CRT's are better than LCD's.

[rowdy]

I use LCDs, but I wish they would have gone FED or LED back then...

LCDs are great for mobile devices (watches, cameras, cellphones, etc.) but not that much for large monitors (PC/TV).

They might deliver high resolution (and sharpness), brightness, and by now also decent color accuracy and contrast, but...
None of the LCD monitors I used (Dell, Samsung, Eizo, NEC...) was able to deliver equal brightness across the screen, none!

It's a construction flaw, it's the need for backlighting as it's kinda impossible to spread the light evenly at such close distance...
The only displays combining both (sharpness/brightness/color/contrast AND evenly brightness) are OLED or LED (LED only, no LCD) based >.>

I wonder what would happen if they made an LCD display which wasn't constrained by "marketing thin"... say it had a "backlight diffuser box" 10cm thick between the backlight and the actual panel... it might provide more uniform backlighting by allowing any irregularities to be washed away.

I imagine someone would have tried that when they were experimenting with backlighting for LCDs.

But my 24" LCD doesn't seem to have irregular backlighting.  It's not that bad (or my eyesight is worse than I thought).

[Elrick]

I still have my fw900. I haven't used it in 2 years.

It had nice color.

Lucky devil, I gave mine away to my sister some years ago and I miss them terribly.  They were never that heavy as long as you don't carry them for more than 20 meters at a time.

I still have the heavy set table in which they sat on top, a real sturdy Jarrah table that is still used for supporting a couple of Dell 30inchers although a real waste, since they weigh next to nothing.

[TheSoulhunter]

I use LCDs, but I wish they would have gone FED or LED back then...

LCDs are great for mobile devices (watches, cameras, cellphones, etc.) but not that much for large monitors (PC/TV).

They might deliver high resolution (and sharpness), brightness, and by now also decent color accuracy and contrast, but...
None of the LCD monitors I used (Dell, Samsung, Eizo, NEC...) was able to deliver equal brightness across the screen, none!

It's a construction flaw, it's the need for backlighting as it's kinda impossible to spread the light evenly at such close distance...
The only displays combining both (sharpness/brightness/color/contrast AND evenly brightness) are OLED or LED (LED only, no LCD) based >.>

I wonder what would happen if they made an LCD display which wasn't constrained by "marketing thin"... say it had a "backlight diffuser box" 10cm thick between the backlight and the actual panel... it might provide more uniform backlighting by allowing any irregularities to be washed away.

Yeah, combining a thick diffuser with matrix/grid LED backlighting (instead of edge backlighting) and adding some distance should improve the situation a lot...
Only downside could be reduced brightness (and in turn also contrast) as the thicker diffuser would probably absorb much more light, but its still a interesting idea!

[microsoft windows]

I AM STILL USING MY CRT MONITOR. IT IS OVER 10 YEARS AND STILL WORKS JUST AS GOOD AS IT EVER DID. DOES ANYBODY ELSE HERE USE CRT MONITORS? EVERYBODY ON HERE SHOULD USE THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE VASTLY SUPERIOR TO LCD'S (LOUSY CRAPPY DISPLAYS).

ALSO DON'T USE ANY APPLE DISPLAYS--THEY ARE ALL PIECES OF GARBAGE.

[tp4tissue]

LCD has brighter and deeper "reds"

But that's really the only advantage.. Everything else is better on CRT.


We're very close to making an LCD that's AS GOOD as a CRT though.

All they would need is a SUPER BRIGHT backlit system to compensate for dimness of ULMB.. which is really just a matter of COST..

[microsoft windows]

LCD has brighter and deeper "reds"

But that's really the only advantage.. Everything else is better on CRT.


We're very close to making an LCD that's AS GOOD as a CRT though.

All they would need is a SUPER BRIGHT backlit system to compensate for dimness of ULMB.. which is really just a matter of COST..

REDS ARE NOT DEEPER OR BRIGHTER ON LCD'S. THEY'RE INFERIOR IN EVERY WAY!

[tp4tissue]

LCD has brighter and deeper "reds"

But that's really the only advantage.. Everything else is better on CRT.


We're very close to making an LCD that's AS GOOD as a CRT though.

All they would need is a SUPER BRIGHT backlit system to compensate for dimness of ULMB.. which is really just a matter of COST..

REDS ARE NOT DEEPER OR BRIGHTER ON LCD'S. THEY'RE INFERIOR IN EVERY WAY!

They absolutely are...

Reds on CRT look more brownish..

Whereas on LCD, they're fire-engine red.

I've tested this on numerous crts, from Old cheapos to fw900

[microsoft windows]

LCD has brighter and deeper "reds"

But that's really the only advantage.. Everything else is better on CRT.


We're very close to making an LCD that's AS GOOD as a CRT though.

All they would need is a SUPER BRIGHT backlit system to compensate for dimness of ULMB.. which is really just a matter of COST..

REDS ARE NOT DEEPER OR BRIGHTER ON LCD'S. THEY'RE INFERIOR IN EVERY WAY!

They absolutely are...

Reds on CRT look more brownish..

Whereas on LCD, they're fire-engine red.

I've tested this on numerous crts, from Old cheapos to fw900

YOU ARE WRONG!

[SamirD]

I'm a die-hard user of CRTs.  I still have several 20" CRTs that I got for free or were being thrown away in addition to the several I bought back in the day.

There's just no display that does 2048x1536 so clear for so less money.  I bought a $2200 22" LaCie professional CRT display for $100 about 10 years back when one of my Eizo 20" started having a capcitor problem.  (I have a whole crop of 17" and 20" Eizos that have done this.  I'll get them all fixed one day.) 

Professional level CRTs are superior for everything except for desk space and weight--and the only people that will worry about that are the same people that are worried about their mouse and computer looking 'pretty' and keeping up with the latest iphone trend...

[tp4tissue]

I'm a die-hard user of CRTs.  I still have several 20" CRTs that I got for free or were being thrown away in addition to the several I bought back in the day.

There's just no display that does 2048x1536 so clear for so less money.  I bought a $2200 22" LaCie professional CRT display for $100 about 10 years back when one of my Eizo 20" started having a capcitor problem.  (I have a whole crop of 17" and 20" Eizos that have done this.  I'll get them all fixed one day.) 

Professional level CRTs are superior for everything except for desk space and weight--and the only people that will worry about that are the same people that are worried about their mouse and computer looking 'pretty' and keeping up with the latest iphone trend...

They are inferior when it comes to Fire-Engine Red..

LCD does it better because there is no green shift which makes all red, slightly brown.

[fanpeople]

Tp has met his match.

[SamirD]

They are inferior when it comes to Fire-Engine Red..

LCD does it better because there is no green shift which makes all red, slightly brown.

On most CRTs, probably.  On a properly calibrated professional level CRT, I think it would be like splitting hairs.

[digi]

I'm a die-hard user of CRTs.  I still have several 20" CRTs that I got for free or were being thrown away in addition to the several I bought back in the day.

There's just no display that does 2048x1536 so clear for so less money.  I bought a $2200 22" LaCie professional CRT display for $100 about 10 years back when one of my Eizo 20" started having a capcitor problem.  (I have a whole crop of 17" and 20" Eizos that have done this.  I'll get them all fixed one day.) 

Professional level CRTs are superior for everything except for desk space and weight--and the only people that will worry about that are the same people that are worried about their mouse and computer looking 'pretty' and keeping up with the latest iphone trend...

Or people who are worried with power consumption..

[SamirD]

Or people who are worried with power consumption..

Surprisingly, that's a myth.  LCDs can take up just as much power as a CRT.  Learned that when we were looking at flat panels to upgrade crts in one of our hotels.

[digi]

Or people who are worried with power consumption..

Surprisingly, that's a myth.  LCDs can take up just as much power as an LCD.  Learned that when we were looking at flat panels to upgrade crts in one of our hotels.

No way in a size to size comparison..sorry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_CRT,_LCD,_Plasma,_and_OLED

[tp4tissue]

There's no need to argue, CRTs are not coming back


I'm just hoping they bring back laservue..

[SamirD]

Or people who are worried with power consumption..

Surprisingly, that's a myth.  LCDs can take up just as much power as an LCD.  Learned that when we were looking at flat panels to upgrade crts in one of our hotels.

No way in a size to size comparison..sorry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_CRT,_LCD,_Plasma,_and_OLED

The power spec quoted there was from an article back in 2010.  That's when the high-res lcds that did anything like 2048x1536 didn't even exist.  It only follows logic that if you increase the pixel density, power consumption will increase.  And I've seen it first hand on modern spec sheets.

CRTs aren't coming back, but they definitely are still holding their own until LCDs can do higher resolutions better.  Only medical LCDs are doing better, but at $10k a pop, a cheap/free CRT is still more bang for the buck.

[microsoft windows]

There's no need to argue, CRTs are not coming back


I'm just hoping they bring back laservue..

CRT's are coming back. You just need to get with the times and accept change.

[tp4tissue]

There's no need to argue, CRTs are not coming back


I'm just hoping they bring back laservue..

CRT's are coming back. You just need to get with the times and accept change.

MS windows,  Owner of time machines..

[SamirD]

CRT's are coming back. You just need to get with the times and accept change.

I can see this happening sometime in the far future.  Tesla made an electric car decades ago, bell bottoms were all the rage in the 1970s, 'aviator' sunglasses were normal in the 80s, and IBM Ms rules computing in the 80s.

[timofonic]

2016...

Anybody still with CRTs?

I wish I have a 2K+ one, but MultiSync and able to accept weird under 15K syncs (arcade, computer, whatever put at it).

[romevi]

2016...

Anybody still with CRTs?

I wish I have a 2K+ one, but MultiSync and able to accept weird under 15K syncs (arcade, computer, whatever put at it).

Every self-respecting retro gamer has a quality CRT.
Also, I think some people in photo/video editing still use them.

[tp4tissue]

2016...

Anybody still with CRTs?

I wish I have a 2K+ one, but MultiSync and able to accept weird under 15K syncs (arcade, computer, whatever put at it).

Every self-respecting retro gamer has a quality CRT.
Also, I think some people in photo/video editing still use them.

NO... no one is using them..  hahahahahahaha

The LCDs have come a long way. they're superior in every respect besides ghosting..

ULMB is cutting that gap though... just a bit longer, and we'll finally have a 4k IPS with ULMB

[widdlekitty]

I work in professional video. Years ago we had HD Trinitron CRTs at my office. These things were BEAUTIFUL, but my god were they big. The sets were around 40", 16x9, and they weighed somewhere in the area of 250lbs. Not really for moving around the room. We basically dropped them for two reasons, 1 no one uses CRTs any more so it was no longer a good reference for what people were using, and 2 the manufacturers no longer supported the products for replacement parts. We transitioned to prolevel LCD monitors, which are fine but lack the rich blacks and wide viewing angles of the CRTs.

OLED, though, is a great format. I can't speak directly to response rate, but the color reproduction on them can be absolutely fantastic. The rich shadows; often times resolving more detail than what you would see in a plasma or lcd display. Very wide viewing angles, too. The prices have been coming down, so hopefully it gets more popular.

[romevi]

I work in professional video. Years ago we had HD Trinitron CRTs at my office. These things were BEAUTIFUL, but my god were they big. The sets were around 40", 16x9, and they weighed somewhere in the area of 250lbs. Not really for moving around the room. We basically dropped them for two reasons, 1 no one uses CRTs any more so it was no longer a good reference for what people were using, and 2 the manufacturers no longer supported the products for replacement parts. We transitioned to prolevel LCD monitors, which are fine but lack the rich blacks and wide viewing angles of the CRTs.

OLED, though, is a great format. I can't speak directly to response rate, but the color reproduction on them can be absolutely fantastic. The rich shadows; often times resolving more detail than what you would see in a plasma or lcd display. Very wide viewing angles, too. The prices have been coming down, so hopefully it gets more popular.

Got a 32" Trinitron recently. Beautiful, but heavy as heck.

[tp4tissue]

I work in professional video. Years ago we had HD Trinitron CRTs at my office. These things were BEAUTIFUL, but my god were they big. The sets were around 40", 16x9, and they weighed somewhere in the area of 250lbs. Not really for moving around the room. We basically dropped them for two reasons, 1 no one uses CRTs any more so it was no longer a good reference for what people were using, and 2 the manufacturers no longer supported the products for replacement parts. We transitioned to prolevel LCD monitors, which are fine but lack the rich blacks and wide viewing angles of the CRTs.

OLED, though, is a great format. I can't speak directly to response rate, but the color reproduction on them can be absolutely fantastic. The rich shadows; often times resolving more detail than what you would see in a plasma or lcd display. Very wide viewing angles, too. The prices have been coming down, so hopefully it gets more popular.

OLED is no good for video at the moment.

It's not bright enough to be pulsed for blank frames during color transition.


This is going to take them years and years and years ..

Meanwhile,  Regular LCDs  has the problem completely licked because you can pulse a backlight easily,....
 

The only hindrance at this point is cost.. to build back lighting systems that can sustain such abuse.

[widdlekitty]

OLED is no good for video at the moment.

It's not bright enough to be pulsed for blank frames during color transition.


This is going to take them years and years and years ..

Meanwhile,  Regular LCDs  has the problem completely licked because you can pulse a backlight easily,....
 

The only hindrance at this point is cost.. to build back lighting systems that can sustain such abuse.

This is the first time I'm hearing this. There's quite a few professional OLED monitors on the market. I personally have worked on a Sony Trimaster panel for the past year and a half or so. Since making the change, I can't see myself going back to an LCD Panel.

[tp4tissue]

OLED is no good for video at the moment.

It's not bright enough to be pulsed for blank frames during color transition.


This is going to take them years and years and years ..

Meanwhile,  Regular LCDs  has the problem completely licked because you can pulse a backlight easily,....
 

The only hindrance at this point is cost.. to build back lighting systems that can sustain such abuse.

This is the first time I'm hearing this. There's quite a few professional OLED monitors on the market. I personally have worked on a Sony Trimaster panel for the past year and a half or so. Since making the change, I can't see myself going back to an LCD Panel.

Professional yea,  but still not good for motion video.

The reason is,  Oled doesn't produce alot of light.  so if they blinked it during pixel transitions,  the panel would be way too dark..

The reason blinking is necessary is because during the transition that pixel is the WRONG color.

So, that's what motion blur and lcd ghosting come from..  these two anomalies are different visually,  but they occur for the same reason.

[widdlekitty]

OLED is no good for video at the moment.

It's not bright enough to be pulsed for blank frames during color transition.


This is going to take them years and years and years ..

Meanwhile,  Regular LCDs  has the problem completely licked because you can pulse a backlight easily,....
 

The only hindrance at this point is cost.. to build back lighting systems that can sustain such abuse.

This is the first time I'm hearing this. There's quite a few professional OLED monitors on the market. I personally have worked on a Sony Trimaster panel for the past year and a half or so. Since making the change, I can't see myself going back to an LCD Panel.

Professional yea,  but still not good for motion video.

The reason is,  Oled doesn't produce alot of light.  so if they blinked it during pixel transitions,  the panel would be way too dark..

The reason blinking is necessary is because during the transition that pixel is the WRONG color.

So, that's what motion blur and lcd ghosting come from..  these two anomalies are different visually,  but they occur for the same reason.

Do you have any literature you can link me to that references this problem? I can't find anything via my own web searching.

[tp4tissue]

Do you have any literature you can link me to that references this problem? I can't find anything via my own web searching.

Do you play computer games at all?

hahaha.. I'm surprised you're not familiar with this being a geekhack member.

The feature is called ULMB

Check out blurbuster for info.

But very basically, when you turn off the backlight on an LCD, it goes dark, the pixel completes its transition during this dark period, then when it's the right color, the backlight turns back on.

This process essentially turns all the wrong color frames into blank frames..

It requires a higher pixel transition / response rate , at least 100hz..

This was only possible for a while on TN panels,  IPS is getting there.. and finally perhaps in the future, OLED will get there too.

[tp4tissue]

I think the technical hangup you're having is, 

there is a difference between  Video Editing,   and playing Video content.

The professional monitors are designed for color accuracy/reproduction.. that's needed by editors.


But when it comes to Watching the movie by end users,  those same panels are inferior for motion playback compared to ULMB capable monitors.

[widdlekitty]

Do you have any literature you can link me to that references this problem? I can't find anything via my own web searching.

Do you play computer games at all?

hahaha.. I'm surprised you're not familiar with this being a geekhack member.

The feature is called ULMB

Check out blurbuster for info.

But very basically, when you turn off the backlight on an LCD, it goes dark, the pixel completes its transition during this dark period, then when it's the right color, the backlight turns back on.

This process essentially turns all the wrong color frames into blank frames..

It requires a higher pixel transition / response rate , at least 100hz..

This was only possible for a while on TN panels,  IPS is getting there.. and finally perhaps in the future, OLED will get there too.

I think we're both talking about two different things. Sorry, I'm specifically referencing broadcast television monitors, where the refresh rate is either 48hz or 60hz in order to match the frame rate of the original source video (generally 24, 30fps). I could see how this could be a problem for things that require something faster (like computer games).

[tp4tissue]

Do you have any literature you can link me to that references this problem? I can't find anything via my own web searching.

Do you play computer games at all?

hahaha.. I'm surprised you're not familiar with this being a geekhack member.

The feature is called ULMB

Check out blurbuster for info.

But very basically, when you turn off the backlight on an LCD, it goes dark, the pixel completes its transition during this dark period, then when it's the right color, the backlight turns back on.

This process essentially turns all the wrong color frames into blank frames..

It requires a higher pixel transition / response rate , at least 100hz..

This was only possible for a while on TN panels,  IPS is getting there.. and finally perhaps in the future, OLED will get there too.

I think we're both talking about two different things. Sorry, I'm specifically referencing broadcast television monitors, where the refresh rate is either 48hz or 60hz in order to match the frame rate of the original source video (generally 24, 30fps). I could see how this could be a problem for things that require something faster (like computer games).

Well, for movies.. we have 120hz ULMB which evenly divides 24fps and 30fps..

The trouble right now is getting there with IPS panels.


You should give ULMB a go. it's hard to explain, but whenever things are in motion.. ULMB makes a huge difference..  even for 24fps / 30fps material..

[rowdy]

The only CRT I still ise is the one in my terminal. I have been seduced by LCDs for everything else.

[iLLucionist]

CRT's in all respects except for their sheer size.

When I go out buying stuff, I am willing to pay large sums of money for products that I consider perfect. For example my Realforce 87UB comes close (enough). So does my Avior 7000.

But LCD's? Don't get me started. It's compromise all over the place:
- backlight uniformity almost impossible with 2015/2016 monitors for 27"-32"
- backlight bleed? still there
- backlight tint (gradient from white to blueish or yellowish tint)? still there
- VA-panels with grey shift and banding
- PWM? Still there, although less. Yes, I know CRT's have Hz refresh rate, but I found that less annoying than PWM on some of the LCD's.
- Black levels? IPS sucks, VA great but then grey shift and banding.

CRT's, especially DiamondTron's, were perfect in my opinion: great colour depth, good black levels, very sharp (I believe even sharper than some of the LCD's).

I miss them but I wouldn't go back. But the state of 2015/2016 LCD's is worrying me. It's going backwards.

[rowdy]

CRTs also use more power than LCDs (especially LED LCDs).

CRTs also generate much more heat than LCDs.

[tp4tissue]

CRT's in all respects except for their sheer size.

When I go out buying stuff, I am willing to pay large sums of money for products that I consider perfect. For example my Realforce 87UB comes close (enough). So does my Avior 7000.

But LCD's? Don't get me started. It's compromise all over the place:
- backlight uniformity almost impossible with 2015/2016 monitors for 27"-32"
- backlight bleed? still there
- backlight tint (gradient from white to blueish or yellowish tint)? still there
- VA-panels with grey shift and banding
- PWM? Still there, although less. Yes, I know CRT's have Hz refresh rate, but I found that less annoying than PWM on some of the LCD's.
- Black levels? IPS sucks, VA great but then grey shift and banding.

CRT's, especially DiamondTron's, were perfect in my opinion: great colour depth, good black levels, very sharp (I believe even sharper than some of the LCD's).

I miss them but I wouldn't go back. But the state of 2015/2016 LCD's is worrying me. It's going backwards.

CRTs could not produce the vibrant firetruck REDS that is possible with LCD..

[Coreda]

CRTs used to always give me headaches, so LCDs won out personally.

[tp4tissue]

CRTs used to always give me headaches, so LCDs won out personally.

85 hz on crt is the non-flashy point..

LCDs don't flash, but due to ULMB, it turns out Flashing is necessary,  so we need to flash LCDs now at 100+ hz.. 

[iLLucionist]

CRTs used to always give me headaches, so LCDs won out personally.

85 hz on crt is the non-flashy point..

LCDs don't flash, but due to ULMB, it turns out Flashing is necessary,  so we need to flash LCDs now at 100+ hz..

But non-PWM monitors don't flash amiright? Or is some sort of flashing inherent to the LCD tech? Anyway, my Iiyama's were between 100-120 hz and that felt better than most LCDs

[Christoffer87]

I truely agree with you buddy!

[tp4tissue]

CRTs used to always give me headaches, so LCDs won out personally.

85 hz on crt is the non-flashy point..

LCDs don't flash, but due to ULMB, it turns out Flashing is necessary,  so we need to flash LCDs now at 100+ hz..

But non-PWM monitors don't flash amiright? Or is some sort of flashing inherent to the LCD tech? Anyway, my Iiyama's were between 100-120 hz and that felt better than most LCDs

CCR does not flicker

PWM flickers.


BUT..... the issue is actually not as pervasive, because MOST people do not see the flicker of PWM monitors.

It depends on what rate the pulse is being pulsed at..

@ 120hz, it's not really perceptible.. on moving images.. 

__in fact, the ULMB operates by pulsing, and it Clears up the moving image by going dark during the lcd transition states where the color is WRONG, removing ghosting and pixel transition blur..

@ below 100hz,  the pulsing is a bit more obvious,  and cannot be utilized for ULMB.


ULMB is necessary for clear motion clarity..



For office work, ULMB is not necessary, therefore, if you turn the monitor backlight all the way up , the pwm stops..  In this way, the monitor can perform double duty..



But VERY FEW people see flicker of PWM,  it's those same silly people who says OMG my keycap is slightly bent, who are championing anti-pwm monitor..


IF YOU didn't even know what PWM was,   odds are you're not someone who is susceptible to pwm-flicker,  because assuming you've encountered computer monitors in your life prior to your new purchase and didn't notice flicker,  you're in the clear.

[digi]

CRT's are for try-hard CS players and underground Smash Bro's tournaments.

[tp4tissue]

CRT's are for try-hard CS players and underground Smash Bro's tournaments.

I think it does make a difference for CS,  because it's near instantaneous.. The best LCD is still like 30ms behind any CRT.


But at the pro level, they aught to be training on LCDs because that's what they use at all the tournaments..

[microsoft windows]

I still use a CRT monitor and I wouldn't trade it for some ****ty flat panel any day!

[romevi]

I still use a CRT monitor and I wouldn't trade it for some ****ty flat panel any day!

Do you have a Diamandtron? I want to get one.

[microsoft windows]

I still use a CRT monitor and I wouldn't trade it for some ****ty flat panel any day!

Do you have a Diamandtron? I want to get one.

I HAVE A DELL MONITOR FROM 1999 THAT I USE ON MY MAIN COMPUTER. I ALSO HAVE A FEW TRINITRONS, A COMPAQ MONITOR, AND SOME CRTS IN MY APPLE COMPUTERS FROM THE 1980S.

[typo]

Now I have the Eizo Prominence. Tell me "any" CRT is better. I had all the highest end crt's. At this point a $6,000 lcd can walk all over them. A $100 Dell still cannot. Remember those crt's were also 6 grand once. Technology progresses. My TOTL OLED TV will walk all over a crt and I would like to see a 105" crt lol. Other older technologies like rear projection cannot hold a candle to it either.

[romevi]

Picked up a Samtron (Samsung's budget brand) 77V yesterday. Seems brand new. Going to test it out tonight. 

Now I have the Eizo Prominence. Tell me "any" CRT is better. I had all the highest end crt's. At this point a $6,000 lcd can walk all over them. A $100 Dell still cannot. Remember those crt's were also 6 grand once. Technology progresses. My TOTL OLED TV will walk all over a crt and I would like to see a 105" crt lol. Other older technologies like rear projection cannot hold a candle to it either.

Where do you pick up something like this? University?

[tp4tissue]

Crt will still beat LCD for Dark scenes by a very wide margin.  But definitely not for bright scenes.