Why would anyone buy an LCD?

A

ampdude

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
182
What a retched piece of equipment. I just purchased a like new 22" CRT from surplus along with a couple of others for 5 dollars each. This is not a drunken post, I know there are many threads started that praise CRT's. I'd really like to know why anyone would buy an LCD if they plan to game, watch movies or do serious CAD or professional graphics work. Old CRT's are so much better. That's only my opinion. The one I am using was made over two and a half years ago, but is like new. I believe my opinion is supported by facts. My opinion of CRT surperiority is mostly dominated by color clarity, contrast and response time.

Which is only everything. Again only in my opinion.
 
This is not a forum for your opinion, niether is it a forum for trolling.
 
This is a discussion forum. Please take my post as such. An opinion and not fact. Please feel free to post counterpoints.
 
honestly there isn't anything "wrong" with either tech, although a dollar says you're comparing some fairly high end prograde CRTs to whatever $99 AR FoTM TN crap you've got, or seen, or borrowed, or whatever, and of course in that scenario, a CRT is going to look nicer

each side has advantages and disadvantages, and theres nothing wrong with people for going either way (and no, you aren't some messiah or supreme being for having a 22" CRT and telling us about it)

while you're at it, why not complain about PDP, OLED, DLP, SED, and so on, because they also don't weigh 100+ lbs for a decent resolution, don't take digital inputs, lack HDCP, and are generally quite energy efficient relative to their size
 
vick1000 said:
This is not a forum for your opinion, niether is it a forum for trolling.
Click to expand...

How is this thread trolling? And how is this not a forum for opionions of individuals?

Anyway, you are right. CRT is superior, but it's hardly available anywhere. I still have a 19" CRT monitor, but i don't use it, simply because of the small size and that it's 4:3 aspect sucks a long way too. I don't ever wanna go back to 4:3 aspect. If a 24" 16:10 CRT monitor were available at stores today, i would definitely get one. I even considered buying one from ebay, but i think it's too risky.
 
For a long time I held this belief, up until 3 years ago or so when relatively affordable IPS and PVA-based monitors became widely available. Still not up to the image quality (and for me, the resolution) standard of a CRT, but definitely usable. You also get much lower power usage and free up a ton of desk space.

However, the good quality panels are getting pushed out of the market which is really fucking annoying (pardon my french). Each time I go looking for a monitor it gets harder and harder to find decent panels in the 'normal' sizes. There are only a couple (affordable) 22" non-TN monitors currently being made for example, and pretty much nothing smaller.

And the resolutions are still too low. What happened to 1600x1200 in a 19" square monitor?! I want those days back. I've seen laptops with similar or even higher pixel densities, so it's definitely possible, but nobody makes them.
 
I've had some really good CRT's and I've had a couple of good LCD's. I'll take my Dell 3007WFP over any CRT ever made. Yes I know full well the strengths of the CRT, but frankly, the LCD's strengths are more appealing to me. Mainly since I work 16+ hours a day on computers, LCD's are far easier on my eyes.
 
LCDs use less power, emit less heat, and produce a sharper image. There's also space limitations, not everyone can fit a huge CRT on their desk, nor does it usually look pleasant. Sure there are compromises as you point out, but for most of us the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.
 
My Sun GDM-5510 is too big for my dorm room. I'm using a 20" IPS and 25.5" TN. I've never acquired an FW900 since I wouldn't have room for it. Some day though. Or some day a U2410/2709WFP.
 
Pretty much the same thread here. Which will probably end the same way (locked). Because some people can't seem to accept the priorities of others.
 
Frameless said:
How is this thread trolling? And how is this not a forum for opionions of individuals? .
Click to expand...

it challenged someone else's opinion, so obviously its the devil. ;)

keenan said:
And the resolutions are still too low. What happened to 1600x1200 in a 19" square monitor?! I want those days back. I've seen laptops with similar or even higher pixel densities, so it's definitely possible, but nobody makes them.
Click to expand...

because the average kinder-tot consumer wants to see "HD" at least five times on the box, and if it doesn't say "16:9" at least 10 times, it obviously isn't good enough (also, 16:9 is bigger numbers than 4:3, so it has to be better, duh)

1600x1200 was a very good size
but what I really want to see make a comeback is 2048x1536 on a 21" LCD, the only panels to ever sport this are terrible (we're talking like 40ms and 400:1 here), the density is not an issue (about on par with most laptops or 30" displays)
I think 4:3 has a legitimate application as a secondary monitor, for example 2560x1600 + 2048x1536, as opposed to 1200x1600 or whatever other "hacked" solution


Dan_D said:
I've had some really good CRT's and I've had a couple of good LCD's. I'll take my Dell 3007WFP over any CRT ever made. Yes I know full well the strengths of the CRT, but frankly, the LCD's strengths are more appealing to me. Mainly since I work 16+ hours a day on computers, LCD's are far easier on my eyes.
Click to expand...

I hear ya man
honestly I didn't have any issues with fatigue on CRTs when I ran them, but I still notice the LCD as "better" for long term usage (I can still use CRTs for the same length of time without issues, LCD is just "less issues", make sense?)
 
I agree about the aspect ratio. I wish there were widescreen CRT's for computers out there. It kind of sucks having to shrink a movie down just to see the whole picture on a 3:4 monitor.
 
just found a 20" CRT laying around here at work so I pop it in and cranked that resolution to 2048x1536 and it's quite nice, though If I could have a 20 inch lcd monitor with that resolution I'd pick it over this but I can't.
 
For a writer there's no contest. LCD crushes CRT... unless you enjoy glare and eyestrain.
 
How bout just, CRTs make you look like you're stuck in the 90s?

If all my stuff were of the ancient tech (tube tv, CRT, etc.) I would have to stand to sleep.
 
While we're on a roll... virtual reality > oled > crt > lcd

I think CRTs are pretty good, but sort of large. I wish they would have kept working toward those thin CRTs. Whatever happened to them?
 
Xcelerate said:
While we're on a roll... virtual reality > oled > crt > lcd

I think CRTs are pretty good, but sort of large. I wish they would have kept working toward those thin CRTs. Whatever happened to them?
Click to expand...

real life > this thread. :D
 
Because I don't want to support a dying technology, its dying for a reason. (large, heavy, cumbersome, eye straining, did I mention OLD?)

Not to mention they make my eyes hurt. Good riddance!
 
criccio said:
Because I don't want to support a dying technology, its dying for a reason. (large, heavy, cumbersome, eye straining, did I mention OLD?)

Not to mention they make my eyes hurt. Good riddance!
Click to expand...

yeah obviously age is the primary factor in deciding if a technology has any merit :rolleyes:
 
ampdude said:
What a retched piece of equipment. I just purchased a like new 22" CRT from surplus along with a couple of others for 5 dollars each. This is not a drunken post, I know there are many threads started that praise CRT's. I'd really like to know why anyone would buy an LCD if they plan to game, watch movies or do serious CAD or professional graphics work. Old CRT's are so much better. That's only my opinion. The one I am using was made over two and a half years ago, but is like new. I believe my opinion is supported by facts. My opinion of CRT surperiority is mostly dominated by color clarity, contrast and response time.

Which is only everything. Again only in my opinion.
Click to expand...

LOL

not everyone can just snap their fingers and have a pile of 22" CRTs fall in their lap like you did. I had to pay $20 for a low end 18" 85hz crt, and I was lucky enough to know someone who still had a crt lying around.

Buying used gear sucks in general, but when it comes to heavy, fragile equipment like CRTs, its just a total crapshoot.

Seriously.

The only places to get CRTs now is eBay or craig'slist, and of the 200 people on the planet who sell monitors on craig's list, 199 are selling LCDs. On ebay, the only real place to get crts, there is a grand total of 189 crts, most of which either "probably work" or have been "professionally calibrated" with a starting bid of $2,999.

If you're lucky enough to actually find a decent CRT that isn't broken and doesn't cost more than a triple LCD array, chances are the seller is on the other side of the country (if he's actually in the same country) and doesn't offer shipping.

Seriously, it's easier score a qp of afghan kush than it is to get a high quality CRT.
 
criccio said:
Because I don't want to support a dying technology, its dying for a reason. (large, heavy, cumbersome, eye straining, did I mention OLD?)

Not to mention they make my eyes hurt. Good riddance!
Click to expand...

Do you drive a car? Cause that tech is about 100 years OLD.
 
lowteckh said:
How bout just, CRTs make you look like you're stuck in the 90s?

If all my stuff were of the ancient tech (tube tv, CRT, etc.) I would have to stand to sleep.
Click to expand...

I still have the same 19" CRT television from 1992 and it works great. I don't watch a lot of TV though. :cool:
 
Here are just a handful of reasons why CRT's blow goats:

  • Shit availability. There are no real choices for high end CRT's now. Even if there were, they are so old now that they are rarely available in good working condition.
  • Lack of widescreen options
  • Typically stuck at 22" or less sizes (Though Sony did have that 24" model.)
  • Power usage blows
  • Heat output blows
  • CRT's cause greater eyestrain than LCD's
  • Glare (Though to be fair, glossy LCD's are as bad if not worse in this area.)
  • CRT's are much heavier than LCD's.(This can cause desk warping with larger units on cheap desks.)
  • CRT's have too great a depth compared to LCD's. (Causes space issues compared to LCD's.)
So I have to ask, "Why would anyone buy a CRT?" Oh I'm well aware of the advantages of a CRT. Converting was a pain in the ass for me and I wasn't ever truly happy with LCD's until the Dell 3007WFP came out and I bought one. While CRT's still rule in regard to response times thanks to potentially high refresh rates LCD's really have become "good enough" for almost anyone. Color reproduction on LCD's is a problem for most panels though high end IPS based panels aren't too bad in this regard. CRT's generally excel in that area as well but those two things are really the only features the LCD hasn't beaten them at quite yet. You can argue for the flexibility of a CRT to do virtually any resolution it supports and have it look good where as LCD's do not but I've rarely found any reason to run my monitor outside of its native resolution. So I don't see that as a huge issue for most people unless they are trying to run games on larger monitors with older / lower end video cards. Again I think the LCD's advantages outweigh their disadvantages.
 
Dan_D said:
Color reproduction on LCD's is a problem for most panels though high end IPS based panels aren't too bad in this regard.
Click to expand...

I would have thought that IPS and VA types set the standard for other display technologies to follow when it comes to colour accuracy.

kumquatsrus said:
real life > this thread. :D
Click to expand...

Wide Gamut, unstable colour temperature and numerous reports of the top being much brighter than the bottom with a blue colour cast is a dealbreaker for me.
 
Last edited:
Dan_D said:
Here are just a handful of reasons why CRT's blow goats:

  • Shit availability. There are no real choices for high end CRT's now. Even if there were, they are so old now that they are rarely available in good working condition.
  • Lack of widescreen options
  • Typically stuck at 22" or less sizes (Though Sony did have that 24" model.)
  • Power usage blows
  • Heat output blows
  • CRT's cause greater eyestrain than LCD's
  • Glare (Though to be fair, glossy LCD's are as bad if not worse in this area.)
  • CRT's are much heavier than LCD's.(This can cause desk warping with larger units on cheap desks.)
  • CRT's have too great a depth compared to LCD's. (Causes space issues compared to LCD's.)
So I have to ask, "Why would anyone buy a CRT?" Oh I'm well aware of the advantages of a CRT. Converting was a pain in the ass for me and I wasn't ever truly happy with LCD's until the Dell 3007WFP came out and I bought one. While CRT's still rule in regard to response times thanks to potentially high refresh rates LCD's really have become "good enough" for almost anyone. Color reproduction on LCD's is a problem for most panels though high end IPS based panels aren't too bad in this regard. CRT's generally excel in that area as well but those two things are really the only features the LCD hasn't beaten them at quite yet. You can argue for the flexibility of a CRT to do virtually any resolution it supports and have it look good where as LCD's do not but I've rarely found any reason to run my monitor outside of its native resolution. So I don't see that as a huge issue for most people unless they are trying to run games on larger monitors with older / lower end video cards. Again I think the LCD's advantages outweigh their disadvantages.
Click to expand...

QFMFT
 
Whoisthisreally said:
I would have thought that IPS and VA types set the standard for other display technologies to follow when it comes to colour accuracy.
Click to expand...

They are the best technology for color reproduction outside of CRT's as far as pure computer monitors go. IPS is the standard. MVA panels are better than TN, but clearly inferior to IPS in this regard.
 
Because for me, my 'calibrated' LCD... for me, looks as good as i need it, and it doesnt give me headaches after hours of usage that is why.

if CRT's didnt give me headaches, i would be happy to use them, in fact i still have a 5 year old Dell trinitron (sony) 19' CRt @ 1600 x 1200 - but all text is blurry, so i use it @ 1280 x 1024 for when i do photoshop work.

Each tech has it's flaws, such LCD has color issues but it has other benefits and if you know how to calibrate and know what panel to buy, most go out the tubes
 
Dan_D said:
They are the best technology for color reproduction outside of CRT's as far as pure computer monitors go. IPS is the standard. MVA panels are better than TN, but clearly inferior to IPS in this regard.
Click to expand...

That's a bit hard to swallow. You're saying that good CRTs can do things like set the black point to a precise value in the OSD in order to better replicate print medium contrast ratios?
 
Whoisthisreally said:
That's a bit hard to swallow. You're saying that good CRTs can do things like set the black point to a precise value in the OSD in order to better replicate print medium contrast ratios?
Click to expand...

You have a point. CRT's can't do that. (At least none that I've seen.) Though my old Sony CRT had a "print" color mode on it but I didn't think it was remotely near being accurately representative of print colors.
 
Dan_D said:
Color reproduction on LCD's is a problem for most panels though high end IPS based panels aren't too bad in this regard. CRT's generally excel in that area as well but those two things are really the only features the LCD hasn't beaten them at quite yet.
Click to expand...

Short memory!
Cheap tiny bulging glass shells excelled in nothing but budget price. So do their modern equivalent - LCD dwarfs on TN.
You would get as much color reproduction as much money you invest in either CRT or LCD.


Color reproduction test included.
 
Different people have different priorities and thus prefer different things. Which is why the arrogant assertions of universal superiority on the part of some whenever this topic comes up is always so entertaining. It's as though we're talking about our own beloved sports team or even family rather than a display technology.

Just say "no" to zealotry. Or, of course, go visit the video card forums. :D

Edit: And no, I'm not referring to Dan_D. Just so there's no confusion.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top