why can CRTs support higher resolutions than LCDs?

F

frankyk

Gawd
Joined
Jan 30, 2004
Messages
891
i notice that the minimum size for a LCD to get 1600x1200 is a 19", but i've seen 17" CRTs support 1600x1200, maybe even higher?

also, i was actually shocked when i saw this, i saw a laptop support 1600x1200 resolution once, is this possible for most? this was also back in my freshman year in college, so like 3 years ago, this laptop had 1600x1200 resolution on a 14" or something.
 
Honestly, theres no technical limitation, you can get a 15" lcd or 15" crt with 16x12 resolution. Getting a smallish CRT (17) to do 16x12 BADLY isn't that hard, just take a slight increase in manufacturing cost. Getting a LCD to do it is a lot more expensive and really reduces the yields from the factory.

Again, it can be done, its really not that hard. I've heard that consumers buying desktop LCD's weren't interested enough in 16x12 to make it worth their while, since the manufacturing costs are so much higher.
 
there are CRT displays that go well beyond 1600x1200 heres one for example LINK

But what it is that in a CRT you have a electron beam hitting the tube and by making it write more pixels, the refresh rate becomes an issue. On the LCD side its not an issue, which is why consumer level monitors don't go beyond 1600x1200 due to refresh rate issues, and cost to make a High res CRT when they can make high res LCDs for cheaper.
 
good example...

It will be a far different comparision in a few years. You'll see the LCD's really catch up when the market gets saturated and the manufacturers are forced to add features to sell the units. Now they can get away with selling feature limited units since people are so [h]ard for the technology.
 
As it's been said, LCDs have fixed pixels while CRTs have an electrom beam hitting the tube so they can display multiple resolutions. That's why even small CRT screens (17") can go as high as 1600x1200 (although most of the time are doing a poor job at it). It should be noted however that just because some CRTs support and run at very high resolutions, doesn't mean you can actually see all the pixels. For instance, the screen width of a 17" CRT is around 320mm. If you divide that with the dot pitch of, say, .25 you get 1280 - the maximum horizontal resolution. What that means is although you might be able to run that display at 1600x1200, the screen just doesn't have enough physical pixels to display that resolution properly.
 
IceWind said:
Wait till you see SED's in action.
Click to expand...
I doubt SED monitors (not TVs) are going to have any higher resolutions than current LCDs do. They will also have a native resolution, just like LCDs. Personally, I don't see any reason to make displays with higher resolutions than they currently are. The only exception being 19" LCD which should be 1440x1080 or something similar.
 
Roger said:
I doubt SED monitors (not TVs) are going to have any higher resolutions than current LCDs do. They will also have a native resolution, just like LCDs. Personally, I don't see any reason to make displays with higher resolutions than they currently are. The only exception being 19" LCD which should be 1440x1080 or something similar.
Click to expand...

Why would you say this? Resolutions will certainly go higher than they are now. They always have gone higher. Why didn't we just stop at 320x240? More resolution means higher quality and more realistic images.
 
saltiness said:
Why would you say this? Resolutions will certainly go higher than they are now. They always have gone higher.
Click to expand...
Yes, but screens are getting bigger too. 1280x1024 is perfectly fine for a 17" screen IMO.
 
Roger said:
Yes, but screens are getting bigger too. 1280x1024 is perfectly fine for a 17" screen IMO.
Click to expand...

I would love for my 17" LCD to do 1600x1200 or better. I'm also speaking in reference to games and image manipulation where the higher the resolution the better. As for web browsing and other text based things, the dpi can always be increased. I'll be happy when it gets to the point that I can't see pixels in games at all even with no anti alias or anisotropic filtering.
 
And I suppose some day soon you'll see resolutions go up. Having a 300 dpi displays would be WONDERFUL, but you'd need cards several orders of magnitude to handle any decent size display. Give it... 10 years...
 
Generally speaking most CRTs have a physical resolution (based on dot pitch) similar to LCDs. For example, the highest "normal" resolution a typical 22" CRT can display without starting to get blurry is typically 1600x1200, the same as a 20" LCD.
That said, the blurring effect from overly high resolutions on a CRT isn't always bad. It's actually quite nice in 3D games. Essentially it acts like AA, except it puts no additional load on the video card. HL2 w/ AF cranked up to 2048x1536 on a 21" screen is absolutely gorgeous.
The "blurring" effect would probably also be nice for watching videos if it weren't for the little problem of large monitors having a resolution higher than 1080p.
 
If your 22in CRT can go all the way up to 2048x1536, you can still comfortably run it at 1600x1200 and 1280x1024, which is what most people do, leaving the max resolution as more of a niche option. If you made a LCD that had a 2048x1536 resolution, then you'd pretty much have to run it at that resolution, because 1600x1200 and 1280x1024 would have to be interpolated, which degrades the image. Most people would run such a screen at 1280x1024 or 1600x1200, so it's not offered as a native resolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top