Will CRT lovers ever be satisfied with LCDs?

[Tudz]

Actually it does not tell you "how dark the darkest black is", neither it tells you "how well defined blacks are".

Contrast ratio = 1000:1 (min white 200cd/m2, min black 0.20 cd/m2)

That basically means CR is telling you how dark the darkest black is Perhaps I should have been more specific and said "contrast ratio tells you how dark the darkest black is given a certain intensity of white", but I figured it was implied. Any formula that only has 3 variables is a definition (ie. contrast ratio = white divided by darkest black, 3 variables, contrast ratio, intensity of white and intensity of black). Its like saying amperage tells you how much power you're using... given a certain voltage, force tells you how much stress you have... given a certain surface area, contrast ratio tells you how dark the darkest black is... given a certain intensity of white.

But my point was simply, what's the point in him giving CR values to prove the awesomeness of blacks on his CRT when in reality it doesn't even tell you how well defined the blacks are, which is the most important thing?

 

[vick1000]

LOL@topic.

Seriously, there is only one way to look at the subject.

Hanging on to CRT technology as a user, is like being in denial when the doctor tells you that you have cancer. Just accept it and move on, no amount of additional exams will get rid of the cancer. CRT is unfortunatley dead technology, and if you want quality displays you will have to pay for quality LCDs until something better comes along.

Unless of course you can keep refocusing the gun in your CRT over the many years of degraded image quality, and burry text to come. It's over, move on.

 

[Hurin]

LOL@topic.

Seriously, there is only one way to look at the subject.

Hanging on to CRT technology as a user, is like being in denial when the doctor tells you that you have cancer. Just accept it and move on, no amount of additional exams will get rid of the cancer. CRT is unfortunatley dead technology, and if you want quality displays you will have to pay for quality LCDs until something better comes along.

Unless of course you can keep refocusing the gun in your CRT over the many years of degraded image quality, and burry text to come. It's over, move on.

LOL @ inapt analogies and strange logic.

First of all, comparing the use of a proven, high-quality display technology that could last for many years before giving out (as might an LCD at any time) to accepting impending death. . . well, that's just absurd on the face of it.

As for "refocusing the gun in your CRT over the many years of degraded image quality, and blurry text to come". . . this is greatly exaggerated and overstated. Most CRTs age just fine. And in my particular case, I have access to service mode where I can reconverge the display across multiple points to get near-perfect convergence. As for focus, I have access to the focus pots as well. A quick adjustment by screwdriver is all that is needed. But, here's the thing, over two years of nightly use, I've never needed to do either after the initial adjustments I carried out when I got the montor. A CRT proponent could just as easily damn LCDs for their propensity to lose pixels over time (something I would find highly annoying).

So, not sure why it's so important to "move on" because "it's over." It's far from over for many of us. And we're happy to hang on to what we have until a technology that is actually superior (in the ways that matter to us) comes along.

I'm not sure what that has to do with people dying of cancer. Or why people feel it is so necessary to say such silly things in order to jump up and down about how much they love their LCDs.

Then again, maybe you were just flame-baiting.

 

[Yossarian22]

People still use CRTs?

 

[mutti_wilson]

I currently have a Sony E540 21" CRT that I run at 1600x1200 85hz and have a PC that can run all current games at that resolution, so the multiple resolutions is a non issue for me now that I'm not having to run the new games at low rez. I've have this monitor for 5+ years and It's served me great and I love the color on it, but I'm replacing it with a 28" LCD for the following reasons.

1. Real Estate. I have a racing setup and the 4:3 monitor is not the greatest format for the experience. Also, the larger the better when it comes to "feeling" the game.

2. Size. I also do a fair amount of LAN partying among friends and hauling this beast for 5+ years is getting old, haha.

3. I don't own a TV and never plan on it, but I do watch movies and the size plus the widescreen format is no brainer for obvious reasons.

4. Desk space. Unless I move, I can't have more space.

So aside from the color reproduction which is my main concern with switching, the LCD outweighs the CRT for me personally. I have no problem with CRT lovers. I've been one for years, and I will probably hang on to one of my 21inchers ( I have 2).

 

[vick1000]

LOL @ inapt analogies and strange logic.

First of all, comparing the use of a proven, high-quality display technology that could last for many years before giving out (as might an LCD at any time) to accepting impending death. . . well, that's just absurd on the face of it.

As for "refocusing the gun in your CRT over the many years of degraded image quality, and blurry text to come". . . this is greatly exaggerated and overstated. Most CRTs age just fine. And in my particular case, I have access to service mode where I can reconverge the display across multiple points to get near-perfect convergence. As for focus, I have access to the focus pots as well. A quick adjustment by screwdriver is all that is needed. But, here's the thing, over two years of nightly use, I've never needed to do either after the initial adjustments I carried out when I got the montor. A CRT proponent could just as easily damn LCDs for their propensity to lose pixels over time (something I would find highly annoying).

So, not sure why it's so important to "move on" because "it's over." It's far from over for many of us. And we're happy to hang on to what we have until a technology that is actually superior (in the ways that matter to us) comes along.

I'm not sure what that has to do with people dying of cancer. Or why people feel it is so necessary to say such silly things in order to jump up and down about how much they love their LCDs.

Then again, maybe you were just flame-baiting.

I'm not flame baiting you jack-ass. Can you read? I said it was unfortunate that the technology was phased out. But not accepting the fact is just like saying "I don't have cancer" when you do. The tech is gone it's not coming back, if you think it is not dead you are in denial. If you want to use your CRT another 10 years, you will be using those control pots and the service menu many times, just to get convergence on a comparably small screen. It does not mean LCD tech is superior, get your head out of your CRT's butt and take a look around.

 

[RESTfulADI]

LOL@topic.

Seriously, there is only one way to look at the subject.

Hanging on to CRT technology as a user, is like being in denial when the doctor tells you that you have cancer. Just accept it and move on, no amount of additional exams will get rid of the cancer. CRT is unfortunatley dead technology, and if you want quality displays you will have to pay for quality LCDs until something better comes along.

Unless of course you can keep refocusing the gun in your CRT over the many years of degraded image quality, and burry text to come. It's over, move on.

My FW900 is sitting on my housemate's desk right now and still looks great. It it wasn't for the 120hz viewsonic and my limited gaming time I would have never gotten rid of it

 

[drtc]

The fact that i can switch resolutions on a crt without degrading the displayed content is a big plus for me. Some times I need a small pixel pitch to cram up information, like very long photoshop layer palettes. So my 21' crt will go up to 1440 vertical. On my secondary crt though I might like a big pixel pitch, so I can view a web page UI design with ease. So I have it set to 1280x1024... In a purely lcd environment this will quite be difficult.
One can get lcd displays that pivot, which I love, like the great 2090uxi (1600 vertical) or even 1920 for a 2475w, but this has to be more of a permanent setup.
Plus, lcd's with the dynamic range of a quality CRT are still very high end. So why stop using a tool that fulfills its needs?

 

[Hurin]

I'm not flame baiting you jack-ass. Can you read? I said it was unfortunate that the technology was phased out. But not accepting the fact is just like saying "I don't have cancer" when you do. The tech is gone it's not coming back, if you think it is not dead you are in denial. If you want to use your CRT another 10 years, you will be using those control pots and the service menu many times, just to get convergence on a comparably small screen. It does not mean LCD tech is superior, get your head out of your CRT's butt and take a look around.

Well, as long as that's the "only way to look at the subject."

Nope, no flame-bating there at all.

Using something that works until something better comes along is totally like having cancer. And that's the only way to look at it.

 

[Whoisthisreally]

Here's the condition of a 2002 Trinitron model offered for sale in my local paper:

Using something that works until something better comes along...

Try some credibility. Does your monitor happen to be correctly configured like in the middle image?

/Digital Video and HDTV Algorithms and Interfaces

 

[Tudz]

Now people are just arguing for the sake of arguing

 

[mutti_wilson]

Hey i've got that same monitor ^

 

[Hurin]

Here's the condition of a 2002 Trinitron model offered for sale in my local paper:

Try some credibility. Does your monitor happen to be correctly configured like in the middle image?

/Digital Video and HDTV Algorithms and Interfaces

You post this as though it has some relevance.

What's your point?

A decent CRT has better contrast ratio than any LCD. Case closed. Over. Done. Nobody honest or informed actually doubts this.

Others have given us readings of how dark their premium LCD can get black to be. But that's not the entire issue. The issue is the contrast ratio. . . how dark black can be while also having decent whites and accurate display of the shades in between.

I fail to see how a digital photograph of a random CRT from your local paper has any relevance. Nor, actually, do I see how my particular monitor's calibration matters.

LCDs have worse contrast ratio and black levels than a CRT (or even plasma). It's just the nature of LCD technology. People can keep dancing around the issue. . . but it's just a fact.

Edit: A digital photo of an uknown monitor is entirely worthless to us for several reasons. The monitor could be bad. It could be suffering from the "Trinitron brightness bug". It could be set up by an idiot. The photography could not be representative (showing how a monitor actually appears to the eye via digital photography = foolish). Etc. So I'm not sure why you bothered to post that.

 

[TomGreen321]

The only reason I use a CRT monitor would be that I don't have a gaming pc anymore(360) so the lower resolutions work better with no blurrines.

My CRT TV on the other hand I'll keep until it dies. It's HD and widescreen so I''m not missing oput on much, and our den is setup for smaller screen sizes. We may upgrade it to a 37-42 inch TV, but we're in no rush. I've tried replacing itiwth 6-7 other TVS(LCD RPTV, Plasma,LCD,LCOS) and returned them all.

Not quite sure why people carewhich technology others prefer or use.

 

[Tai]

I say you guys leave Hurin alone. Let him think his monitor is supior to any other LCDs out there and let him think his projection TV is still the shit. This guy was inquired about a 24" LCD Acer because he was impressed with his wife's crappy 20" Acer. If he thinks his CRT advantages outweigh LCD then let it be.

 

[Hurin]

I say you guys leave Hurin alone. Let him think his monitor is supior to any other LCDs out there and let him think his projection TV is still the shit. This guy was inquired about a 24" LCD Acer because he was impressed with his wife's crappy 20" Acer. If he thinks his CRT advantages outweigh LCD then let it be.

Wow, that's disingenuous. I merely said that the black levels of the Acer were impressive due to the glossy coating. However, upon further inspection, I realized that this didn't remain the case in a darkened environment. So I was no longer impressed.

You seem to think it's some fault on my part to be looking into contingency plans in case my 24" CRT dies. I think it's just common sense. I've looked into 24" and 30" LCDs, including the NEC models. But since I get all the performance I need with my CRT along with better contrast/blacks than you'll ever see on any LCD, I'm happy to keep using it until it either dies or something better than LCD comes along.

Pretty crappy of you there, dude.

As for the rest of it. A CRT is still superior in many respects. It's a pity you guys can't just accept that.

Edit: Oh, and my CRT-based HD RPTV is still the shit. Once I go into service mode (once every year or two), do the multi-point convergence, electronic and mechanical focus, and adjust geometry, you will not find a better picture that has the true, deep, inky blacks and contrast. But that's okay, just go on continuing to assume that "flatter" and "newer" is automatically better. I don't blame you. It's easier.

 

[Hurin]

Not quite sure why people carewhich technology others prefer or use.

Most of us don't. We usually keep to our own threads and, if pressed, merely state facts about the relative strengths and weakeness of the technologies and why we prefer some criteria over others.

But, for some reason (probably because many have recently spent hundreds or thousands on LCD technology), some feel the need to pop in and openly mock those that don't agree with them and aren't jumping on the LCD band-wagon. Some seem to be very undiscriminating in display quality, so that's sorta annoying. But admittedly there are some who are quite picky and still manage to prioritize LCD benefits over the undeniable benifits of the older CRT technology.

But, honestly, many of them are in denial. LCD can't do black. It can't. Not possible. In order to approach real, true black (which CRTs and Plasmas approach more more easily), LCD's ability to generate an overall pleasing image is compromised. That matters to some. It doesn't matter to others. And some just won't accept the fact. That's fine.

Yet I don't see the CRT folks barging into every LCD thread to tell them that we wouldn't like their LCD screen or how stupid they are for getting one.

 

[Hard and Confused]

I miss not having to worry about "Viewing Angles"

I've been eyeballing WS CRT's the last few months and I may ditch my LCD for one

 

[Tai]

I miss not having to worry about "Viewing Angles"

I've been eyeballing WS CRT's the last few months and I may ditch my LCD for one

What angle do you look at? What LCD do you have? Don't expect a good viewing angle if you have a cheap one. Why are you looking at angle when the monitor is in front of you? Or am I mistaken?

 

[mlewis]

Edit: Oh, and my CRT-based HD RPTV is still the shit. Once I go into service mode (once every year or two), do the multi-point convergence, electronic and mechanical focus, and adjust geometry, you will not find a better picture that has the true, deep, inky blacks and contrast. But that's okay, just go on continuing to assume that "flatter" and "newer" is automatically better. I don't blame you. It's easier.

The Pioneer Kuro plasma televisions have incredibly deep blacks, are larger, will display 1080p content at native resolution, and have perfect geometry.

 

[Hurin]

The Pioneer Kuro plasma televisions have incredibly deep blacks, are larger, will display 1080p content at native resolution, and have perfect geometry.

Indeed. I was considering one before they all disappear. But, of course, the real point is that The Kuro plasma is not an LCD.

A Kuro or the most recent Panasonic plasmas are the only TVs with which I would consider replacing my CRT-based RPTV. I should have been more generous towards plasma above.

 

[weasel2htm]

I use both, I have LCDs at work and I like them, but I also like my CRTs at home. I use a pair of Viewsonics and I'm happy with them and I got them for $2 each at an auction. I use CRTs at home because it is what I can afford. I have a friend who constantly gives me sh*t for using them, he hates old technology for no reason other than it is old. I just use what works for me (no matter what the subject matter is)

 

[vick1000]

Well, as long as that's the "only way to look at the subject."

Nope, no flame-bating there at all.

Using something that works until something better comes along is totally like having cancer. And that's the only way to look at it.

I wasn't flame baiting before when you accused me of it. However, every one of your posts appear as flame bait to me. That's why I lashed out.

Obviously you can't comprehend what you read, you hear what you want to hear. What's worse you keep putting words into my mouth that try to make it seem like I'm accusing you of something.

Using a LCD is about compramise, but so is using a CRT. If you can't admit that LCDs have a sharper image at native resolutions, better geomety, and can be purchased in much larger formats, then you ARE in denial. The denial analogy fits as with any case, not just cancer.

You can keep using your CRT until the cows come home, but I think you will be waiting a lot longer than you anticipate. Even if OLED becomes comercially viable in the next 5 years, it has it's flaws as well. There is nothing in the pipe that is gauranteed to replace LCD in the near future, only more LCD technology.

So keep the screw driver handy and hope you don't lose your tube or rectifier before the mythical CRT replacement tech comes along.

 

[Tai]

I think the discussion or argument ends here. It's pointless to discuss anything to Hurin or anyone who's unwilling to step out the box. He may purchased some best components back in the 90s but it doesn't mean they still are. He emphasizes on black level but I wonder how much time does he really spend look at a black screen? It's hard to believe how picky he is when he was so impressed with the cheapo Acer (now claimed that he's not ). Judging from his posts, he might just be too cheap to upgrade to anything unless his components die on him. I'm done with this thread

Edit: I guess most pro photographers that are using LCDs are not serious in their work.

 

[kumquat]

I have yet to see an LCD - even a high-end LCD television - that rivals even a good plasma, much less a good direct-view CRT, in black levels and shadow detail.

I use LCDs for computer stuff, because I don't do any really serious photo or video work and the contrast is good enough for me not to care much. But I also watch a lot of movies on my plasma, and would not be willing to put up with inferior blacks and shadows.

There's no need to dismiss the facts and tradeoffs just because you have issues with one person that is arguing for them.

 

[Yossarian22]

The fact that i can switch resolutions on a crt without degrading the displayed content is a big plus for me.

True, unless a LCD display is in it's native resolution it looks like crap.
Although, I can't believe someone in here praised their projection television. I'll take a crap LCD TV over that projection stuff any day. So grainy, it's like staring into a cat's tongue.

Once I switched from a 17" Dell CRT to a Samsung 226BW it was a no brainer. No more coil whine at certain resolutions and refresh rates, no more having deflector magnets in bookshelf speakers nearby the monitor, 2x desk space, 2x screen real estate, 1/2x power bill, no more interference from cellular phones or microwaves.

I don't know why people in here, in this thread, were giving unfavorable personal reviews of $200 LCDs versus their $600+ CRTs. That really isn't apples to apples, now is it? Regarding true black and contrast ratios: do we really stare at black screens all day? It's a non-issue unless it's really pronounced. Which leads me to my last point: anything you observe is psychosomatic. Just like the vinyl versus anything-else argument. I've tried this. I don't notice any difference. Maybe I have eyes and ears made of failure, but honestly, it's all in the kool aid. Just don't sip too much.

 

[Elledan]

No question about Plasma being a decent alternative to CRT (TVs). While doing a lot of comparisons in-store last year with a good friend who wanted to buy a large HDTV (46"), it was painfully obvious that the ghosting/lag on the LCD TVs in the stores we visited (even the expensive ones!) was much, much worse than for the plasma HDTVs sitting next to them. In particular the chase scene from I, Robot, with the dozens of robots crawling over the car while moving at very high speeds. On the LCDs it was a blur, while on the plasmas you could see every detail. The smoothness of the image was astounding. In the end he got a Panasonic Plasma HDTV

I like having a 180 degrees viewing angle with CRTs and plasma, as the shifts in gamma/contrast/etc. especially on TN panels is very tiresome. Unfortunately the only 'good' LCD panels (IPS) have been pushed to the 24+" range because most people are frickin' blind it seems.

 

[Hurin]

If you can't admit that LCDs have a sharper image at native resolutions, better geomety, and can be purchased in much larger formats, then you ARE in denial.

You would have a point. If I had ever said any such thing. I just don't value a marginal increase in "sharpness" over overall picture quality.

You can keep using your CRT until the cows come home, but I think you will be waiting a lot longer than you anticipate.

I'm not sure you know how long I anticipate it being. Considering that I'm very aware of SED's prior legal issues and OLED's very slow march towards viability.

I've said I'll use my CRT until something better comes out or it dies. If it dies soon, I'll have to settle. Not sure where that's a cause for angst. . . or cancer analogies.

So keep the screw driver handy and hope you don't lose your tube or rectifier before the mythical CRT replacement tech comes along.

It's statements like these as well as your "LOLing" at the topic as a whole and stating repeatedly that people who don't share your view should just "move on" because "it's over". . . that's why your posts could seem to some to amount to flamebait.

I think the discussion or argument ends here. It's pointless to discuss anything to Hurin or anyone who's unwilling to step out the box.

What box is that? The one where I state facts and stand by them? Or the one where people just say: "LOL! You think something old can be good! LOL!"

He emphasizes on black level but I wonder how much time does he really spend look at a black screen?

Pardon me. But that's an absolutely idiotic thing to say. Nobody is staring at black screens all day. But black levels and contrast are integral to premium display quality and bringing out image depth. Especially in media that features a lot of "dark scenes". . . but elsewhere as well.

It's hard to believe how picky he is when he was so impressed with the cheapo Acer (now claimed that he's not ).

Jeez, a guy can't say that a glossy coating makes black levels look momentarily acceptable without somebody repeatedly taking it out of context months and months later. That's just blatantly dishonest, and you know it.

Judging from his posts, he might just be too cheap to upgrade to anything unless his components die on him. I'm done with this thread

Yeah, I'm a cheapo bastard because I have premium equipment that has yet to be surpassed according to several criteria. And I merely point out where it still excels. . . and this bothers some of you to an unnerving degree.

Now, I personally think bragging about how much we spend on things is unseemly. . . but you've sorta instigated it. . . so all I'm going to do is direct your attention to my signature and then ask you to retract your head from your ass before you make any more groundless, foolish assertions.

Edit: I guess most pro photographers that are using LCDs are not serious in their work.

Ummmm, okay. Never said that. Not sure where you're getting that from. Of course you can do "serious" work on LCDs. But there's a reason they're talking about making SEDs (which feature CRT-like contrast, color, and black levels) for the "professional market" only. Because there's a need. Because LCDs have drawbacks where CRTs still excel.

I'm done with this thread

You keep saying that and encouraging others to leave it alone too. Yet here you are.

Although, I can't believe someone in here praised their projection television. I'll take a crap LCD TV over that projection stuff any day. So grainy, it's like staring into a cat's tongue.

Wow. So all RPTVs are "grainy" now? That's f'ing nonsense. You must have been looking at a pretty crappy RPTV with a poor lenticular lens. Just as there are variations among anti-glare coatings on LCDs, there are variations to the appearance of RPTVs. There's nothing inherently "grainy" about either.

Once I switched from a 17" Dell CRT to a Samsung 226BW it was a no brainer. No more coil whine at certain resolutions and refresh rates, no more having deflector magnets in bookshelf speakers nearby the monitor, 2x desk space, 2x screen real estate, 1/2x power bill, no more interference from cellular phones or microwaves.

That sounds like a crappy CRT with that whine and the interference from phones and microwaves. . . and some unshielded speakers. I get none of that. But sorry your experience sucked so much.

I don't know why people in here, in this thread, were giving unfavorable personal reviews of $200 LCDs versus their $600+ CRTs. That really isn't apples to apples, now is it?

My CRT was $200. It suits my needs and does thing no other monitor can. Not even a $1200 NEC LCD.

Regarding true black and contrast ratios: do we really stare at black screens all day?

As explained above, that's an asinine thing to say. Black levels and contrast are not about "staring at black screens all day."

Which leads me to my last point: anything you observe is psychosomatic. Just like the vinyl versus anything-else argument. I've tried this. I don't notice any difference. Maybe I have eyes and ears made of failure, but honestly, it's all in the kool aid. Just don't sip too much.

I wholeheartedly agree. People buy a nice $1000 piece of equipment and assume it must be superior. So they sit in front of it and marvel at how wonderful it is. Very few people have put a decent CRT next to their high-end LCD and actually watched a movie on both. . . or directly compared/contrasted the two. I haven't been able to put an IPS panel directly next to my FW900. But I have been able to see darkish media on them and I know that for that and other reasons (input lag, non-native resolutions, higher v-synched refresh rates, etc.), I prefer a CRT.

Feel free to make fun of me all you want. I don't really give a shit.

 

[albovin]

Hurin, you have been working hard trolling this forum.

You've posted tons of words without a single fact, measurement, picture, video or link. This is the least appreciated way a discussion on a technical forum can continue.
Talking about picture quality, you actually ignore picture quality standard values and adopted algorithm of consumer monitors evaluation:
design and mechanics
connectivity
OSD
brightness distribution
viewing angles
measurements and calibration
color space
dE deviation
sound
responsiveness
scaling
applications
Full HD support (BD player, PS3)
ergonomics
eye strain reducing technology
viewing impression overall

You have nothing valuable to present to support your claim other than trite incantations.
I think it's time to give some rest to this forum.
Thank you.

 

[Hurin]

You have nothing valuable to say on that matters other than trite incantations.
I think it's time to give some rest to this forum.
Thank you.

Noted.

I think I'll just ignore your request though.

Because. . .

• LCD can't do true black. As you said yourself, black appears grey.
• CRT black levels and contrast ratio are superior to LCDs.
• CRTs have no input lag.
• CRTs have no native resolution and do not need to interpolate for non-native resolutions.
• CRTs allow for higher v-synched refresh rates.
• CRTs phosphours are much faster than any LCD "pixel response time" and are therefore much less prone to motion blur or "smearing."

These are irrefutable, indisputable facts. And they appear to anger people unnecessarily whenever they are uttered.

That you desire/require measurements of these known facts just shows that you're either in denial, being disingenuous, or just want to be pedantic. Especially considering that you frame whatever measurements you report so lamely that they're essentially meaningless (as others have pointed out).

It's unnerving how much it bothers you folks that some people value the points above over your preferred criteria. Look at the lengths you will go to in order to assert that your new, expensive purchases can't possibly be inferior to an older technology in any meaningful way. All a few people (including me) did here was state some facts about CRT's innate, irrefutable advantages over LCD without ever stating that LCD didn't have some advantages of its own. And you guys flip the f' out and go on the attack. It's bizarre.

I thought you left when I and others embarrassed you for posting nonsense and meaningless screenshots of a "smeary" plasma screen. But, you lurked long enough for the ebb and flow of the thread to settle into a tone more palatable to you.

Albovin. . . in case it's not clear yet, I don't respect your opinion. Your reviews are informative and I've appreciated reading them over the years. But you're a zealot about LCD technology and as soon as the discussion in any way turns towards any drawbacks for your preferred products or technology, you turn into a fire-breathing fanatic who laces every third sentence with a subtle or not-so-subtle insult.

 

[vick1000]

You would have a point. If I had ever said any such thing. I just don't value a marginal increase in "sharpness" over overall picture quality.

How did this discussion become about what YOU said and did not say? I was stating facts about my side of the argument, which again is NOT that LCD is superior to CRT but that it does have advantages. I believe "overall picture quality" is purely subjective, what may be a quality image to you may look like a blurry mess to someone else. After using a quality LCD like a 20WMGX2 for a few years, even the best CRTs look like a blurry mess.

I'm not sure you know how long I anticipate it being. Considering that I'm very aware of SED's prior legal issues and OLED's very slow march towards viability.

I don't know how long you think it will be, but I'm thinking your CRT will be in a landfill long before SED or OLED are vaible market options, unless of course you have a stockpile of parts for it.

I've said I'll use my CRT until something better comes out or it dies. If it dies soon, I'll have to settle. Not sure where that's a cause for angst. . . or cancer analogies.

The angst is derived from your assumption that just because I find the topic amusing I am somehow flaming you. The topic is not about you, and my original post was not directed at you. It was simply an observation on my part about how people waiting for the CRT to be replaced are in denial, for it has been replaced whether you (or I for that matter) like it or not.

It's statements like these as well as your "LOLing" at the topic as a whole and stating repeatedly that people who don't share your view should just "move on" because "it's over". . . that's why your posts could seem to some to amount to flamebait.

You should accept it and move on. I'm not telling you to ditch your CRT, just to accept the fact they are done and to cease vehemently defending them like they are your children.

Everyone knows they have great black levels and contrast, everyone knows about their superior display of motion, at least people here do. You are not enlightening anyone with that knowledge. But that is what we have had to compromise for screen size and/or conectivity (among other features).

 

[krameriffic]

Everyone knows they have great black levels and contrast, everyone knows about their superior display of motion, at least people here do. You are not enlightening anyone with that knowledge. But that is what we have had to compromise for screen size and/or conectivity (among other features).

I don't defend it from the masses, I gave up on trying to solve humanity's "stupid" problem a long time ago. I participate in such discussions because I enjoy listening to people make statements that are wrong.

 

[Hurin]

How did this discussion become about what YOU said and did not say?

Well, now I'm at a loss. This seems awfully strange for you to say considering this was the quote to which I was responding:

If you can't admit that LCDs have a sharper image at native resolutions, better geomety, and can be purchased in much larger formats, then you ARE in denial.

I suppose the "you" there (twice) could have been a sort of "generic" you. But it sure didn't seem that way upon my initial reading of it considering you were responding to me in your post.

You should accept it and move on. I'm not telling you to ditch your CRT, just to accept the fact they are done and to cease vehemently defending them like they are your children.

What's funny is it's really not the CRT folks who are defending their CRTs so vehemently. Rather, it seems that it's the LCD folks who are defensive and aggressive whenever this debate comes up. If we're defending anything, we're defending ourselves from the personal attacks an sneering condescension from zealots who get all butt-hurt whenever the thought begins to occur to them that maybe this new-fangled technology isn't better in every conceivable way.

But, looking back on my initial response to you, I was unduly harsh. I apologize.

Everyone knows they have great black levels and contrast, everyone knows about their superior display of motion, at least people here do. You are not enlightening anyone with that knowledge. But that is what we have had to compromise for screen size and/or conectivity (among other features).

Agreed. Yet everyone does not seem to know/accept this. A large portion of this conversation has been dominated by another party that refuses to accept many of these self-evident facts until he's supplied with measurements and numbers. Which, of course, I think we both agree, is silly.

 

[Tudz]

dominated by another party that refuses to accept many of these self-evident facts until he's supplied with measurements and numbers. Which, of course, I think we both agree, is silly.

Well perhaps you should get "his" email/msn/skype/yahoo/facebook/(I dont care what) and continue your discussion there. I really dont think anything of value has been posted in this thread for the past couple of pages, just a lot of bitching and moaning and arguing even with the people that agree with you or are trying to come to a realistic compromise of the pros and cons of each technology.

 

[Yossarian22]

Why not throw some cold hard facts on the table about the matter? Display-ophiles aren't too popular but audiophiles are. This stuff is obscure to the layman. Compare and describe TN vs. PVA vs. IPS?

 

[Garretta]

Why not throw some cold hard facts on the table about the matter? Display-ophiles aren't too popular but audiophiles are. This stuff is obscure to the layman. Compare and describe TN vs. PVA vs. IPS?

You don't have to be a videophile to see the differences between LCD and CRT.

 

[nomu]

Why not throw some cold hard facts on the table about the matter? Display-ophiles aren't too popular but audiophiles are. This stuff is obscure to the layman. Compare and describe TN vs. PVA vs. IPS?

No way are audiophiles more credible than videophiles. Videophiles buy $1000 equipment instead of $200 equipment. Audiophiles buy $1000 equipment instead of $60 equipment.

And in this case, CRT elites are paying less than the peasants on the LCD bandwagon.

 

[albovin]

CRT resolution

What is your CRT recommended resolution?

 

[Cyberbeing]

What is your CRT recommended resolution?

If he has a GDM-FW900, the recommended resolution is 1920x1200 @85Hz and maximum resolution is 2304x1440 @80Hz.

 

[Elledan]

Why not throw some cold hard facts on the table about the matter? Display-ophiles aren't too popular but audiophiles are. This stuff is obscure to the layman. Compare and describe TN vs. PVA vs. IPS?

There's a detailed description in the sticky in the Displays section of this forum. It's very informative in describing the differences between different LCD panel technologies. Most interesting I think are the limitations inherent in each type, including gamma shift, viewing angles (limitations) and colour-reproduction. TN panels are the bottom of the barrel, only being faster in switching between crystal states than IPS/*VA, further lacking 8-bit colour support, possessing the most god-awful viewing angles imaginable (dead-center is often the only proper angle). On the other hand they're cheap compared to the other LCD technologies.

Don't be fooled, though. LCDs are not cheap to produce, which was the very reason why display manufacturers rushed to produce them. You see, CRT manufacturing had been perfected to such an extent that even a 99 Euro CRT (what I paid for my 17" CRTs) would possess the same image quality as the higher-end CRTs of years before. The profit margin on CRT was razor-thin. LCDs on the other hand was a new market, which used to suck beyond small, monochrome displays (ever used a non-active matrix TFT? Yes, so have I). The lure for the manufacturers however was that this was a new market (flat panel), where they could with piles of R&D create a new lucrative market, with the progress in LCD technology ensuring that people would keep upgrading to new displays instead of using the same CRT for 10 years straight (before passing it on to one's children). In the end it all comes down to economics

LCDs have some inherent weaknesses, though. As LCDs rely on a mechanical process (twisting crystals) to manipulate a constant stream of incoming light, they are like the HDDs of the display world, stuck in the millisecond latency world, where OLED, CRT and Plasma (and laser/DLP) are far below even a ms latency. The need to polarize the light from the backlight in order to manipulate it in addition to passing it through the LC grid (the sub-pixel grid) creates point-sources of light, meaning that a true 180 degrees viewing angle is not obtainable without some special and costly optical trickery. While especially IPS has improved on this (178 degrees horizontal angles are noted, though biased), it's still a far cry from phosphor-based displays (CRT, Plasma) and of course OLED, as those will always provide a full 180 degrees in every direction with the same colours and gamma no matter what.

So in the end LCDs can not be developed any further, yet will still remain imperfect. SED/FED can be seen as the natural evolution of CRTs (the same principles are used in all three), and together with OLED will outlive LCD in the end. LCDs don't even have a reason to exist in the mobile market any more, as OLED is rapidly taking over there. OLED offers self-luminescence, perfect viewing angles, true blacks and far smaller physical dimensions in addition to ~50% less power usage than a comparably sized LCD.

Isn't it interesting how economics often determine the direction of technology?