff. On a side note if you dont have the LCD at the native settings for refresh and resolution then its going to be blury during motion. For me i have a good 12ms sony pannel and i can see some blur and ghosting sometimes but its not worth the trade off of a 95 pound crt that takes up 1/2 my deskspace. Then there is also the Lan. If you lan than LCD is the only way to go.

 

[VulturEMaN]

I've had a 17in Viewsonic LCD, and a 19in Samsung CRT.

I left the LCD back at home for the folks, cause they ain't gaming.

If you put the 2 right next to each other, use a video splitter to display the exact same feed on both screens, you will see that the CRT still pwns.


One thing that a majority of you are saying is that "There have been many advancements in LCD technology.". This is correct.

But that doesn't mean that CRT tech has stopped moving for the past 10 years. They've both been getting better and better.

I do, however, want to grab one of those 2ms Samsung monitors and test this experiment out again. I've heard that they're incredible.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Hardcore CRT convert. Used to have dual 19" Sun-branded Trinitrons, just switched 2 weeks ago to dual BenQ FP91G+s. I'm never going back!

 

[BlackTigers91]

This thread is funnay!

C'mon guys, this is like apples to oranges. Intel to AMD. nVida to ATi. Dell to HP. Etc....

It's personal preference in my book.

 

[uviuar2]

would be nice if all the lcd fan_boy'ss weren't so hypocritical in their exagerrations towards crt's, using terms like "90 lb monitor" and "taking up half my deskspace". Cmon, nobody is saying lcd's "might display 1/20 frames per second" and "i can still see the ghosted loading screen 5 minutes ago after the game has already started!".

I have no problems lugging my 35lb 19" crt to lan parties, and i kick everyone's asses at them too (most of which are using lcd's). The reason i bring that up is because the first response was oh so right, those who dont notice ghosting or playability on an lcd simply arent good enough to take advatage of a crt. If you dont come in 1st place on every shooter you play online, or at least top3, every single time, then you dont need a crt. The reason pro's use crt's is because they can and actually need to be able to see every tiny stinkin pixel move at a moments notice and immediately decide what it was and what theyre going to do about it. They see the sight post on a guys gun stick out between 2 blades of grass at 100 yards and they're on it. They catch a guys ankle in the upper corner of the screen running through a hall and they have a cut-off plan. You simply cannot make out these minute differences with an lcd.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

This thread is funnay!
C'mon guys, this is like apples to oranges. Intel to AMD. nVida to ATi. Dell to HP. Etc....
It's personal preference in my book.

Agreed. CRT folks are kinda saying that LCD users are tards or something for not noticing ghosting, reduced black levels, etc. LCD users seem to be a little more reasonable in their claims.

My preferred advantages? Perfect geometry, reduced heat/power draw, space reduction and superb text clarity. IMHO, I don't have any issues with gaming only at native res (1280x1024), 6-bit panels (262,000 is already a heckuva lot better than plain 'ol 65,536) or the response times (on my supposed 8ms panels). I dunno, my eyes aren't as l33t as some of you guys' and I definitely do not have sonic range hearing

About the only bad thing I've noticed about most panels I've used (mainly those in laptops) are that they're less forgiving to videos, making the flaws (noise, etc.) stand out more, though this may be more related to the dithering patterns used by 6-bit panels. I don't believe I've ever used a true 8-bit panel.

 

[Leright]

would be nice if all the lcd fan_boy'ss weren't so hypocritical in their exagerrations towards crt's, using terms like "90 lb monitor" and "taking up half my deskspace". Cmon, nobody is saying lcd's "might display 1/20 frames per second" and "i can still see the ghosted loading screen 5 minutes ago after the game has already started!".

I have no problems lugging my 35lb 19" crt to lan parties, and i kick everyone's asses at them too (most of which are using lcd's). The reason i bring that up is because the first response was oh so right, those who dont notice ghosting or playability on an lcd simply arent good enough to take advatage of a crt.

my FW900 is 10 lbs. It takes up most of my desk space.

Despite that, I would never give it up for an LCD if one were offered to me.

 

[bweir13]

After having spent almost $400 on a high-res 19" Mitsubishi CRT 3 years ago, I had the pleasure of watching it die after not even 18 months of use. I spent hundreds of hours and countless headaches in front of that screen playing JO:TR, UT2004, C&C, etc. When it blew over a year ago, my choices were limited since CRT has nearly been replaced by LCD. I did a lot of research, tried to ignore the one-sided debates and eventually settled on a 19" Hyundai LCD (a Sansung panel I believe) with an 8ms response.

For all of the honking that CRT !!!!!!'s have done, they are completely biased and wrong. The LCD looks just as good, and often better than, my old high-end CRT. The radiation headaches are gone, in native resolution (1280x960) the colors are accurate (once calibrated) and the real-estate on my desk has increased by at least an acre (OK...3 sq. feet...but that's a lot on a desk). There is NO ghosting at all in BF2 (@8ms), and I got dizzy just spinning the character around trying to make it happen. Plus after all the work was done, that LCD cost almost $100 less than the original CRT, and they are getting cheaper. A good 19" LCD at this point should cost about $250-$275, so don't get sucked into some marketing fluff about 1ms LCD's, it really doesn't make a noticeable difference to anyone except maybe a video editor.

 

[pooky(1)]

OK here is the deal with me.....

I am currently using two TFT monitors. A 15 inch LG 1530 and a 17 inch LG 1730.

The 15 inch was a Christmas present 14 months ago, from the company I was working at that time. They have finalized a pretty good deal with LG and more than 30 people got the above mentioned monitor for free. After a year we were able to get the 17 incher at a cost price of 170 Euros, which I have done, no second thoughts given.

My personal experience with both displays is perfect. They act as monitors not room heaters, didn't have to use airconditioning unit all the time during the last summer, have no problem with ghosting whatsoever and I am pretty happy with them.

BUT....Right now I have switched back to my 3 years old AOC 19 incher, a CRT display, just for the reason that I've been playing Morrowind like crazy for the last two weeks. With both my TFT displays, it was more than hard to play Morrowind, as inside dungeons and during night time I could not detect hidden enemies in the dark. Heck, I could not navigate through the dark cantons of Vivec as black was grey and that was the most irritating thing I have ever faced in a video game all those years I have been playing. My AOC is the perfect display for the above game and mind you we are talking nothing about a Trinitron quality monitor here!!!!

SO?????

Am I switching back to CRTs? Hell, no!!!!
Am I keeping my AOC because I will also be playing Oblivion like carzy also?? Hell, yes!!!!
Am I switching to SED displays the soonest possible after they are introduced? Hell, YOU BET!!!!

 

[Down8]

....a 8 or 4ms panel is perfect for fast games and i reckon better than crts, irregardless of what some people like to think....

The word you're looking for is "regardless" or, possibly, "irrespective".</spelling lesson>

-bZj

 

[BlackTigers91]

The word you're looking for is "regardless" or, possibly, "irrespective".</spelling lesson>

-bZj

You have no idea how many people just fail entire tests because they think "irregardless" is a word.


Again, you CANNOT compare Apples to oranges.

 

[Tac0]

I have had a 21" Sony Multiscan 500PS for years now, used a few LCDs, and I always notice the ghosting a little bit. That being said, when I change monitors I'll probably go high-end LCD because:

1) hopefully by then they will have matured and have less ghost/lag tendecies

2) the 2D and text on a good LCD is superior CRT imo.

I game A LOT but other LCD advantages would make me change to LCD

 

[RegisteredToPost]

The horse is dead Jim

 

[Foe-hammer]

my FW900 is 10 lbs......

I hope you didn't pay that much for a gutted fw900, because at that weight you must only have the shell.

 

[tc17]

Ever since I switched from a CRT to LCD, I'll never go back to a CRT again if I can help it. I play games too... but not everything is games either. I'd take a LCD any day over a CRT.

LCD's play games great, even 16ms lcd's do.

 

[Gatticus]

Ran through the color calibration tool, tweaked colors a bit, got a good DVI cable, and set to native resolution of 1680x1050. Adjusted all games to that res too.

Problem is that many games don't suport that res. I have lots of games that only support 1024x768 or even lower. That's the reason I don't like LCD for gaming. Run a game that supports only 640x480 on an LCD and it looks like shite - simple fact. I do have an LCD but I use that on my non-gaming computer. My gaming computer uses a CRT and it will remain that way until someone removes it from my cold, dead, hands!

 

[HopePoisoned]

my FW900 is 10 lbs.

You mean 100 lbs, right?

anyway, because the argument has or was (become) extremely stupid, I'm going to need to push in my little oppinion again

Pros:

CRT:
-Can display all the colors you can imagine
-Typically can have higher (real) contrast ratios (non-comparable though)
-Can give you large screen spaces and power picture for less money
-(saving money^^)
-wide range of reses (no native res)
-last forever

LCD:

-small
-lightweight
-energy* (less power)
-no heat
-sharp text (with decent quality monitor)
-(convenient)

CONS:

CRT:

-typically weight more than 10 year old kids
-produce more heat
-take up a lot of space
-send you to the hospital
-tend to lose brightness after long periods of time (typically 6-10 years with lower quality CRTs, high quality CRTs are good for a very long time)

LCD:

-limited display colors (typically 16.7 million, seems like a lot - will do for most, but for pro. imaging and gaming may not cut it for you)
-ghosting
-streaking
-typical dying pixels (can be avoiding usually by high quality LCDs and samsung's great policy)
-bleeding
-limited lifetime (high quality LCD monitors can last for very long times though, and LCD TVs can last nearly a lifetime)
-native resolution (limits gaming very much)
-lower reses (to those who have good eyes and like em' higher...like me)
-typically lighter blacks (mostly inferior contrast ratio) and limited grayscale (high quality LCDs can have very acceptable performance though)

you really need to decide which is right for you, I, as I've said, own a 2005 and I'm very satisfied, i like 1680x1050 and I like the way I can move it around and it is very practical, I've had it for a few years, no quality loss, no dead pixels, not rly much bleeding, gaming is 'ight, great text quality

but I love going to (this LAN place near me) and I always game with the CRTs there (some Samsungs, Sony/HPs, and some of those Dell CRTs still for sale) - and although not as practical I absolutely love it, and for some reason I'm highly attracted to having that big flat-screen (not to be confused with flat panel for all you n00bs out there), and I personally think the text looks fine (on a flat one, those cheap curved makes text look lame)

so it really comes down to your needs, if you just need a desktop at home that you dont plan to move much and use it for gaming (and have deskspace), CRT is probably for you
If you have a tight budget and want to game, CRT again

but if you're like most people, LCD for a more practical approach (not money wise maybe, but dell can set you up right for very cheap)

im sorry if i said something stupid, im very heavy on painkillers as I had abdominal surgery early friday morning)

 

[Gatticus]

-tend to lose brightness after long periods of time (typically 6-10 years with lower quality CRTs, high quality CRTs are good for a very long time)

This happens with the flourescent bulbs in LCD's too. It's called the "half life".

p.s. Hope you feel better soon.

 

[Crosshairs]

also ppl who have ghosting problems or somthing that they say is laggy bought a cheap lcd *cough viewsonic cough*. you get what you pay for. 200$ pc from walmart = crap. 150 lcd form walmart = crap. get the point dont buy a cheap lcd get a good 8ms or 4ms 350$ lcd and ill put money on that you wont go back to a crt.

If only that were true.....My $800.00 2001FP ( yes I bought it when they were still $800.00) was a POS in my eyes....Im sure someone else would think that same monitor looked great....Im back to a CRT..and its NOT because I cant afford a good LCD, Its because I cant find one...

 

[Top Nurse]

Please lock this thread because no one seems to be able to answer any of my questions. Is this just a figment of my imagination or did I just leave a mess like this in the watercooling forum on high vs low flow?

 

[suhr65]

get an lcd they are up to gaming standards now

 

[Crosshairs]

Please lock this thread

You can lock it yourself ........

 

[Warrior]

lol...

 

[HopePoisoned]

get an lcd they are up to gaming standards now

useless

pros and cons, different monitors for different people, this has gone far enough...forever

see pros and cons that I have posted, and a few others who posted similar statements

and people were answering your question, many said no because of ghosting and resolutions etc., and some idiots said that a screen of 4 or 8ms response time would be better than crt, which (although is an oppinion) is absolutely ridiculous (in terms of the battle of ghosting) because we already measure the "response time" (but not to a key of LCD) of CRTs

/thread

face

 

[mathesar]

No matter how fast you think your LCD is try this test, (im pasting this from another user/forum)

/start paste:
"One of the reasons I'm ditching the LCD and going BACK to a tube is because of motion blur with gaming (Xbox360). The Samsung LNR469D has a 12ms pixel response which is actually quite decent. Despite being considered a rather "fast" display it still exhibits enormous amounts of motion blur. Walk up to a wall in a FPS and strafe left and right. Watch how the textures go to mud as soon as you start to move and back to sharp the second you stop. It's really quite terrible looking. This does not happen at all on a CRT.

Most people don't notice these things and are blinded by the "cool" factor of the size and shape of the LCD. Shadow detail is also quite comprimised. The darkest black is but a dark grey. I can get richer blacks by turning down the brightness but then mid level tones suffer.

Overall the LCD is an excellent television for HD programing but not for gaming. I had my 360 on an XBR960 for over a week and it was BY FAR the most impressive image I've ever seen the Xbox360 produce." /end paste

I must agree with him on the Sony 34XBR960 CRT, I just got one (pic) not even a week ago and Xbox360 looks unbelievable on it

 

[bigsarge72]

OK,
As for the whole crt vs lcd issue, it's a matter of preference, pick what makes you happy and buy it =P

As for big TVs, I have the 36" Sony XBR Vega, and it has the best picture I have ever seen for XBox or anything else you want to watch on it for that matter. So what if it weighs 240lbs, lol.

sarge

 

[Riptide_NVN]

mathesar is right about his test - that is the best way I have found to display the ghosting effect in an LCD. Stand and strafe back and forth on a wall. It really does look like a blurry mess, though some LCDs are worse than others.

That said I don't sit there and focus on a wall when I play a game and strafe back and forth. During actual gameplay I don't notice issues like that at all. YMMV.

Honestly I had two CRTs, both "uber" high end, and I'm glad to have been done with them years ago. GDM-F500 and GDM-F500R. The first one failed after a year and I got a referb in return (thanks Sony, on a $1600 device great!). Was never happy with it. Focus and convergence problems. Geometry problems. That stuff irritates me and it's one area where LCDs are clearly superior. The F500R wasn't bad but suffered the same problems, just to a lesser extent. After a while I got tired of it.

There is only one thing about my CRTs that I miss. And that is the black levels. LCDs still are just dark gray, that is the best they can do even w/1000:1 ratios.

BTW the Sony 34XBR960 isn't a 1080p set is it? If not that sorta sucks. Something that size or larger I would want proscan.

 

[mathesar]

BTW the Sony 34XBR960 isn't a 1080p set is it? If not that sorta sucks. Something that size or larger I would want proscan.

XBR960 doesnt do 1080P but it does everything else, 720P / 1080i / 480 etc. and supports HDCP via HDMI, Im not even concerned about 1080P being there are NO 1080P sources to speak of yet. Currently the XBR960 is at #3 on CNETS Top 10 HDTV's list (as of Feb 26th). The 960's Super fine pitch CRT is capable of resolving 65% more detail than any other CRT HDTV which is why it performs so well @ 1080i. I watched Saturday night live in HD on it for the first time lastnight and was literally in awe.

 

[Riptide_NVN]

For a set only that's fine. I was thinking you were using it as your monitor as well.

 

[AfterAnn]

Everybody is right , its about you're opignon and you're eyes .
Some ppl see the motion blur , others don't . I found hard to believe many ppl can't see it at 30ms monitor but anyway .

Personaly , i dislike LCD because the motion blur is way too annoying for me . I dislike the native resolution too . The only good thing about LCD for me is the size .

I need a new monitor and my next one is gonna be a CRT .


I