After switching to LCD from CRT its hard to go back, I still have a 15" and 17" CRT that are in use in the house. But for most things I hate them, their to dark and have a hard time viewing pics on them, I dont use them at all for gaming any more but my kids do.
You put the money down on a CRT that you have to to get a S-PVA panel and you would be surprised at how good the image quality is.
I dont have near the room for a 24" CRT, that would be HUGE. Plus 1080p and HDMI are very nice when you use your display for stuff like HD Cable TV, Wii, 360, Blu-Ray; CRT doesn't deliver considering it's an analog display and you'd need a digital converter for HD content. With the quality and price of LCD it make no sense not to get a large S-PVA panel to wow your friends with. People are a lot less impressed with some huge 24" box that hurts your eyes and heats up the room than a sleek vibrant 24" S-PVA LCD.
yeah.... kinda like my Gateway. brushed aluminum bottom piece, touch sensitive power and menu controls, and attractive metal base = drool. lol Not to mention.... the fact that it's also got great quality, and a nice amount of inputs (DVI, VGA, Component, Composite, S-Video, and HDMI), plus a handy 4-port USB hub.
absolutely, CRT has better quality in most resolutions, LCD looks best when using the native resolution and gets worse do to Interpolation the lower you go.....eg. 1440x900 native = best, 1280x720 = so-so, some monitors are better than others, Samsung are fantastic at interpolation and so DeLL monitors too, as for other manufacturers i guess it depends on the model and usually 22" and above will look worse that 19-20" when using non-native res. on the other hand, native res on LCD beats CRT in terms of sharpness and detail, lcd has come a long way in terms of response time as low as 4ms or lower you shouldn't notice any ghosting especially with a good monitor. finally 19-20" is best for the sole reason the native res is lower than bigger ones and so will be very helpful when your Gpu is midrange and a stressing game comes along you'll be able to crack more details up including 4X AA when everyone else won't unless they own high end card and even then is no guarantee, besides Antialiasing is less stressfull than drawing more pixels on screen although big resolutions 1920x1200 or something would be any form of antialiasing anyday but at the cost of tremendous gpu power, so do the math. i own a 19" Samsung 932BW, you can't go wrong with it and it rocks, i can recommend it based on my experience.
A few years ago I had a Samsung 19" CRT which I thought I would never replace with an LCD. Replaced it with an LG 19" LCD a couple years later and swore to never return to CRT. Last year, replaced that with a LG 22" wide screen and have now sworn to never return to a non-WS screen again.
I just switched to LCD from CRT this year. I have always hated widescreen but after turning on my 22 inch LCD DVI from 19 inch CRT analog the difference was night and day. Colors look so much more vivid on LCD then they did on my CRT. Games look way more better as well and I have gotten used to widescreen now. The only advantage CRT has over LCD is you don't have to be looking at it head on. With LCD you pretty much have to look at it straight on or the picture goes all washed out. Also another HUGE advantage LCD has over CRT is there is no Hz issue with LCD. With CRT I needed a constant 100Hz or my eyes would bleed after a few hours. I can use my LCD@60Hz and feel as though it is actually refreshing 100Hz. And finally another huge advantage LCD has over CRT is size and weight. A 22 inch CRT would take up a huge portion of your PC desk and weigh in close to 100 pounds. 22 inch LCD has the foot print of a 17 inch CRT and only weighs like fewer than 10 pounds easy... To the dude that wishes LCD tech to die? Grow up you bone head....
LCD is the way to go with CRTs my eyes would start to hurt after only 30 minutes. So doing anysort of gaming or work was impossible. And the quality of a IPS panel is significantly superior to any CRT. I had a 17in Dell CRT the colors were nice but it always distorted the resolutions never looking proper. Then I went a 20in Samsung which was a great monitor until it broke(bought the cheapest one, my fault). But just bought a Sony HDTV IPS panel and colors easily beat any CRT on the market. And watching movies and TV shows is awesome with a great LCD panel.
Why? Because you like the your pretty little screen? It does not erase the fact that LCD technology has inherent flaws that result in compromises that are just not acceptable to me. Black levels are among my biggest complaint on LCDs. No LCD I have seen produces a black level that I am satisfied with. If you want good response times and minimal input lag you have to for go accurate colour reproduction and viewing angles. If you want good colour reproduction and decent brightness/contrast level with no backlight bleed you have to cope with increase response times and input lag. If you want to try and get a something that can do it all (albeit not the best at everything) prepare to lose a kidney or two. Too many compromises. If they let the technology die we would get on to OLED and SED technologies much sooner. Both of witch are a far, far better than LCD technology could ever hope for. But because the industry and consumers such as yourself are satisfied with severely subpar tech simply because you haven't seen anything better OLED and SED prices will stay through the roof as the big manufacturing giants won't throw their weight behind it until their profit margins drop on LCDs. Ironic that you would still be using one of those CRTs you hate so much today if we didn't let the old technology die and yet you refuse to let go of your new shiny toy. Hopefully you'll come up with a better argument than 'bonehead' when trying to discuss something as it really doesn't befit a guru to sling personal insults nor does it further the discussion in any positive direction.
Wow, those reasons are are the exact reason that my company purposefully replaced every single CRT we owned. I went to management and showed the diff between the two and they had no idea how bad CRT's were. I own this monitor and love it: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000VZKTFU/interactiveda8743-20 So move on as CRT's are a dying breed........................
... That doesn't make any sense. Those are technical restrictions of LCD technology. They are design flaws, if you will, that cause LCD panels to perform worse in those areas than similar CRT technology. None of those are a reason to replace a CRT with an LCD. I'm not sure that you understood what I was saying. I can't see why a company would replace CRTs because they have virtually zero input lag or because they have near 180/180 viewing angles without colour shift. Those aren't reasons to replace something. I have no idea what you are on about. There are a number of common reasons to replace CRTs with LCDs, at least in a business setting, such as space management, reduced power consumption. Sharper picture at native resolution for static displays such a text. This in particular is important for employees that use Office application such as word and excel a great deal. Generally though a company will have a contract with someone such as Dell and buy and roll out packaged systems for entire departments for general office use. In this case the package will come with LCDs as that is the industry standard. I haven't mentioned anything about the monitor I use nor should it have anything to do with the discussion. It is a moot point. I am talking about the pitfalls of the technology not about my personal preference.
Very good point. It'll be solved fast enough though. Makes me wonder how Rear Projection CRT TVs that are "HDCP compliant" will display HD content.
****ing beautiful as far as my 55" Sony is concerned. My 55" CRT kills my 60" SXRD in black level, color reproduction, and contrast. The SXRD wins in picture uniformity/sharpness/ and image stability(always 1080P). Btw, SXRD is basically a variant of LCD with a thicker panel which gives it a few advantages over normal LCD tech. For anybody looking to buy a nice 24" widescreen CRT I found a site that is selling them with a 6/mo warranty at grade A and B qualities. I'm gonna get me a B quality as 800 usd is too much for refurbished screen imo. Link... Accuriteit
nutyo: i don't see how you keep saying that backlight bleeding and such are "design flaws" of LCD's. Yes.... they have backlight bleeding.... CRT's don't. Yes.... we understand that CRT's and LCD's use COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PICTURE GENERATION METHODS. But seriously.... if you find a SMALL amount of backlight bleeding to be so much of an issue..... you must spend 90% of your time on your computer playing Doom 3 without a flashlight, or watching Alien Vs. Predator: Requiem.... because unless the vast majority of the screen is trying to simulate pure black, you will never even notice the bleeding, unless you're LOOKING for it. And..... industries aren't pushing OLED or SED Technology because of the current market demand for LCD's? uuh.... are you out of your mind? If i had to guess.... the main reason that OLED and SED technolgy isn't moving along quickly.... is because it's NEW!!! Look at when LCD's were first released. Quite expensive compared to today's standards..... smaller than what we have today...... and nowhere remotely as close to the quality of a CRT as we have today. So what.... you want every company that mass produces LCD's to halt all forms of doing so, and work on OLED screens? Yeah.... i'm sure they'll get right on that. How about you take a trip to that alternate reality by yourself and enjoy your progress. Technology takes time. time takes money. how in the HELL do you expect a company to design anything if they have no cash flow? Didn't you notice the one OLED TV that was put out to market? Wasn't it into somewhere around the $1,000 mark for a screen barely a foot in size? If you looked around, you'd see that plenty of companies are designing OLED TV's. More than likely, the main reason they're not on the market yet, is because they're insanely expensive to produce, which they're trying to minimize the production costs before mass production (which i'm fairly certain IS the reason), or because they have even more "design flaws" than that of LCD's which you loathe so much. But.... if it were just design flaws, i'm sure they'd still have put it out on the market just like LCD's. That is, if we were going by your logic.
You call it a small amount of backlight bleed. I don't. You do not have to game to notice it. In fact watching a movie in the dark on a TN panel makes the "black bars" above and below the picture so hideously bright that at some points (especially movies such as the Matrix) you lose all the detail in the darker fight scenes that nothing is possible to decipher. I don't search for it, nor is it 'little' by any measure. It is in fact so obvious that it breaks immersion in the movie. I mean every time a new driver comes out people make threads about 1 fps difference or the most minute amount of difference in IQ and it is accepted. The difference between monitors is far more pronounced but because I am going against the grain it is wrong? Elemental, it isn't the end of the world for me, it is image quality on a monitor. That's it. I don't loathe LCDs. I just explained the differences to someone else and they ignored it and pretended it wasn't true. I pretty much just said that I didn't like the current monitor technology arc. It was an opinion that I didn't force on anyone else. And I got called a 'bonehead'. I explained what I didn't like about them point by point so others would understand that I had actually put thought into it and wasn't just a 'bonehead' out to poo poo the mainstream tech. And all that resulted in was more hate. What do you want me to do? Just have the same opinion as you? Because I don't understand what in anything I said needed to be responded to in personal insults. OLED and SED tech are moving far far slower than LCD tech did. Market introduction dates to over 50% market share was among the fastest I have seen anything take over the market. Almost as fast as iPod market saturation. And I don't know about else where but LCD wasn't just an alternative to CRT it replaced it completely. It wasn't possible to obtain a CRT anymore even though the LCD was 1st-2nd generation. OLED and SED technology isn't coming along nearly as fast because costs are far far too high, and this is where we hit the catch 22. The price of the tech would drop dramatically if it were mass produced. However no two techs are the same and obviously even at mass production OLED and SED just cost more to manufacture than LCDs. Given current market demand on LCDs (close to 100% of computer monitors, and a good portion of TVs, although in that market it has more competition) I said that the manufacturers didn't need to push new tech as current tech was fiscally more viable. The only difference in your point is you think they are pushing it hard enough and the tech is just taking some time to come along whereas I believe they could push harder and still enjoy reasonable profit margins today. You know I don't think they should immediately shut LCD tech so I would appreciate it if you don't try to put ludicrous words into my mouth. Your point comes along just fine without exaggeration. And I accept that you may be right by saying they are doing all that they can. Although I fail to see how I am out of my mind for thinking they could push new tech harder than they are. At the end of the day, I am not trying to convince anyone that they are wrong for liking LCD tech. All I said was I don't and would like a faster transition to a different technology. I even gave my reasons. I don't know what else you want from me.
Was a joke. First relax... Ok? You harp on this black level thing like it is so brutal or something. I just don't see this as a big deal. My monitor (X213W Acer) has a contrast ratio of 2500:1 with a 5ms response time. The vewing angle is 160. Blacks looks great, no imput lag that I could ever point out off hand. Now here is why LCD technology will NEVER die....my monitor 22 inches set me back $169.00 CAD. Think about it.....The reason I called you a bone head is because you actualy want a technology that is afordable to the masses to die off in favour of another technology that would cost an arm and a leg for the average joe. The reasons to listed are lame at best IMO. Your main complaint is contrast basically and imput lag. Any newer LCD with a 5ms or less response time has no real notcable imput lag so that argument is moot. Basically LCD is at such a price that even poor people can run to wal-mart and buy an LCD screen--not just the rich snobs of the world. Back in 2004 I bought a 19" Samsung syncmaster CRT for $349.00 CAD. 4 years later 22" LCD for $169.00 CAD. It dosen't take a genius to figure out why LCD is here to stay and isn't going to die off anytime soon.
This is a moot point now, but it was most likely because you had a low refresh rate (60 Hz) set and didn't know it. I see too many posts on forums across the web by YOUNG people (gamers) who say the exact same thing... But they don't know WHY it is happening, and the worst part? They ARE damaging their eye sight in the process. They will most likely need glasses a lot sooner than they normally would (if at all). This is one HUGE advantage in LCD technology: It is actually a HEALTH benefit for those who sit at the PC for hours and hours (for work or play). Also, LCDs are more "Green". This is a big concern for our generations (X, Y, Z and the Millennials) because it is an unfortunate reality. The good news is LCDs are lighter, consume less energy and produce less heat. These are all GOOD things. Nutyo, I respect your opinions even though you showed blatant disrespect against other posters who offered an opposing point of view. Maybe you will grow up one day, but your way of thinking is outdated. CRT technology is like the gas guzzling combustion engines of 50 years ago. It's not efficicent and is harmful to both consumers and the environment. These are two major points you can't defend CRTs with and if you do... It means you aren't educated enough, or don't care about either of these two things. If you want to be the obnoxious internet "know it all" then be my guess. I am more concerned about real life and how bad CRTs are for the reasons I just mentioned. But keep up that e-thug persona. I'm sure it has served you well over the years...
I have an Asus laptop with the "Splendid" Technology", which is gorgeous and my 24" Acer 'TN' panel has the blackest blacks and the whitest whites and the colours just jump right out at you! Would I trade this for a CRT? Not in this lifetime! BTW: 2ms and no lag whatsoever! You guys can tell me that TN panels are sjit; but I just happen to have one right in front of me and it's beautiful!
