are crts bad

Anarchy99

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Dec 13, 2003
858
759
CA
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

macrumors 68040
Jun 15, 2004
3,118
3
Norway
Anarchy99 said:
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

macrumors P6
May 10, 2004
16,453
4,461
For how long has the monitor you are considering been used?
What's the brand and model?
 

Jo-Kun

macrumors 6502a
Dec 20, 2003
682
0
Antwerp-Belgium
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

macrumors 68000
May 10, 2004
1,701
0
Nottingham
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

macrumors P6
May 10, 2004
16,453
4,461
Jo-Kun said:
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

macrumors 68040
Apr 3, 2003
3,735
1
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
 

GUSTO

macrumors member
Sep 23, 2003
70
0
Scotland
I am happy with my 17" Mitsubishi dimond plus 93sb, great price and all round good monitor for graphics and gaming. :D
 

Sun Baked

macrumors G5
May 19, 2002
14,874
57
GUSTO said:
I am happy with my 17" Mitsubishi dimond plus 93sb, great price and all round good monitor for graphics and gaming. :D
Don'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

macrumors P6
May 10, 2004
16,453
4,461
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.
 

SpaceMagic

macrumors 68000
Oct 26, 2003
1,740
0
Cardiff, Wales
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

macrumors G5
May 19, 2002
14,874
57
cube said:
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

macrumors P6
May 10, 2004
16,453
4,461
Well, I guess we depend on Samsung improving shadow mask over aperture grille.
 

jxyama

macrumors 68040
Apr 3, 2003
3,735
1
dabirdwell said:
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.
 

ewinemiller

macrumors 6502
Aug 29, 2001
445
0
west of Philly
jxyama said:
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

Suspended
Jun 13, 2003
161
0
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

macrumors 603
Aug 15, 2001
6,152
341
The Cool Part of CA, USA
jxyama said:
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

macrumors 68040
Jun 13, 2004
3,399
489
NorCal
jxyama said:
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

macrumors 6502a
Nov 8, 2002
947
0
MI
[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

macrumors 68020
Sep 21, 2003
2,174
2
Las Vegas, NV
Anarchy99 said:
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. It has component, composite, s-video, VGA and DVI inputs, and competitive (some better, some not) specs than the Apple 23" Cinema Display.
 

cube

macrumors P6
May 10, 2004
16,453
4,461
Kyle? said:
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?