• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Which 21" CRT

T

TypicalSloan

n00b
Joined
Oct 13, 2003
Messages
60
I've been looking at a few 20 lcds for a while and none of them seem to fit the bill for what i use my computer for, gaming and photoshop.

So i've been looking at a few 21" crts
samsung - 1100DF
viewsonic - G220FB
nec/mitsubishi - ACCUSYNC 120

One thing ive heard people say is that some are not really flat but slightly convex, any truth to this?
of the 3 brands which one of 21" monitors would u recomend?

And lastly, would anyone say thier lcd performs just as good with photoshop as with a crt?
 
Personally IMO I would get a flat screen CRT with Trintron tube, I have a Sony 19in. Multiscan GS400 and it kick a**.
 
You should seriously consider going with a Apreture grille / Trinitron based CRT , You wont regret it. But If I *HAD* to choose from your list above then i'd go with the Samsung , I prefer the NEC brand but the NEC model you listed has a .25 dot pitch wich is kind of high for a Shadow mask based CRT ,The Samsung on the other hand is rated .20 dot pitch wich will (theoretically) look better at higher resolutions.

As to your question with photoshop performance I cant speak for all LCDs however I had a Dell 2001FP LCD (20.1") sitting next to my 21" Sony CRT for 3 weeks (clone mode) and when comparing photos taken from my digicam over the last couple years the CRT definately had more accurate color and the LCD had a problem with displaying darker details on some pictures,it was to the point I would see details on the CRT that were completely missing on the LCD screen,This most likely had to do with the weak black levels a lot of LCD's are known for,Ive read about this loss of details in movies with various HDTV LCD reviews as well, The 2001FP is a well respected LCD but from what I saw I certainly wouldnt want it for photoshop work.
 
Which trinitron tube would u recomend?

I was looking at the dell 2001fp lcd and was wondering if i will notice alot of ghosting/bluring while playing games like BF2 vs a crt.
 
I noticed alot of the trinitrons i saw were .24 apeture, i dont see how that is much better than the nec. The samsung seems to be a good choice, unless im not looking at the right trinitron?
 
TypicalSloan said:
Which trinitron tube would u recomend?

I was looking at the dell 2001fp lcd and was wondering if i will notice alot of ghosting/bluring while playing games like BF2 vs a crt.
Click to expand...

There was slight motion blur and a very slight input delay on the 2001FP when comparing it to the CRT but it was bareable as long as you stay in its native 1600x1200 resolution ,motion blur became pretty noticable when using another resolution such as 1280x1024 tho.
 
TypicalSloan said:
I noticed alot of the trinitrons i saw were .24 Aperture, i dont see how that is much better than the nec. The samsung seems to be a good choice, unless im not looking at the right trinitron?
Click to expand...

Aperture Grille and Shadow mask dot pitch cant really be compared , .24 is about is low as it gets on Aperture, The Sony F series (21" F520 or 24" FW900) are the only Apreture grille based monitors that have .22 dot pitch ,but they cost $1,200 :)

Apreture grille monitors have brighter / cleaner outputs vs. Shadow mask, heres one result I found during a search:

"Shadow Mask: If you’ve ever owned a Lite Brite, you’ve got a pretty good idea of what a shadow mask looks like and what it does. A shadow mask is a perforated metal grill inside a monitor that focuses and refines the electron beams shot toward the phosphor layer. This process ensures that the electron beam can hit only one phosphor dot. This is important because of the sheer number of electron beams firing towards the phosphor layer. Without a material designed to further refine each beam, the screen would be hopelessly blurred or pixel sizes would have to remain gigantic.

Aperture Grill: An aperture grill is designed to perform the same task as a shadow mask, but approaches it differently. Rather than using a perforated metal sheet, aperture grill technology uses hundreds of thin vertical wires to direct electron beams into their exact targets on the screen. Aperture grill technology is often thought to produce a brighter, flatter, and clearer image, but at one significant cost. The technology requires the use of a horizontal stabilizing wire located both at the top and bottom 1/3 of the screen. While normally invisible, these wires can show up distinctly on a white background. While some users hate them, others (myself included) don’t notice them at all."


The tension wires they speak of do exist(I have 2 on my monitor but they are VERY thin lines) but as he says they're hardly noticable unless you stare at a pure white screen :)
 
yah i dont mind the tension wires on my crt that i have now. never notice them unless im looking for them.
 
mathesar said:
There was slight motion blur and a very slight input delay on the 2001FP when comparing it to the CRT but it was bareable as long as you stay in its native 1600x1200 resolution ,motion blur became pretty noticable when using another resolution such as 1280x1024 tho.
Click to expand...

I owned the 2001fp for a short time.....contrast ratio is only 400:1 so it does poorly showing blacks. Doom3 is a joke and the backdrop is kind of a milky white gray. It has motion blur on fast moving games like UT. On the positive side it interpolates very well. In the end, a good CRT is a much better choice if you are a gamer.
 
well there are two choices, get an lcd and live with its downfalls, or get a crt and wait for better lcd tech to come out.
 
Greenwit said:
I owned the 2001fp for a short time.....contrast ratio is only 400:1 so it does poorly showing blacks. Doom3 is a joke and the backdrop is kind of a milky white gray. It has motion blur on fast moving games like UT. On the positive side it interpolates very well. In the end, a good CRT is a much better choice if you are a gamer.
Click to expand...


Well ya that was also a big problem ..weak black levels was one of the main reasons I returned it. alot of games and basicly any movies looked noticably better on the CRT because of it.

My CRT and LCD side by side - Camera settings wernt good for this one so the LCD actualy looks worse here than in person, but you can still get an idea on the black level differances, The LCD was set to 0 brightness in the screenshot.

Heres the LCD up close - A more accurate shot but camera settings still alittle off.

Most recent shot of my CRT , Im getting better at taking monitor shots..although the shutter speed caused some motion blur (such as the bubbles on the left side of screen)
 
samsung makes some good crts, I heard that the sony is the best but they are overpriced and don't last as long. Economy is not that well I would stick to a crt, u don't need to blow 600+ on a 19in lcd that will leave u with a feeling of being mugged. I am not dissing lcds but a good one will cost a pretty penny. Unless u make 6 figures might as well get 2 30in appple, and give some away lol j/k. Lcd's are getting cheaper but I belief that they could offer more competitive prices, a good crt will last u a good 7-10yrs.
 
I have had a Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2040u for the past 5 years and have been VERY pleased with that CRT monitor. While those monitors have been discontinued, I can tell you the flat Trinitron display is well worth it and is as flat as an LCD. You just have a LOT more bulk to deal with for a CRT monitor vs LCD and weight.

If you do a lot of dark gaming, like Doom 3, then certainly you are going to notice a difference between LCD and CRT. Darks are simply MUCH better on a high quality CRT monitor and while LCDs have made progress they are in no way comparable as of yet.

One thing I do want to point out is the fact CRT monitors are of course measured differently than LCD. For LCD the are measured true, such as a 19" is really 19" whereas a CRT is typically 2" less than what is stated. My Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2040u is listed at 22" CRT but the actual screen size I have is 20", so that's something to keep in mind. Also, personally I would shop for a monitor 20" (actual) because that seems to be just about perfect size for most.
 
I ended up getting a 19" viewsonic vp191b for 425 shipped. Which is what a new 20" crt would have cost me. My eyes just cant take the strain that 2-3 hours of gaming gives them.

thx for all the suggestions.
 
Mathesar, that's a very good image of Doom3 in your LCD up close screenie. I think that accurately depicts Doom3 as I saw it on my Dell 2001fp before I got rid of it. Not only are blacks displayed as gray but the colors are washed out. I think the Viewsonic vp191b will display something much like that screenie as the contrast ratio is not much better (600:1 vs.400:1). Too much of a compromise IMO. Good luck on your purchase, Sloan. BTW, I have zero eyestrain with my NEC fe2111.
 
"Unfortunately, according to CNET Labs' tests, the VP191b's image quality, though good, is less than what we'd expect from a display geared toward graphics pros. Whereas displays such as the Princeton SENergy 981 and the Formac Gallery 2010 deliver truly stunning color and clarity, the VP191b showed pixel fusion in text and lacked nuance in extremes of gray, black, and white. In fact, we found the performance similar to that of competing models from HP and Envision that cost $100 to $150 less. "

Their comment on gray scale basicly means that it will in fact look a lot like the 2001FP :(

They gave the VP191B a 6.8 rating while the 2001FP got a 7.8.

Ive never had eye strain problems with my CRT either. And I do a lot of extended online gaming.
 
Both those monitors they compared the viewsonic too cost over $300+ more, i fail to see the logic in that. It also seems that they are going by the msrp price which in reality it can be had for $100+ less than that.

And they gave it a 6.9 not 6.8 :p

Oh well, lcds are not perfect but the pros out wiegh the cons for me. Ill still be useing my crt along side it for photoshop work, displaying the picture on the crt and the tools on the lcd.
 
I was actualy more concerned with thier comments on the lack of subtle variations in extremes of white/black/gray, I noticed this same thing on my 2001FP when comparing photos from my digital camera, the CRT was displaying some details that were not visible at all on the LCD screen because of it.

But your idea of using the LCD for tools & CRT for picture sounds like a good plan :D

Either way, Good luck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top