CRT or LCD? I say CRT.

[Laslo Panaflex]

Probably already said, I didn't read the whole thread, but CRT's give me headaches, no matter what the refresh is. Plus, CRTs weigh a butt load, and take up your entire desk . . Both CRTs and LCDs have their pluses and minuses, but for me LCDs are way better, and I have moved on to greener pastures.

 

[JeDiBoYTJ]

I have a 20in flat screen CRT sitting in my closet right now.... because the darn thing is soooooo friggin BIG! takes up HALF my desk, and the screen is right in my face.... but I love that thing so much, i dont think i'll ever throw it away, and if I get a big enough desk one day, you can be [darn] sure that i'll put that right back next to my powerbook

thats the thing thats turning people away from CRTs - the size factor. for nearly 1/8TH the size of a CRT, you can get an LCD panel, and gain half your desk back. that right there is enough of a reason for my dad to buy one.

sure, some LCD's are bad, some native resolutions is too low, refresh rate is too low...etc, but LCD's are quickly catching up to CRT's in terms of resolution and refresh rate....

CRT's are dying a [really] slow death... of course, there will always be people who will stick by their CRT until its blows up... but its only a matter of time until Dell starts shipping LCD's bundled with their low end systems, and dumping CRT's entirely (like apple)

 

[amnesiac1984]

Thought I'd better chime in seeing as I recently "downgraded" from a 17" Apple Studio LCD to a 22" Iiyama Pro 510 CRT. LEt me tell you this is the nicest screen I have ever used. I've been using it alongside my LCD for three weeks and I can't stand looking at that piece of crap one moment longer. Its yellowy, its black is more like light gray and it doesn't have a consistent picture. THis new screen (which I bought from ebay for £100) is worth £1000 + and you can tell. Just everything looks amazing on this screen, and having a real contrast instead an attempt at contrast makes a big difference.

 

[ozone]

Uhhh... maybe I'm missing something here, but for many applications - and indeed many hardware review sites/publications - CRTs are superior. I like my LCDs too, but high end CRTs are still superior for high contrast video, especially for less-than-perfect view angles.

... and they're great for heating up a space for the cat to sit!

 

[srdashiki]

Um are you stupid

Who was a the *mod slap* idiot who said at 120Hz i still can see flicker and i get headaches?

You sir are a *mod slap* liar. After 80Hz I guarantee no human eye can tell there is a scan line moving onscreen.

Blink quickly, you still cant see it.

I can understand the "flicker" of the peripheral vision when you look at a 60Hz monito from the side of your eye, but a scan line moving 120 times a second? Yer *mod slap* crazy if you think your headaches are caused by that.

Or you are a liar. IM just pissed cuz thats a blatant lie and no one said anything.

As for CRTs slowly dying? I dont think so, not for a long time. Television, publishing etc all need TRUE black, and you wont get TRUE black from an LCD, for now. When your LCD is off, what color is the screen? Dark grey. Turn off your CRT, its black.

I think gradients need some time here as well, make a nice black to white gradient in photoshop. On a CRT its smooth, on an LCD (if you up the contrast a bit) looks jagged and ******. This is why I dont own a Plasma tv or anything of that nature, i want COLOR REPRESENTATION NOT *mod slap* SMALL SIZE AND WEIGHT!

 

[wheezy]

Personally...I don't have much input past what I've seen. Half of my family works at a print shop (http://www.printingresource.com) and they're hella good with their colors. The Prepress dept has (of course!) a few G4 towers and a G5. The G4 guys are using CRT's (not sure the brand or anything, I imagine they're pretty good ones though) and the G5 is running with a 23" Cinema Display. The G5 is the last monitor they use before doing the proofprint (on some Epson Printers). They calibrate those things to be as similar as possible (CD and the printer), and once they get that, they calibrate it to the $6 million presses. And they have to calibrate the entire spectrum. They printed some things for Shrek, and that green had to be perfect.

Anyways...what I"m saying is...if you have the calibrations down, I don't think it really matters what you're using for a monitor....if you spend the money.

 

[srdashiki]

Anyways...what I"m saying is...if you have the calibrations down, I don't think it really matters what you're using for a monitor....if you spend the money.

Um no. If your LCD cant show deep black, its a moot point to say calibration takes care of everything.

Print is one thing, broadcast is another. In print a deep black will be what you make it, whether it looks deep on screen or not.

When dealing with something strictly shown on CRTs/LCDs then a deep black cant be missed, and LCDs are missing it. And of course the white is never correct anywhere because everyones eyes are so different.

 

[wheezy]

Um no. If your LCD cant show deep black, its a moot point to say calibration takes care of everything.

Print is one thing, broadcast is another. In print a deep black will be what you make it, whether it looks deep on screen or not.

When dealing with something strictly shown on CRTs/LCDs then a deep black cant be missed, and LCDs are missing it. And of course the white is never correct anywhere because everyones eyes are so different.

Well...most posters were saying that it doesn't matter unless you make money with PHOTOshop, which, I think, involves printing. For broadcasting you can't really guarantee color that much, as people will have crap TV's and Amazing TV's and CRT's, and LCD's, and Plasma, and halograms and 3-D and Cracker Jack TV's....

If what your printer prints out looks like it does on your monitor, ....isn't that the point? If they're calibrated, then deep black on paper will look exactly the same as the deep black on your monitor. Did I miss something here?

Nevertheless...you buy what gives you the best product, whether it be CRT, or LCD, or your grandma's denturevision.

 

[srdashiki]

You dont know much about broadcast do you?
We may be on the brink of HD but its still analog 90% of the time,

You know about blackburts boxes? The RBG parade?

I mean yes with NTSC (never the same color) televisions people have all sorts of wacky color schemes. But if you want the whites to come out as static or the blacks to bleed and pulsate then of course deep blacks and whites have no place in broadcast.

Without a deep black or bright white, there is no TV. Bright white on a TV is not true white (true white is static) and pure black is not pure black because that would be the CRT turned off...

If you do any sort of DV, and I do, you have to keep a CRT because moving from my computer, burning to DVD, and watching on TV, i want the colors to match well and I want my gradients to look good. If i edited with FCP on an LCD Im not getting an exact representation of the color scales.

 

[wheezy]

You dont know much about broadcast do you?
We may be on the brink of HD but its still analog 90% of the time,

You know about blackburts boxes? The RBG parade?

I mean yes with NTSC (never the same color) televisions people have all sorts of wacky color schemes. But if you want the whites to come out as static or the blacks to bleed and pulsate then of course deep blacks and whites have no place in broadcast.

Without a deep black or bright white, there is no TV. Bright white on a TV is not true white (true white is static) and pure black is not pure black because that would be the CRT turned off...

If you do any sort of DV, and I do, you have to keep a CRT because moving from my computer, burning to DVD, and watching on TV, i want the colors to match well and I want my gradients to look good. If i edited with FCP on an LCD Im not getting an exact representation of the color scales.

Is that to make your porn that you advertise in your sig?

I don't know too much about Broadcast, but, for broadcast, if CRT works for you, then I think CRT's are great. If LCD works for that printshop, then I think LCD"s are great. You'll get your money's worth, be it CRT or LCD. Buy cheap, get cheap. If you think a high end CRT pulls ahead of a high end LCD, great! Either way, I can't affored any of them

You dont know much about broadcast do you?
We may be on the brink of HD but its still analog 90% of the time,

You know about blackburts boxes? The RBG parade?

Snobby comments aren't appreciated.

 

[finalcoolman]

LCDs are great for laptops. But if you have a nice big desk for your desktop computer, why would you need small size of the screen? CRT deifinantly rules for desktop use.

 

[Platform]

LCDs are great for laptops. But if you have a nice big desk for your desktop computer, why would you need small size of the screen? CRT deifinantly rules for desktop use.

1. Well I have not seen a laptop with a CRT either so YES

2. Even if you have space an LCD looks better in my opinion

 

[witness]

LCDs are great for laptops. But if you have a nice big desk for your desktop computer, why would you need small size of the screen? CRT deifinantly rules for desktop use.

LCD's are not just better because they are more compact (which in itself is a very good feature), but they offer very good image quality without flicker!

Of course you can get cheap LCD's that look bad, but you can get cheap CRT's that look even worse.

 

[dvdiva]

The only crt monitor I could imagine using is a video monitor for video work. Anyone just using lcd's would be making a mistake not to at least check what it looks like on a video monitor or a tv for the beta dvd of any production work. That being said Once you get used to dual lcd's its very hard to use anything else.

 

[Cooknn]

I had one of the best CRT's, a 22-inch Viewsonic P225fb and just upgraded to a 23-inch Apple Cinema HD. That CRT still retails for $715 I can't give you all the details, but I'll tell you this - I don't need to wear my glasses in front of the Apple display and I could not do that with the Viewsonic. Threw my damn back out getting that huge CRT over to a friends place though

 

[camomac]

Nevertheless...you buy what gives you the best product, whether it be CRT, or LCD, or your grandma's denturevision.

LOL. EXACTLY.

personally i like both. i think they are both good depending on what your needs and finacial situation.
i personally just got sick of having two 19" CRTs hog all the space on my desk.

 

[ZoomZoomZoom]

I personally like LCDs. My eyes get strained very easily and it's excruciating to keep focusing on a CRT for hours at a time. That being said, I still wouldn't use anything other than my CRT for gaming purposes. Looking good in a variety of resolutions is a big thing for gaming. The high refresh rate is a plus, too. I'm ditching my CRT for a LCD in college, though, because I won't be doing anymore PC gaming. I'm not sure about the rest of the "casual user" population, but I don't fuss so much about the difference between colors for CRT vs LCD, because I only really notice it in the blacks, if at all.

 

[GoCubsGo]

for me CRT. I need it to be perfect when it comes to color.

 

[pusman83]

Can anyone post a side-by-side comparison for the colours/blacks on CRTs and LCDs? I'm getting a 20'' iMac and I'm really curious to see how "bad" it gets with LCD.

 

[mad jew]

Two things. Firstly, for me, the LCDs are better because of the smaller depth and IMO crisper display but having said that, I've never really used a super-expensive CRT.

And secondly, this is the single best piece of moderating I've ever seen. Long live the mod slap!

Who was a the *mod slap* idiot who said at 120Hz i still can see flicker and i get headaches?...

 

[mattyturner]

Slightly off topic, but isn't the Lacie 321 just a NEC (nothing to complain about) with a hood stuck on?

 

[jaysonmc]

One one thing wrong wint CRT???

If you can only find one disadvantage with a CRT then you are not very biased.
While your CRT points are vailds here are some negatives you should consider.

1). A CRT use alot more power than a similiar sized LCD. While not a major factor for the home user, businesses will see the cost benefit of LCD as a plus.

2). Eye strain. I would rather spend 8 hours looking at an LCD rather than a CRT any day of the week.

3). Electromagnetic interference. Work in an environment with tons of electromagnetic interfernce and your CRT picture will look wobbly, LCD do have exhibit this behavior.

4). Size and weight (as you mentioned).

5). Radiation. Some debate on this, but the signals being generated from a CRT can not be all good.

 

[spinne1]

If you can only find one disadvantage with a CRT then you are not very unbiased.

Is anybody truly unbiased?

While your CRT points are vailds here are some negatives you should consider.

1). A CRT use alot more power than a similiar sized LCD. While not a major factor for the home user, businesses will see the cost benefit of LCD as a plus.

True, but it also uses less power to not heat or cool your house, or to not run your lights, or to take cold baths instead of warm ones...... Point being that for a person at home running a computer, it is generally a non-issue.

2). Eye strain. I would rather spend 8 hours looking at an LCD rather than a CRT any day of the week.

That is a very good point. I have not felt eye strain yet using a CRT, but for those with more sensitive eyes, I can see your point. I also am not THAT close to my screen (maybe two feet), so that might be why I don't feel strain. Maybe an LCD would feel BETTER over the long haul. Many say that it does.

3). Electromagnetic interference. Work in an environment with tons of electromagnetic interfernce and your CRT picture will look wobbly, LCD do have exhibit this behavior.

True, but I have never run my CRT where there was any interference, so for me it is a non-issue.

4). Size and weight (as you mentioned).

Yes

5). Radiation. Some debate on this, but the signals being generated from a CRT can not be all good.

I know all CRTs pump out radiation, but people have been watching TV in mass since the 1950s and I have not yet heard of any evidence of damage from watching TV at a safe distance. On the other hand, computer screens are closer to the user than TVs, and power users (6-8 hours a day) are more susceptible to radiation exposure, and computers have only been in wide spread use since the 1970s, therefore most power users of CRTs are not yet old (the time when the accumulated damage will likely rear its ugly head). I agree, it is an issue to watch.

 

[feakbeak]

If you can only find one disadvantage with a CRT then you are not very biased.

Is anybody truly biased?

I think you guys mean unbiased, no?

 

[spinne1]

I think you guys mean unbiased, no?

Yes, and don't we look stupid.

PS. I went back and fixed it.