CRT is still better than LCD for visual quality.

[quaker3]

i find amusing when a person calls crt nostalgia without seeing with their own eyes those best crt monitors.
The only truth is money. Everything else is brainwashing, and broken promises. So if crt with better specs costs more than lcd, im pretty sure it is really that better.

[Pill Monster]

^This..

A refurbished Sony G520 from an online retailer costs about $400....

In 2002 they were around $2000...

[thatguy91]

I vote glasses free 3d tv to look better than CRT, when they finally reach the market (Toshiba etc are currently quite a way along on developing these, at a reasonable price). The thing is to get the viewing angles up and to make allowances for people with narrow or wide eyes I guess!...

Don't know how well the processing works for convertging 2d tv into 3d, but apparently its a feature of some current 3d models too. Of course, the conversion wouldn't be as good as dedicated 3d, but still better than 2d?

[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.

[sykozis]

Originally Posted by 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.

All the local hospitals here have gone 100% LCD....

You also missed the fact that LCD displays draw less power than CRT.

Originally Posted by quaker3

i find amusing when a person calls crt nostalgia without seeing with their own eyes those best crt monitors.
The only truth is money. Everything else is brainwashing, and broken promises. So if crt with better specs costs more than lcd, im pretty sure it is really that better.

Price is rarely a good indicator of quality......

[Pill Monster]

^How true, considering I paid $50 for mine. (online auction from an old Chinese guy)

[zhengzhoudave]

My LG flatron E2260 1920x 1080 LED LCD HDMI/DVI-d 21.5 inch monitor is vastly superior to ANYTHING else I have ever seen or used. Perhaps you are right and CRT's have still got it, but I haven't seen a new one in a long time. i think the last CRT monitor I saw had a much lower resolution, so my opinion is going to be based on that!

[Chillin]

Oh please.

Compare any of your CRT's to these three LCD's and weep:

http://www.eizo.com/global/products/...03w/index.html
http://www.eizo.com/global/products/...62w/index.html
http://www.eizo.com/global/products/...431/index.html

[Anarion]

Originally Posted by 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.

Superior colour gamut? Okay... Say that to wide gamut LCD display owners.

[Pill Monster]

Originally Posted by Chillin

Oh please.

Compare any of your CRT's to these three LCD's and weep:

http://www.eizo.com/global/products/...03w/index.html
http://www.eizo.com/global/products/...62w/index.html
http://www.eizo.com/global/products/...431/index.html

Wow, your right they look awesome! But then again, everything looks awesome on my monitor.

[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

[tsunami231]

Originally Posted by zhengzhoudave

My LG flatron E2260 1920x 1080 LED LCD HDMI/DVI-d 21.5 inch monitor is vastly superior to ANYTHING else I have ever seen or used. Perhaps you are right and CRT's have still got it, but I haven't seen a new one in a long time. i think the last CRT monitor I saw had a much lower resolution, so my opinion is going to be based on that!

You dont see them cause the public dont want huge hunkers of a monitor or TV no more when they can have something for less then half the wieght and size that cost less to make.

CRT are superior to LCD as far as motion goes not even the 120hz 2ms lcd come close to reproducing motion as clean as CRT's Blacks are general better on CRT to cause LCD tend to have black light bleeding, For get about LED Blacks unless they happen to be back lit full array LED and most are Edge lit cause there cheaper and even then you need to worry about black light bleeding and dead pixels.

Weather there are LCD out there that have better color then CRT is moot point, cause not all LCD have that and those general cost and arm and leg CRT were for the most part all equal on the color they reproduced. its mater of CRT are more expensive to make, bigger and heavy as to why they dont make them for consumers no more, If they could make CRT as thin and light as LCD, I guarantee there would be no LCD anymore

I miss my CRT, I cant use cause I dont have room for, I like LCD only cause, it is Light, THin less power draw. It has nice Static picture display compared to CRT, but motion just completely sucks, People dont notice the motion bluring much anymore in Videos and game and all that cause they all in some way use motion blurring to trick you in to thinking, it as made that way

Originally Posted by bokah

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)

sadly that thing cost more then most 70+inch TV's

[Pill Monster]

Originally Posted by zhengzhoudave

My LG flatron E2260 1920x 1080 LED LCD HDMI/DVI-d 21.5 inch monitor is vastly superior to ANYTHING else I have ever seen or used. Perhaps you are right and CRT's have still got it, but I haven't seen a new one in a long time. i think the last CRT monitor I saw had a much lower resolution, so my opinion is going to be based on that!

The last CRT you saw was prob a cheap one.

My 21" CRT has 0.24 dot pitch & does 2048x1536 @80Hz, or 1920x1080 @85Hz.

[Unfettered]

Originally Posted by Chillin

Oh please.

Compare any of your CRT's to these three LCD's and weep:

http://www.eizo.com/global/products/...03w/index.html
http://www.eizo.com/global/products/...62w/index.html
http://www.eizo.com/global/products/...431/index.html

LoL yeah this compares to my CRT monitor, hahaha.

Ok, so pixel pitch 0.270 × 0.270 mm, where my old CRT that I cant replace was 0.25mm Diagonal, 0.20mm Horizontal, 0.14mm Vertical, much tighter. I mean common, my diagonal pixel pitch is less than your virtical/horizontal.
Plus you are refering to a IPS board, which has great image quality but horrible response times. Gray-to-gray: 6 ms, black-white-black: 16 ms. Where mine is billionths of a second.
Your chosen monitor has 96% of Adobe RGB, 92% vs. NTSC.. My old crt has 100% of both.

I think its important to point out that everyone refers to the 2ms response time as if it was the holy grail for why LCD's are 'ok' for quality. What hasnt been pointed out is that ALL 2 ms LCD's are refering to Gray to Gray color change, another important factor for consideration is when you go from black to white to black (b-w-b), or white to black to white (w-b-w)... As this time is quite a bit longer.

The pixel response time is often confused with the LCD input lag which adds another form of latency to pictures displayed by LCD screens. An LCD screen with high response time and significant input lag will not give satisfactory results when playing fast paced computer games or watching movies. Manufacturers only state the response time of their displays and do not inform customers of the input lag value.

Keep this in mind, the LCD screen itself might have a delay of 8ms to change a pixels color, but there is also a response time on the LCD converter/driver board. The driver board converts a VGA signals into LVDS signals that the LCD can display. So you have to take this into account as well because converting a signal does take time in milliseconds. Depending on how good the driver board is the conversion to LVDS can be short or long and by long I mean another 8ms to 16ms to convert the signal. This problem will go away over time because video cards will be able to output a LVDS signal that directly drives the LCD monitor.

We should also talk about the lack of contrast standards in the industry. One company claims 1,000,000:1, and another claims 850:1, and yet they can both be the same. There is no standardization in the industry, therefor all manufactureres use their own tests and make any claims they feel will suit their marketing needs best.

Then there is the issue of LCD native resolution. The problem for some if not many is that there is no scalability with LCD screens, you get one resolution and that is it. Whereas CRT screens can display any resolution up to its maximum which for any CRT maxes out at 2048x1536(to my knowledge). So for example if you are running software that doesn't support your LCD native resolution you're out of luck, and will have a distorted image. For example 16/10 vs 16/9 resolutions.

(note: I have loads of information on this topic but I dont want to chase people off with the TL;DR wall of text.)

Everyone here needs to read about FED displays, here is the wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_emission_display

This is the true fusion of thin panel and CRT tech, however it is questionable that it will make it to the mainstream consumer any time soon, if at all.

Also, just to make sure its stated so that the discussion doesnt turn to childish antics. This is not a conversation about "I like LCD, you dont so you must be a moron", the conversation is about the reasons why the old tech is still viable and the option of a high grade graphics CRT should still be available for purchase NEW, not refurbished.

I paid 450 bucks for my G220FB and would gladly pay that price again over buying ANY LCD monitor.

[humonculus1987]

What about super amoled HD displays vs CRTs? I know they are only in phones right now but the plus display has 8 sub pixels for each pixel and the black and whites and colors in general are superior to the monitor I am using on my PC right now.

EDIT: From what I am reading super amoled plus is better.


EDIT2: Since when do you get messed up images at anything not your native resolution? My games in windowed mode at 1680x1050 work perfectly fine. So does 1440x900. You high?

[Unfettered]

Originally Posted by humonculus1987

What about super amoled HD displays vs CRTs? I know they are only in phones right now but the plus display has 8 sub pixels for each pixel and the black and whites and colors in general are superior to the monitor I am using on my PC right now.

EDIT: From what I am reading super amoled plus is better.


EDIT2: Since when do you get messed up images at anything not your native resolution? My games in windowed mode at 1680x1050 work perfectly fine. So does 1440x900. You high?

So you paid for games that your PC cant even run full screen? And you're calling me high?

[HeavyHemi]

While the color and contrast may be a bit better on a CRT, it's nearly impossible to equal the 1:1 pixel mapping and absolute sharpness of a LCD.

[Unfettered]

Yeah but an LCD only has a clean sharp image so long as its static. Any dynamic motion of any kind on an LCD makes its sharpness far less superior to a CRT. And since no one is just staring at a picture all day on their PC I still would perfer a CRT.

[Zer0K3wL]

i hate crt's their big and fat and take to much space.

[Svein_Skogen]

Unfettered: Go try the "billionths of a second" nonsense on someone who doesn't understand the physics involved in CRTs, and why there is a vertical refresh frequency (and how to calculate the milliseconds there).

Your claims are either based on not understanding the actual physical process in front of you (how cathode-ray-tubes actually work), or they are are based on downright lies (read: You're trolling). The end result is the same: You're contributing nothing positive to the debate, only dis-informative junk. Before coming back, please spend some time trying to understand the actual processes involved in creating the image, since this will teach you how the afterimage (ghosting) is actually WORSE with crt phosphors than with active matrix technologies. (Since CRTs have a continuous decay-to-black process over the entire screen, but are refreshed up to normal color on every scan overpass, and this decay-to-black is almost always slower than the vertical refresh frequency)

While it is true that in theory a CRT could have better color precision for a fraction of a second after the pixel has been scanned, in real life, this is overshadowed by the fact that this color precision is lost while the CRT is scanning the other pixels on the screen (which it does for most of the time).

So all in all, your postings reek of wrong information, based on not understanding the actual processes involved.

//Svein

[humonculus1987]

Originally Posted by Unfettered

So you paid for games that your PC cant even run full screen? And you're calling me high?

Who said I cant run my games fullscreen and max? To this day I have been able to run every game max settings. Sometimes its nice to have a game run in windowed mode so I can do something other than just game. You know like use a computer for what its made for....MULTITASKING! And can anyone respond to the tech in super amoled plus vs other desktop displays?

[Svein_Skogen]

AMOLED displays uses varibly colored backlit cells (OLED), normal LCD uses "white" + diffuser, over ribbons of dye (one pixel wide). Both use 3 LCD cells to create one pixel. Too bad none of them apply microlenses + microdiffusers + bayer matrix, but then again those would be ridiculously expensive (including the electronics for them).

//Svein

[UnclePappi]

Originally Posted by Svein_Skogen

Unfettered: Go try the "billionths of a second" nonsense on someone who doesn't understand the physics involved in CRTs, and why there is a vertical refresh frequency (and how to calculate the milliseconds there).

Your claims are either based on not understanding the actual physical process in front of you (how cathode-ray-tubes actually work), or they are are based on downright lies (read: You're trolling). The end result is the same: You're contributing nothing positive to the debate, only dis-informative junk. Before coming back, please spend some time trying to understand the actual processes involved in creating the image, since this will teach you how the afterimage (ghosting) is actually WORSE with crt phosphors than with active matrix technologies. (Since CRTs have a continuous decay-to-black process over the entire screen, but are refreshed up to normal color on every scan overpass, and this decay-to-black is almost always slower than the vertical refresh frequency)

While it is true that in theory a CRT could have better color precision for a fraction of a second after the pixel has been scanned, in real life, this is overshadowed by the fact that this color precision is lost while the CRT is scanning the other pixels on the screen (which it does for most of the time).

So all in all, your postings reek of wrong information, based on not understanding the actual processes involved.

//Svein

Phosphor trail is an after effect the original image has very little latency. The phosphor trail itself has lag but who is watching the phosphor trail? On my fw900 the only trails I see are from bright white images on a black background.

[tsunami231]

Originally Posted by Svein_Skogen

Unfettered: Go try the "billionths of a second" nonsense on someone who doesn't understand the physics involved in CRTs, and why there is a vertical refresh frequency (and how to calculate the milliseconds there).

Your claims are either based on not understanding the actual physical process in front of you (how cathode-ray-tubes actually work), or they are are based on downright lies (read: You're trolling). The end result is the same: You're contributing nothing positive to the debate, only dis-informative junk. Before coming back, please spend some time trying to understand the actual processes involved in creating the image, since this will teach you how the afterimage (ghosting) is actually WORSE with crt phosphors than with active matrix technologies. (Since CRTs have a continuous decay-to-black process over the entire screen, but are refreshed up to normal color on every scan overpass, and this decay-to-black is almost always slower than the vertical refresh frequency)

While it is true that in theory a CRT could have better color precision for a fraction of a second after the pixel has been scanned, in real life, this is overshadowed by the fact that this color precision is lost while the CRT is scanning the other pixels on the screen (which it does for most of the time).

So all in all, your postings reek of wrong information, based on not understanding the actual processes involved.

//Svein

your point is moot, CRT are still superior to LCD in terms of PQ on moving image. I dont care how good LCD look with a static picture, that dont mean **** to me if it cant handle motions, and to this date I have not see a LCD that handles Motion as good as CRT and that includes the 2ms 120hz monitors, that and the backlight bleeding on the lcds ruin there blacks.
And I never once seen ghosting on any of my CRT unless the RGB cable was at fault. I see ghosting and trailing on every lcd monitor I ever used, From moving my mouse to watch anything that is moving

If i had the room and could actual find a Widescreen CRT monitor that is new I would buy that over and lcd, untill the above problems are fixed