CRT is still better than LCD for visual quality.

[Unfettered]

CRT being as old as it is, is still superior to LCD technology. Faster response times, superior color gamut, no motion blur, no pixilation, superior contrast, and so on and so on. The ONLY advantages to LCD over a CRT is weight, and thickness, and this is just NOT a good reason for the masses to have destroyed the CRT market.

One of the major manufacturers needs to produce at least one model of CRT for PC display purposes that is still affordable. Based on my readings on the web I've found that the medical field, military, commercial aviation, Hollywood graphic production and other media production/editing entities ALL still use CRT monitors because they have not been surpassed by any new technology. However this said they pay high prices for these monitors, as they are not produced in great numbers.

I just want to post about this topic on a forum with amazing patrons such as Guru3D because I know that the discussion will be far more pertinent than elsewhere.

My suggestion is that people discuss the matter and hopefully one of the major manufacturers will take notice (probably a pipe dream I know).

I personally am willing to buy a high resolution CRT with around 20-22 inch viewable in a major way. My last monitor being the http://ap.viewsonic.com/my/products/...ecs.php?id=266 ruined me for life. It unfortunately died out after years of use and I've been forced to buy a horrible LCD.

Also, any discussion on new but non-consumer market technologies such as FED, or SED would be great. Personally I REALLY REALLY hope they bring FED to market in a few years.

[nicugoalkeper]

I agree +++ !
I still use my SyncMaster 793df as my primary monitor !
Even if i can use My LG 450ld , as primary i only use it for movies !!
Call me crazy but i like my CRT , more then LCD at quality !
Don't believe me will post screens !

[Saad]

I agree regarding the quality..but there just isnt enough space on my desk for a crt..that too a 23inch...im happy with the dell 23inch led i just bought..yeah its not as good as my last crt (years ago), its still pretty close and doesnt strain my eyes or make those high pitched whines..

[suture]

There are 24'' lcds out there with a special mode "0 input lag" (not response time, input lag!!) for gaming.
A friend of mine has one, dont remember the model (i think its a Asus tough..) besides the lag problem i dont really see any advantage of using a CRT :\

[Svein_Skogen]

Originally Posted by suture

There are 24'' lcds out there with a special mode "0 input lag" (not response time, input lag!!) for gaming.
A friend of mine has one, dont remember the model (i think its a Asus tough..) besides the lag problem i dont really see any advantage of using a CRT :\

You're falling for marketing spin. Stop trusting glossyness over facts.

//Svein

[suture]

Originally Posted by Svein_Skogen

You're falling for marketing spin. Stop trusting glossyness over facts.

//Svein

Na not really, they have responsive monitors outhere
They are more expensive than usual ofc :\
My friend have the LG w2363d


full review (they also did input lag test)
http://www.flatpanelshd.com/review.p...&id=1280136712

input lag test
http://3dvision-blog.com/a-little-ab...z-lcd-monitor/

Its really a nice gaming piece

[Mikcannon]

I prefer the CRT but I could not get the 1920x180 that every game and movie is using today. Maybe in the future .... ????

[Mannerheim]

I woud love to get Sony 24" wide crt as new one... sony gdm-fw900 24" 2304x1440 16:10 CRT


But its impossible.... damn.

[Chillin]

Well buddy, I can tell you that you are 100% wrong when it comes to the military. The military only purchases LCD screens these days, the weight and size advantages alone are worth it.

In the medical community, the purchase LCD's made by Ezio and the like.

CRT being as old as it is, is still superior to LCD technology. Faster response times, superior color gamut, no motion blur, no pixilation, superior contrast, and so on and so on. The ONLY advantages to LCD over a CRT is weight, and thickness, and this is just NOT a good reason for the masses to have destroyed the CRT market.

• Response times on modern LCD's are less than 2ms, or imperceptible.
  
• The are professional LCD screens that do the entire RGB, etc, color gamuts.
  
• Again, motion blur is subjective. I dare you to find blur on the 120mhz, 2ms LCD screens.
  
• LCDs have also surpassed CRTs in contrast thanks to the advent of LED
  backlighting which lets the LCD turn off portions of the lighting for the screen giving it a 100% true black.
  
• Pixilation is again subject. With very small dot pitches that can nearly match a CRT, this point is null.

And here are some advantages to LED LCD screens:

• Much lower power usage
  
• Much smaller size
  
• Less heat
  
• Terrific blacks
  
• Easier on the eyes (less flickering)
  
• Easier to produce

I think people place too much value on nostalgia.

[Renegade8100]

Originally Posted by Chillin

Well buddy, I can tell you that you are 100% wrong when it comes to the military. The military only purchases LCD screens these days, the weight and size advantages alone are worth it.

In the medical community, the purchase LCD's made by Ezio and the like.

• Response times on modern LCD's are less than 2ms, or imperceptible.
  
• The are professional LCD screens that do the entire RGB, etc, color gamuts.
  
• Again, motion blur is subjective. I dare you to find blur on the 120mhz, 2ms LCD screens.
  
• LCDs have also surpassed CRTs in contrast thanks to the advent of LED
  backlighting which lets the LCD turn off portions of the lighting for the screen giving it a 100% true black.
  
• Pixilation is again subject. With very small dot pitches that can nearly match a CRT, this point is null.

And here are some advantages to LED LCD screens:

• Much lower power usage
  
• Much smaller size
  
• Less heat
  
• Terrific blacks
  
• Easier on the eyes (less flickering)
  
• Easier to produce

I think people place too much value on nostalgia.

excellent post

[UnclePappi]

Originally Posted by Chillin

Well buddy, I can tell you that you are 100% wrong when it comes to the military. The military only purchases LCD screens these days, the weight and size advantages alone are worth it.

In the medical community, the purchase LCD's made by Ezio and the like.

• Response times on modern LCD's are less than 2ms, or imperceptible.
  
• The are professional LCD screens that do the entire RGB, etc, color gamuts.
  
• Again, motion blur is subjective. I dare you to find blur on the 120mhz, 2ms LCD screens.
  
• LCDs have also surpassed CRTs in contrast thanks to the advent of LED
  backlighting which lets the LCD turn off portions of the lighting for the screen giving it a 100% true black.
  
• Pixilation is again subject. With very small dot pitches that can nearly match a CRT, this point is null.

And here are some advantages to LED LCD screens:

• Much lower power usage
  
• Much smaller size
  
• Less heat
  
• Terrific blacks
  
• Easier on the eyes (less flickering)
  
• Easier to produce

I think people place too much value on nostalgia.

That is only with *LOCAL DIMMING* LED which alot of makers have phased out due to high cost. Most LED are just back lights like CCFL. Yes local dimming have surpassed CRT in contrast or equaled but they have not surpassed plasma in contrast. My panasonic VT25 has the best contrast of any TV on the market.. even the local dimming LED sets.

Just wanted to state this is ANSI contrast we're talking about.. as plasma and CRT are still better in dynamic contrast

[ScaryClown]

I dont know why but the moment i replaced my old LG CRT monitor with Phillips 19"LCD i emmediately noticed how the colors looked more satirated and overal picture quality was better!!!
Today im using Samsung 22' LCD and when ever i wisit my friend who still uses old 19" samsung CRT i get reminded how bad picture was on CRT moitors.
Im glad we went to LCD....

[DesGaizu]

I would of agreed with you up until I got my new monitor Acer HN274H

Response time is 2ms with no blurring or colour bleeding (my old samsung had a option for 2ms but If I used it I had major blurring)

Colours and contrast is awesome led backlight really does help.

120hz finally gives me a proper crt feel.

No heat even when its on 24/7 and less power usage.

Looks much better than my old beige crt.

Oh and less eye cancer :3

[Pill Monster]

I have a pair of 21" Sony Trinitron G520's and I wouldn't trade them for any LCD screen.
I love them so much that I went out and bought my second one just last week.
The G520 is the little brother to the FW900, basically they're the best CRT monitor you can buy...the I.Q. is just amazing...the colours and sharpness are really something else.

Max resolution 2048x1536
Max refresh rate.....160Hz


These are actually dark grey, the photo makes them look beige..

[EspHack]

just tell me guys, why in the hell you can tell me a crt is better? im using LCD's since 2005 i think and im sure i will NEVER see a crt again if i can, they look inacceptable for me with the curved glass, i just cant understain what the hell a crt does better than LCD's

[UnclePappi]

Originally Posted by EspHack

just tell me guys, why in the hell you can tell me a crt is better? im using LCD's since 2005 i think and im sure i will NEVER see a crt again if i can, they look inacceptable for me with the curved glass, i just cant understain what the hell a crt does better than LCD's

My CRT is flat glass and widescreen? Also the picture quality is leagues ahead of LCD? That's all the reason I need.

pic

my new one


my old one


Unless you are viewing on an IPS screen you can't even come close to replicating these two images.

[TruMutton_200Hz]

Depends on what kind of LCD you're talking. I vote for Barco RHDM-2301P.

[naike]

I might consider a CRT monitor, if the difference was greater, and someone would blow a hole in my wall to fit the monitor in.

[bokah]

Originally Posted by TruMutton_200Hz

Depends on what kind of LCD you're talking. I vote for Barco RHDM-2301P.

that is impressive http://www.barco.com/en/downloads/sp...rhdm-2301p.pdf

48 bit color processing (16 bit per color)
96-120 Hz native LCD driving (prevents motion judder, genlocks to all
inputs)
Genlock and frame sync
Slow or fast sync selection
Color-stabilized scanning LED backlights for motion blur prevention
Motion adaptive de-interlacing
Interlaced driving (black-line insertion) for CRT-like motion quality
Quantified latency (depending on scanning mode)

[UnclePappi]

I would pit a calibrated FW900 against any of those Eizo's anyday, and wide color gamut is not accurate.. I'll take standard color gamut anyday. Wide gamut is just an artificial way to try to make colors that aren't supposed to be there and it loses the original colors in the process. I'll pass on that nightmare

[Pill Monster]

Originally Posted by EspHack

just tell me guys, why in the hell you can tell me a crt is better? im using LCD's since 2005 i think and im sure i will NEVER see a crt again if i can, they look inacceptable for me with the curved glass, i just cant understain what the hell a crt does better than LCD's

What curved glass? Mine is flatscreen thank you..

Quality CRT's - and I do mean Quality, have a remarkable picture that is still superior to the TN panels at least, tho I accept some of the newer high end LCD's are catching up...

It's pointless trying to explain the IQ of a top quality CRT to someone who's never seen one...it would be like trying to describe a colour to a blind person.

[eclap]

Yeah but then there's ips and led backlit... Crt equals nostalgia. It's like when people say the original command and conquer was better than say ra2. That of course it's bs...

[UnclePappi]

Yeah but CRT can be proven superior through tests. It is a scientific fact that CRT is better at the majority of aspects. LCD does have it's benefits but most are not involved with picture quality except for sharpness and brightness(although brightness is a disadvantage in low light conditions).

[ElementalDragon]

i.... think that all depends on the monitor itself. And, to be honest, IPS panel displays are starting to get more affordable. Let alone the statement of "replicating these two images" is kinda odd, since that would not only depend on the screen used, but also the camera and camera settings.

For example, i bought my current Gateway FHD2400 24" LCD a few years ago, and absolutely love it's color quality and everything else. At one point i bought one of the new Asus 120hz 3D monitors, and returned it within a week because it looked horrible color quality wise... and my friend thought so too. Then again.... my FHD2400 i think cost like $500 when i bought it.

[UnclePappi]

Originally Posted by ElementalDragon

i.... think that all depends on the monitor itself. And, to be honest, IPS panel displays are starting to get more affordable. Let alone the statement of "replicating these two images" is kinda odd, since that would not only depend on the screen used, but also the camera and camera settings.

For example, i bought my current Gateway FHD2400 24" LCD a few years ago, and absolutely love it's color quality and everything else. At one point i bought one of the new Asus 120hz 3D monitors, and returned it within a week because it looked horrible color quality wise... and my friend thought so too. Then again.... my FHD2400 i think cost like $500 when i bought it.

"replicating" by that statement I just meant that he is not going to see what I'm seeing without a high quality screen. I've poured over all technologies and CRT, Plasma, and IPS LCD are the only types of screens I will accept. OLED but it's too expensive. CRT is the only technology that doesn't have artifacts though, which is why I still use it for PC. For movies I connect my PC to my 50" Panasonic VT25(plasma) and honestly the plasma beats the CRT in a lot of areas but it has artifacting that the FW900 does not.