are crts bad

[Anarchy99]

im getting a dual 1.8 ghz g5 in a month or so and im a student and i cant afford an lcd especially apple's displays
so i looked on ebay and i can get a 20-22" crt for real cheep at least half the price of a lcd i told my friend this and he said crts are bad and didn't give me a reason
so my question is why are they so bad and cheep compared to lcds

[cluthz]

im getting a dual 1.8 ghz g5 in a month or so and im a student and i cant afford an lcd especially apple's displays
so i looked on ebay and i can get a 20-22" crt for real cheep at least half the price of a lcd i told my friend this and he said crts are bad and didn't give me a reason
so my question is why are they so bad and cheep compared to lcds

CRTs are big, not bad.
Many graphics designers still use CRTs, because they are know the produce a more correct picture (if calibrated properly..)

CONS:
They take up a lot of space.
Not so good for the eyes as the LCDs
PROS:
A quality CRT is half the price of a LCD
They have better resolution scaling and supports higher resolutions

[cube]

For how long has the monitor you are considering been used?
What's the brand and model?

[Jo-Kun]

lcd use less power, better for the eyes, more expensive, nice to put on a desk ;-)

crt big big big (I have 2 CRT's on my desk connected to my G5)

best crt with calibration possibilities: LaCie 19" & 22" not sure about US prices but the 19" is app 500 euro and the 22" 900 (apples 20" is 1600 euro and laCie's 321 lcd, best there is for color calibration: 1600 euro Lacie's lcd is 1600 x 1200 apples is lower...) allso look at Eizo they have allso a god lcd, but i think its even more expensive than LaCie/Apple...

if I had money for a new screen I would get the 321 from LaCie, but for now I'll stick with my old crt or maybe get 2 19" LaCie's... time (and money) will tell ;-)

[brap]

No. So long as you get a decent one, a high-quality CRT will do just as well, if not better (OK, maybe I'm biased) than an LCD. Look into Mitsubishi Diamondtron, or Sony Trinitron tubes; the Iiyama pro line are very good indeed.

[cube]

l
best crt with calibration possibilities: LaCie 19" & 22"

The LaCie is just a rebadged (and I think older) Mitsubishi.

Better get the cheaper, newer and real thing: a Mitsubishi 2070SB (SB means the new SuperBright technology). I have one.

[jxyama]

CRT pros:
-can produce true black
-faster refresh rates
-cheaper
-wide viewing angle
-lasts longer

cons:
-takes up a lot of space
-flickers
-uses more energy
-images can burn in

[decksnap]

get the LaCie 22". CRTs are great if you have a nice deep desk.

[cube]

Well, I don't notice the flickering on my monitor, even when I run it at a low refresh rate as 75 Hz.

In addition:

PROS:
- no ghosting

MAIN CONS
- you get irradiated

Try to get a TCO '03 monitor. It has some additional environmental and ergonomic requirements (http://www.tcodevelopment.com/pls/nvp/Upload.DownLoadFileName?CID=776&MID=141&catid=1&filename=/7265/F28194/CRT%20comparison%20doc%20TCO%20_9-03.pdf)

[GUSTO]

I am happy with my 17" Mitsubishi dimond plus 93sb, great price and all round good monitor for graphics and gaming. :D

[Sun Baked]

I am happy with my 17" Mitsubishi dimond plus 93sb, great price and all round good monitor for graphics and gaming. :DDon't worry Sony (or NEC-Mitsubishi) just announced they were killing some of their CRT monitors.

Sounded like the high-end CRTs would become scarce soon.

[cube]

Toshiba, Matsushita and Sony are stopping *TV* CRT product lines. This was announced last year.

Don't worry. Samsung is going in just the opposite direction. They are bringing to market a 1080 lines 32" CRT TV which is 38cm deep which will cost $1000. And they are gunning for 20cm for 2006/2007.

[dabirdwell]

that LCDs are more environmentally considerate than CRTs.

[SpaceMagic]

I often think this.. what about poor 'ol CRTs. I don't have the desk space for one, otherwise bigger screens, better resolutions, a lot cheaper = good buy!

[Sun Baked]

Toshiba, Matsushita and Sony are stopping *TV* CRT product lines. This was announced last year.

Don't worry. Samsung is going in just the opposite direction. They are bringing to market a 1080 lines 32" CRT TV which is 38cm deep which will cost $1000. And they are gunning for 20cm for 2006/2007.So that was part of this at hardmac.com this past week....

The end of the CRT era - Lionel - 06:37:54

Source : Hardware.fr (in ze French)
After Sony, now Nec-Mitsubishi have announced the end of their CRT monitors (Trinitron, Flattron). Those were really at the top end of the CRT offerings, heavily used by video and design studios, the same people so reluctant to give LCDs a try.
Here's to hoping LCD technology will improve by leaps and bounds, otherwise those CRT monitors will become really sought after and outrageously expensive on the second hand market.

Last year Sony had announced the end of the low-end monitors, stuff 19-inch and under. Didn't really follow much after that.

But we really don't get much news on CRTs in the US any longer, since we're no longer a big CRT market.

[cube]

Well, I guess we depend on Samsung improving shadow mask over aperture grille.

[jxyama]

that LCDs are more environmentally considerate than CRTs.

in terms of operating the finished product, yes - notably, LCDs consume less energy. but at the production level, they are both pretty nasty/wasteful stuff to make.

[cube]

LCDs consume less energy

Electricity. That's what nuclear power plants are for.

[ewinemiller]

in terms of operating the finished product, yes - notably, LCDs consume less energy. but at the production level, they are both pretty nasty/wasteful stuff to make.

They really aren't that much better in power for similiar size. While trying to justify replacing my current CRT with an LCD I compared my Nokia 445 21" CRT to a Dell 20" 2001fp LCD, 160 vs 90 watts.

At current power costs and usage, it was going to take 142 years to pay for itself. It's much more effective to replace just a single incandescent light with a flourescent if you're looking for power savings.

I bought the LCD anyways because the LCD takes up so much less space and throws off much less heat in an already hot office, but you can't justify it with power savings.

[tom.96]

No CRTs are not bad. I use one at work for 7 hours a day, and one at home on my G3 imac and of course my TV has a nice big 28" widescreen CRT.

As long as you have one with a high refresh rate (I use 95hz on my mac) and a quality picture then you should be happy. LCDs are very nice, but can be very expensive. A decent CRT is good enough for me, and I would imagine most people would be happy enough with one.

[Makosuke]

in terms of operating the finished product, yes - notably, LCDs consume less energy. but at the production level, they are both pretty nasty/wasteful stuff to make.
The production process is an important factor, and as pointed out the power savings aren't huge, but don't forget that the glass of each CRT contains several pounds of lead (as well as some other unpleasant heavy metals), which is why they're so darned expensive to get rid of when they die.

And, of course, part of the reason for all that lead is radiation shielding. That radiation, along with eyestrain (I've been amazed at how much easier an LCD is on my eyes after switching), is a significant reason to consider a flat panel.

There are still refresh rate and color advantage to CRTs, but at this point I think the crispness, brightness, eye-ease, and low radiation output of LCDs makes them the clear choice for all but the most hardcore gamers and graphics professionals (heck, even the gamers I know are buying LCDs now).

[tech4all]

CRT pros:
-can produce true black
-faster refresh rates
-cheaper
-wide viewing angle
-lasts longer

cons:
-takes up a lot of space
-flickers
-uses more energy
-images can burn in

That is true, but at my college, on our Apple 17" LCDs they have this "special" login screen that just stays on and it actually left an 'image' of it burnt onto the screen (very annoying since graphic designers, web designers, etc. use them). So I think LCDs are subject to images being burnt in as well.

[kylos]

[Strong Bad]
Yes, yes they are.
[/Strong Bad]

They're bad for your eyes. I am extremely glad that I have lcds at work. Better detail, crisper image, all that. Though crt's would be better at non-integer proportion scaling. However, all the really important criteria are won by lcds.

[Rod Rod]

im getting a dual 1.8 ghz g5 in a month or so and im a student and i cant afford an lcd especially apple's displays
so i looked on ebay and i can get a 20-22" crt for real cheep at least half the price of a lcd i told my friend this and he said crts are bad and didn't give me a reason
so my question is why are they so bad and cheep compared to lcds

LCDs cost more to make and there is higher demand for them, so those two factors keep their prices higher. Before demand dropped, CRT monitors were (relative to today) very expensive.

I have a 21" IBM P260. My 12" PowerBook (lid closed) is connected to its VGA input, and my Power Mac G4 is connected to its DVI-I input. At the same brightness and contrast settings, the VGA side seems brighter and slightly fuzzy, whereas the DVI side is neutral and just transparently clear and sharp. This monitor cost me less than $200 shipped.

The VGA input allows higher maximum resolution, 2304x1728 @ 60Hz, while the DVI input is limited to 1920x1200 @ 76Hz. I usually work with 1600x1200 @ 90Hz.

I'd like to buy an LCD but for now my priority is to get as fast a CPU as I can for the money, so my CRT is a stopgap solution. This monitor is huge, but I have my desk about 10" away from the wall behind and it sort of hangs / extends in that space (with the monitor's base completely on the desk, of course).

http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=18448

I have a USB switch to share the keyboard and mouse with both computers, so the setup works nicely.

When I get an LCD it's likely to be the HP L2335 23" LCD (http://h18004.www1.hp.com/products/monitors/tft/l2335.html). It has component, composite, s-video, VGA and DVI inputs, and competitive (some better, some not) specs than the Apple 23" Cinema Display.

[cube]

However, all the really important criteria are won by lcds.

That's not true. For example, the best CRTs display 85% of the NTSC color gamut. The best LCD, only 76%.

What's the point of having an SGI with 12-bit per component framebuffer and DACs, if you're going to connect an 8-bit LCD to it?

[kylos]

That's not true. For example, the best CRTs display 85% of the NTSC color gamut. The best LCD, only 76%.

What's the point of having an SGI with 12-bit per component framebuffer and DACs, if you're going to connect an 8-bit LCD to it?

hey, hey, hey, it's all right. I meant no harm to the good name of crt's. Besides, color gamut is only one factor in monitor quality. Sure, crt's have advantages, such as color gamut as you mentioned, and better scaling and viewing angle, lcd's are by far sharper and much easier on the eyes. Plus, they're much thinner and lighter and don't have to bother with refresh rates and all that nonsense that only makes them more powerful. Very few people have sgi equipment or use dac's, anyway. So apart from the few who are interested in precise color, crt's are worthless eye burners.

[revenuee]

I have a 19" Lacie CRT - and i love it -- i'm probably going to buy a second one and have two monitors --- if i wanted LCD's of equivalent i would be spending probably double --- i would rather spend that money on another lens or flash unit for my camera -- i'de get more use out of that

[MacBandit]

The LaCie is just a rebadged (and I think older) Mitsubishi.

Better get the cheaper, newer and real thing: a Mitsubishi 2070SB (SB means the new SuperBright technology). I have one.

I believe Lacie creates their own control boards do they not? This is what makes the difference between dozens of brands of monitors on the market. There are only a few tube and LCD manufacturers but hundreds of companies that make their own controlling hardware and housings.

[Anarchy99]

For how long has the monitor you are considering been used?
What's the brand and model?
2-3 years and not sure of make/model yet

[Sun Baked]

I believe Lacie creates their own control boards do they not? This is what makes the difference between dozens of brands of monitors on the market. There are only a few tube and LCD manufacturers but hundreds of companies that make their own controlling hardware and housings.Lacie may design their own power supplies and cases, but they most likely buy any electronics from someone else.

Heck that monitor series came to Lacie via the high-end monitor house they picked up.

Wouldn't be surprised if the monitor is just a Mitsubishi Pro-level monitor with a blue case and hood now.

[cube]

Lacie may design their own power supplies and cases, but they most likely buy any electronics from someone else.

Heck that monitor series came to Lacie via the high-end monitor house they picked up.

Wouldn't be surprised if the monitor is just a Mitsubishi Pro-level monitor with a blue case and hood now.

After reading some comparison review with the 2060u, it didn't appear there was any hardware difference. That's why I got the Mitsubishi.

I just found out the LaCie Electron22blue IV has SuperBright too, so I guess
it's based on the 2070SB, at least now.

[cube]

2-3 years and not sure of make/model yet

And how many hours per day?

[cube]

So apart from the few who are interested in precise color, crt's are worthless eye burners.

I switch my 22" CRT between 1600x1200 and 2048x1536 with good results.
I cannot do that on a 20" LCD.

[cube]

Very few people have sgi equipment or use dac's, anyway.

I just got a 400 MHz O2. It has only 24-bit graphics, but I preferred an UMA machine, so that I can have upto 1 GiB of graphics memory (well, minus RAM used by OS and program). Maybe I'll get an Octane2 in the future, but I'd rather see SGI make an IRIX/MIPS workstation with 12-bit per component color and 1 GiB of gfx memory.

[Anarchy99]

And how many hours per day?
well right now on my imac dv se im on about 8 hour per day
so im guessing when i buy a dual g5 for the first week or two it might be more but then i will probably be on about the same as i am now

[cube]

well right now on my imac dv se im on about 8 hour per day
so im guessing when i buy a dual g5 for the first week or two it might be more but then i will probably be on about the same as i am now

No. You said the monitor you were planning to buy was 2/3 years old, but not how intensively it was used.

[Anarchy99]

oops miss read i say it was used 4/5 hours a day in a office setting

[Peyote]

Lacie may design their own power supplies and cases, but they most likely buy any electronics from someone else.

Heck that monitor series came to Lacie via the high-end monitor house they picked up.

Wouldn't be surprised if the monitor is just a Mitsubishi Pro-level monitor with a blue case and hood now.

Some of the internals may be the same, but I believe LaCie uses a special anitglare coating on the screen that others do not...and as you pointed out, the case is dark blue. Both of these are really nice features when you use one day in and day out. Even the case being a dark color is really much easier on the eyes than a beige case.

[neoelectronaut]

I plan on getting a new CRT to exclusively use my Dreamcast in a few months. I think I'm just gonna get the cheapest I can find. Anyone know if Samsung's monitors are any good?

[cube]

oops miss read i say it was used 4/5 hours a day in a office setting

Well, then it means it would be like 1.5 years @ 8 hours a day. That's not bad.

Now you have to find out if it's actually a good model.

[Sun Baked]

Some of the internals may be the same, but I believe LaCie uses a special anitglare coating on the screen that others do not...and as you pointed out, the case is dark blue. Both of these are really nice features when you use one day in and day out. Even the case being a dark color is really much easier on the eyes than a beige case.With Mitsubishi offering the 2070SB with Spectraview (http://yahoo.pcworld.com/yahoo/article/0,aid,114190,00.asp), Lacie probably doesn't need any internal changes to bring the monitor up to their spec.

Of course this monitor really isn't even on the Mitsubishi's Spectraview site any more. Just the two LCD monitors with the calibrator. :confused:

[kylos]

I switch my 22" CRT between 1600x1200 and 2048x1536 with good results.
I cannot do that on a 20" LCD.

Read my post. In fact, read both of my posts. I already mentioned that. In my opinion that's not worth much for your average user considering all the other benefits of lcds.

[kylos]

I just got a 400 MHz O2. It has only 24-bit graphics, but I preferred an UMA machine, so that I can have upto 1 GiB of graphics memory (well, minus RAM used by OS and program). Maybe I'll get an Octane2 in the future, but I'd rather see SGI make an IRIX/MIPS workstation with 12-bit per component color and 1 GiB of gfx memory.

Good for you. :rolleyes: So you have a need for such equipment. Most people don't.

[Will Curran]

I've been using LCD's for the longest time, I'm never going to buy a CRT ever again.. one thing I don't like about CRT's are they are so heavy, I mean how are you going to bring your CRT monitor to a LAN or a friends house....I'd have a broken back by now. I heart LCDs...

But there is nothing wrong with CRTs it's just a matter on budget and prefrence. Mostly budget.

[cube]

Read my post. In fact, read both of my posts. I already mentioned that. In my opinion that's not worth much for your average user considering all the other benefits of lcds.

You said "scaling". I don't want to scale a 2048x1536 to 1600x1200 resolution.

Now, with the ViewSonic VP2290b you can say the only problem in this area is scaling.

[kylos]

You said "scaling". I don't want to scale a 2048x1536 to 1600x1200 resolution.

Now, with the ViewSonic VP2290b you can say the only problem in this area is scaling.

Your point? Scaling is bidirectional.

[cube]

Your point? Scaling is bidirectional.

That CRTs are capable of more dpi, except on the case of the ViewSonic.

(Well, in the vertical direction, and for aperture grille)

[kylos]

That CRTs are capable of more dpi, except on the case of the ViewSonic.

(Well, in the vertical direction, and for aperture grille)

Good for them. Though I already said that, so I don't really see the point in all this.

[jared_kipe]

There was a deal at best buy that let me get a pretty good 19" Samsung CRT for like $120.

[cube]

Good for them. Though I already said that, so I don't really see the point in all this.

You actually said the opposite. You said LCDs have more detail. You can only have more dots with the ViewSonic or with the 30" Cinema Display.

[cube]

Let's add these:

PROS
- No risk of bad pixels
- Fewer basic technologies, easier to choose among them. Spec sheets usually state which one is used.

CONS
- Risk of misconvergence (every unit is different)
- Color shifts over time. Needs recalibration every few months.

[kylos]

You actually said the opposite. You said LCDs have more detail. You can only have more dots with the ViewSonic or with the 30" Cinema Display.

Having reread my posts, I see where you might have been confused. However, if you do the same, you'll see that I was describing lcds at their native resolution, the image is crisper and more detailed. Maybe the use of the word detailed didn't sit well with you; my point was, and has been that as you increase resolutions, lcds lose sharpness because they actually have a predefined number of pixels. CRTs, though their image quality cannot match an lcd at native res, easily surpass it at scaled resolutions. LCDs only scale well with integer scaling, and since the first integer scaled size is double, which would make screen elements impossibly small to work with, I said from the beginning that crts are better at scaling.

[jxyama]

Electricity. That's what nuclear power plants are for.

if you consume more electricity, then you consume more energy.

[cube]

if you consume more electricity, then you consume more energy.

I meant that you can rely on clean sources to produce electricity. It's not as if you're obliged to use fossil fuel to feed them (except perhaps in unsafe countries).

[jxyama]

I meant that you can rely on clean sources to produce electricity. It's not as if you're obliged to use fossil fuel to feed them (except perhaps in unsafe countries).

sorry to say, at some level, all sources of electricity are "not clean."

anyway, off topic now...

[Rod Rod]

sorry to say, at some level, all sources of electricity are "not clean."

anyway, off topic now...

solar, geothermal, wind??? (I left out hydropower because of what it does to fish).

[Sun Baked]

solar, geothermal, wind??? (I left out hydropower because of what it does to fish).You forgot standing out during a lightning storm and getting repeatedly struck by lightning in order to power your LCD. :o

[kylos]

solar, geothermal, wind??? (I left out hydropower because of what it does to fish).

wind, some would say they're bad for birds.
solar, needs to have improved efficiency, otherwise there are not enough surfaces available to provide enough electricity.
geothermal, people complain about the size of geothermal plants compared to their output and their ugliness

[cube]

solar, geothermal, wind??? (I left out hydropower because of what it does to fish).

Unfortunately, at least with the current level of technology, you still have to rely on fission, if that's what you are using.

But I imagine that for new non-renewable deployments/replacements, gas would be the best compromise.

So, in the end, there's no option but saving energy.

[Cooknn]

I've got a 22" Viewsonic P225fb (http://www.viewsonic.com/products/desktopdisplays/crtmonitors/proseries/p225fb/) next to my G5. It really makes it difficult to pull the trigger on the new 23" Apple Cinema...

[jxyama]

solar, geothermal, wind??? (I left out hydropower because of what it does to fish).

solar - probably as 'clean' as it gets at the current level, but the chemicals/materials involved in the production of the panels are quite nasty stuff.

geothermal and wind - there are considerable effects on the surrounding ecosystem.

even nuclear isn't that clean, without considering potential accidents and waste storage... power plants require cooling water and nuclear power plants have considerable effects on the source of the water.

[cube]

OK, who doesn't like biopower? :rolleyes:

[keysersoze]

I love my Apple Studio Display CRT (ADC & Clear case). The colors are really rich and black IS black. The one thing I hate about it is those two stinking "horizontal stabilizer" lines. They are always there... those two very thin lines, all the way across the screen. :(

[cube]

I love my Apple Studio Display CRT (ADC & Clear case). The colors are really rich and black IS black. The one thing I hate about it is those two stinking "horizontal stabilizer" lines. They are always there... those two very thin lines, all the way across the screen. :(

Well, I have never looked at that specific monitor, but chances are, you're a shadow mask person. I've only seen them once many years ago, with a white background and when I was looking for them.

[Makosuke]

On topic: Although all the discussion about the advantages of CRTs to certain graphics professionals are interesting, it's important to realize that the basic tradeoffs are pretty simple:

1) LCDs are vastly easier on your eyes according to almost anybody you ask (I know people with weak eyes that refuse to use anything else).
2) LCDs emit less radiation, which is probably healthy for you (and anybody behind the monitor if it doesn't face a wall).
3) LCDs use less power, but that's not a big enough savings to make them worth while in almost any case.
4) CRTs are much cheaper, if you really can't afford an LCD.
5) A good CRT will produce somewhat better color than most LCDs. This isn't nearly enough of a difference to matter to most people.
6) CRTs are better for huge refresh rates and extremely high resolutions, although in the latter case they generally start to look fuzzy at some point. This mostly matters to dedicated gamers, since few people use those high resolutions anyway.

Personally, I think for the vast majority of average users, LCDs are the easy choice. For those on a tight budget or with unusual color needs, CRTs are a better option.

I'd definitly look at used CRTs at this point, since the proliferation of LCDs is pushing a lot of people to sell perfectly good monitors (also negates the environmental impact, since the monitor already exists).


Off topic:
solar - probably as 'clean' as it gets at the current level, but the chemicals/materials involved in the production of the panels are quite nasty stuff.

geothermal and wind - there are considerable effects on the surrounding ecosystem.
No, actually, properly done wind is usually "cleaner" than solar. The payback period for the manufacturing of the wind turbine is far lower than for a PV panel, the manufacturing process is cleaner, and they take FAR less land area to produce the same amount of power (you would have to pave a 200mX200m--10 acre--area with PV to equal the output of a single large turbine that can sit in a cow pasture somewhere). Large (~MW scale) wind turbines don't chew up birds, either, because they move so slowly.

Every method of producing energy, however "green", has some negative side effects, but wind currently has less than any other, and in fact is also the cheapest, period, with the exception of mine-mouth coal (that is, a coal-fired plant near a coal mine) and some kinds of natural gas plants (providing gas prices don't rise).

[MacBandit]

I for one prefer CRTs at the moment because I like to play games which require changing my screen resolution. Changing your resolution on a LCD just hasn't gotten to the point that to my eyes it's clear enough to use at anything but the native resolution. Also I like to have a large desktop area which requires a high resolution 1600x1200 or larger. Finally price which goes hand in hand with my last sentence. I can't afford to pay $1000 for a decent LCD to get a large enough screen area to be useable by me.