LCD vs CRT/TFT?

[Nikos]

At some point in the near future I want to get a new monitor for my computer.

Right now I have a 15" XGA 1024x768 LCD screen and I just don't like that resolution anymore. I want something like 1600x1200 so I can SEE more and SEE it more clearly on my screen.

Question is, which UXGA LCD Monitor is the best buy on the Internet TODAY?

Also what are the characteristics or SPECIFICATIONS I should look into to see how clear and smooth the transfer rate (or whatever) is of the monitors.

Do $1000 LCD UXGA monitors look any better than $300-400 CRTs? What is the difference, just the size or what?



Any help on this issue would be great! Thanks!

 

[dffman2001]

If you dont have the space or need the look, buy LCD. Otherwise go for the CRT. Anything other than native resolution looks bad on LCDs. At 1600 x 1200, everything will be really really small. CRTs have faster refresh rates and better colour fidelity. And cheaper too.

Refresh rate is what you are looking for in a CRT, the higher the better, and in a LCD, the response times (the lower the better) - lots of LCD's will be slow - ie 25ms and when playing video and fast motion, you will get ghosting.

IMO you are paying alot for the technology and the chic factor of LCDs, CRTs are a better buy. Go for a 19" CRT Flatscreen monitor that has a high refresh rate. Or with the money you are saving, get 2, or even 3.

 

[BigD]

If not for space constraint, I take CRT for picture quality and accuracy. LaCie are commonly used in many design studios. Samsung syncmaster is pretty good too.

 

[Nikos]

Why is it CRT's LOOK better? Is it contrast ratio? Resfresh rate? What are the important attributes in determining if a monitor looks smoother or brighter than another?

 

[dffman2001]

CRT's generally produce more accurate colors, designers, artists, and photographers often use CRTs with color calibration for their work. Good CRTs have high refresh rates, which means that the screen will not flicker and the video will be smooth. LCDs often have lags which means when it is supposed to be showing something, the image that it was showing before is still going away, iw. in rapid video movement or scene changes. The pixels in a CRT are measured in the distance to each other(dot pitch), the smaller the better. This determines smoothness and sharpness. LCDs have square based grids, meaning that vertical and horizontal lines will look better because they are straighter ie. text, but diagonal lines may look aliased "jaggies".

If you are looking for a CRT, take note of max resolution, the refresh rate at that resolution, flat screen, and dot pitch

If looking at LCD, look at resolution, response time, brightness

 

[bLue_oNioN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dffman2001 Anything other than native resolution looks bad on LCDs.

Not true. I can game at 1280 x 1024 perfectly fine without any visible loss of detail on my 1400 x 1050 native resolution LCD.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dffman2001 lots of LCD's will be slow - ie 25ms and when playing video and fast motion, you will get ghosting.

That is not true either. I have two Eizo 25ms LCD monitors and notice no ghosting whatsoever. Response times have gotten so arbitary that not very many people look at the numbers to determine LCD performance anymore. A high response time will not guarantee that there will be ghosting. Similarly, a low response time will not guarantee that there will not be ghosting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dffman2001 IMO you are paying alot for the technology and the chic factor of LCDs, CRTs are a better buy. Go for a 19" CRT Flatscreen monitor that has a high refresh rate. Or with the money you are saving, get 2, or even 3.

Now you're talkin'

CRTs definitely carry a better value per inch squared for obvious reasons.

LCDs do have their definite advantage though, and I do not believe the advantage lies solely in superficial attributes such as weight, space and looks.

LCDs tend to be more visible than CRTs when placed in a bright, sunlit room. LCDs consume far less power and pump out far less heat when compared to their CRT brothers and sisters. LCDs are not affected nearly as much by magnetic interference.

Going back to the superficial reasons I mentioned, LCDs are a lot easier to move around because they are so light. LCDs take up far less area and will be a much better choice for your desk if space is at a premium. LCDs are much more soothing to look at, both in relation to your room design, and your eyes.

In my honest opinion, the prices have fallen for LCDs so much recently that it would be a mistake to not pick one up if you're looking for the best.

 

[Edwood]

BTW, TFT is a type of LCD technology called Thin Film Transistors. Most LCD's are of this type today.

Even the fastest <16ms LCD's still have a noticeable amount of ghosting for many people.

The largest difference with LCD's image quality wise is their Black level. If you've ever tried to professionally calibrate an LCD, there is a rather large gap where the black drops off. So for strict graphics work, you will be missing a large area in the darker regions if you used only LCD's.

I can't wait for OLED or Thin CRT to mature, or some other technology. LCD's are convenient and small, but they sacrifice image quality for this. But for most people, this trade off is accecptable.

-Ed

 

[bLue_oNioN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dffman2001 CRT's generally produce more accurate colors, designers, artists, and photographers often use CRTs with color calibration for their work. Good CRTs have high refresh rates, which means that the screen will not flicker and the video will be smooth. LCDs often have lags which means when it is supposed to be showing something, the image that it was showing before is still going away, iw. in rapid video movement or scene changes.

With the correct ICC profile, accuracy of colors are not a problem with quality LCDs. Accuracy of colors will be just as much of a problem with a substandard CRT as it will be with a substandard LCD.

The second half is, however, once again are based on archaic, outdated stereotypes. LCDs do not "often" have "lags" -- if you personally have had difficulties with ghosting, it is not because most LCDs have problems, it is because you did not carefully select when purchasing.

Nikos, in my experience, monitors that performed rather nicely are as follows:
- Iiyama E431S
- Samsung 710T
- Samsung 172X
- BenQ 937
- BenQ 783

 

[bLue_oNioN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood BTW, TFT is a type of LCD technology called Thin Film Transistors. Most LCD's are of this type today. Even the fastest <16ms LCD's still have a noticeable amount of ghosting for many people.

Again, I find that statement way too generalized. There are many types of panels offered (e.g. TN + Film, PVA, IPS, MVA, etc.) and each will have a different set of characteristics. There are simply too many panels out there rated at 16ms and below to say that many will notice the substantial ghosting that sub-16ms LCDs supposedly suffer from.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood The largest difference with LCD's image quality wise is their Black level. If you've ever tried to professionally calibrate an LCD, there is a rather large gap where the black drops off. So for strict graphics work, you will be missing a large area in the darker regions if you used only LCD's.

This I agree with, although given the proper selection of a quality monitor, an LCD could very well be an excellent substitute for a CRT, even for graphics design.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood I can't wait for OLED or Thin CRT to mature, or some other technology. LCD's are convenient and small, but they sacrifice image quality for this. But for most people, this trade off is accecptable.

Ed, you might be interested by this little blurb on Sony's OLED offerings -- I too, can't wait until OLED starts appearing on medium-sized consumer screens. If I remember correctly, these puppies are supposed to have a response time of 2-3ms and offer incredible image quality. Hope they come soon

 

[Idiot MD]

The following statements are made based on consumer market research

CRT's have no better or worse color representation than LCD's, except in black. (Dependant on the model. Some, such as my Hitachi, produce a few less true colors than a CRT.)

CRT's uses more energy and radiates more energy than an LCD.

CRT's have a much larger footprint than LCD's.

CRT's produce more frames per second than LCD's but both can generally produce more frames per second than the human eye can track.

CRT's produce a consistently scaled image while LCD's have difficult with any resolution other than their native resolution.

CRT's have a better "per inch" price than LCD's.

CRT's require a digital to analog conversion before displaying data while many LCD can handle direct digital data.

LCD's generally provide a more crisp and clear text presentation. (Personal observation.)

When CRT's fail, there are no half-ways. Flickers, loss of brightness/contrast, loss of a color, etc. all of which fall under manufacturer's/extended warranties. However, LCD's may have similar problems but when they have stuck/blown pixels, many warranties require a certain number per inch on receiving unit fresh out of the box let alone future failure.

All that being said, I went with a Hitachi LCD a couple of years back when I decided to upgrade my Sony Trinitron. The only problem I've had with mine is that it's too thin to put my center speaker for my 5.1 set-up on top of it.

My old Trinitron is a workhorse (nearly 10 years old) and I still have it hooked up to a secondary system but once I switched there was no going back for me.

edit: inner-spelling-nazi must have been asleep.

 

[Kirosia]

If you have the money get LCD. Otherwise CRT will do. Word of advice, don't get an LCD that's an old model (from like 3yrs ago or something), most (I think) are horrible. The LCD on my lappy is 2-3yrs old and has horrible picture quality. I can barely stand to watch music videos or DVDs. My 5yr old stock CRT had much better quality even though it's old and cheap. Too bad mine broke.

 

[MikoLayer]

are those samsung 710s or whatever THAT much better than dell2001FPs? our school have a whole bunch of dells and they are thoroughly unimpressive. i really cant tell if they are more crisp (about equal to my eyes, both on g400 and rad8500), but colors look very cheap compared to my diamondtron. even if they were about equal, i know i couldnt have gotten a 20001FP for $215 so i am a happy camper

EDIT : yeah, if you got money to burn, get both

kinda like audigy AND an emu card per se... best of both worlds. do internet surfing and productivity work on the LCD for (supposedely) less eye strain (which i never experienced) and do gaming and video viewing (this is where i spend most of my time) on the CRT

 

[ooheadsoo]

I'm using a beat up Sony G500 right now and I don't think a cheap LCD under $800 can match it except for maybe in sharpness in still images (I can't get the convergence 100% perfect.) The colors on this monitor are great and so is the contrast and the blackness of the blacks.

If I had $1000 to burn, maybe I would still have gone for an LCD. It's easier on the eyes, easier on the desk, better for my speakers. I didn't have that much money so I compromised.

 

[Nikos]

Is 1600x1200 really that small?

I find that 1280x1024 to be very nice, but I wouldn't mind it being a bit smaller if UXGA is much clearer. Is it?

I don't really want to spend $1000, are their ones available for $600 or so (UXGA LCD's)?

If I have to I could settle for a flat screen 1600x1200 CRT as long as its less than $400.

Do CRT's UXGA look better than LCD UXGA's generally?

Some people say CRTs look better, some say in bright light LCD's look better -- which is it?

 

[bLue_oNioN]

Nikos - I think you will definitely be able to find a satisfactory LCD for far under 1000USD. In fact, 400USD will fetch you a top 17" LCD monitor that can more than hold it's own against most CRT monitors.

I am not sure, however, why you are asking everything in terms of resolution. Usually when people are looking for monitors, they state the size restrictions in terms of diagonal inches. Saying "I am looking for an LCD monitor that provides the equivalent screen estate of a __ inch CRT" would be more conducive in helping us help you.

EDIT: The reason many LCDs are able to hold up better than CRTs in direct sunlight is twofold. One, LCDs usually have twice the brightness (or more) when compared to CRTs. Two, LCD screens tend to not reflect light as much as their television-screen-like CRT brethren do. Like I said, if you choose wisely, you will suffer from any loss in image quality by going LCD.