Has anyone gone back to their CRT monitor after using a LCD for a long time?

[kg21]

I have 21inch crt too, I find that it puts a little bit of strain on my eyes compared to lcds when i go back and forth altough the image quality is still pretty good. I dont think it looks as good as my 2407 but thats probably because I bought the crt used and the person before me had the constrast/brightness ridiculously high.

 

[fordgtlover]

I use dual 20" LCDs at work and I'm always glad to come home to my 19"CRT.

Bigger and newer isn't better. I hate the scrolling on LCDs eeek.

I also dislike LCD and Plasma TVs. My German CRT TV is just so much better.

 

[Enverxis]

I switched to an LCD from a not-so-good CRT and I enjoyed the change, but FPS gaming took a toll because I was used to 100Hz and it not being so blurry.

Then I picked up a 19" Sony Trinitron Flat CRT secondhand for $50, and oh my god, I can't believe how crap LCD Technology is compared to this, there are some minor advantages but for gaming and movies, the Higher End CRT wins out.
I play Call of Duty 2 in 800x600@160Hz, yes I can tell the difference between 85, 100, 120 and 160Hz, because each refresh rate feels different on the eyes and the game runs smoother and smoother with the higher refresh rate and I find it amazing.
Tried going back to the LCD to see what it was like after using this monitor for ages and I thought it was atrocious, fine for websurfing though.

 

[Zenja]

If I had a decent CRT, I'd definitely use it for gaming. 60Hz and 8ms response time doesn't cut it for fast FPS gaming.

 

[zachary80]

My CRT (Viewsonic P95f+) is far beyond any LCDs I have ever used. I only use an LCD where a CRT doesn't fit

 

[beerguy0]

I have a 21" Dell LCD at work, and it's OK at best. When my old NEC 5FG 17" CRT just died last month, I replaced it with a ViewSonic G225f 21" CRT. I do a lot of Photoshop work, and I do my own printing on an Epson 2200. The average LCD can't be properly calibrated, and LCD's that can be fully calibrated are very expensive. I just finished calibrating it last night, and it looks fantastic. The shadow detail is amazing, way better than my old CRT, and better thatn any LCD I've seen so far.

It's huge, but it's actually not much bigger than my old NEC, which I bought in 1994. Back then, 17" CRTs were big and heavy. The new 21" is only one pound heavier, and is still one inch shorter than the old 17". Desk space isn't really an issue for me, so I really don't care much about th space savings of the LCD.

 

[Cousin Patty]

been considering going back to a CRT because I hate being capped at 60hz and as a result capped at 60fps. i always have to have vsync on because i hate tearing in games. I feel like I'm really holding back my 8800GTX. my friend has a little 17" NEC CRT and even on the desktop, everything is so much faster and smoother cause her refresh rate is at 85hz. it makes a HUGE difference. on the otherhand, I really enjoy my 22" of real estate and the fact that the LCD doesnt take up a lot of room on my desk and doesnt create any noticeable heat. WHERE ARE THE BIG LCD's WITH FASTER REFRESH RATES!!!???

 

[PiccoloNamek]

Sixty frames per second should be enough if you can maintain it constantly, considering that that is the maximum the human eye can discern.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redo /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, that's correct. However, LCD's would still benefit greatly with refresh rates of 100hz, and more specifically 120hz.

It's not really refresh rate that gamers look for in a LCD: it's response time. A CRT is having to continually draw an image, and each pixel will dim once the electron gun moves on. It's having to directly "refresh" the image with those refresh rates. LCDs, on the other hand, continually keep a pixel's luminosity. So it's the response time of the entire monitor that updates the image. Many early 20+" LCDs had a measly 8ms response time: very slow.

Anyway, I don't miss CRT at all now. Sure, my first LCD monitor didn't have the best colors.....but my current LCDs have more luminosity and better color matching then any CRT I ran across.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sixty frames per second should be enough if you can maintain it constantly, considering that that is the maximum the human eye can discern.

Actually.....it's only 30fps. All movies and animations go up to 30fps. 60HZ really doesn't mean much with a LCD (and HZ does not equal fps).....the human eye would catch the slowness of 8ms lag time though.

 

[Superpredator]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lmilhan /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'd rather gouge my eyes out with a rusty spoon.

I hope you have a rusty spoon for me.

 

[no1likesme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enverxis /img/forum/go_quote.gif I play Call of Duty 2 in 800x600@160Hz, yes I can tell the difference between 85, 100, 120 and 160Hz, because each refresh rate feels different on the eyes and the game runs smoother and smoother with the higher refresh rate and I find it amazing.

800x600

for the love of Santa Claus use a higher resolution. 1152x864 MINIMUM!

 

[PiccoloNamek]

Quote:

Actually.....it's only 30fps. All movies and animations go up to 30fps. 60HZ really doesn't mean much with a LCD (and HZ does not equal fps).....the human eye would catch the slowness of 8ms lag time though.

No, trust me, it's 60. As a long-time gamer, the difference between 30 and 60 and even 60 and 55 is extremely obvious. There is a reason why arcade machines are designed to maintain at least a frame rate of at least 60 at all times. 60 frames per second is the point where absolute smoothness of movement is achieved. If the framerate drops to even 59, even for a second, it is noticeable.

 

[Cousin Patty]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sixty frames per second should be enough if you can maintain it constantly, considering that that is the maximum the human eye can discern.

my 8800GTX keeps it extremely close to 60fps constantly. but it still flickers around between 58, 59, and 60 fps very quickly. if i use my other LCD, which is at 1440x900 at 75hz. it will stay at around 75fps and jump around that range. its a smoother experience, but the picture isnt as good and its smaller so I use my 22".

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek /img/forum/go_quote.gif No, trust me, it's 60. As a long-time gamer, the difference between 30 and 60 and even 60 and 55 is extremely obvious. There is a reason why arcade machines are designed to maintain at least a frame rate of at least 60 at all times. 60 frames per second is the point where absolute smoothness of movement is achieved. If the framerate drops to even 59, even for a second, it is noticeable.

Still.....my point is that you may not be seeing 60fps from the LCD screen itself, especially if its 8ms response time.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,12...1/article.html

And about perceived fps......it seems as though it's very different for web animation to movies to games. 30fps is the absolute maximum for movies: web animations can be as low as 8fps (and you can still get fluid motion if the resolution and bit depth isn't great). I think one of the reasons why games need closer to 60fps is so that you can get complete 24bit color for every perceived frame. This is especially true when we consider LCDs......when quoted response times are not the amount of time that it would take a pixel to go from black to white (in most instances, it would be way longer then 8ms on a "8ms" monitor).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate

 

[Nebby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek /img/forum/go_quote.gif No, trust me, it's 60. As a long-time gamer, the difference between 30 and 60 and even 60 and 55 is extremely obvious. There is a reason why arcade machines are designed to maintain at least a frame rate of at least 60 at all times. 60 frames per second is the point where absolute smoothness of movement is achieved. If the framerate drops to even 59, even for a second, it is noticeable.

Well.....not exactly

Movies normally have a frame rate of 23-24fps, but it uses tricks to get to the 60fps limit of the eye. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate) can explain it better than I can:

Quote:

While many film projects are made at higher frame rates (most notably television material, often filmed at 30 or 60 FPS), nearly all commercial films are principally recorded at 24fps to save on film stock, so the shutter in the projection devices is actually arranged to interrupt the light two or three times for every film frame. In this fashion, the common frame rate of 24 fps (frames per second) produces 48 or 72 pulses of light per second on screen, the latter rate being around the flicker fusion rate for most people most of the time.

The reason you can't do this for games as described from wiki:

Quote:

This choppiness is not a perceived flicker, but a perceived gap between the object in motion and its afterimage left in the eye from the last frame. A computer samples one point in time, then nothing is sampled until the next frame is rendered, so a visible gap can be seen between the moving object and its afterimage in the eye.