CRT Vs. LCD

[h0e0h]

I just bought an LCD monitor from one of my favorite sites because my head has been hurting due to prolonged use of my PC at work. My neurologist told me to switch to an LCD monitor so I did. Now I need to know the differences between my current CRT monitor and the new LCD monitor that i will receive next week, aside from the visible size/weight differences. Is there a viewable size difference, etc. Please let me know, I'm excited and skeptical at the same time...

 

[clayj]

Well, for starters, LCDs use less power than CRTs... and they give off less EM radiation, since there is no electron gun, no cathode ray tube (that's what CRT stands for). So LCDs are better for your wallet (in terms of memory consumption) and your health (less exposure to radiation).

The only downsides to LCDs are that they're initially more expensive, and that they run at a "fixed" resolution. What that means is that while you can change a CRT to different resolutions (640 x 480, 800 x 600, 1024 x 768, 1600 x 1200, etc.) and it will always look sharp, an LCD only looks "correct" when running at its native resolution... in other words, if your LCD has 1024 x 768 resolution, that's the resolution you should use with it.

 

[plinden]

Is there a viewable size difference, etc. Please let me know, I'm excited and skeptical at the same time...

LCD monitors are about an inch larger (diagonally) compared to a "comparable" CRT. My 17" LCD really is 17", but my 17" CRT is just slightly over 16".

 

[Lacero]

The only redeeming qualities of CRTs are still color reproduction and fast pixel response time. Any sort of serious video or graphics work, you still need to use a CRT.

 

[absolut_mac]

The only redeeming qualities of CRTs are still color reproduction and fast pixel response time. Any sort of serious video or graphics work, you still need to use a CRT.

I'd say that a wider viewing angle is right up there with better color and a faster response time too, wouldn't you?

Also, the extra heat is most welcome in the winter, but definitely most unwelcome on stifling hot summer days.

 

[jackieonasses]

The only redeeming qualities of CRTs are still color reproduction and fast pixel response time. Any sort of serious video or graphics work, you still need to use a CRT.

Right now that is correct, but in a couple years that might prove false.

When pixel response on a LCD gets in the single digits, look for me buying a new lcd.

kyle

 

[Lacero]

No, because who works at their monitors from a 120 degree angle? Most LCDs like Apple's Cinema Displays have excellent viewing angles.

 

[Daveway]

LCDs are better on the eyes, take up less space, and uses less power. However CRTs still deliver more brightness and color acuracy. I would pick and lcd because its easier on my eyes and I can get a widescreen, but my 7 year old CRT still looks amazing.

 

[Bigheadache]

The pixel response times on LCDs are basically lies. They only report black to white transitions; its not unusual for even 8ms panels to have grey to grey transitions in the 30ms-50ms range. To be equivalent to a CRT, LCDs would have to have 1-4ms response times across the entire color spectrum, not just black to white.

Don't expect LCDs to start matching CRTs until OLED panels come out. That said, I bought one because it looks cool and I don't game.

 

[mkrishnan]

Well, for starters, LCDs use less power than CRTs... and they give off less EM radiation, since there is no electron gun, no cathode ray tube (that's what CRT stands for). So LCDs are better for your wallet (in terms of memory consumption) and your health (less exposure to radiation).

While this is true, I think the reason that the screen will hopefully benefit your headache issue has less to do with the radiation and more to do with with refresh / scanning and persistence and sharpness. You know how you can see flicker at some of the most extreme resolutions on a CRT monitor? The flicker is actually still on the edge of perception even at most of the mainstream resolutions (most people can see it if they look at the screen out of the corner of their eye). The flicker happens because the electron gun lights up a pixel on the screen, and then the pixel dies out before the electron gun gets back to it. You see the light that is emitted by the spot on the inside of the screen, where the beam hit the tube, and as long as the spot lights up again on the next pass soon enough, you perceive continuous motion. But beyond your conscious level of perception, your brain is still occupied by the flickering.

But on an LCD, the pixel is like a filter -- like the glass of a pair of sunglasses, that sits in front of a light source (the backlight). The pixel's color gets changed each time there's a scan, but the light is more or less constant (or at least has less pronounced flicker...) and so there is very little flicker effect, which makes it easier on your eyes.

Also, the pixels themselves are very sharply defined, whereas pixels on a CRT are fuzzy to some extent, because of the divergence of the beam over the throw from the back of the CRT to the front, but since the LCD is so thin, this issue isn't really there either.

And the big downsides are exactly the ones other people said, but they're not too bad if you don't play games.

Hope you like it!

 

[h0e0h]

the doctor asked me if i used a laptop as well as that PC and i told him about my powerbook and he asked if my head hurt when i used the laptop... I told him it didn't and he gave me a similar explanation to the description above. To me it seems softer, but brighter at the same time if that makes any sense. I hope that things get better next week, but until then I'm on vacation... so it deson't really matter!

 

[aswitcher]

I really hope that Apple move the eMac to an LCD soon. It would be an excellent switcher machine if they did...

 

[LethalWolfe]

The only redeeming qualities of CRTs are still color reproduction and fast pixel response time. Any sort of serious video or graphics work, you still need to use a CRT.

GFX yes, video no. A computer monitor will not look like a TV so any sort of semi-serious video work should be viewed on TV/broadcast monitor.


Lethal

 

[h0e0h]

I really hope that Apple move the eMac to an LCD soon. It would be an excellent switcher machine if they did...

it will be really nice if they make it a little smailler too, less deep that is... i mean, if they can come up with the mac mini, they can "flatten" out the eMac a little...

 

[slipper]

and they give off less EM radiation

expanding on this, LCDs do not flicker like CRTs do. CRTs actually flicker at a rate quicker than most people can notice but will strain the eyes over a period of time.

 

[emw]

However CRTs still deliver more brightness and color acuracy.

Color accuracy, perhaps (though debatable). Brightness, not generally. In fact, CRTs tend to lose brightness significantly faster than LCDs due to phosphor decay.

 

[aswitcher]

it will be really nice if they make it a little smailler too, less deep that is... i mean, if they can come up with the mac mini, they can "flatten" out the eMac a little...

An eMac with an LCD would look just like the current iMac from the front, except smaller... It would likely be the same 2" thick as well given its a cooler G4... Or a bit bigger but even cheaper.

 

[Westside guy]

An eMac with an LCD would look just like the current iMac from the front, except smaller... It would likely be the same 2" thick as well given its a cooler G4... Or a bit bigger but even cheaper.

What would be the reason to even buy an eMac anymore? You could get the Mac Mini and add a 17" LCD to it for the price of the eMac.

(That's actually a serious question - I'm curious to hear if I'm missing something)

 

[Bear]

What would be the reason to even buy an eMac anymore? You could get the Mac Mini and add a 17" LCD to it for the price of the eMac.

(That's actually a serious question - I'm curious to hear if I'm missing something)

Well, a couple of things, you would want an LCD that has a DVI input on it for best picture.

And secondly, the eMac still has it's uses and places to be. Among those are schools e[ducation]Mac. And with little kids. As well as any areay wher eyou want a unit big enough that someone can't just pick it up and hide it in their clothes.

 

[Westside guy]

Color accuracy, perhaps (though debatable). Brightness, not generally. In fact, CRTs tend to lose brightness significantly faster than LCDs due to phosphor decay.

I think it's probably also true that most of these arguments in favor of CRTs are really applicable only to high-end CRTs that cost mucho bucks - not the typical CRTs the vast majority of users buy.

Overall, some statements that were very true 3-4 years ago are not as relevant today (although certainly the response time advantage for CRTs is still quite real; but unless you're a serious gamer I can't imagine it really matters).

 

[aswitcher]

What would be the reason to even buy an eMac anymore? You could get the Mac Mini and add a 17" LCD to it for the price of the eMac.

(That's actually a serious question - I'm curious to hear if I'm missing something)

Well since the eMac with LCD uses all full sized PC desktop parts, not laptop parts, it should be cheap to have fast superdrives, big HDD (160gig+), more ram (more thna a gig), bigger graphics card etc, all in one unit.

This makes it a different beast from the Mac mini, which has a form factor that some prefer with no LCD. An LCD eMac would appeal to swtichers who want an all in one machine like the iMac, want more room without more cables and boxes to store music, phtos and video (year of HD requires heaps of space) but dont want to pay for a bigger LCD or a G5.

I figure that an LCD eMac price point shouldn't move much from where it is now given the 300 plus days of hardware cost drops on all the rest of its components...