CRT's are better than LCD's.

[microsoft windows]

Or are they not? Dish the dirt here.

[didjamatic]

Desk space, Power consumption, weird pincushion crap, waiting for the thing to resume from standby = all CRT's lose

Some CRT's have very good picture, but so do high end LCD's.  In the end, LCD's win.  Thank you for calling.

[didjamatic]

You can't piss your friend off by holding a hard drive magnet up to his LCD, leaving a big blob of discolored annoyance.  That only works on CRT's.

[gr1m]

I'll post the same thing I posted in the other thread:

It's been argued to death enough. When LCD technology was new, it was horrible because like all new things, they need to mature to become viable. What was the first CRT? One of those black and white TVs from the 1900s? If you compare one of those 1900s CRTs to my current LG 24" 1080p LCD monitor, of course it will look horrible. But now, with how much LCD technology has advanced, the only real advantage that the best CRT has over the best LCD is the refresh rate, and even then LCDs are now moving into the 120Hz range because you have to keep in mind that it's still a new technology that has not had as much time as CRTs to develop.

[ch_123]

You can't piss your friend off by holding a hard drive magnet up to his LCD, leaving a big blob of discolored annoyance.  That only works on CRT's.

Don't forget degaussing your monitor in a tightly packed school computer lab, causing the people next to you no end of confusion when it also affected their monitor.

Negatives points for anyone who took the thread seriously.

[maxlugar]

Or are they not? Dish the dirt here.

Don't forget about plasma displays

[ch_123]

Plasmas are pretty **** in fairness. Life expectancy isn't great.

[keyb_gr]

Plasmas are pretty **** in fairness. Life expectancy isn't great.

Dunno 'bout that, they do seem to hold up reasonably well. They're not good for high pixel densities though, efficiency goes down the drain then. Not a bad option if you want a screen area as big as possible though.

Re: thread title, the good ol' plural still does not require an apostrophe. Those little buggers must be breeding like rabbits nowadays. (Could be worse though - the use of accents instead of an apostrophe where none belongs has spawned whole campaigns over here.)

[ch_123]

Maybe it's older ones, but they used to fade out after a few years.

AFAIK, LCDs are more popular for TVs these days.

Have there been many plasma computer monitors? (modern ones, not the ancient ones used in 80s flatscreens)

[microsoft windows]

Dunno 'bout that, they do seem to hold up reasonably well. They're not good for high pixel densities though, efficiency goes down the drain then. Not a bad option if you want a screen area as big as possible though.

Re: thread title, the good ol' plural still does not require an apostrophe. Those little buggers must be breeding like rabbits nowadays. (Could be worse though - the use of accents instead of an apostrophe where none belongs has spawned whole campaigns over here.)

You're German so I bet you use an accent too.

[gr1m]

Have there been many plasma computer monitors? (modern ones, not the ancient ones used in 80s flatscreens)

I can't believe they would be too popular because of the image burn-in thing. The start menu/taskbar for one would burn into the monitor.

[Infinite north]

I picked up a mint condition sony GDM FW900 for 50 bucks last week. past the 90+ pounds and heat it puts out it has to be the best monitor I have ever used on a daily basis.

I am not trying to add fire to the flames so I will throw in that it will be obsolete in a few years unless I want to run it through a hand full of converters.

[microsoft windows]

Not if you used a screen saver.

[EverythingIBM]

I'll post the same thing I posted in the other thread:

It's been argued to death enough. When LCD technology was new, it was horrible because like all new things, they need to mature to become viable. What was the first CRT? One of those black and white TVs from the 1900s? If you compare one of those 1900s CRTs to my current LG 24" 1080p LCD monitor, of course it will look horrible. But now, with how much LCD technology has advanced, the only real advantage that the best CRT has over the best LCD is the refresh rate, and even then LCDs are now moving into the 120Hz range because you have to keep in mind that it's still a new technology that has not had as much time as CRTs to develop.

LCDs can *never* become on par with CRTs in regards to resolution changing
(which is why my dedicated old CRTs are hooked up to win98 computers). LCDs have such horrid artifacts when you change a resolution.
However, before someone comes out with the stake & flames, I do love LCDs in native resolutions (if they don't have line issues like cheapo dell); if LCDs could change resolutions without artifacts, I'd choose them over CRTs any day. I use LCDs on my main computers *always* running in the native resolutions.
And if the backlight burns out, you can always replace it. If I had a crazy scientist's lab, I'd build a specialized long incadescent bulb for my thinkpad's LCD.

Don't forget about plasma displays

Plasma TVs have better contrast than LCD. Uh oh, I opened up a can of worms (better tell those worms to sliver back whence they came).
With the exception of screen burn (I guess people shouldn't hit "pause" so much on their porno movies), a good new plasma TV is way better than LCD.

[chimera15]

I got a 21 inch crt from a thrift store for $20.  CRT wins. lol   The thing is huge, and weighs a ton, but I figure when I move I trash it and I'm out $20. lol  A crt this size woulda been well over $1000 5-10 years ago.  For now I use it occasionally to increase my workflow.  Mostly I'm using my 1080p hd lcd that I got for around $100 though right now for what I was using it for since it's about the same overall size.  The crt still wins in some occasions because of it's 4:3 aspect ratio.



http://cgi.ebay.com/Sony-GDM-FW900-Flat-Widescreen-24-FD-Trinitron-CRT-Mon-/170486202736?cmd=ViewItem&pt=Computer_Monitors&hash=item27b1c50170

 Wow didn't know they made widescreen crts. lol


Looks like I got a pretty good deal.  They may still go for around $50-100 on ebay.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Sun-Microsystems-GDM-5010PT-21-inch-CRT-Monitor-/250655844780?cmd=ViewItem&pt=Computer_Monitors&hash=item3a5c40a9ac

[D-EJ915]

haha yeah you did, that's the best PC CRT ever made.  Those things were like $3k+ new

[Infinite north]

http://cgi.ebay.com/Sony-GDM-FW900-Flat-Widescreen-24-FD-Trinitron-CRT-Mon-/170486202736?cmd=ViewItem&pt=Computer_Monitors&hash=item27b1c50170

This is what I picked up. they retailed for $2500 when they came out.

[chimera15]

haha yeah you did, that's the best PC CRT ever made.  Those things were like $3k+ new

It wasn't that one.  I was still editing my post. I looked up the stats on mine, it's only 21 inch, it's still huge though.  It's an NEC multisync xe21.

[n3rrd]

And if the backlight burns out, you can always replace it. If I had a crazy scientist's lab, I'd build a specialized long incadescent bulb for my thinkpad's LCD.

You could always look into using LEDs as a replacement for the cathode tube... less crazy scientisty.  There are various examples around the 'net.

[Manyak]

I own a Dell 3008WFP, arguably the best consumer-affordable LCD on the market. And I also own three Sony GDM-FW900's, some of the best progressive scan CRTs ever made. And I can tell you this from now: The CRTs have a better picture than this LCD. They take more effort to own because of the million different things you have to adjust to get a perfect picture, but after all's said and done even this IPS panel doesn't match up. Overall it's close enough for me to use it as my center monitor, it's immensely large size being it's biggest selling point. But comparing ONLY the quality of the picture displayed, the CRTs still win. And I still use the CRTs for doing any sort of graphic work, watching videos, or playing games.

I actually attempted replacing the three CRTs with LCDs - I used this Dell monitor as the center one, and two TN panels for the secondary ones. The IPS panel was good enough, but the side monitors were just terrible.

Just keep in mind that if your own LCD vs CRT experience is based off of cheap-ass shadow-mask CRTs, then any but the worst LCDs will be better. No argument there. But if you can get your hands on a nice Trinitron or Diamondtron display (aperture-grille) CRT, don't pass the chance up.

CRTs:
+ Better refresh rates (LCD response times are more like 20ms+, not the 2ms or whatever crap that is advertised, and even 60Hz can't be properly displayed)
+ No ghosting
+ Better real contrast ratios
+ Zero lag
+ Better color accuracy
+ Blacker Blacks
+ Can run at lower resolutions without looking stupid
+ No discoloration with off-angle viewing
+ Most problems can be repaired easily, instead of having to throw it out to buy a new one
+ Requires less time to "warm up" (about 30 mins on CRTs, 1hr on LCDs)
= Heavy (moot point, because it's not like you're going to carry it around everywhere)
= Need to take time to adjust the image position and geometry for every resolution/refresh rate combo you want to use (moot point, because you only do this once)
- Needs space for it's ass
- Requires calibration every few years to keep the picture as good as possible
- Usually not as bright, therefore ambient light has a greater effect on perceived contrast

[EverythingIBM]

I had a Sony Trinitron and don't miss the eyestrain one bit.  Just calibrate your LCD properly with a Xrite Eye-One and join the 21st century.  My assumption is Microsoft Windows is B.C. but most of you are A.D.

Heh, you're the kind of guy who is more into tools than art & computer displays. So you wouldn't even notice if an LCD got smudy when changing a resolution to play a classic game. Unlike many of the individuals here, I still enjoy many of the old games (NES: mario, SEGA: sonic, DOS: doom) etc etc etc. To play them, you want the best screen with least artifacts as possible.

If you have eyestrain, get glasses or new corneas. Big baby. So you get eyestrain, but the artifacts on LCDs don't bother you in lower resolutions? Uh huh. And in all theory, those HORRID fluorescent bulbs in LCDs should also irritate your eyes if a mere CRT does. With that said LCDs still are worse for my eyes than CRTs -- flickering is nothing compared to excited mercury emitting odd wavelenghts of light & toxic fumes. But with a matte screen and lower brightness settings, it is tolerable.

During our family "retreat" yesterday, I seen possibly one of the biggest CRT TVs ever. It was a MASSIVE sony trinitron TV (easily over 30"). Surprisingly it never had a bad ring to it (I'm sensitive towards CRT ringing), and the picture was pretty good -- it's probably a few years old now. I was just wondering if it could support a higher resolution, it was running in a fairly low one.
But there is NO WAY I would ever buy (or take for free) one of those. If I can't carry it by myself, it's a no-no.

[NamelessPFG]

CRTs have the edge in color reproduction, black levels (assuming it's not one of those FD Trinitrons with the G2 voltage way too high), refresh rates (being able to actually see a game run at 95-160 FPS is great, rather than being bottlenecked to 60 FPS because the monitor can't physically display anything faster), native resolution scaling (they don't HAVE a native resolution), viewing angles (important for TrackIR use or just showing other people what's on the screen), and price-to-performance (I got a Dell P1110 locally for $6, though I'd almost kill for one of the Sony GDM-FW900s or their ilk even at $50).

LCDs have the edge in not needing to fiddle so much with geometry and convergence (it's especially irritating to see colored edges because the convergence is off), size (don't need a deep desk), power consumption (though the gap supposedly isn't as large as it's made out to be), and for the rich artists, there's the Wacom Cintiq (whose digitizer technology simply cannot work with a CRT). Either refresh rate or color reproduction and viewing angles can approach high-end CRT levels of quality, but it will NOT come cheap.

I'm using the P1110 (21" FD Trinitron) for as long as I can at the moment. Works great most of the time, but it needs some color calibration and some hardware work to keep it from losing focus every now and then. Maybe when I can pinch enough pennies for something like the 3008WFP-HC (S-IPS or especially H-IPS, 2560x1600), I'll make the switch.

Oh, and I could use a Sony PVM for running most of my classic consoles in RGB-the way they were intended to be viewed. Too bad I can't seem to find any around here.

[EverythingIBM]

CRTs have the edge in color reproduction, black levels (assuming it's not one of those FD Trinitrons with the G2 voltage way too high), refresh rates (being able to actually see a game run at 95-160 FPS is great, rather than being bottlenecked to 60 FPS because the monitor can't physically display anything faster), native resolution scaling (they don't HAVE a native resolution), viewing angles (important for TrackIR use or just showing other people what's on the screen), and price-to-performance (I got a Dell P1110 locally for $6, though I'd almost kill for one of the Sony GDM-FW900s or their ilk even at $50).

LCDs have the edge in not needing to fiddle so much with geometry and convergence (it's especially irritating to see colored edges because the convergence is off), size (don't need a deep desk), power consumption (though the gap supposedly isn't as large as it's made out to be), and for the rich artists, there's the Wacom Cintiq (whose digitizer technology simply cannot work with a CRT). Either refresh rate or color reproduction and viewing angles can approach high-end CRT levels of quality, but it will NOT come cheap.

I'm using the P1110 (21" FD Trinitron) for as long as I can at the moment. Works great most of the time, but it needs some color calibration and some hardware work to keep it from losing focus every now and then. Maybe when I can pinch enough pennies for something like the 3008WFP-HC (S-IPS or especially H-IPS, 2560x1600), I'll make the switch.

Oh, and I could use a Sony PVM for running most of my classic consoles in RGB-the way they were intended to be viewed. Too bad I can't seem to find any around here.

The games I like are not only console, but PC DOS and windows 9x. And NINTENDO. mama mia, pizza timea! Luigi, makea the pizza piea!

You could search around for other CRTs, IBM has some nice ones... they don't all have to be sony (frankly, the silver plastic disgusts me; plain black or beige please).

Hey, it's the Mini Me version of Microsoft Windows!

Show Image

Hello Mr. Ripmon. Who were you expecting, ch_123?

I actually own a good LCD, unlike the many non-IBM ones around here which have glossy screens & ultra high contrast that makes your eyes bleed.

[ch_123]

haha yeah you did, that's the best PC CRT ever made.  Those things were like $3k+ new

Any Sun CRTs I've encountered were horrible things. Then again, they might have been lower end monitors...

Hello Mr. Ripmon. Who were you expecting, ch_123?

[Youtube]A9ol1qLyYwE[/YoUtUbE]

[Mercen_505]

I love a good CRT, but finding one these days is a crap shoot.

After all those years of staring at CRTs, LCD monitors give me a significant amount of eye strain.

[firestorm]

When it comes to high end displays, the only downfall I really see with LCDs is the fixed resolution, as already mentioned.  Even then, the built in scalers are getting better and better.  LCD TN panels are limited by their 6 bit color depth, but again the dithering used to make up for that deficiency have been getting better as well, to the point that I find them very usable for general usage.

I happen to be a fan of plasma TVs, having a Panasonic TH-50PZ80U at home.  Being that they are phosphor based, like CRT, they have many of the same advantages.  Being fixed pixel, they have many of the same advantages (and disadvantages) that LCDs have.  And newer plasmas are hardly susceptible to screen burn anymore - I haven't seen even a hint of it on ours.  Generally speaking, they're no more prone to image burn than CRT - as with CRT, some are better than others in this regard.

[spolia optima]

I used to praise CRT over LCD... and then I got my dual Dell IPS panels
I will never buy a CRT again.

Oh, the FW900 is excluded because it is a f**cking epic display.

[wellington1869]

in ny people leave perfectly working CRT's on the sidewalk cuz no one wants them. Same with CRT tv's.  My friend was trying to sell his 35" CRT tv on craigslist and finally dropped the price to FREE and still no one came.

[gr1m]

People say that CRTs' average size and weight is just one disadvantage compared to LCDs but don't consider how big of a disadvantage size and weight really is. I'm sure a 24" CRT would reduce my current desk to a pile of matchsticks.

[Manyak]

I love a good CRT, but finding one these days is a crap shoot.

After all those years of staring at CRTs, LCD monitors give me a significant amount of eye strain.

lol, me too. I've adjusted to IPS panels, but I just can't do TN panels for the life of me. When using a bigger screen the image is never uniform because even when sitting directly in front of it, the angle between your eyes and the edges differ enough to make it non-uniform. And of course, there's the ... i forget the term for this ... but it's where all the dark colors kind of blend in together and lose contrast. And on some screens even the light colors do it too.

And with games, I still can't even do IPS.

When it comes to high end displays, the only downfall I really see with LCDs is the fixed resolution, as already mentioned.  Even then, the built in scalers are getting better and better.  LCD TN panels are limited by their 6 bit color depth, but again the dithering used to make up for that deficiency have been getting better as well, to the point that I find them very usable for general usage.

I happen to be a fan of plasma TVs, having a Panasonic TH-50PZ80U at home.  Being that they are phosphor based, like CRT, they have many of the same advantages.  Being fixed pixel, they have many of the same advantages (and disadvantages) that LCDs have.  And newer plasmas are hardly susceptible to screen burn anymore - I haven't seen even a hint of it on ours.  Generally speaking, they're no more prone to image burn than CRT - as with CRT, some are better than others in this regard.

I'm a fan of Plasma TVs too. The lifespan and burn-in problems have been pretty much done away with now. Yeah the old ones suck, but the new ones do match up to LCDs in those aspects - you only have to worry about image retention for the first month or so, after that you can even leave a game paused all day and it'll only take 2 mins for the retention to disappear. And of course, the picture quality is just plain awesome in comparison.

The only situations where LCDs are better than plasmas (for TVs of course) are 1) when all you want is a small screen for your kitchen or bathroom or whatever, and 2) when you're going to be watching it primarily when there's a lot of sunlight.

in ny people leave perfectly working CRT's on the sidewalk cuz no one wants them. Same with CRT tv's.  My friend was trying to sell his 35" CRT tv on craigslist and finally dropped the price to FREE and still no one came.

CRT TVs and monitors are two completely different ballgames. The sub-pixels on a CRT TV are arranged to give optimal quality to interlaced images, not progressive scan images. And only at 480i. If you wanted a 35" progressive scan CRT that could do 1080p, it would have to be about 10 feet deep. In other words, it would need a room on it's own.

In short: CRT TVs suck for anything except either watching old TV shows (like I Love Lucy) or playing old video games (who's graphics become better with interlacing).