Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Anyone else think LCD monitors are step down from crt?
- Thread starter togermano
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Agreed
Only recently (last year or so) have we really seen LCD monitors that have comparable quality in terms of response time, picture quality and viewing angles to a high quality CRT monitor. I bought my first LCD monitor 4 years ago and things have definitely improved considerably since then.
You're definitely right when it comes to resolution; if it isn't at it's native resolution then LCD monitors really don't look right at all. That's a pity cos you could play games at a lower res for higher performance in the past on a CRT and things would still look great. At least you don't have to worry about refresh rates on LCD's - they're definitely less strainful on the eyes.
The fact is that a cheap CRT monitor will blow away a cheap LCD monitor. But if you've got a modern monitor running at its native resolution, you should have a great experience. As I wrote in another thread, I think the latest 24" iMac screen with its glossy screen looks absolutely AMAZING especially for things like photos.
A pity about the graphics card being so poor (although driver updates may make a difference in the future) on the new iMacs which force people to use lower resolutions. Let's hope it gets better ...
Only recently (last year or so) have we really seen LCD monitors that have comparable quality in terms of response time, picture quality and viewing angles to a high quality CRT monitor. I bought my first LCD monitor 4 years ago and things have definitely improved considerably since then.
You're definitely right when it comes to resolution; if it isn't at it's native resolution then LCD monitors really don't look right at all. That's a pity cos you could play games at a lower res for higher performance in the past on a CRT and things would still look great. At least you don't have to worry about refresh rates on LCD's - they're definitely less strainful on the eyes.
The fact is that a cheap CRT monitor will blow away a cheap LCD monitor. But if you've got a modern monitor running at its native resolution, you should have a great experience. As I wrote in another thread, I think the latest 24" iMac screen with its glossy screen looks absolutely AMAZING especially for things like photos.
A pity about the graphics card being so poor (although driver updates may make a difference in the future) on the new iMacs which force people to use lower resolutions. Let's hope it gets better ...
Agree with you, but the small size and light weight of an LCD outweigh the quality of a CRT for me.I love my new imac but i miss my crt it was perfect no matter what resolution it looked great now on the new imac i have to change the resolution depending on the game and it just looks awful
So LCD it is for me. Gone are the CRTs. May they RIP.
For gaming (at lower resolutions) a CRT has advantages, as you describe, but for working with text for long periods an LCD running at its native resolution is GREAT, better than the best CRTs and MUCH better than most CRTs. And, as Sushi and Eric point out, the small size of LCDs is a big advantage. Craig
I still use my 19" NEC CRT for all gaming and the 24" LCD for desktop purposes. I still don't believe LCD's are anywhere near the level of image quality that a CRT produces. The fact that I can run them at any resolution with perfect picture quality is the biggest factor for keeping it around.
Sadly yes, CRT's are still far superior to LCD's but there are pros and cons.
LCD Pros:
Thin, space saving, energy saving and lightweight. Laptops wouldn't be in existence without them.
LCD Cons:
Too much color shifting, constrictive viewing angles, not durable as they can be easily damaged by applying the wrong amount of pressure. Dead pixels can occur.
CRT Pros:
Perfect viewing angles without constriction. Better color accuracy. Durable, would require a hammer to damage them.
CRT Cons:
Even the smallest screen takes up too much space. Heavy, resolutions aren't as high as LCD's, can have latency issues, refresh rates always rear their ugly heads in a camera lens.
LCD Pros:
Thin, space saving, energy saving and lightweight. Laptops wouldn't be in existence without them.
LCD Cons:
Too much color shifting, constrictive viewing angles, not durable as they can be easily damaged by applying the wrong amount of pressure. Dead pixels can occur.
CRT Pros:
Perfect viewing angles without constriction. Better color accuracy. Durable, would require a hammer to damage them.
CRT Cons:
Even the smallest screen takes up too much space. Heavy, resolutions aren't as high as LCD's, can have latency issues, refresh rates always rear their ugly heads in a camera lens.
CRTs aren't really as durable as LCDs, overall. The main reason is high voltage -- the transformers are usually the first to go. I've pitched so many CRTs with dead flyback transformers over the years, I can't remember. CRTs also lose brightness, contrast, color balance and focus over time -- an effect which occurs so gradually that you might not even notice the degradation. But for sure, it's happening. We also tend to forget the linearity issues which effect CRT displays. They're never going to be perfectly linear, by virtue of the way they work.
LCDs have issues too, obviously, but not enough to make me nostalgic for CRTs. I'm in the process of throwing out the last few I own. Funny how nobody wants old CRTs at any price.
LCDs have issues too, obviously, but not enough to make me nostalgic for CRTs. I'm in the process of throwing out the last few I own. Funny how nobody wants old CRTs at any price.
Color Gamut for new iMacs???
One thing not yet mentioned is color gamut.
Consumer grade CRTs have a gamut which is slightly larger than sRGB. In fact the sRGB standard was designed around the colors a circa 1995 monitor could reproduce accurately. Consumer grade LCDs tyically have color gamuts which are smaller (i.e. less saturated colors) than CRTs. Things are now different on the top end with some expensive high-end displays capable of displaying all of the larger AdodeRGB gamut.
Its actually the printing of the files where the larger AbobeRGB gamut is superior to sRBG. Color gamuts are actually three-dimensional rhomboids. When sRGB and CYMK printing gamuts intersect there are parts of each which don't fit inside the other. Its a bit like trying to put a square peg in a round hole; the parts on the corners that get shaved off are the colors in the RGB file that get remapped when printed. Thats why its impossible to closely match printer output to screen appearance on low-end monitors. Even if you soft proof in Photoshop you are actually only seeing the printing gamut through the "lens" of the monitor's limited gamut.
AdobeRGB1998 was designed to allow both sRGB and CYMK gamuts to fit inside of it. There will still be color shifts when printing, because the CYMK gamut is much smaller than AdobeRGB, but the significant difference in the graphic arts realm is the fact that monitor with can display the entire larger gamut of AdobeRGB file will be able to soft proof it more accurately. Its really sort of a good new / bad news thing. The good news is that the soft proof will more accurately match what is coming off the printer -- which can only reproduce the gamut the characteristics of inks, paper printer dictate. The bad news is that the wider the gamut of the monitor, the worse the more limited gamut of ink on paper will look by comparison.
I've got a 24" on order and currently use a 17" CRT Apple Studio Monitor at home. Has anyone compared the gamuts of a calibrated iMac 20 and 24 with sRGB and AdobeRGB?
Chuck Gardner
One thing not yet mentioned is color gamut.
Consumer grade CRTs have a gamut which is slightly larger than sRGB. In fact the sRGB standard was designed around the colors a circa 1995 monitor could reproduce accurately. Consumer grade LCDs tyically have color gamuts which are smaller (i.e. less saturated colors) than CRTs. Things are now different on the top end with some expensive high-end displays capable of displaying all of the larger AdodeRGB gamut.
Its actually the printing of the files where the larger AbobeRGB gamut is superior to sRBG. Color gamuts are actually three-dimensional rhomboids. When sRGB and CYMK printing gamuts intersect there are parts of each which don't fit inside the other. Its a bit like trying to put a square peg in a round hole; the parts on the corners that get shaved off are the colors in the RGB file that get remapped when printed. Thats why its impossible to closely match printer output to screen appearance on low-end monitors. Even if you soft proof in Photoshop you are actually only seeing the printing gamut through the "lens" of the monitor's limited gamut.
AdobeRGB1998 was designed to allow both sRGB and CYMK gamuts to fit inside of it. There will still be color shifts when printing, because the CYMK gamut is much smaller than AdobeRGB, but the significant difference in the graphic arts realm is the fact that monitor with can display the entire larger gamut of AdobeRGB file will be able to soft proof it more accurately. Its really sort of a good new / bad news thing. The good news is that the soft proof will more accurately match what is coming off the printer -- which can only reproduce the gamut the characteristics of inks, paper printer dictate. The bad news is that the wider the gamut of the monitor, the worse the more limited gamut of ink on paper will look by comparison.
I've got a 24" on order and currently use a 17" CRT Apple Studio Monitor at home. Has anyone compared the gamuts of a calibrated iMac 20 and 24 with sRGB and AdobeRGB?
Chuck Gardner
Fortunately/Unfortunately CRT are on their way out. I wouldn't pine over the glory days of the CRTs and focus on what you are loosing switching to CRT. But a couple things to consider....
The Rate that Video Cards performs is faster then the changes in resolution in displays, meaning overtime there is less reason to change to lower resolutions... Also Video cards 3d features are starting to make resolution meaningless for people who say the screen is to small...
LCDs are getting brighter and faster and higher resolution If you compared a MacBook Pros laptop display with a PowerBooks display you will see a huge difference in quality.... Compare it to something 10 years ago, you will wonder how did anyone use this. Their maximum brightness was about the same as the first level of brightness on macbook pro. While a lot of the advantages of the CRT may always be the case over LCD as time goes on further the gap narrows to a point where it doesn't matter much at all.
Bigger Screens and less space... The new iMacs their smallest display size is 20" displays. Back a decade ago a 21" display was reserved for the Ultra Graphics Guys who have thousands of dollars to spend on a display. High End PC Displays were between 17" - 19". Most Mid Range PCs desktops had 14" Displays. And the Low ends had 12", still the 12" displays would be a major part of your desk. Today we can have 20"-32" screens on our desk and plenty of desk room for your papers books pens and other stuff.
Lighter. My wife just got a new iMac yesterday. I myself carried the box from the mall where the apple store was to the car about 1/4 mile walk. (It is a big mall) While the iMac was heavy after a while it was still movable and I was able to bring it upstairs and hook it up without breaking a sweat. I remember back in college having to take 3 trips 2 of those trips were heavy and the last one was light. Trip one heaviest take the monitor and get it upstairs while you have the most energy. Trip 2 move the CPU up (which weights about the same as the new iMacs) third trip the printer,keyboard mice etc... all in one box.
The Rate that Video Cards performs is faster then the changes in resolution in displays, meaning overtime there is less reason to change to lower resolutions... Also Video cards 3d features are starting to make resolution meaningless for people who say the screen is to small...
LCDs are getting brighter and faster and higher resolution If you compared a MacBook Pros laptop display with a PowerBooks display you will see a huge difference in quality.... Compare it to something 10 years ago, you will wonder how did anyone use this. Their maximum brightness was about the same as the first level of brightness on macbook pro. While a lot of the advantages of the CRT may always be the case over LCD as time goes on further the gap narrows to a point where it doesn't matter much at all.
Bigger Screens and less space... The new iMacs their smallest display size is 20" displays. Back a decade ago a 21" display was reserved for the Ultra Graphics Guys who have thousands of dollars to spend on a display. High End PC Displays were between 17" - 19". Most Mid Range PCs desktops had 14" Displays. And the Low ends had 12", still the 12" displays would be a major part of your desk. Today we can have 20"-32" screens on our desk and plenty of desk room for your papers books pens and other stuff.
Lighter. My wife just got a new iMac yesterday. I myself carried the box from the mall where the apple store was to the car about 1/4 mile walk. (It is a big mall) While the iMac was heavy after a while it was still movable and I was able to bring it upstairs and hook it up without breaking a sweat. I remember back in college having to take 3 trips 2 of those trips were heavy and the last one was light. Trip one heaviest take the monitor and get it upstairs while you have the most energy. Trip 2 move the CPU up (which weights about the same as the new iMacs) third trip the printer,keyboard mice etc... all in one box.
I dunno about the iMac LCDs, but comparing my new 42" LCD tv to my old crt, the crt was MUCH better; it was brighter, and had better contrast. of course, that will change when LED backlighting becomes more prevalent.
Unfortunately as LCDs get larger and their resolutions get higher, the video cards required to play anything at that resolution becomes exponentially expensive. Even the highest end video cards have a very difficult time running at 1920 with everything turned up. You can't just step down to a lower resolution like on a CRT and expect it to look proper. That is my BIGGEST beef with LCD. I would trade in my CRT if LCDs didn't have native resolutions.
A very very big hammer to damage them, I took a standard nail hammer to a very dead CRT a few years ago, i hit it literally as hard as i could the hammer just bounced straight back. They are tough, seriously tough.
Try swinging the hammer in the direction of the screen. Just make sure it's a very, very long-handled hammer, or I won't be responsible for the results.
LCDs used to be terrible - too blurry so your eye melted or too sharp so they pulled your eyes out! They suffered from terrible tearing problems too.
Over the last couple of years they've become excellent though.
My new iMac is happy at non-native resolution in games too.
Over the last couple of years they've become excellent though.
My new iMac is happy at non-native resolution in games too.
I still have my CRT its ancient Phillips model 104S - lasted me a long while only thing with crt is the eyestrain .. i think LCD's have less harmful effects - however I may be wrong.. Im in the process of getting the new Imac ..so it will be my first... 
Nothing could ever replace my Sony GDM-FW900 24" 16:10 CRT... Man, gaming on this thing is like dream. Everything looks so great, and no ghosting or motion blur when scrolling through text. Sure, one possible reason for not selling it is that it's so huge I would have to remove my front door to get it out of the house... but that's not the main reason I'm keeping it.
I am planning on selling off my Trinitron G400 19" 5:4, because it is just too big for the small screensize, not to mention power consumption. Also, it only supports 85hz, which is on the low side, and I can see the flicker out of the corner of my eyes. I am picking up a NEC 20WMGX2 LCD. Should be a pretty good replacement. Hopefully. We'll see.
I do wish they were still developing new CRT technologies for professionals. They would be able to achieve incredible quality.
I am planning on selling off my Trinitron G400 19" 5:4, because it is just too big for the small screensize, not to mention power consumption. Also, it only supports 85hz, which is on the low side, and I can see the flicker out of the corner of my eyes. I am picking up a NEC 20WMGX2 LCD. Should be a pretty good replacement. Hopefully. We'll see.
I do wish they were still developing new CRT technologies for professionals. They would be able to achieve incredible quality.
Try swinging the hammer in the direction of the screen. Just make sure it's a very, very long-handled hammer, or I won't be responsible for the results.
Agreed!
Having seen CRTs do their stuff when chucked into a skip (and once dropped down some stairs), it wouldn't be pretty to be next to one when it goes CRTs certainly have there advantages, but I will never ever get one again.
Though the low end CRTs are certainly better than the low end LCDs. But I don't think the ordinary computer user cares that much about it. Having a slimmer, better looking and less power consuming screen is probably more important.
As for the mid and high end screens I like the LCDs better nowdays. They are certainly different from the CRTs, but I wouldn't say that they are worse. In my experience you can get much better quality for far less money with an LCD.
Heck, I spend almost as much money on my previous CRT as I did on the 24" iMac, yet the iMac surpasses it by far in most uses, and there's even a computer included in the price
In 3-5 years I think the CRTs will be completely out of the picture. Some people will still think that CRTs are better, but that's probably because that's what they learned back in the days, and that they haven't really noticed that LCDs has gotten that much better.
Even my pretty conservative father ordered a mid range LCD last week to replace his CRT for his photo work.
Though the low end CRTs are certainly better than the low end LCDs. But I don't think the ordinary computer user cares that much about it. Having a slimmer, better looking and less power consuming screen is probably more important.
As for the mid and high end screens I like the LCDs better nowdays. They are certainly different from the CRTs, but I wouldn't say that they are worse. In my experience you can get much better quality for far less money with an LCD.
Heck, I spend almost as much money on my previous CRT as I did on the 24" iMac, yet the iMac surpasses it by far in most uses, and there's even a computer included in the price
In 3-5 years I think the CRTs will be completely out of the picture. Some people will still think that CRTs are better, but that's probably because that's what they learned back in the days, and that they haven't really noticed that LCDs has gotten that much better.
Even my pretty conservative father ordered a mid range LCD last week to replace his CRT for his photo work.