Hard question that nobody can answer: Why LCD > CRT?

[SignedupGuest]

I doubt anyone can really truly answer this.... but I am interested in the replies....

My Samsung monitor broke, and after being jerked around with there call center (including being hung up on (or disconnected), being told to call back, being told I would get a call back (or email if I could not be reached), or just being told to call at a later time) they finally were only able to offer me this horrible 931BF refurbished monitor with a .294 pitch and 1280x1024 native res...

I purchased my old 997DF CRT monitor 2 years ago for under 300$. It had a max res of 1920x1440 (but it looked flipping good at 1600x1200), dot pitch was .2 (hor, think .25 dag).

I mean WTF... 2 years later a monitor that cost more then the one I purchased falls horribly short of my old CRT monitor.

So the million dollar question is: Who in there right mind would say LCD is better then CRT?

Why I want CRT
-My CRT was lighting fast response; I do not need to worry about response time.
-My CRT never had any dead (or stuck or white) pixels.
-My CRT never had issues with brightness.
-My CRT could use ANY resolution JUST fine (including on old games like starcraft).
-My CRT did not have brightness or contrast issues.
-My CRT did not have any angles were it went dark.
-My CRT is always had a crystal clear picture all the time.
-My CRT never had ghosting issues.

Why I would anyone want LCD?
-It uses less electricity (who gives a shit my utilities are included in my rent)
-It takes up less desk space (wow, I always wanted space behind my monitor ) :\
-It apparently wont hurt my eyes or give me headaches (WTF, CRT never did that)

I mean, wtf? Other then being good for the environment as far as I can tell LCD is nothing but a step backwards (well my old LG starting getting dark, but Samsung was going on strong). I was looking at purchasing a 800$ LCD monitor, but they do not even begin to compare to my old monitor other then the extra ports (even tho I only need DVI/VGA at ).

On a side note: What is also funny... on my last similar thread (but was talking about TV’s) a 650$ Samsung LCD gave me worse quality then a 200$ 27inch insignia TV in both terms of tv-out (composite) and cable TV.

[GMaq]

Yeah man! What you said.... WTF ?

[redwudz]

I think you covered most of the comparison between the two types.

CRTs are heavy and take up a lot of space and heat up the room. Other than that, I prefer a CRT also. As far as hurting your eyes with a CRT, if you set the refresh rate up above the line frequency, say 70 - 80Hz, no eye problems. LCDs don't have that problem.

One other difference: My 17" CRT monitor cost about $90US and my 17" LCD cost $180. Unfortunately, it's getting harder to find CRT monitors. Most dealers only list a few.

[ntscuser]

Here's another issue I only discovered recently by accident. I normally browse sites like this at 1024x768 resolution as my eyesight isn't too good. For gaming I prefer something a bit higher so I can see what's going on around me. My 19" CRT will switch happily between the two resolutions but LCD screens have a "native resolution" at which they work best so I would have to sacrifice picture quality of one use for the other

[jagabo]

LCD screens have a "native resolution" at which they work best

You just learned this? That's the first thing everyone should know about fixed pixel displays.

[ntscuser]

LCD screens have a "native resolution" at which they work best

You just discovered this?

No, I've known for years. It was only when browsing a chainstore catalogue for an actual purchase that it occured to me that whichever fixed resolution I choose will be a serious compromise

[Nitemare]

If enough consumers demand CRT they will get it. The problem is that most people do almost no research and most people will accept the fact the LCD is "replacing" CRT.

But seriously.... I believe this is a market that consumer demand could influence.

[buttzilla]

Go to most places and they don't even have crt monitors. I finally switch when i built my new system. My crt was crapping out. I like it because it takes up far les room. Doesn't seem to atract dust as much and it display looks pretty good. A lot of the things you said about crt's are now true with lcd's with the exception of dead pixels and multiple resolutions. They have improved a lot over the last few years.

[dnix71]

LCD's apparently cause less eye strain than crt's. I had to get a flicker screen for a coworkers 19" multi-sync because she complained of eye strain and headaches.

She didn't know how to change the refresh rate. There were built-in controls on the monitor and her G5 had the usual software controls, but Mabel didn't know how to use either. After upping the rate from 60Hz to 75Hz it flickered a lot less under flourescent lights.

She's lucky she works with a Mac. IT locked out all the pc's desktop properties menu because some people who shared computers were changing settings and others complained.

As a Mac person myself, with a G4 powerbook now instead of my old eMac, I can say I miss the eMac's crt as well. It looked much cleaner. PC monitors' appearance really sucks compared to a Mac crt.

[gll99]

Whats already been said plus:

Pro - A 17" crt is about 15 1/2 to 16" while a 17" lcd is 17".
Con - Cleaning a lcd is a bit scarier. I had one with a stuck pixel that would come back with a gentle rub. I could see the movement of something liquid as I rubbed it. Looks like it would scratch easily. never had that fear with the glass tube.

My current 17" lcd doesn't have any problems and I prefer it to my 19" crt only because the screen is almost the same size and my desk is near a wall and I can push the lcd back but the crt is too deep so it's right on top of me.

Another pro with the lcd is that you can take it apart and make a great 108"+ movie projector with it.

[FulciLives]

About 7 months ago I went from a Sony Trinitron Flat Screen 17" CRT to a ViewSonic 19" LCD and I absolutely love my ViewSonic LCD. Please note this is the first time I've ever had a LCD monitor.

I paid a bit more than the "average priced" LCD to get one that had a "low" 2ms response time and so far I have not noticed any "irregularities" one associates with "high" response times.

The native resolution of my monitor is 1280x1024 and this seems like a good choice for this size of screen (I used 1024x768 on the 17" CRT).

It seems bright to me ... sometimes almost too bright ... but not that much so ... it definitely is not lacking brightness/contrast etc. Colors also seem good etc. I am running it in a color mode called "sRGB" which is supposed to be some new standard in color matching screen to print ... or something like that.

Another thing I like is the edge to edge display and the fact that I don't have to do any of those silly CRT adjustments to the image like trying to make it taller or wider or trapezoid or megazoid or whatever all that crap was. I think this is all a big plus of a LCD monitor.

My only complaint is that so few LCD monitors come with a stand that allows you to "rotate" into a landscape mode. I keep meaning to buy an after market stand (like the Ergotron Neo-Flex LCD Stand) but I keep putting it off.

Actually come to think of it the ability to go from "normal" to "landscape" is another bonus for LCD monitors!

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[zoobie]

Because you've never had one?

[SignedupGuest]

I did look at purchasing a other CRT. But as others have said, they do not really sell/make them anymore

FulciLives:

You said 1280x1024 works for you. But what if you want a higher resolution? Or what if a game will only play at a lower resolution?
Personally I use very low resolutions for some games (like Starcraft) while very high resolutions for everything else (1600x1200 if not higher)

As for the edge to edge display... That only depends on the monitor. My last monitor I never had to adjust it once.

Because you've never had one?

That is a very bad argument for two reasons. 1# I have had one. 2# You can know if something is bad when you read other people problems and you understand the product.

[trhouse]

CRT's do have two other drawbacks. Convergence and susceptibility to magnetic fields. I still have a dot and color bar generator for doing convergence. It requires going inside and adjusting permanent magnets on the yoke and and more permanent magnetics near the edge of the tube plus a bunch of deflection related adjustments. The labor cost to do this is pretty high. LCD's digitally address the dots so there is no equivalent adjustment and no magnetic susceptibility since there is no electron beam.

I am using an LCD which has a glass protecting the panel itself so I can rap on it and nothing happens. A drawback is that the glass has some glare.

[edit]I almost forgot, another CRT drawback is x-ray emission caused by the high accelerating potentials. In the US we have this regulation,

As you may know, the Food and Drug Administration's regulations in 21 CFR 1020 limit television receivers to 0.5 milliroentgens per hour (mR/hr) at a distance of 5 cm from any external surface.

A user is protected by a very thick front glass often embedded with lead to shield against this but if you are the service person, that is another story.

[TimA-C]

Let's face it, the main reason why LCDs are being pushed on us by the manufacturer's is money. They've spent millions (probably billions) on developing LCD technology and now they want to recoup their costs. Unfortunately (for them) LCD doesn't match up with CRT qualitywise yet and there's new technology on the way that will probably kill the current LCD market stone dead. So they stop making CRT displays and force people to buy LCD. Fortunately for the manufacturers, most people assume that bigger, brighter, and thinner MUST be better. Muppets!

[AlanHK]

On the bright side (literally), so many people and companies are "upgrading" to LCD that you can get really big, high quality CRT monitors for 5% of the new price. CRT monitors have a useful life of 10 years or more, and you can pretty much see if they work in 5 minutes when buying used.

So I've got a nice 17" Apple/Trinotron monitor for about US$25. If I had the room, I could get 19" or larger for not much more.

Eventually I'll go to LCD, but am in no hurry. (And I frequently use LCD monitors, I know what I'm "missing".)

Thirty years ago I was using a line printer for my "monitor", so I'm not bothered at being behind the bleeding edge.

So to the OP: take the new LCD, and sell it, or exchange directly for the CRT monitor you could only have dreamed about five years ago, and probably have enough change to upgrade your RAM.

[gotnotime]

Let's face it, the main reason why LCDs are being pushed on us by the manufacturer's is money. They've spent millions (probably billions) on developing LCD technology and now they want to recoup their costs. Unfortunately (for them) LCD doesn't match up with CRT quality-wise yet and there's new technology on the way that will probably kill the current LCD market stone dead. So they stop making CRT displays and force people to buy LCD. Fortunately for the manufacturers, most people assume that bigger, brighter, and thinner MUST be better. Muppets!

True but this is only part the big picture. As mentioned earlier the weight and size are not only inconvenient for the user, but has also made them more expensive to ship, eating up the meager profits that manufacturers are making on these products. Combined with the soaring cost of oil, shipping of these large, heavy CRTs have led to their inevitable extinction.

What is the new technology you are talking about? Everything I've seen so far for the PC market will still have the limitation of "native resolution" dictated by the fact that they are based on a pixel system?

[lacywest]

good info

[somebodeez]

I *love* my CRT !
When DH got an LCD, I told him to hang on to the CRT he was replacing it with (it's a bit newer than mine) because when my CRT dies, I plan to use that 1 next.

[TBoneit]

At work I upgraded a 17" Trinitron to a 19" Gateway Trinitron since it was free and the Sony was getting old. Took over a minute for the Tube to warm up enough to put a image on the screen and then 4 or 5 more minutes to come to 95% brightness slowly going the rest of the way to full bright.

Only way I could was it was free. Amazing how many monitors are to landfills. The only people I get still looking for a monitor want Used for very cheap. Cheapos also want used 17" or 19" LCDs like anybody is dumping them.

At home I use a 32" lcd FOR tv + computer display. I'd not have been able to get that size into the house without a delivery charge if it was a tube type as well not being able to afford it. The LCD I could get into the car and manhandle it into the house because of weight and size.

It look OK too. Am I a purist with regard to display types? Nope. I'm a pragmatist I go with what I can afford and do rather than yearning for the impossible.

LCD drawbacks as I see it, The screen can be cracked easily compared to tube types. Pluses, Less heat into the room. Dual purpose, TV and computer. Less energy usage, I'm not worrying about being green, just paying for the electric. Will never need convergence or nor will the shadow mask get magnetized. Makes the room effectively larger.

Cheers

[Skith]

Avoid the cheaper/low end LCDs and you should be fine. Be sure to buy from a place with a good return policy. I am in the States and purchased a Samsung SyncMaster 215TW (21" widescreen) LCD from www.monitoroutlet.com - mainly because of their return policy. I paid a bit more, but was very pleased with their customer service (the monitor was out of stock at the time of order).

The color reproduction is good, better than average, but probably not as good as high-end LCDs intended for professional graphics designers. I notice no ghosting with video or games. On the gaming side, it takes a lot of muscle to run games at 1680x1050, but to be honest games look quite good at lower resolutions. I will however admit I have not run any extremely detailed games like FEAR.

One drawback to LCDs that I have not seen mentioned is they often have difficulty reproducing Black levels. CRTs are far superior in this respect and are still preferred for high-end professional color management.

If you go LCD, be sure you research any models you are interested in first, and if possible go look at them in person.

[Seeker47]

Avoid the cheaper/low end LCDs and you should be fine.
. . .
One drawback to LCDs that I have not seen mentioned is they often have difficulty reproducing Black levels. CRTs are far superior in this respect and are still preferred for high-end professional color management.
. . .
If you go LCD, be sure you research any models you are interested in first, and if possible go look at them in person.

I haven't surveyed the market for a couple years, but -- in my opinion -- it was only the few best and very expensive LCDs (read, not consumer-priced models) that began to compete with the visual quality of a really good CRT monitor. Hopefully that has been changing (?)

The best CRT monitors I've had were from Nanao and Iiyama. But one of these weighed 85 lb.s. Try hoisting that on or off your desk, if you're not a weightlifter ! I don't know if either line of CRTs still exist, but if not it would be a shame.

[FulciLives]

I forgot to mention the model of the LCD monitor that I have: it is a ViewSonic VX922

I paid $299.99 + sales tax at Christmas 2006 time.

I just checked the CompUSA website (where I bought it back in Dec '06) and the current price is only $229.99 now.

As I said I am very happy with it and for the price ... can't be beat!

I admit that it would be nice to have a 24" WS HDTV capable LCD monitor such as the Gateway FPD2485W which has a resolution of 1920x1200 and uses Faroudja DCDi processing. However I don't have the money for such a "beast" and although I'm sure it is great I'm not crazy about the 6ms response time.

Anyways such things will get better (lower response time) and be cheaper in the (near) future so ... for now I am very happy with my Viewsonic.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[Skith]

response time is not all it is cracked up to be, since there is no standard by which manufacturers measure/state the specs. In addition, to achieve ultra low response times, color accuracy is often sacrificed. It has to do with the type of panel used, and I think the cutoff is in the 6-8ms range, but I don't remember the exact details.

If you are a heavy gamer and not into things that require color accuracy, a lower cost fast response panel may be fine. Just know that an ultra low response time is not required to perform well with video and games.

[TimA-C]

Let's face it, the main reason why LCDs are being pushed on us by the manufacturer's is money. They've spent millions (probably billions) on developing LCD technology and now they want to recoup their costs. Unfortunately (for them) LCD doesn't match up with CRT quality-wise yet and there's new technology on the way that will probably kill the current LCD market stone dead. So they stop making CRT displays and force people to buy LCD. Fortunately for the manufacturers, most people assume that bigger, brighter, and thinner MUST be better. Muppets!

True but this is only part the big picture. As mentioned earlier the weight and size are not only inconvenient for the user, but has also made them more expensive to ship, eating up the meager profits that manufacturers are making on these products. Combined with the soaring cost of oil, shipping of these large, heavy CRTs have led to their inevitable extinction.

What is the new technology you are talking about? Everything I've seen so far for the PC market will still have the limitation of "native resolution" dictated by the fact that they are based on a pixel system?

SED.

[jagabo]

It looks like SED may never make it to market. Toshiba is out of the deal. Canon has no manufacturing facilities.

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36949

Nano-Proprietary must be out of their minds.

[lordsmurf]

CRT was often dingy, and it got worse with age. I have an LG 19" LCD and a Dell 24W" LCD, and they're both great. The text and images are much sharper. I had good CRTs too, but they just did not last, and the images were never as crisp as the LCD is. Color values are a bit more accurate on an LCD too. On a final note, you often saw bad CRTs, but you don't really see too many bad LCDs, in terms of image quality.

I'd have to say LCD was progress over tubes, for computing. Still not sure for video monitors (televisions vs flat screens).

[SignedupGuest]

SED sounds good... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-conduction_Electron-emitter_Displays

According to reliable wiki:

* 50,000:1 contrast ratio (dark room only). According to IGN at the 2006 CES show, Toshiba's final versions of SEDs will ship with a contrast ratio of 100,000:1.
* 1ms response time.
* Brightness of 450 cd/m2.[15].

ANYWAY... samsung is still SCREWING ME OVER AGAIN... Everytime they say they will call me back or send me a e-mail (in this case tracking number) they dont... now i need to get up early before work and walk to the place of pickup and ask them if it came in...

[TimA-C]

It looks like SED may never make it to market. Toshiba is out of the deal. Canon has no manufacturing facilities.

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36949

Nano-Proprietary must be out of their minds.

Nano-Proprietary just wants a bigger slice of the cake when SED finally hits the streets.

[Nelson37]

Pipedream "new technology" is not something I waste time on. I, and my customers, want a display today. Tomorrow, they may get another one, but we are 3 to 5 years from anything new at consumer prices.

The PC marketplace moves so fast that bringing on line new technology is a very dangerous risk. By the time production gets ramped up, very often they run out of time as the next new tech replaces it. HD-CD, anyone? Remember magnetic bubble memory? The list of these, with included companies and investors who lost millions, is very long.

Bigger, brighter, and thinner IS better, because most people think it is.

Interesting comment about the space available "behind the monitor". 180 degrees off. It is the space available IN FRONT OF the monitor that is the primary reason given by most of my customers for the switch. A 19" tube simply will not fit on most desk space without taking up too much room. A 19" or even larger LCD leaves plenty of space. As sizes pass this point, CRT just gets less and less feasible.

My 9 year old and I just moved my two large TV's. The 42" LCD was easy, and we could put it wherever we wanted, including mounting directly on the wall. The 36" tube was a major PITA, movement was very difficult, placement was limited (we could go down, but not up), and a stand which could bear the weight was a concern. Also, very few widescreen tubes available, either PC or TV. None for the PC SFAIK.

The CRT is dead. Good or bad simply does not matter, the market has chosen and they are all done. Say bye-bye.