CRT or LCD? I say CRT.

Discussion in 'Buying Tips, Advice and Discussion (archive)' started by spinne1, May 30, 2005.

  1. spinne1 macrumors 6502a

    spinne1

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2005
    Location:
    Hermitage, TN USA (near Nashville)
    #1
    Let's clear one thing up: Good CRTs have a better looking picture than LCDs.

    I have heard too many people bashing CRTs on this forum board and I need to set the record straight. People seem to think CRTs are somehow inferior technology because they are old, becoming less common, and are now generally cheaper. Well, if you have a decent Sony Trinitron or similar monitor (aperture grill, not shadow mask), then you have a SUPERIOR picture to almost any LCD, period. As a matter of fact, my TEN year old Apple Multiple Scan 17" CRT has a better picture than the 23" Apple Cinema Display to my eyes (I've thoroughly checked the 23" out several times at CompUSA and MacAuthority where I live--my CRT is flat out better--clearer, brighter, and sharper). I can't even keep my monitor anywhere near the top brightness or contrast--it is way too bright! My monitor's specs are here: http://www.everymac.com/monitors/apple/multiple_scan/specs/multiple_scan_17.html.

    The advantages of a good CRT are vast. Let's go over some:

    An LCD is only great at one resolution, it's native resolution, while a CRT is good over a number of different resolutions (real world example: your LCD is 1280 x 1024, you keep it there all the time and all seems okay. Then you run a game which forces a resolution change and suddenly the picture is crap.)

    CRTs are MUCH better at blacks and greys, which makes for a much more eye-pleasing experience, not to mention a more accurate monitor for photo, video, publishing, or gaming. The LCDs have a "soft" black, while CRTs have a dark, rich black.

    CRTs are much brighter IF they are aperture grill models. I prefer the look of a brighter monitor. I don't have eye issues which makes me keep my monitor very dim. My mother however has the same model of monitor as me and she keeps it very dim by my standards.

    The text on a good, properly adjusted CRT is crisper, more in focus, and "tighter." It's just easier to read. Even small text is easy to read.

    CRTs cost significantly less to purchase. There is a reason all the companies are jumping on the LCD wagon, and it has alot to do with profit. And alot to do with ease of manufacturing. CRTs are admittedly bulky, heavy, not easy to dispose of, etc. If a new GOOD CRT is too expensive, consider older used ones (if you shop locally that is--shipping can be a monster!). My monitor I use can be had on ebay for $10 (or less) easy, plus shipping.

    CRTs are much faster in response and redrawing, which is especially important in gaming.

    CRTs have much better contrast levels available.

    CRTs have a better viewing angle.

    CRTs have much better control of white saturation.



    Now, the big negative: size. They are huge and bulky and heavy. They take up lots of room on your desk. You don't want to travel with one.

    Another negative is that CRTs will fade over time, and the colors will eventually go wrong. On old CRTs, you will usually notice dimming and a yellow or gray haze or tint. One or more of the three colors will break in some way. But as cheap as they are, who cares! Get another one!
     
  2. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #2
    Your eyes must be out of whack. I can't possibly see how a 10 year old CRT, with thousands of hours of use, could be better than a 23" ACD. It just flat out doesn't make sense. I'm not denying that quality new CRT's can't out do an LCD, but I think you're stretching the realms of reality a bit with that statement.
     
  3. Apple!Freak macrumors 6502a

    Apple!Freak

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Location:
    East Coast
    #3
    I completely agree.
     
  4. spinne1 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    spinne1

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2005
    Location:
    Hermitage, TN USA (near Nashville)
    #4
    I don't know how, but my picture looks like a brand new monitor. Very bright, with very accurate color. I own about 9 different monitors that I have used over the years. I am very aware of how different CRTs can look. I also know how LCDs look because I frequent computer stores often. The only monitor with a better picture than this one was the Apple 13" monitor I used to own (also a Sony Trinitron).
     
  5. Apple!Freak macrumors 6502a

    Apple!Freak

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Location:
    East Coast
    #5
    Are you telling me that your making your "qualified" opinion based on seeing some LCD screens at the "store" and then looking at your CRT back home? You really think your memory jots the perspective of the two to perfection, without seeing a side-to-side comparision?
     
  6. Apple!Freak macrumors 6502a

    Apple!Freak

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Location:
    East Coast
    #6
    To add to this statement of yours, according to you we must be de-advancing with the general slant of technology, right? I mean hell, your TEN!!! year old Apple Multiple Scan 17" CRT has a better picture than the 23" Apple Cinema Display.

    With all do respect, give me a break. If this was the case, the mass-public must be blinded by the fact the old CRT 25 dollar monitors are better than todays "cutting-edge" $1,000 and beyond LCD displays. I don't think the entire world's vision is so utterly defective that this is the case.

    I hate to say it man, but about 5 billion people are going to have to disagree with you on this.
     
  7. spinne1 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    spinne1

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2005
    Location:
    Hermitage, TN USA (near Nashville)
    #7
    You must remember that it is "to my eyes" that my CRT looks better. The Apple Displays have an awesome WOW factor. They are very cool. They do look very good. They are engineering marvels. They are much easier on the eyes for long stretches than CRTs. And when I first went to look at the 23", I really wanted it to look superior, because then I could shoot for and dream about one day owning one. When I first looked at it, it seemed great. Then as I played with it a while, something was bugging my eyes, and it was the nagging feeling that my picture at home was for my taste better. I shrugged it off, but then checked later and again I felt that while very good, it wasn't AS good as my home monitor. Everyone has different tastes in what they want in a monitor. For my eyes, my Sony-based CRT looks better. I can't change that.
     
  8. spinne1 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    spinne1

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2005
    Location:
    Hermitage, TN USA (near Nashville)
    #8
    Maybe not, perhaps my mind played tricks on me and I am entirely wrong. It is in the realm of possibility.
     
  9. Jo-Kun macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Location:
    Antwerp-Belgium
    #9
    well...

    I have to agree and disagree with all of you ;-)

    I use an old 20" apple CRT & 17" Dell CRT and with good calibration (that's allways the thing is your screen calibrated???) the colors are quite accurate
    indeed the deep blacks etc.

    yes they are bulky: they are the only things standing on my desk and its FULL

    if you compare CRT to LCD in general you will see that there is a point in color/contrast accuracy, but you can get closer to good colors on any screen by calibration...

    a.
    so you want almost perfect colors & no bulky screen? only one way to go for now... forget Apple/Dell/HP +20" screens get the LaCie 21,x" 123 or the Eizo one with the same specs (and yes the same price... quality has its cost)

    b.
    You'll settle with less accurate colors/contrast and don't want anything bulky.
    go for the Apple/Dell/HP & lower LaCie/Eizo screens

    c.
    you want your good colors, you want a resolution that any 20" or 23" LCD can't handle (see me avoiding the 30" because thats expensive thus out of range ;-)) you don't care about the size & your budget is not unlimited ;-)
    buy the LaCie 22" CRT.. what a screen, but be fast rumors are that LaCie will stop CRT productions soon because the 123 is as good as the CRT's...

    and finally: spend some $ on the Gretag MacBeth Eye1 or a similar product... you'll see the difference once you got the colors right ;-)

    J
     
  10. witness macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Austria
    #10
    Aside from size and colour issues, there are two things that make LCD beat CRT for me.

    1. Pixel clarity - Even the best CRT's are a little hazy to my eyes
    2. Flicker - even when running at 120Hz CRT's give me a headache

    You may disagree with me, but I think that these two points are very important.
     
  11. evilernie macrumors 6502

    evilernie

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    #11
    No way

    I have used numerous high-end 20" CRTs over the years (I'm looking at one right now), and none of them can compare with the LCD I have at home.

    At home, I also had a Sony 17" trinitron monitor that I bought 10 years ago. I now have a Dell 2005fpw. That Sony NEVER looked as good as the Dell. NOT EVEN CLOSE. Sorry, CRTs are a dying breed.
     
  12. James Philp macrumors 65816

    James Philp

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2005
    Location:
    Oxford/London
    #12
    I find LCD much easier on the eyes.
    CRT have SO many issues when dealing with prolonged use. Ghosting, keystone, pincushion, parallelogram all that stuff has to be set up perfect, and even then there can be problems.
    The refresh of the screen (as someone posted before) can also cause real eye fatigue.
    When in native resolution, and properly calibrated, a high-end LCD screen will out-do almost any CRT.
    I do prefer CRT for TVs though.
     
  13. Patmian212 macrumors 68020

    Patmian212

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Location:
    NYC
    #13
    Sorry to go off topic but I didnt want to start a new thread. I am using a LG 701S 17" crt with my powermac G4 with ati rage pro 16mb. I am running at 1152X870 75Hz Million colors. now the picture is pretty blurry especially with text, I thought it was a degauss problem but that didnt work out, then I remember when it was on my pc I ran it on 1280X1024@ 60Hz and it was clearer, In system preferences I cant seem to be able to change Hz, anyone know how I can or a solution to my problem?
    Thanks in advance
    Patmian212

    PS: Changing resolution doesnt help
     
  14. zach macrumors 65816

    zach

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2003
    Location:
    Medford
    #14
    Image quality should not be affected at all by hertz, rather hertz is simply a measure of how fast the redraw rate is.

    Lowering the resolution should allow you to raise the hertz, not sure why that's not helping you...
     
  15. skubish macrumors 68030

    skubish

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, Michigan
    #15
    With the exception of the 23" CRTs for CAD at work, I haven't seen a CRT I like better that my 19" LCD.
     
  16. Patmian212 macrumors 68020

    Patmian212

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Location:
    NYC
    #16
    I mean i wouldnt want to lower it any lower then it is now, but hertz did fizx my problem on my pc it made it clearer
     
  17. sushi Moderator emeritus

    sushi

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Location:
    キャンプスワ&#
    #17
    Totally agree.

    I had an Apple 16 inch CRT (Sony Trinitron guts -- with the teltale lines).

    Then I got a 22 inch Cinema Display.

    After having the 22 inch CD, I will never go back to CRTs. CRTs are bulky, use a lot of juice, run hotter, and just plain take up a lot of desk space.

    I can use my 22CD for hours and hours on end with no eye fatigue where as with a CRT I get eyestrain in a much shorter timeframe.

    The LCD monitor technology is progressing so rapidly, that every year there is a marked improvement in the screens.

    Sushi
     
  18. JonMaker macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Location:
    here.
    #18
    CRTs do have their place.

    One must remember that after all these years, you still get what you pay for. Cheap things suck. A good CRT will look better than a cheap LCD, and an expensive LCD (read: Cinema Display) will be about a billion times better than an old cheap CRT.

    I'm not going to impose on personal preference.
     
  19. Willy S macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 8, 2005
    #19
    An owner of both iMac G5 and eMac commented on another thread that he preferred the eMac´s screen quality over the iMac´s.

    I like high quality CRTs, especially for photoshop. The only thing I have against them is that they are indeed bulky.

    If you use your computer for word processing and web surfing, then a LCD is fine. But if you need accurate colors and brightness, a CRT is a better bet IMO.
     
  20. jeremy.king macrumors 603

    jeremy.king

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Fuquay Varina, NC
    #20
    Can't say I completely agree with this, unless you are including generic brand not-so-high-quality CRTs.
     
  21. sushi Moderator emeritus

    sushi

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Location:
    キャンプスワ&#
    #21
    Agreed.

    This I think is especially true in the LCD arena. Most cheap ones look it. A high quality LCD monitor is very good.

    Sushi
     
  22. Dagless macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    #22
    LCD for computers, CRT for TV/DVD watching.

    why?

    personally i cant imagine a powerbook with a CRT instead of a TFT. and because to me, LCD/TFT is more like a painting on very thin plastic than an actual screen. its a little hard to describe, i suppose the best word is static. it never changes. whereas CRT, with its flicker and constant calibrating seems to be always changing and moving.

    But an LCD for the home is a bad bad idea, ive been around the shops looking at the thin TV's but they do NOT compare to regular TV's. sure they're thinner but no... i cant even describe it they just look pants when displaying TV. 100mhz Flat Screen for me over a plain LCD. HD LCD's yes, when TV is broadcast at HD then i'll get one, but not a moment sooner.
     
  23. jrv3034 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2002
    #23
    As an owner of a 1 year old 22" CRT Mitsubishi DiamondPro, I'm sure I'm biased when writing this. However, I do have to agree with spinne1 on most of this. For high end Printing work, where color accuracy is a must, or for good game playing, I wouldn't trust anything but a CRT. LCDs are good, some are great, and some awesome ones like the LaCie one mentioned above use the fact that they have image quality "as good as a CRT" as a selling point. Yet I paid $650 for my 22" professional CRT with a max resolution of 2048 x 1536 @ 85 Hz, and the "just as good as a CRT" LaCie costs, what? $1,600?

    That said, most people that own computers certainly don't need Mission-Critical color accuracy. As long as their email is there, and they can play Doom 3, it's all good. Therefore, LCDs are not only good enough for the masses, they're downright perfect. Almost zero drawbacks, and a fraction of the size and weight. The ghosting, viewing angle and color issues almost don't matter for most everyone. Unless you're making a living off of Photoshop, an LCD is probably fine for you.
     
  24. jrv3034 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2002
    #24
    Oh, yeah, the other day I went to CompUSA and took a stroll through the Apple section (as usual) and I saw the 23" Cinema Display. Good Lord! It looked horrible! Pink all over!?! I tried calibrating it right then and there, but no luck. It just looked pink. The 20 and 30 inch ACDs were fine, but what's up with the pink hue? You'd think they'd use one that actually worked right for their display model... eek!

    Also, I'd get a high end CRT television for movies ANY DAY over a $6000 plasma or LCD tv. Not one LCD TV I've ever seen compares to the image quality of a good CRT for watching movies.
     
  25. Flynnstone macrumors 65816

    Flynnstone

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Location:
    Cold beer land
    #25
    I had a Viewsonic LCD and a Sony CRT connected to my PC.
    I have a 20" Cinema display on my PM G5.
    I thought the Viewsonic looked good, ... until I got my Mac. Then I was quite disappointed in the Viewsonic. I like WIDE viewing angles.
    In my opinion , the Cinema display kicks the crap out of the Sony. The Sony had more grays than blacks.

    I had a old Zenith flat screen crt. The original flat screen crt. Now that was great. Blacks .. great, colors ... vivid , 640x480 ... sucks.

    just my opinion
     

Share This Page