Switching to CRT to LCD

Eildosa

n00b
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
3
Hello,

So up until now I was using a Flat CRT 22" screen.
I'd like to buy 3 LCD screens, but the LCD world seems rather complicated.

Apparently for games you need a 120Hz TN screen with a delay<2ms and no input lag.
But TN screen changes color when your head moves :(

Also I'm playing in 4:3, what is best for LCDs, 16:9 or 16:10?

Is there no decent IPS gaming scrren ? (I play a lot of BF3)

So, any suggestion?
Thanks.

Ps : I'm changing my CRT because I heard that LCD are sharper (in displaying the image) than CRT, is it true? if not, keeping my 22" CRT in the center an putting 2 IPS lcd to the left and right is more than enoought for me.
 
For gaming there is no good solution with LCDs. You have to choose between fast with pisspoor colors and viewing angles, or slow and blurry. 16:10 is better but there are no 16:10 gaming monitors that I know of.

Do you have a problem with your CRT's sharpness?
 
Hello,

So up until now I was using a Flat CRT 22" screen.
I'd like to buy 3 LCD screens, but the LCD world seems rather complicated.

Apparently for games you need a 120Hz TN screen with a delay<2ms and no input lag.
But TN screen changes color when your head moves :(

Also I'm playing in 4:3, what is best for LCDs, 16:9 or 16:10?

Is there no decent IPS gaming scrren ? (I play a lot of BF3)

So, any suggestion?
Thanks.

Ps : I'm changing my CRT because I heard that LCD are sharper (in displaying the image) than CRT, is it true? if not, keeping my 22" CRT in the center an putting 2 IPS lcd to the left and right is more than enoought for me.



Who told you that you NEED 120hz TN?

I play on my Dell U2412m IPS 60hz panel. I play a lot of high motion games, BF3 included. I don't have an issue.

I prefer 16:10 for that extra vertical real-estate, but the industry standard is pretty much 16:9.
 
120 hz is not necessary in a monitor and a complete was unless you have the GPU to achieve and average fps above 60. That being said some can notice it but not everyone will.

Color accuracy depends on your budget and what size screens you want.
 
You don't need >60fps to benefit from 120 Hz monitor.
 
^Correct, but you do need 120fps to get the absolute 'most' out of a (low response time) 120Hz monitor for gaming
 
Do you have a problem with your CRT's sharpness?
I don't know, I don't see any problem, but I can't compare it to something else. looks good to me.

120 hz is not necessary in a monitor and a complete was unless you have the GPU to achieve and average fps above 60
Of course, however I do change my GPU more oftenly than my screens.
I was running Skyrim with 52 mods at 85 Fps last night so I guess it could be beneficial.

I think I'm going to go for a CRT in the center then and LCDs on the side. those screen on the side are only used to look at webpage when I code.

However if you can advice me on a gaming LCD, I could buy it, see the difference with my CRT and return it before 7 days if I prefer the CRT.
 
The first response to your post pretty much sums it up. If you make the switch to LCD, you will have to accept the fact that there will be viewing angle variations, lower contrast ratio, and some degree of ghosting. No way around it. I was a die hard CRT user for years but just got tired of lugging them around and dealing with the predominantly 4:3 aspect ratio.

I now have an Acer H233H (60Hz), and a ViewSonic VX2268WM (120Hz) monitor. Both are TN panels, so the picture quality is not as good as CRT, but I have gotten used to that. I also have an IPS Apple display. Very nice image, but the ghosting is pretty bad, and it feels laggier. I don't game on it.

The ViewSonic was one of the first 120Hz monitors and is 16:10. Both are discontinued, so I'm just chiming in to give my impression of 120Hz vs. 60Hz. The Acer has a better picture, but I find that I much prefer using the Viewsonic because of the 120Hz option. Much smoother in games and for regular internet browsing etc. It's very noticeable when you can take advantage of it fully.

It's as close to a CRT "feel" that I have been able to get outside of using a CRT. Yes the image is sharper, because of the way LCD's display the pixels, but the depth of the image is lost due to lack of real blacks. It's acceptable trade-off for me.

I can run many games locked at 120Hz, and when I can there is a greater feel of being "connected" to the game you are playing. However, with vsync locked at 60Hz, it feels the same as the Acer. If you are running a 3 monitor setup, you will need a hell of a rig to really take advantage of 120Hz. If you do, then I'd get 120Hz monitors. If not, I would just get 3 nice 60Hz monitors and save a few bucks-or spend the extra cash on bigger/better screens instead of 120Hz.

If you decide to go with a single monitor, I would definitely make it a 120Hz panel. You will be happy you did.
 
I don't know, I don't see any problem, but I can't compare it to something else. looks good to me.


Of course, however I do change my GPU more oftenly than my screens.
I was running Skyrim with 52 mods at 85 Fps last night so I guess it could be beneficial.

I think I'm going to go for a CRT in the center then and LCDs on the side. those screen on the side are only used to look at webpage when I code.

However if you can advice me on a gaming LCD, I could buy it, see the difference with my CRT and return it before 7 days if I prefer the CRT.

I think you answered your own question - "looks good to me." Unless you HAVE to have widescreen, I'd just roll with what you got. If I was going for an LCD screen - it would easily be the Eizo FS-2333. It's only a 60fps'er, but it's an IPS with no input lag, and very quick transitions. But I'm a CRT man. Always will be until they come out with a consumer display tech that looks as rich as CRT, sharp as LCD, and fast as CRT.
 
People over tout how bad TN panels are, i have gamed on TN panels for years and literally unless you move yourself pretty far left or right from your monitor.. you don't see the color issues.

If you got 3 monitors just have to angle them right to not get the color issue, or spend more for IPS panels.

i love my Dell U2412M IPS panel, and i dont see any ghosting or lagging.

People are going to be "extreme" with their info.
 
People over tout how bad TN panels are, i have gamed on TN panels for years and literally unless you move yourself pretty far left or right from your monitor.. you don't see the color issues.

If you got 3 monitors just have to angle them right to not get the color issue, or spend more for IPS panels.

i love my Dell U2412M IPS panel, and i dont see any ghosting or lagging.

People are going to be "extreme" with their info.

I think this is just the fact that most users jumping onto the Lightboost scene seem to be older FW-900 or (insert awesome CRT model here) users who are used to what were and still are top-notch screens. If you've been using TN panels for a while then you won't be as bothered by the color angles as those guys are. We have a TN panel here at home and as a daily driver it's great.
 
I would never switch between a CRT and LCD setup play with the eyes too much. Unless you had two different workstations.
TN isn't bad at all but you can have more pop with some games with IPS.
 
Not all IPS panels are slow and blurry. Hazro hz27wc is a very good IPS 8bit panel, 1440p resolution and very low lag as there's no internal scaler. There's other 27" offerings out there as well, some that can do 120hz, but I have no idea how they compare to a fast 120hz TN panel. The downside is availability outside of the UK, and the price tag (not cheap).

There's very little point in sticking with a heavy ass CRT these days, if you are willing to pay a premium,. You will have to give up some contrast, viewing angles and possibly color reproduction depending on your choice of LCD Panel..

TN panels are suitable for people who can't tolerate any input lag whatsoever - they have horrible color reproduction compared to any decent IPS panel, and even worse if you are coming from a CRT. They are very good for FPS, but YMMV.

IPS panels can have very good color reproduction, but can potentially be slow (input lag), and some panels (most notably the recent Dell lineup) have really aggressive overdrive settings that you can't turn off, which I think causes ghosting. OTOH, if you stick with 60hz IPS panels, there's still a few out there that have a good balance between color, contrast ratio and input lag. Keep in mind there is no "perfect" solution.

I would personally check out the reviews at tftcentral.co.uk, and at anandtech for panel reviews.Don't get involved in the hype of one type vs another; just do your research and pick what you believe is best for you.
 
120 hz is not necessary in a monitor and a complete was unless you have the GPU to achieve and average fps above 60. That being said some can notice it but not everyone will.
Color accuracy depends on your budget and what size screens you want.
Long-time CRT users will often notice the difference. If he's been using CRT for as long time as he has, the motion clarity downgrade of LCD (except 120Hz/LightBoost) can take some time getting used to, if you're not used to LCD motion.
 
they have horrible color reproduction compared to any decent IPS panel, and even worse if you are coming from a CRT.
Depends on how worn the CRT is. Many good 120Hz TN's blow away an old, worn-out CRT that can no longer do blacks well. That said, a properly calibrated new CRT will blow the socks of both TN and IPS monitors. But that's probably not the case for your CRT.

One major problem of IPS (yes, even your IPS monitor) is that viewing www.testufo.com/#test=photo&pps=1440 (moving photo) is always blurrier than viewing www.testufo.com/#test=photo&pps=0 (stationary photo) .... On a CRT and LightBoost running at framerate matching Hz, both links have exactly the same motion clarity. Fast panning images as perfectly clear as stationary images. Another good comparision is Photos: 60Hz vs 120Hz vs LightBoost, which compares motion quality during the ideal-case scenario of framerate-locked motion (framerate=Hz) for each case.
 
Last edited:
Who told you that you NEED 120hz TN?
.

Some people are just way too ...er... well, they need an enema. Anyway, my 200$ Viewsonic VX2433wm works just fine for games. The color is great. The refresh is fine. I was hesitant too when I upgraded my old CRT, but once I turned it on I wondered why I ever kept that huge thing around for so long.
 
well my CRT is not worn out, the quality is still really good.
So I'll see if there is a big difference.

After all is this movement blurring or reverse ghosting really noticeable in heavy battlefield 3 combat?

And where are those OLED monitor? years ago they were talking about it, since it's just LEDs they should be fast as lightning, thus providing a screen without those problems.
 
Your eyes will get used to the ghosting if you stick with the LCD for awhile. I play CoD on an LCD all the time, and it's just fine. Also, the increased screen width going from 4:3 to 16: 9 is really a big upgrade with first person shooters, like BF3. Better field of view is a big advantage.

I don't believe there are any good OLED options yet. Maybe in a few years, but not now.
 
If you go LCD (without lightboost), go all the way and put that CRT in storage. Having the motion clarity of a CRT sitting next to your nice new LCD will drive you mad.

If you have a low sensitivity, drive a lot and shoot stuff mostly from a stationary position (iron sights oew) then motion blur becomes less of an issue. Most games now force players into this style of play because of LCD blur.

120hz lightboost / CRT come into their own for the other definition of fps - fast paced shooter, where you run around doing 180 degree turns constantly tracking different targets in close proximity.
 
The problem with OLED is going to be brightness they need to have a good fix for that otherwise it will have similar problems with LCDs. They said like this or next year oled will hit mainstream but that was like 5 years ago they said that on oled info I used to go there everyday until I noticed nothing is going on with oled really.
 
I agree with the other posters that have said TN angles aren't bad for gaming. They're more noticeable when watching videos if you change your seating level and/or distance from the monitor or the monitor does not have a stand that adjusts vertically.

If you're not tired of your CRT then by all means don't spend money for no reason, but if you think it's time to move on, then Lightboost is probably the way to go. Movement blurring will be noticeable on anything else if you spin quickly, for example.
 
And where are those OLED monitor? years ago they were talking about it, since it's just LEDs they should be fast as lightning, thus providing a screen without those problems.
Not many OLED's are on the market yet, except for Sony's expensive Trimaster OLED's used in the professional industry.

Also, it is NOT pixel transition speed that causes motion blur, but the sample-and-hold effect nowadays (pixel hold time; ala persistence). See Why Do Some OLED's Have Motion Blur?. Another good example is viewing the animation www.testufo.com/#test=eyetracking on an LCD.

IMHO, for a CRT user:
-- If your computer is mainly used for gaming, the LightBoost displays may present the least compromises over a CRT
-- If you mainly use your computer for work, then lean towards an IPS LCD.
 
Last edited:
FWIW, I went from an FW900 (now sitting in the garage) to an ASUS VG278HE (144Hz), then to an ASUS VG248QE (144Hz). I didn't notice much difference other than better clarity (text) with the LCDs with my imperfect eye sight (don't like wearing my glasses).
 
After all is this movement blurring or reverse ghosting really noticeable in heavy battlefield 3 combat?

No, it's not. I had this Fuji monitor which got horrible reviews, it just busted after nearly 10 years as 'service' as a second monitor. I tried it for games and it was doable, just not great. The only ghosting I ever noticed was when dragging windows around the screen. They are not noticeable on my Viewsonic.

I really think you're fretting over nothing. If you get a decent brand monitor that has decent reviews you should be OK. I have a Samsung as a second monitor to replace my Fuji. I like my Viewsonic better because the color does blue better. The Samsung is too saturated for me, no matter how I set it. But some people may like that "over" saturation. I think it just comes down to a matter of opinion.
 
Last edited:
It's noticeable, but the question is: is it tolerable? I tried my Samsung TN panel for gaming yesterday (was playing GRID) and the first thing I noticed was its motion blur. It just wasn't as clear in motion as my CRT. Next thing I noticed was the oversaturated colors and black crush. The CRT produces better blacks without the crush. Colors aren't as saturated either, which looks nice.

But with all that said and done - I still enjoyed playing GRID on the TN panel. It was still a fun experience and if I didn't have my CRT I wouldn't fret over it too much. I think I would probably care about the oversaturated color presentation more than the motion blur. For what it's worth - FW-900's are medium-persistence CRT's and actually do produce some ghosting effects. It's very slight, but in dark games like Doom 3 - it's noticeable... Again - if you let it bother you. Most should be fine with gaming on TN screens.

Remember - you're on [H]. Some users here take their computing experience very seriously, and to levels that your average computer user would consider to be extreme. With that said, OP - I think going off your first post - my suggestion would still be to keep using what you're using. If nothing's "wrong" with the CRT and you're simply just seeing what else is available, then I wouldn't waste time and money on pursuing other displays. Remember that you can always dial your resolution back a notch for sharper text, and raise the res again for games. My 2 cents.
 
May I bump this thread?

My question is about the same topic, though what I'm interested in is eye strain.
Is it lesser on LCD?

From what I've read, some LCDs have pretty low-rate PWM flicker which may cause eye fatigue. Some people are fine with (no symptoms altogether), some complain about it. I've personally been at local PC parts shop and seen a LCD which was noticeably flickering; OTOH I'm not sure whether was that because of PWM or poor setup. However, had I to buy a LCD, I'd like to buy something that's better for my eyes. My current one is a CRT, which is good in terms of color/contrast, but refresh rate is not perfect, 75-85Hz only.

Is it worth to upgrade to LCD?

Thank you.
 
If PWM/flicker is a concern, get a PWM-free LCD. Motion/blur will stink when compared to CRTs, but besides lightboost TNs, that can't be avoided. Best bet may be to get a PWM free LCD for general PC stuff, and keep the CRT as a dual monitor.
 
I doubt PWM would be a problem if you don't have a problem with CRTs.

PWM flickers in the thousands of hz and CRT refresh rates are in the 100s.
 
If PWM/flicker is a concern, get a PWM-free LCD. Motion/blur will stink when compared to CRTs, but besides lightboost TNs, that can't be avoided. Best bet may be to get a PWM free LCD for general PC stuff, and keep the CRT as a dual monitor.

I doubt PWM would be a problem if you don't have a problem with CRTs.
PWM flickers in the thousands of hz and CRT refresh rates are in the 100s.
Actually, some people apparently get PWM eyestrain but not CRT eyestrain.
-- PWM flicker can be the source of eyestrain
-- However PWM artifacts can also be the problem too (this is actually the bigger issue for other people).

Pursuit camera photograph of PWM artifacts:
1691792

(From LCD Motion Artifacts 101)

If your monitor has "PWM dimming", you can see exactly the same thing as the above photo.
1. Go to www.testufo.com/ghosting
2. Adjust Brightness down to 0%
3. You can visually see the same artifact as in the above photo.

Some of us have eyestrain from motion artifacts/blur/PWM artifact, instead of eyestrain from the PWM flicker. Going either PWM-free or going LightBoost fixes it for me. Our eye focussing muscles gets lots of strain trying to focus on motion blur/artifacts when the display forces motion blur onto our eyes! Also for people like CallSignVega too (some of us don't get CRT eyestrain nor LightBoost eyestrain). LightBoost is a special kind of mption-blur-eliminating refresh-synchronized one-strobe-per-refresh PWM which produces less eyestrain to human eyes that are used to CRT monitors (but not PWM dimming). For that reason, LightBoost can increase eyestrain for some people (PWM flicker sensitive people), while LightBoost can decrease eyestrain for other people (PWM artifact sensitive people).

Fortunately, you got plenty of choice on the XL2420TE which is PWM-free in non-LightBoost.
-- Got PWM flicker eyestrain? OR
-- Got PWM artifact eyestrain? OR
-- Got motion blur eyestrain? (LightBoost is there to produce the CRT effect, if you didn't mind 120Hz CRT's).
The XL2420TE can easily fix any of the above (with and without LightBoost, your choice!).
 
Last edited:
May I bump this thread?
My question is about the same topic, though what I'm interested in is eye strain.
Is it lesser on LCD?
Yes, it can be.

If you are getting flicker eyestrain with your CRT, then getting a PWM-free LCD will do wonders for your eyestrain, if your eyestrain is being caused by the flicker of a CRT.
 
I doubt PWM would be a problem if you don't have a problem with CRTs.

PWM flickers in the thousands of hz and CRT refresh rates are in the 100s.

I'm one of those that has no issue with a CRT above 75hz but get eyestrain from all PWM LED displays. Flicker is not the issue - lack of light persistence is.
 
May I bump this thread?

My question is about the same topic, though what I'm interested in is eye strain.
Is it lesser on LCD?

From what I've read, some LCDs have pretty low-rate PWM flicker which may cause eye fatigue. Some people are fine with (no symptoms altogether), some complain about it. I've personally been at local PC parts shop and seen a LCD which was noticeably flickering; OTOH I'm not sure whether was that because of PWM or poor setup. However, had I to buy a LCD, I'd like to buy something that's better for my eyes. My current one is a CRT, which is good in terms of color/contrast, but refresh rate is not perfect, 75-85Hz only.

Is it worth to upgrade to LCD?

Thank you.

You could try pushing your CRT's refresh rate higher than the default "modes." Many CRT's can push beyond the recommended refresh rates with no issues. What model CRT is it? Check the owner's manual to see the scan range. And from there, it's trial and error with the resolution and refresh rate.
 
Your eyes will get used to the ghosting if you stick with the LCD for awhile. I play CoD on an LCD all the time, and it's just fine. Also, the increased screen width going from 4:3 to 16: 9 is really a big upgrade with first person shooters, like BF3. Better field of view is a big advantage.

I don't believe there are any good OLED options yet. Maybe in a few years, but not now.

The last time I priced them a 17" OLED was over $4k. A 22" was $17k.

Apparently Sony and other monitor makers want professional image quality limited to professionals. :)

CRTs are superior in most regards (resolution and refresh flexibility, no ghosting etc) for gaming and just about everything else.
 
I compare it to allegory of the cave. Ignorance is bliss and all that. However since the OP is a crt user he would be used to perfectly clear FoV motion.
.
For gaming I don't get people who want 60hz, horrible smearing and obliterating of detail blur outside of the "shadow mask" of everything in the entire viewport, 1/2 or worse the scene action slice updates shown per second, 1/2 or worse the smoothness/fluidity of motion. The ufo test may be good to show a plain example, but in actual 1st/3rd person games the entire viewport of cgi scene architecture and "geology", all onscreen creatures and objects and all high detail textures and shaders with be smeared out.

Blurbusters - Photos: 60hz vs 120hz vs Lightboost

Many also demand resolutions that cripple fps for gaming. Even 2560x resolutions are prohibitive on $750 - $1k in gpus to get high fps at medium, high, or high+/custom settings. 1080p looks like the sweet spot for enthusiast level budgets without going to extreme budgets (extreme $1500 - $2k + in gpus alone). You can get 100 - 120+ fps in a lot of games with a gtx780 or a titan at 1080p with the settings very high. On BF3 you can get 120fps with a gtx -6-80 on medium for that matter.

I have a fw900 graphics professional widescreen crt, a 27" 2560x1440 60hz ips, and a 27" 1080p 120hz TN monitor (not lightboost) among other monitors and a gaming laptop , so I can attest to the fact that those photos are accurate representations of different blur levels. I've also run some of the reading/blur tests on my monitors.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While I am very interested in blur reduction and optimally blur elimination, there are additional benefits to running high fps and high hz.

When I say "smoothness" I mean something separate from blur reduction. If I were using a general term for blur reduction I would use something like "clarity" or "clearness".
.
Smoothness to me means more unique action slices, more recent action going on in the game world shown - more dotted lines per dotted line length, more slices between two points of travel per se, more unique and newer pages flipping in an animation booklet, pick your analogy. It means less "stops" in the action per second and more defined ("higher definition") animation/action flow, which provides greater aesthetic motion and can increase accuracy, timing, and reaction time.
.
Disregarding backlight strobing for a moment.. As I understand it - where a strobe light in a room someone runs across would show blackouts, a typical lcd rather than blacking out just continues displaying the last "frozen" frame of action until it is updated. At 60hz that is every 16.6ms of course, and at 120hz and high fps it would have shown a new state of/peek into the room and run cycle 8.3ms sooner instead of freeze-frame skipping (over what would have been a new state at +8.3ms) to the next later state of the room and run cycle a full 16.6ms later. What is displayed of the entire animated world action in games is updated twice as often(and twice as soon) which can increase accuracy, and in providing more "dots per dotted line" per se, makes movement transitions "cleaner"/aesthetically smoother, providing higher definition movement and animation divided into 8.3ms updates. This goes hand in hand with blur reduction/elimination to make the entire experience a drastic improvement over 60hz/60fps.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personally I want 100fps+ on a 120hz monitor for my games (over 120fps optimally). Whatever my gpu budget is vs how demanding a game is limits what video settings quality i will set a game at. For me, sub 100fps and not running a 120hz monitor is not "ultra" graphics/display experience at all. It is not max settings to me, or perhaps "max configuration" and maximum presentation of the game world to me.
60hz monitors/tv's blur the entire viewport during FoV movement 50% more than 120hz at high fps, and 60% more than 144hz at high fps. Low fps and/or low hz also show half or less the most recent action slices per second, which means lower accuracy//lower motion tracking and lower aesthetic smoothness of motion/fluidity of motion.
.
Maximum blur and the worst aesthetic motion smoothness (and reduced accuracy) is not the best/max visual presentation of a game.
.
.
 
Thanks for the answers.

If you are getting flicker eyestrain with your CRT
Might be. On 75 Hz it feels kinda harder for eyes. 85 Hz is better though still not perfect.

You could try pushing your CRT's refresh rate higher than the default "modes."
Not sure if it's a good idea.
Mine is Samsung Syncmaster 796MB. It can actually reach 100Hz refresh rate, but only for resolutions 1024x768 and lower. That's not very handy for me.

Besides, it's like I already do that. There was no 85 Hz in refresh rate selection menu, I had to generate a modeline for it
 
CRTs are superior in most regards (resolution and refresh flexibility, no ghosting etc) for gaming and just about everything else.
Agree about resolution flexibility, but:
-- some LightBoost LCD's have less motion blur and less ghosting than medium-persistence CRT's (CRT's can have green ghosting trails).

This is done by a strobe backlight that flashes only on fully refreshed LCD frames, simulating CRT flicker. Here are some people who say LightBoost is better than CRT:
LightBoost reduce motion blur by more than an order-of-magnitude compared to 60Hz LCD's.

original post (Transsive)
Then yesterday I, for some reason, disabled the 3d and noticed there was no ghosting to be spotted at all in titan quest. It's like playing on my old CRT.
original post (Inu)
I can confirm this works on BENQ XL2420TX
EDIT: And OMG i can play scout so much better now in TF2, this is borderline cheating.
original post (TerrorHead)
Thanks for this, it really works! Just tried it on my VG278H. Its like a CRT now!
original post (Vega)
Oh my, I just got Skyrim AFK camera spinning (which I used to test LCD's versus the [Sony CRT] FW900) to run without stutters and VSYNC locked to 120. This Benq with Lightboost is just as crystal clear if not clearer than the FW900 motion. I am in awe. More testing tomorrow. Any of my doubts about this Lightboost technology have been vaporized! I've been playing around with this fluid motion on this monitor for like 6-hours straight, that is how impressive it is.
OCN post (Baxter299)
way to go vega enjoyed your review and pics ..thanks for taking the time .got my VG248QE last friday .replacing my fw900 witch is finally taking a rest in my closet .
OCN post (Romir)
Thanks for the timely review Vega.
I went ahead and opened mine and WOW, it really does feel like my FW900. I haven't tried a game yet but it's down right eerie seeing 2d text move without going blurry.
Cat said:
QuakeLive forum post (Cat)
With my Asus VG278HE at 120Hz and Lightboost (the Lightboost registry hack doesn't currently support 144Hz) playing at 1080p I am pretty much brutalizing my competition. Even with its 2-5ms input lag, which is worse than the 1ms of my old 120Hz monitor the difference with Lightboost is so huge the input lag literally becomes a non-issue. The only thing that matters now that I don't experience any motion blur is my true reaction time.

Don't get me wrong, I used to love CRT's. I'm just correcting you in that the invention of strobe backlights in the last year or so, have solved the LCD motion blur problem.
See media coverage, especially TFTCentral's LightBoost article.
 
My question is about the same topic, though what I'm interested in is eye strain.
Is it lesser on LCD?
both LCD and CRT have their issues but those are kinda exclusive. You won't find CRT with bad light spectrum or bad viewing angles and similarly you won't find LCD which have sharpness and geometry issues

you can buy super expensive good LCD to minimize LCD issues to minimum or buy cheap Trinitron CRT and minimize CRT issues

Agree about resolution flexibility, but:
-- some LightBoost LCD's have less motion blur and less ghosting than medium-persistence CRT's (CRT's can have green ghosting trails).
Are there really any CRT that actually do have green trails? :confused:

This is done by a strobe backlight that flashes only on fully refreshed LCD frames, simulating CRT flicker. Here are some people who say LightBoost is better than CRT:
unfortunately picture quality of such LB monitor is nowhere near picture quality of CRT... :(
 
Back
Top