[ai0tron]

Yeah I have heard that the DIGITAL VS ANALOG INPUTS debate is null and void. There supposedly is little or no difference between the two.... The human eye doesnt distinguish between colors well enough to allow it to see such a small improvement. In fact in a recent issue of PCWORLD they claimed that the anolog inputs on their monitor worked better than the digital inputs... Maybe this was a fluke. You should also realize that all displays are still analog even if they have digital inputs.

PS the friggin pictures DONT SMEAR!!!

LCD'S LOOK SO MUCH BETTER THAN CRT's I want to laugh at the ignorance being displayed in this thread. I have used hi-end 21 inch flat screen trinitron CRT's and they do not have the subtle detailing that my LCD has... I would have purchased a 21 inch sony CRT if it was better than the LCD I currently have. Additionally flat CRT's almost always have slight image warp.

Anyone putting down LCD's for ANYTHING other than PRICE is talking out there ass.

 

[CRESCENDOPOWER]

I know one thing for sure this topic is highly debateable. For the last 3 months I have had people telling me what I should buy, LCD, or CRT. It seems funny to me that which ever one of these that someone owns seems to be their recommendation.
What I have been reading tells me that CRTs have better specifications. But, do those specifications tell the whole story? This computer thing is kind of like audio.

 

[Cousin Eddie]

Okay...

Take a look at this link...

http://www.ergodmx.com/articles/article_4.html

 

[ai0tron]

LCD's are like photographs. There are no dots. The whole screen is one solid image. Also notice that EVERY trinitron CRT monitor has 2 very thin lines on the screen which are used to stabilize the image or some crap. These lines are annoying to me especially since it seems like every monitor in the world uses a trinitron tube.

LCD's *are* better even if they ar emore expensive. The ONLY deficiency in their image quality is with off angle viewing. Which doesn't even matter for most people.

That article is outdated and flat out wrong. #1 it cites $800 as the "low-end" price for LCD's... Sorry but they have been available for $342 at best buy for several months now.... Even the extremly good samsung monitors are available for under $400 now. All the other comparisons are construed to the benefit of their argument as well. Like the difficulty in setting it up etc. I pretty much plugged mine in and hit the auto sync button and voila everything was working great. That particular statement was an unusual load of BS. How exactly does one percieve plugging it in and hitting autosync as difficult???? As for their highly subjective opinions regarding image quality I simply do not agree. My particular LCD does full screen video with ease. I have watched several DVD's on my computer since getting the LCD and watching the same DVD on a television has only made me wish I was watching it on my LCD. The fact is people LCD's are here to stay. CRT's are on their way out. Argue all you want, roll your eyes all you want, LCD's are simply better. Yeah they are expensive, but TRUST ME as I have learned from experience that the image quality and ease on the eyes make a computer a much friendlier device to work with.

It's funny crescendopower because the people who own CRT's are living in ignorance of the full splendor of LCD's. Still standing by the false idea that their little matrix of glowing phosphur dots is the de-facto standard.

 

[DanG]

Not supporting any resolution except native and scaled is a great deficiency. LCD monitors, even aside from ridiculous price, may very well be inferior for some people depending on what they need. Many people need bigger monitors not to display more on the screen, but to display everything larger. While for me having increased resolution is a big bonus, for others it's a big minus. Don't be so quick to step on others' toes, Ai. I might also add that LCDs do have some minor smearing when there is fast movement. It's a simple fact that the refresh rate on LCD monitors is usually worse than that on CRT monitors.

Another important point is that it is LCD monitors that are "a bunch of dots," not CRT. The way CRT monitors work is they use a cathode ray tube (hence CRT) which "shoot" electrons, using two charged plates on either side of the tube to guide the electrons (not a phys major, if I'm wrong, correct me please!). LCD monitors use a dot matrix to display the image. Thus, there is a discrete pixel size which can't be changed. This is why there are problems with changing from native resolution -- you can't change the size of the pixels, so the image gets all funky when you try to change.

Okay, sorry for the long post, but I just wanted to jump in here.

 

[ai0tron]

This is all true but judging from 'appearances' an LCD monitor has no dots as they are simply not visible... Maybe you will remember info about 'dot pitch' in regards to CRT's. Their are visible dots making up the image in a CRT. They are not visible in an LCD.

Yes they behave very strangely at certain resolutions but the screen geometry can be adjusted to coincide with the video cards output... The problem with this is that the full size of the screen is no longer being utilized... At very low resolutions yes their is a problem with displaying sharp images... This is because the signal is scaled up to meet the 1-1 ratio of the 72 ppi LCD. If you cant read a font you can make it bigger which IMO makes more sense than changing resolutions...

Also the human eye has a refresh rate of 60hz. My particular LCD can refresh at up to 75hz, which is fast enough to be COMPLETELY unoticable. Also many have mentioned that LCD's refresh their screen entirely different from a CRT in a method which makes a lot of sense and contributes to overall image stability. According to what I have read they refresh only certain areas of the screen where motion is occuring. Which means that if you are reading something you are getting the ULTIMATE refresh rate, a complete lack of one.

I play Quake 3 every now and again and have never noticed any blurring. Non of my friends have ever noticed any blurring. If their is blurring it is too small to be noticeable while just playing.

Finally I am not tryin to step on people's toes just trying to make sure people get the skinny on LCD's and quit reading outdated articles like the one mentioned previously.

 

[DanG]

Sorry if I came off the wrong way, AI, but it just seemed like a bit of an anti-CRT-user "bash" the way you were writing.

I also prefer an LCD monitor -- that's why I have one. But the main reason I have one really is not that I think it's a better monitor -- I can notice, but not that much. It's really just that it takes up less space. The other bonus is that my speakers are standing on either side of my monitor... and while they are video-shielded, they are not computer speakers and I'd like to give them all the help they can get.

The smearing I've seen isn't so much in terms of games (I don't play any games which have high system requirements), as in terms of trying to push the screen to its limit. My favorite test is scrolling a page in IE up and down as fast as I can. On the 15" Dell LCD monitors in our computer lab, the image blurs excessively. On my monitor, it's barely noticeable (and I mean barely). On CRT monitors, it's even less noticeable.

The thing I most prefer about my LCD monitor (aside from saving space) is the nature of the comments I get about it.

 

[ai0tron]

Heh, yeah I am not sure what came over me with that 2nd post. I was kind of an ass.

My main preference for LCD's (or should I say my LCD) is the ease with which I can move in and out of the computer world. With a CRT I find myself confronting the sensations of being in front of and away from the computer. With an LCD I have gradually lost the habit of confronting the experience and now I can virtually enter the computer world with the same ease that I would open a book. LCD's are just much more passive and easy to live with in comparison to CRT's. Especially for someone who spends practically every waking hour gazing at a computer screen. And wasting most of that time on the internet... GOTTA GET TO WORK! I am a senior and the experience has not resulted in any extra motivation. Oh well.

 

[CaptBubba]

Notice that I didn't say that LCD were worse, I just said I didn't belive you idea that the EMR was harmful. Besides from that, here's my personal problems with LCDs

Glare: almost all the LCD screens I have seem have been very prone to glare. The ones I have seen that don't have this problem seem to be dark. Glare just annoys me grealy for some odd reason, so this is more a personal issue.

Washing out: This is a problem with all TFT LCDs. When a bright ligth, especialy sunlight, shines on them the wash out. Kind of a combination of glare and the fact that TFT displays create their own light, which gets overpowered by the sunlight.

Besides for that, LCDs are great, but until those two problems ge3t fixed, if they ever do, I'm sticking with CRT

 

[Gluegun]

High refresh rate = GOOD!

CRT 4EVA!!!

 

[ai0tron]

I have never found refresh to matter after 85hz when using CRT's. Since the human eye refreshes at 60hz the chance of seeing the screen refresh at rates higher than this is unlikely. Go ahead try it. Just try to see a difference between say 85hz and 100hz. I'd be surprised if anyone here has a CRT that can even go over 100hz. That kind of refresh is just pointless... Unless you are filming the computer screen, which would be an extremely rare occurence.

It's interesting to notice that if you look at a screen with the corner of your eye it is much easier to detect the scan lines of the monitor... But like I said, it's probably only doable near 60hz.

 

[Eagle_Driver]

Not necessarily, Gluegun - way too high of a refresh rate will degrade the overall image quality! (That is, the image won't be as crisp as with a somewhat lower refresh rate.) Therefore, even with a CRT, try to use a refresh rate that's at least 75Hz but not higher than 90Hz.

BTW, Gluegun, which video card are you currently running? Which processor, in MHz, and with how much RAM?

 

[Dusty Chalk]

Quote:

Originally posted by CRESCENDOPOWER The (monitor) that I liked the best was the Sony CPD-G400 without a doubt.

Is that one of them flat screen ones? Highly recommended. Quote:

As for the CPU, I think I am just going to custom order one from Micron.

Yup, Micron's are good.

 

[Cousin Eddie]

ai0tron, the article I posted a link to is not outdated...it's from the year 2001...

Displays that don't use scanlines, such as LCD's and plasma, are what we will all be using in the future. But right now, the quality of LCD's is not as good as CRT. I have a 19" CRT monitor that costed $250. To get an 18" LCD display, which would have the same viewable area as my monitor, you'd have to pay $2000. While the 18" LCD would be better in a few ways, overall the image of the 19" would be better, even though the 19" CRT costs only 1/8 the LCD. You have to take the costs into account. How many people will buy a $2000 monitor that is not as good as the 19" one? Even if you wanted a one little better than the $250 CRT, you could just buy a little more expensive one, say for $400, and still save $1600.

 

[DanG]

My 18.1" LCD was about $900... and maybe you'd like to support some of those broad assertions, Eddie? I really think it's impossible to say definitively that this or that monitor is better, just like in audio, because each type of monitor has its advantages and its disadvantages. Perhaps we should just leave it at that?