Flat CRTs?

Discussion in 'MacRumors News Discussion (archive)' started by MacRumors, Jul 25, 2001.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot


    Apr 12, 2001
    Seen on Slashdot.org, this brief article in InformationWeek discusses a new Flat-panel CRT technology in the works:

    IBM scientists in Scotland have patented a way to make a color CRT that's 2 centimeters thick-and IBM says it's cheaper and easier to make these flat-panel CRTs than LCDs.

    Short on details and time-frame... this sort of technology could certainly bring Flat-Panel iMacs into an affordable range.
  2. msiegal macrumors newbie

    Jul 13, 2001
    Dayton, OH
    Curved baby.

    Sounds like to me that that display will be horribly curved. I'm not so sure about reliability either.
  3. menoinjun macrumors 6502a


    Jul 7, 2001
    Apple's already committed to LCD displays. No way would they buy into short depth CRTs.

  4. blakespot Administrator


    Jun 4, 2000
    Alexandria, VA
    msiegal: It's even in bold, "Flat-panel CRT." (As in...flat.)

    ptrauber: New technologies can and often do break percieved "commitments." I'm sure 2cm thick is not taking certain things into account...but this sort of thing would be perfect for a slim iMac.

    I'm still anxious to see where the organic LED's are heading. That's another superior-to-LCD technology that should be on the cheap...real soon now. (Of course, I've been holding my breath for holographic memory for the past 8-10 years, I think...)

  5. mymemory macrumors 68020


    May 9, 2001
    No way

    LCD are too bright for graphic designers, specially if you work for video productions, the colors are not real. If you are gonna edit video, you have to use CTR displays to have a closer reference to what the consumer is gonna see. If IBM comes with a new display they are gonna use it first for sure. I'm not sure that is such good news for Apple.
    A cinema display is nice but compare the color with your powebook. They are so much brighter and the tv (regular media) doesn't look like that.
  6. menoinjun macrumors 6502a


    Jul 7, 2001

    Does anyone bother to read the articles?

    "The electron beams stream out to a phosphor-covered, thin, slightly convex glass screen. "

    -end quote

  7. Normal Guy Guest

    Re: read!!

    Yes. "Slightly Convex" Most current Flat-CRTs have a slight if even microscopic curve because of the nature of glass. This isn't about making a flat CRT. That's old. This is about making thinner CRT for desktops. If the image quality is better, it's only slightly thicker than LCDs, and it's cheaper, where's the down side?
  8. Elvis Guest

    Since Apples main reason for dropping CRT's from their product line is environmental (very harmful metals etc... in picture tubes - potential future liability) It seems the idea of Apple switching to flat panel screens is being completely missed on this thread.
  9. MattB macrumors member

    Jul 16, 2001
    Sounds like its possible

    If Apple were smart, they'd be investing heavily in that guy's research. If it's the same price as a CRT but has the versatilty of an LCD, it would surely put LCDs right out of business!

    [Edited by MattB on 07-25-2001 at 04:09 PM]
  10. jefhatfield Retired


    Jul 9, 2000
    will it cause flicker rate fatigue?

    i get eye strain with my 3 CRTs ( 1 epson and 2 sonys ) but my two laptops don't hurt my eyes at all

    the apple cinema screen is the closest to reality for graphic designers using LCD technology according to macworld but just slightly off to be considered as good as a high end expensive CRT for graphics...but it's close according to color management software programs, it's just a little way to go for LCDs in widespread pro use
  11. Luckster macrumors member

    Jul 25, 2001
    Enviromental Concern?

    I highly doubt that Apple's main reason for dropping the CRTs was enviromental. The lighting used in LCD displays is rich in mercury (a heavy metal). Additionally, LCD manufacture is a much more delicate process than CRT requiring a clean fabrication. The slightest bit of dust and the whole LCD pannel is ruined which means that it is trash. LCD was adopted to create a sleek look. Additionally, this is not the first technology to be developed for the creation of a flat, thin CRT. A while ago a diamond emitter technology was developed. It promised thiner displays (than LCD), brighter pannels, cheaper manufacture, and lower power consumption. However, it never seemed to make it to production.
    - Andrew
  12. spuncan macrumors 6502

    Jul 18, 2001
    Apple Scared Why?

    IBM is no longer the same evil we once thought it was actually many parts of mac are made by ibm. what I think will happen it that mac will quickly embrace, invest and carry these monitors once they are fully developed.
  13. menoinjun macrumors 6502a


    Jul 7, 2001
    By the time these are "fully developed", LCD screens will be so cheap that it won't be worth changing back to CRT. I have a feeling that this is a lost cause...and there is no way that Apple will adopt such a new technology. They just can't afford it. LCD screens are still considered "new", so while CRTs can try to become short depth...they wont in enough time for LCDs to become mainstream. Anyhow, they have to use more power than LCDs, and that is one of Apple's main selling points now.

  14. MrMacMan macrumors 604


    Jul 4, 2001
    1 Block away from NYC.
    I think apple needs to either switch fully to lcd imac's or to switch to a thin Crt before switching to a Lcd imac's. Both would work. and about the strain of eye thing. I'm getting a starin on my eyes after looking at my imac normally, sometimes enought so much that I can right my Reply's on this sie.
  15. t^3 Guest

    About the eyestrain thing...

    I've always believed that the main reason for eyestrain from CRT's is that the screen is curved, which distorts the image somewhat (except for the flat-screen CRT's). Am I right?
  16. menoinjun macrumors 6502a


    Jul 7, 2001
    yes and no...the flat screen helps tremendously, but is meant for graphics so that the picture is not distorted at the edges of the screen.

    also...if you are running a monitor at 1024x768 @ 80hz, it will hurt your eyes a lot more than at 800x600 @ 120hz. The faster the screen refreshes, the easier it is on your eyes.

  17. Guest Guest

    LCD's are nice

    Are all of you forgetting that the LCD in Apples Ti Book (PowerBook G4) has Mercury within it?! If you've got one and don't believe me look up your hardware manual, its there. Also, this new technology sounds promising even without reading the article. Personally, visually creative professionals are slow to change--especially when it comes to monitors.

    LCD's are indeed very bright, and can last a long time if you treat them light a silver knight would the virgin Snow White. But in the reality world we live in CRT's a very cheap to repair and oh yeah they can be repaired. A laptops or desktops LCD cannot be--actually will not be repaired. LCD's are very expensive to manufacture because of the pixel technology. If your LCD has four bad pixels its time to replace it or else watch the bleeding start like a cracked calculator screen. Remember their are only Four manufacturers that make LCD's greater than 3" in size.
  18. Xistor macrumors member

    May 1, 2001
    Why LCDs...

    Apple should stick to LCDs because it's more environmentally sound.. no, not in a tree hugging sense (but that applies as well I'm sure), but because it's more comfortable for the human environment. Reduced eye strain is a real issue.. and it has NOTHING to do with refresh rates WHEN it comes to an LCD screen...

    Refresh rates have more impact on eye strain when you are talking about CRTs... BECAUSE the refresh rate controls how many times the electron beam passes over the screen per second (read, the CRT ALWAYS flickers.. at one rate or another)...

    Having had the pleasure of being a repair technician, and having also REPAIRED LCDs (yes, you can repair certain aspects of them such as the backlight, which is much cheaper to replace than a ray gun), I can tell you that at least the 400V backlight driver models I worked had no apparent light level flicker due to the fact that flourescent tubes have a higher persistence rate than CRTs.

    The refresh rate of an LCD has NOTHING to do with how many times per second the light intensity of a screen flickers.. the LCD is just a mechanism of allowing light through from the backlight behind, not light intensity as with a picture tube where both light intensity and color placement both derive from the same source (three electron beams).

    That is why LCD is and will remain better on human eyes, and cause less strain, because it is the backlight, NOT the LCD screen in front of it which would be responsible for any light intensity level flicker. Nomatter how many times per second the computer updates such a screen, be it 60 or 75 Hz, on an LCD it does not increase, nor decrease screen "flicker" as people think of flicker in the sense of light pulses, which is negligable in an LCD screen comparitively speaking.

    CRT's would have been less straining on the eyes had all the screens been coated with higher-persistance phosphors (meaning that each pixel looses less light between electron beam passes, therefore lessening the flicker), but high persistance would also lead to blur at faster refresh rates, a limitation that LCDs can not suffer.. An LCD can "refresh" as fast as the chemical reaction in the liquid crystal can switch from on to off which is pretty darn fast.
  19. Normal Guy Guest

    That and the fact that we're all receiving nice doses of radiation from our CRTs.
  20. spuncan macrumors 6502

    Jul 18, 2001
    Picture Quality

    Hey guys unless u want to buy some 25 hundred cinema display youl'l never get the quality of a crt which is what all the mac using developers and hardcore gamers need.
  21. Guest Guest

    CRT's better?

    No way..

    CRTs are inferior except for higher resolution in the same screen space.. And again, no "average" gamer or user cares to slug down their system performance by running a game or Finder in 1900 x 1600 or some other silly resolution most people with average sight couldn't tell the difference between on a 15 inch screen. There is a point at which increased resolution does not benefit except on increased size screens. I don't think that most games even on Open GL on an 867 MHz PowerMac are going to get great frame rates at res's above 1200x. Quite honestly, the resolution afforded by LCDs is quite reasonable for games, and Apple's screens are A+ active matrix, no blur, wide view angle, low distortion, and RADIATION FREE. As for graphics designers, there are plenty of higher-quality monitors available than what Apple sold.. Apple doesn't NEED to market CRTs when there are already so many companies that do such.. after all, it's the uniqueness, not the redundancy of Apple products that sells them. ;)

  22. MrMacMan macrumors 604


    Jul 4, 2001
    1 Block away from NYC.
    Your right

    That sound's good but your a little off topic. Yo refresh your memory's it was about the new flat CRT's that ibm made.
    :) Though u might want to know. And the data your given is usless intill we know the data about the new CTR.

Share This Page