Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

crt or tft?

Last response: in Components
Share
July 10, 2006 8:35:42 PM

hello guys

my old 17" crt just recently quit working so i am in desperate need of a new display

which brought me to the decition of either a crt or a tft (i have no spaceproblem)

my main concern is i want the best possible color/picture quality in games and grafic applications (and sometimes watch movies on the display cause i dont have a tv [not goin to buy one since i dont watch tv])

i came up with 3 possibilitys:

crt:
Samsung SyncMaster 1100MB, 21", 130kHz http://www.geizhals.at/a186174.html
Samsung SyncMaster 997MB, 96kHz http://www.geizhals.at/a151375.html

tft:
LG Electronics Flatron L1970HQ, 19", 1280x1024, analog/digital, http://www.geizhals.at/a201968.html

for the decition, as said, space aint a problem, cost is neither cause all of those 3 are in my pricerange. (resolutions will be working fine as ill get a x1900xt soon)

any help is very welcome :) 
which would be the best to get?

More about : crt tft

July 10, 2006 10:07:00 PM

A 21" CRT only has the screen real estate of that a 19.5" LCD has...

I love my Dell 2405FPW, btw! :wink:
July 11, 2006 5:49:44 PM

Quote:

my main concern is i want the best possible color/picture quality in games and grafic applications (and sometimes watch movies on the display cause i dont have a tv [not goin to buy one since i dont watch tv])


CRT screens still have better color reproduction and refresh rates than LCD. Even if size is not an issue the LCD uses less power and gives off less radiation.

I have both a 19" lcd and 21" crt, I use the CRT for gaming (in SLI) and dual mode screen for exerything else.
Related resources
July 11, 2006 6:04:41 PM

Quote:

CRT screens still have better color reproduction and refresh rates than LCD. Even if size is not an issue the LCD uses less power and gives off less radiation.


I would recommend LCDs 100%. I have a sony HS94p 19" monitor (It was recently replaced by a new line of monitors) with a max resolution is 1280x1024. I don't think I can ever go back to a CRT after using an LCD monitor - the colors are so clear and vibrant compared to a CRT.

And, Waylander what is this stuff about color reproduction? My LCD shows whites so truly white you wouldn't believe it, and the colors are crisp and fresh...

Don't worry AT ALL about refresh rates. CRTs need to use a high refresh rate to prevent them from flickering, but LCDs do not. They never flicker whatsoever.

I think you will be much more satisfied with the LG 19" LCD monitor :D 
July 11, 2006 6:18:58 PM

Most standard gaming LCD's that are for sale do not reproduce colors truly, they are crisp and vibrant yes but not true to what will print, which is why graphics designers and professional photographers do not use them. They don't need low reponse rates so they will go with a professional 20" lcd at higher response times.

Just go over some of the reviews by THG and you will see what I'm talking about.

The following is the conclusion from a review of eleven 19" monitors.

Quote:
Following this spate of tests, it is apparent that vendors are increasingly designing LCD monitors for specific applications. The last 100%-all-around monitor we've seen is the ViewSonic VP930, which we tested in previously. The others are either good at color rendering or are excessively fast.

Our preference still goes to the VP930, for its flexibility of use and advanced ergonomics, especially since the price has come down slightly since the model was introduced. Gamers should look to the ViewSonic VX922.

For photo retouching and content creation, we can't recommend the Samsung 970P enough. Its exceptional contrast and unmatched color fidelity make it the ideal companion for spending long hours in front of your screen.


Not all monitors do everything well, choose the one that suits your needs. A 2ms monitor will have fairly poor color fidelity.
July 11, 2006 6:52:06 PM

thanks for the input guys

the refresh problem is what i experienced aswell, i played at a friends house on his lcd (19" benq 12ms i believe) and tbh, i seen the ghosting prettymuch allways (i played trackmania nations so prettymuch a fast game) and the colors also didnt make me happy tbh, but i thought tech advanced allready (why o why arend SED out yet)

my conclusion so far is, go get crt and forget about lcd (which is good allready :D )

now the problem is..should i go for that 19" or the 21" crt that i mentioned above? (im asking cause i really donno if 21" would be overkill or not, or 19" would be too small for tv watchin for example)

my plan was to play (what i can with the rig that ill have soon-atm pentiumD805/1gig mushkin enhanced mem/ soon to come x1900xt) @ resolutions of 1280x1024 or 1600x1200 if possible (depends on the need of game, example Oblivion wont work well @ 1600x1200)

21" or 19"? (remember, no space problem here @ my place)
July 11, 2006 7:20:04 PM

Well, whatever your preferance is. I suggest the larger 21" inch monitor for watching movies.

Oh, and to clear some things up. (You guys probably know this but I want to avoid confusion):

-The "Refresh Rate" doesn't cause ghosting but
-The "Response time" (12ms, etc) does cause it.

And, might I add waylander, that crisp and vibrant colours is good for movies especially, and you can just tone it done for photo editing. As a matter of fact, you can control brightness, gamma, contrast, AND color intensity on almost all LCDs, so if you can adjust it why does "color accuracy" matter in the first place? Not to mention my video control panel can control all of those seperate from my monitor, too. Every monitor in video card is so different in the fisrt place that there really is no "baseline" for accurate color.

I guess it's truly a personal preferance, but a 12ms respnse time (at the highest) these days almost completley eliminates ghosting. I guess if you quickly move your white mouse over a black screen then yes, you might see a slight smear. And i'm sure a 2ms monitor does have poor color fidelity, i mean that's a rediculously fast response time.

I'm just getting irritated because I feel that people are scaring others into buying CRTs because LCDs "Aren't good for gaming" or ahve "poor color" or get "burn-in pictures" (Burn-in pictures buy the way are a thing of the past).

dgp, go with whatever you wish...
July 11, 2006 7:20:20 PM

I use a Viewsonic VP930b, and I'll never go back to CRT again...

you will get ghosting with low response lcd's, which includes the vast majority of the cheap sets out there. Invest in a high end lcd, and you'll be happy.

on the flip side, you can get a larger CRT for the same money, but that comes with a larger utility bill, a larger dent in your desktop, and a larger dose of radiation in your face.

enjoy.
D
July 11, 2006 7:23:22 PM

I will never go back to a CRT, since LCD's are much better imo...
I have 20 yrs CAD and gaming experience and have used cheap CRT's to high end 22" CRT's, but have realized that LCD's 19" and larger are much better on the eyes and colour looks excellent.
My Dell 2405FPW has very minimal observable ghosting, if any at all.
July 11, 2006 7:39:08 PM

TFT. timing are low and the deffinition is amazing.
July 11, 2006 7:52:56 PM

LCD is the only way to go. I love my BenQ FP93G!
July 11, 2006 7:58:37 PM

I'm not trying to scare anyone away from LCD's. I have one myself and use it quite often. I use the 21" CRT for gaming because I had that before the LCD and still prefer it.

In reference to the color thing. I never said that you need perfect colors for everyday use but he did say

Quote:
my main concern is i want the best possible color/picture quality in games and grafic applications


I am an amateur photographer and quite frankly I can barely tell the difference between my 21" trinitron CRT and my Samsung 19" 940BF LCD. Not to say there isn't one, just that I can barely see it.

If I had to buy right now then I'd go for a 19" lcd as well. One thing to note though is that lcd's suck at anything other than their native resolution so if you are looking at a large drawing and want good detail (say 1600 x 1200) the 21" CRT will do this better. 1600 x 1200 is what I run my 21" at.

@dpg0815, if you are going to buy just one display get a all round good one as some of the gaming 2ms monitors suck at watching tv/movies on. IF you get a CRT get the 21" as it has the same viewable area as a 19" lcd.
July 11, 2006 8:14:13 PM

Quote:

If I had to buy right now then I'd go for a 19" lcd as well. One thing to note though is that lcd's suck at anything other than their native resolution so if you are looking at a large drawing and want good detail (say 1600 x 1200) the 21" CRT will do this better. 1600 x 1200 is what I run my 21" at.


That's probably the biggest drawback for an LCD. This is especially noticable for gaming - If I run a game in 1024x768 (Instead of 1280x1024) so the game can perform a little better, it looks so jagged and pixelated compared to it's native resolution that I can't stand it. I've tried to look it up on Wikipedia, but can't exactly figure out why any size resolution looks alot better than you wold think with an CRT if it's not it's native resolution.

Hell, I was playing Half-life 2 in 800x600 on my friends 17" sony CRT, and it looked almost as good as my 19" LCD at it's native res!

But even still, the brightness and color of an LCD out-weighs the disadvantages in my mind. There's PROs and CONs to everything I guess.
July 11, 2006 8:25:23 PM

I go with CRT's since I want my PC to weigh more than me (2x 21" trinitrons)...

Seriously though I have used high-quality LCDs and while they are much much better than they were even two years ago, issues such as the good black levels vs. glare (the XBrite/TruBrite/etc. filters) and a missing "smoothness" I get with my monitors @ 85+ Hz will prevent me from switching myself until SED or whatever's next at least.

The above noted are 100% personal preferences

It is extremely nice that LCD's are incredibly sharp at their native resolution (which is almost always too low for me, another gripe) as well as the great power savings.

In the end, as with some many things in life, it's all about compromises. You have heard the benefits and drawbacks of each camp, use your noggin.
July 11, 2006 8:36:21 PM

Quote:
at their native resolution (which is almost always too low for me, another gripe)


I wish I could talk so someone who knows why a 19" LCD cannot go the the same res as a 19" CRT. I'm guess because they aren't quite able to make LCD pixels quite as small, and therefore can't fit as many on there.
July 11, 2006 8:44:38 PM

I prefer LCD mainly because it is flicker and jitter free and much easier on the eyes. The big thing for LCD monitors is keep the resolution down to what your video card can drive. I was thinking of getting a 30" LCD until I realized I'd need at least sli/crossfire to drive the thing in games.

Latency is lower on CRTs so if you are a pro gamer you might want to stick to CRT. A good way to experience this is just move a web browser around and see how clear the text is on your CRT and then on an LCD. CRTs are also a little harder to calibrate.
July 11, 2006 8:54:11 PM

My guess is that it likely has to do with the fact that CRT technology is passive in terms of creating the color/light (it's just a patch of phosphor that's hit with a beam) whereas you have to have some sort of wiring at some level to "activate" each sub-pixel of a LCD.

A more complex system on the screen level means it's harder (and more expensive) to get higher DPI (which directly corresponds to resolution based on a particular screen size).

Note that this is just my quickie though based upon what I know of each technology. And it even seems reasonable. :) 
July 11, 2006 8:58:09 PM

Quote:
I prefer LCD mainly because it is flicker and jitter free and much easier on the eyes.


I haven't run across this for any CRT refresh rate above 75Hz.

Then again, since you'll be using your monitor the most, if it's an issue for you at any rate or simply other factors make LCDs more attractive for your situation, by all means you made the right choice.
July 11, 2006 9:37:39 PM

Quote:
I prefer LCD mainly because it is flicker and jitter free and much easier on the eyes. The big thing for LCD monitors is keep the resolution down to what your video card can drive. I was thinking of getting a 30" LCD until I realized I'd need at least sli/crossfire to drive the thing in games.

Latency is lower on CRTs so if you are a pro gamer you might want to stick to CRT. A good way to experience this is just move a web browser around and see how clear the text is on your CRT and then on an LCD. CRTs are also a little harder to calibrate.


More people have issues with LCD monitors and the "ghosting" than I've ever heard of with CRT's. My 21" can run 1600 x 1200 at 100hz and I've never seen any issues with it.

As to resolutions on LCD, if you run at anything other than the "native" you will have blurring. Buy the right LCD size and resolution that your video card can handle.

Here is a short description of native resolution

Quote:
Modern desktop Windows PCs are often set incorrectly to a lower resolution than native. People buy 1280 x 1024 19" LCDs, but set the monitor settings to 1024 x 768 to make text easier to read and web pages look bigger.

When you select a lower than native resolution, your computer attempts to interpolate the fewer pixels of your chosen resolution to cover the larger number of pixels on the monitor. Computers never resample very well, and always lose sharpness in the process.


This occurs because the native resolution is based on the number of pixels in the LCD, so a 1280 x 1024 native resolution LCD will have 1280 pixels across and 1024 pixels down. These pixels are turned on and off to create your screen, the back light is just to light them up.

A CRT monitor on the other hand uses a beam of light which reacts with the coating on the screen to create your image. The resolution can be changed because the beam of light (cathode ray tube = CRT) is just run in a denser pattern for higher resolutions, therefore it is sharp regardless of the resolution you choose. The frequency is just the speed at which the beam travels. Therefore the highest resolution at the highest frequency is the hardest to reach but will give you the best picture.
July 11, 2006 9:40:56 PM

again i have to thank everyone for sharing your opinion on this topic :) 

im very happy with the outcome to be honest cause i hoped the 21" wouldnt be overkill...

ill order it in a few days since its still in stock (hopefully still will be when i get my paycheck ;)  )

probably i wont be able to wait till i can "afford" the x1900 also (ill just get it anyways, even if i cant afford it LOL) cause i cant wait till both works in cooperation :D  *weeeeeeeeee*
July 11, 2006 9:42:20 PM

I enjoy the 1920x1200 res of my LCD! My overclocked X1800XT has not met a game it would not play at decent framerates yet... :wink:

also, if you have a 1600x1200 LCD, then you can run it at 800x600 with no distortion...
July 11, 2006 10:23:00 PM

What's your X1800XT clocked at? At 1680x1050, I've found games that don't play at the framerate I want. :( 
July 11, 2006 10:33:58 PM

I keep it set at 690/1600 and no artifacts... idles temps around 60 to 62C while watching TV and browsing... with highest reached around 77C

also I have an Opteron 175 running at 2.64GHz with 2gigs DDR...

bench's 5,040 3DMarks06 and 10,990 3DMarks05
July 11, 2006 10:54:01 PM

Quote:
also, if you have a 1600x1200 LCD, then you can run it at 800x600 with no distortion...


What? If you run it at 800x600, that's exactly half of that resolution; meaning the screen size is sized twice as large as it's meant to be. How could that possibly look good? Thanks like saying if I ran my 1280x960 monitor that 640x480 would look good 8O

P.S. thanks for your explanation, Waylander. It does make sense, the way CRTs render pictures. They can render a picture at any pixel size they want; but with an LCD on the other hand, it can never change how many pixels are rendering the picture because they are "fixed". Althoug, NASA did first invent LCDs... that's why they're so thin :D 

P.S. #2) I think you guys are taking this ghosting thing way too seriously. Gaming is actually when you can notice ghosting the least (Believe me, im a BIG gamer) - and are you really going to try and read your text when you're scrolling? it doesn't work very well..
July 11, 2006 11:12:05 PM

Quote:
What? If you run it at 800x600, that's exactly half of that resolution; meaning the screen size is sized twice as large as it's meant to be. How could that possibly look good? Thanks like saying if I ran my 1280x960 monitor that 640x480 would look good 8O
Actually, it's 1/4 the resolution.
July 11, 2006 11:20:34 PM

the facts are at quarter resolution, there is no interpolation, one pixel becomes simply 4 pixels... just like enlarging the image, but it does pixelate making for more jaggedness...
July 12, 2006 12:59:19 PM

Oh, i see. That's definentally goood if you're running your desktop let's say... in a smaller resolution like that.

In games, though, pixelation is the worst part. If I can run even just 4x anti-aliasing in a game, I have no problem running it in a resolution like 800x600 because it eliminates jagedness.

The bad thing, though, is text and your HUD will take alot more screen space. That's usually the #1 thing that keeps me using top resolution... in games like Battlefield 2, the HUD text (Server messages in chat) it's obviously not a vector font and looks like a pile of crap at your max resolution in the first place, much less if you lower your resolution it's even worse.

P.S. Another pet-peeve of mine besides ugly text are mouse sizes. Often games (specifically SWAT 4 or Black Hawk Down) increase your mouse size to 300% when switching to a res of 1280x1024 or higher. It's like "I'm not blind, I can see the mouse! That's why I upped the reslution in the first place - to make it sharper, not the size of a cow!"
July 12, 2006 2:02:43 PM

Quote:
(and sometimes watch movies on the display cause i dont have a tv [not goin to buy one since i dont watch tv])


u dont watch tv... whats wrong with u? lol

i would deffinetly get an lcd as they look so much clearer/brighter than crt's.
some lcd's are crapfor games but some such as the viewsonic vx220 are very good
July 12, 2006 3:03:07 PM

Quote:
My guess is that it likely has to do with the fact that CRT technology is passive in terms of creating the color/light (it's just a patch of phosphor that's hit with a beam) whereas you have to have some sort of wiring at some level to "activate" each sub-pixel of a LCD.

A more complex system on the screen level means it's harder (and more expensive) to get higher DPI (which directly corresponds to resolution based on a particular screen size).

Note that this is just my quickie though based upon what I know of each technology. And it even seems reasonable. :) 


CRT's still offer much better quality than LCD's. With an LCD, it's either performance OR quality. To get both, you have to sacrifice a little in each area. That should change soon enough.

As for refresh rate vs. response time: You get a flicker when your eyes sample images faster than your monitor can draw them. To be abstract, a CRT has a laser that draws every pixel on the phosphor screen, line-by-line. The refresh rate determines how many times per second the screen is redrawn. If it's not refreshed fast enough, your eye will pick up on this and you'll see it as a flicker (generally 72 Hz and lower. Everyone's a little different).

LCD's stay "lit" all the time. The response time determines how quickly the colors actually change. There's a lot involved here, including the responsiveness of the materials and such, but in short you don't see a flicker because you never 'lose' color, regardless of the 'response' time.

I personally like CRT's, because I play old-school games with freaky resolutions like 300x240 :)  On an LCD, it's either like playing a game on an iPod, or stretched beyond recognition. I like knowing that no matter what resolution my system can handle, it will always look nice on my monitor. CRT's tend to have a REALLY long life, too. Not sure about LCD's. It's too early to tell, I guess.
July 12, 2006 4:20:03 PM

Both CRT explanations are wrong. It does not use a laser nor a light beam to draw the image. It uses an electron beam, that excites the color cintilators located in a grid in the front part of the screen. The cintilator is made of 3 elements: 1 green cintilator, 1 red, and 1 blue. Those 3 compose a pixel. By exiting them with different beam intensity (BTW, there is one beam for each color) you make the different colors on the screen.
Now, it is not phosphor what is used as the scintilator. That was in the monochromatic monitor era. Now, 3 different chemicals are used as cintilators, 1 for each color.

The refresh rate of a CRT is the amount of times per second that the beam crosses the screen horizontally. 75hz for example means that the beam goes back and forth 75 yimes in a second.

Pixel size on a CRT screen is way smaller than the pixel on a LCD display. Thats why it has less blur when you change resolutions..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube <- Wiki linky to CRT technology.


I recomend LCD because it does not emit radiation other than light, does not flicker and uses way less energy than a CRT. Let alone the space saved on your desktop.
July 12, 2006 4:21:09 PM

nothing wrong with me :)  i just dont like watching all that crap thats runnin on tv most of the time ;) 

i rather have a nice time gaming :)  ok, i occasionally watch sports...but rarely.

anyways, thanks for all the opinions, i ordered the samsung 21" crt today, it has been delivered aswell allready, and i am VERY VERY VERY happy with it, i dont believe that any tft would have been able to deliver this kind of picture quality and sharpness with compareable refreshtimes...

tried most of the games that i usually play and everything was a LOT better than with my old crappy 17" (thank god it stopped working LOL)

and, its not toooooo huge...just a tad heavy ;)  but am i carryin it arround or usin it to display the output of my pc ;)  hehhe
July 12, 2006 4:53:02 PM

Quote:
i just dont like watching all that crap thats runnin on tv most of the time ;) 


I can second that. The only time I ever watch TV is when a movie is on, or something like a CSI (That isn't a repeat) is playing.

Quote:

anyways, thanks for all the opinions, i ordered the samsung 21" crt today, it has been delivered aswell allready, and i am VERY VERY VERY happy with it


Well that's WONDERFUL to hear. I'm glad you're satisfied with it :)  Sorry we were kind of arguing about the technology, but oh well

--------------

Okay, about CRT vs LCD. I have a question for you guys: In Lamens terms, a CRT can render the picture size (in pixels) at any size it wants, unlike an LCD where it has to stretch a smaller image to match the amount of pixels it always has (It's optimal resolution) correct? I know all the specifics about the beams needed to refreash the screen, and how it does it. Like I said, in lamens terms.
July 12, 2006 5:50:33 PM

Quote:
Both CRT explanations are wrong. It does not use a laser nor a light beam to draw the image. It uses an electron beam, that excites the color cintilators located in a grid in the front part of the screen. The cintilator is made of 3 elements: 1 green cintilator, 1 red, and 1 blue. Those 3 compose a pixel. By exiting them with different beam intensity (BTW, there is one beam for each color) you make the different colors on the screen.
Now, it is not phosphor what is used as the scintilator. That was in the monochromatic monitor era. Now, 3 different chemicals are used as cintilators, 1 for each color.

The refresh rate of a CRT is the amount of times per second that the beam crosses the screen horizontally. 75hz for example means that the beam goes back and forth 75 yimes in a second.

Pixel size on a CRT screen is way smaller than the pixel on a LCD display. Thats why it has less blur when you change resolutions..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube <- Wiki linky to CRT technology.


I recomend LCD because it does not emit radiation other than light, does not flicker and uses way less energy than a CRT. Let alone the space saved on your desktop.


Wow. I just LOVE how people can wiki something and become instant experts :evil: 

First off, I said to be abstract, as in the opposite of elaborate. Most people can make sense of lasers. You start losing your audience talking about electron beams; hence the precursor I used. And I don't know what you're talking about, but most monitors still use phosphors. In fact, the new Nano-tube flat-screen uses phosphors. Viewsonic's made most of its business from pigment-coated phosphor screens.

Secondly, if the beam goes back and forth 75 times per second, it would take over 10 seconds to draw a screen at 1024x768. That makes a WHOLE lot of sense :roll:

Thirdly, pixel size is not "smaller" on a CRT. A CRT with a dot pitch of 0.25 can have a maximum of 10,000 pixels per square inch. A typical 17" LCD monitor with a native resolution of 1280x1024 has approximately 9,600 pixels per square inch.

Lastly, CRT's don't emit a large amount of radiation at all.

Quote:
In fact, the ionizing radiation a person absorbs from the rocks, masonry and construction materials in many buildings is generally orders of magnitude greater than any emissions from a VDT.


http://www.pc.ibm.com/ww/healthycomputing/vdt14.html

Do your homework next time before you start correcting someone. :evil: 
July 12, 2006 10:19:17 PM

He probably didn't even know what CRT stood for till I wrote it in my post...
July 12, 2006 10:45:36 PM

Quote:
hello guys

my old 17" crt just recently quit working so i am in desperate need of a new display

which brought me to the decition of either a crt or a tft (i have no spaceproblem)

my main concern is i want the best possible color/picture quality in games and grafic applications (and sometimes watch movies on the display cause i dont have a tv [not goin to buy one since i dont watch tv])

i came up with 3 possibilitys:

crt:
Samsung SyncMaster 1100MB, 21", 130kHz http://www.geizhals.at/a186174.html
Samsung SyncMaster 997MB, 96kHz http://www.geizhals.at/a151375.html

tft:
LG Electronics Flatron L1970HQ, 19", 1280x1024, analog/digital, http://www.geizhals.at/a201968.html

for the decition, as said, space aint a problem, cost is neither cause all of those 3 are in my pricerange. (resolutions will be working fine as ill get a x1900xt soon)

any help is very welcome :) 
which would be the best to get?


If you are a gamer or use the computer to watch movies a CRT will give a better pic and color.

If you are useing the computer for non-grfx work then a LCD will use less power and not give off x-rays.
July 12, 2006 11:07:15 PM

I have both CRT and LCD for separate PCs. I really do think that CRTs are still better than LCDs, but I have to admit than once my CRT bites the dust I will buy a new LCD (Dell 2407 maybe) for my primary PC. The following is my standard post regarding LCDs:

Quote:

LCDs with fast response time (less than 16ms) are usually 6-bit monitors. That means that color reproduction is not as good as an 8-bit LCD or a CRT. That means you can see artifacts and basically bad color blending. That will be less noticable in FPS games since you are concentrating on running around and shooting enemies. For watching movies and doing graphics design, it can be noticable.

8-bit LCDs can produce 16.7 million colors. 8 bits is use for different shades of Red, Green and Blue, which means there will be 256 shades for each color (2^8 = 256). Since each color has 256 shades that means there will be a total of 16.7 million possible colors (256^3 or 256x256x256).

6-bit LCDs can only produce 262,144 colors. 6 bits is used or each of the three colors, Red, Green, and Blue. That means there will only be 64 shades of each color (2^6 = 64). Therefore, there is only 262,144 actual colors (64^3 or 64x64x64). But many brands list these LCDs as being able to reproduce 16.2 million colors. How? It's done by interpolation or guessing what the missing colors are. Guessing can lead to the wrong shade of color being displayed and can lead to artifacts. But the good thing about 6-bit LCD is that the sacrifice color accuracy for speed. So any LCD listed as faster than 16ms are most likely 6-bit LCDs.

Sometimes brands try to fool the consumer, so instead of listing 16.2 million colors for 6-bit monitors, they list 16.7 million colors. Therefore most people are simply being misled because they don't know what to look for.

I only know of 2 brands that offers 8ms LCDs that are 8-bit LCD. They are Planar and Viewsonic. They use "turbo mode" or "performance mode" to lower the response time at the cost of some visual quality. So when gamimg you can use those modes and for watching video you can use regular mode.

Also 6-bit LCDs are cheaper than 8-bit LCDs because the fewer colors each pixel needs to reproduce, the cheaper it will cost to produce. That's why all of the cheap or inexpensive LCDs are 6-bit.

Good quality CRTs are still superior to LCDs. They have no issues with dead pixels, or ghosting. They also have better resolution scaling than LCDs. The native resolution for a 19" LCD is 1280 x 1024. If the text is too small and you scale down the resolution to 1024 x 768, then the text will be larger but not as crisp as the native resolution.

The major problem with CRTs is that they take up a lot of deskspace. If you replace it with a LCD then you'll be surprised with the amount of free deskspace you will actually have. Plus they suck up more electricity than a LCD.

If your CRT is not giving you any problems, and if you do not have to urge to replace it with a LCD, then keep on using it.
July 12, 2006 11:20:27 PM

Haha, at first I was going to reply as well, but then I just decided it wasn't worth my time to correct this guy. When I've actually made a VGA driver from discrete logic (and had to do the googling and such necessary to find out how it works as well as the specific of the signal timings), and to have my reference to a "beam" be refuted and labeled as a laser... you see why I didn't want to answer here ? :) 
July 12, 2006 11:28:23 PM

Hmm... Isn't a 16.2 or 16.7 million color selected usually referred to as 24-bit? Where are you getting the 6 bit and 8 bit numbers from? And I beg to differ about the response times. Most LCDs you find today are at least 12ms or less response time... and I don't think i've ever seen an LCD that doesn't display 16.7 million colours. That's just standard now.

And please? ghosting? That argument doesn't hold much ground. I have a Sony HS94P 19" monitor that can be bought now for under $400. It has a 12MS response time and the only time I ever see this "ghosting" is if I quickly move my white mouse on a black screen, and even then it's very slight.

I think there's this huge urban legend that LCDs will show huge streaks and be impossible to use in gaming due to "ghosting". Do I have to record a video of my monitor with my video camera? Christ, get it through your heads GHOSTING IS NO LONGER NOTICABLE ENOUGH TO CAUSE ISSUES!

Oh, and would anyone mind answering what I asked earlier?
Quote:
Okay, about CRT vs LCD. I have a question for you guys: In Lamens terms, a CRT can render the picture size (in pixels) at any size it wants, unlike an LCD where it has to stretch a smaller image to match the amount of pixels it always has (It's optimal resolution) correct? I know all the specifics about the beams needed to refreash the screen, and how it does it. Like I said, in lamens terms.
July 12, 2006 11:55:34 PM

Quote:
Haha, at first I was going to reply as well, but then I just decided it wasn't worth my time to correct this guy. When I've actually made a VGA driver from discrete logic (and had to do the googling and such necessary to find out how it works as well as the specific of the signal timings), and to have my reference to a "beam" be refuted and labeled as a laser... you see why I didn't want to answer here ? :) 


Yeah, I understand. That's fine. I expected at least ONE person to correct me. I'd have to be a moron to think it's a 'real' laser anyway. Color TV's came out in the 50's. The first working laser was built in 1960.

I just didn't expect the person to correct me to pull information from the deep, dark recesses of his imagination and try to pawn them off as fact.

Awe well I guess.

That sounds like a cool task. Was it contract work? I do a lot of embedded stuff: all with uProcessors and uControllers of some sort. Most of the fun programming is embedded :) 
July 13, 2006 12:04:33 AM

Quote:
Hmm... Isn't a 16.2 or 16.7 million color selected usually referred to as 24-bit?


16.7 million color LCDs are referred to both 8-bit and 24-bit. There are three primary colors RED, GREEN & BLUE. Each color has 8 bits to represent them; 8 bits x 3 = 24 bits. Do a Google search for 6-bit and 8-bit LCDs, you'll find them.

Here's a quote from an Anandtech article:

Quote:

Color Depth: Almost all LCDs today are 6-bit or 8-bit LCDs. This means that each subpixel - Red, Green, and Blue - can display one of 2 to the n shades where n represents the number of pixels. A typical 8-bit LCD can produce 256 shades per pixel, or 16.7M color combinations. A 6-bit LCD panel can display 64 shades per subpixel, and since there are three subpixels per pixel, the monitor can display 262,000 color combinations per pixel. This is generally OK for gaming, but certainly not acceptable for any graphics development. Personally, I enjoy seeing the other 98% of the 24-bit color spectrum.


Quote:

... and I don't think i've ever seen an LCD that doesn't display 16.7 million colours. That's just standard now.


Nope. 6-bits LCDs are more popluar than 8-bit LCDs because of gamers and because they are cheaper.

Quote:

And please? ghosting? That argument doesn't hold much ground. I have a Sony HS94P 19" monitor that can be bought now for under $400. It has a 12MS response time and the only time I ever see this "ghosting" is if I quickly move my white mouse on a black screen, and even then it's very slight.


What you see and cannot see is called perception and it is based on how each individual's brain can process the information thier eyes see. Just because you don't see ghosting doesn't mean others will not.

I've seen ghosting on "8ms" LCDs.

Quote:

GHOSTING IS NO LONGER NOTICABLE ENOUGH TO CAUSE ISSUES!


Maybe not for you, but you can't speak for everyone else.

Why are you shouting? Are you a little baby?

Quote:

Oh, and would anyone mind answering what I asked earlier?
Quote:
Okay, about CRT vs LCD. I have a question for you guys: In Lamens terms, a CRT can render the picture size (in pixels) at any size it wants, unlike an LCD where it has to stretch a smaller image to match the amount of pixels it always has (It's optimal resolution) correct? I know all the specifics about the beams needed to refreash the screen, and how it does it. Like I said, in lamens terms.


An LCD screen can only display the number of pixels in its matrix (the total number of pixels in the LCD screen) and no more. It can display a lower resolution in one of two ways. Using only a fraction of the total pixels on the display or through extrapolation (a calculated guess). Extrapolation is a method whereby the monitor blends multiple pixels together to simulate a single smaller pixel. This can often lead to a blurry or fuzzy image particularly with text when running the screen below is native resolution.
July 13, 2006 12:40:01 AM

Quote:

16.7 million color LCDs are referred to both 8-bit and 24-bit. Do a Google search for 6-bit and 8-bit LCDs, you'll find them.


Ok, thank you for clarifying that for me. It's simple enough to understand :D 

Quote:

Nope. 6-bits LCDs are more popluar than 8-bit LCDs because of gamers and because they are cheaper.


Well, I find that very misleading and nearly down-right sneaky that they would market 6-bit LCDs that display such a small amount of colours. I don't think there's necicarially a "gaming" LCD, if you get one that's balanced between features, response time, etc that that would work great for anything; obviously a limited color pallette is going to be very noticeable whether it be a game or photo editing.

Quote:

What you see and cannot see is called perception and it is based on how each individual's brain can process the information thier eyes see. Just because you don't see ghosting doesn't mean others will not.

I've seen ghosting on "8ms" LCDs.


Okay, that's true. Anything comes down to perception really... but what I'm trying to get across is that even though ghosting may be very noticable for people who have used a CRT recently, I honestly don't believe that it truly impacts your experience as many people who say "CRTs are better" make others think. I'm not referring to you, just "CRT users" in general. You say it's noticeable, i say it's not as much. Maybe i'm just trying to be the "LCD rights activist" right now -- but I've heard so many people bring up that same timeless "ghosting argument" over and over and over as if their lives depended on it. You could say i'm making up for that in a way.

Quote:

An LCD screen can only display the number of pixels in its matrix (the total number of pixels in the LCD screen) and no more. It can display a lower resolution in one of two ways. Using only a fraction of the total pixels on the display or through extrapolation (a calculated guess). Extrapolation is a method whereby the monitor blends multiple pixels together to simulate a single smaller pixel. This can often lead to a blurry or fuzzy image particularly with text when running the screen below is native resolution.


Thanks for answering that question. I now know how LCD's scale the images, but about CRTs: Does their actual pixel count "change" so to speak, as opposed to an LCD with a "static" amount of pixels that never changes?

P.S. I'm sorry I was shouting in that post, I was just getting frustrated. There must be at least 5 different people mention ghosting in this thread alone.
July 13, 2006 2:57:11 AM

Ive Owned 5 Differant LCDs Since 2002 Until I Finnaly Found My Beloved SiliconGraphics(SGI) 1600sw (1600x1024, .23mm Dot Pitch, 17.3", 16:10 "Ultra-Wide" Ratio)
And There Alot Better Than CRTs, Some Come CLOSE To A CRTs Color Accuracy, And Most Have No Problem (Or Very Little) With Latency.
And There Are Several Other Advantages (Yeah Size I Know, Blah, Blah):
1.They Draw Alot Less Power
2.They Create Less Heat
3.They Are ALOT Easier On The Eyes (Try Staring At A CRT As Long As I Do My TFT)
4.They Are Light (And Wont Give You A Hernia When You Move One)
5. They Arent Expensive Like They Usta Be (CRTs Five Years Ago Cost About The Same As The Average TFT-LCDs Do Today)
6.There Just Plain Sexy!

Trust Me Get A Good TFT And Enter The 21st Century (Read The Reviews And Get Some Personal Advice)
If You Choose Wisely You Wont Regret It.
July 13, 2006 3:15:05 AM

I think some of them have hit the ignore button with wisely highlited... they will never get it. :wink:
July 13, 2006 1:44:29 PM

Actually, it was for a digital design class for my degree. The board had a protoboard area for adding stuff as well as a nice FPGA that was connected to a DB15, a PS/2 type connector, and some other stuff too. Essentially we had to take input from a keyboard and put the corresponding charater on the screen.
Good stuff, hopefully will get to take even more interesting classes now that I'm starting grad school.
July 13, 2006 3:09:54 PM

One other advantage for LCDs which hasn't been mentioned (and usually isn't)... accurate geometry.

You'll notice that CRT's include various "trapazoid" and "pincushion" adjustments to tweak how the electron gun draws its picture. The purpose of these adjustments is to allow users to correct curves in vertical lines.

LCD's don't have the same geometrical issues, since the pixels are fixed in proper geometrical alignment.

Hope this helps.
July 13, 2006 3:32:06 PM

Quote:
One other advantage for LCDs which hasn't been mentioned (and usually isn't)... accurate geometry.

You'll notice that CRT's include various "trapazoid" and "pincushion" adjustments to tweak how the electron gun draws its picture. The purpose of these adjustments is to allow users to correct curves in vertical lines.

LCD's don't have the same geometrical issues, since the pixels are fixed in proper geometrical alignment.

Hope this helps.


Yeah, very true.

I've had all CRT's up until now (although most of my friends have LCD's, and I often work on one). I think I'm going to get an LCD for my home computer next, though. I love CRT's, but I could really use the space on my computer desk.
July 13, 2006 11:33:17 PM

Quote:


Nope. 6-bits LCDs are more popluar than 8-bit LCDs because of gamers and because they are cheaper.


Well, I find that very misleading and nearly down-right sneaky that they would market 6-bit LCDs that display such a small amount of colours. I don't think there's necicarially a "gaming" LCD, if you get one that's balanced between features, response time, etc that that would work great for anything; obviously a limited color pallette is going to be very noticeable whether it be a game or photo editing.

While a 6-bit LCD can only produce 262,144 colors, through the process called interpolation (mathematical guessing) a 6-bit LCD can produce 16.2 million colors. But it won't be as good as a true 8-bit LCD. Most people can't tell the difference, unless they compare them side by side. I think 6-bit LCDs are improving in quality, but there still is a difference if you know what to look for.

Quote:


An LCD screen can only display the number of pixels in its matrix (the total number of pixels in the LCD screen) and no more. It can display a lower resolution in one of two ways. Using only a fraction of the total pixels on the display or through extrapolation (a calculated guess). Extrapolation is a method whereby the monitor blends multiple pixels together to simulate a single smaller pixel. This can often lead to a blurry or fuzzy image particularly with text when running the screen below is native resolution.


Thanks for answering that question. I now know how LCD's scale the images, but about CRTs: Does their actual pixel count "change" so to speak, as opposed to an LCD with a "static" amount of pixels that never changes?


CRTs have what's called "dot pitch". Dot pitch is basically the distance between those tiny little dots of phosphor (pixel) that gives off color. The larger the distance (or dot pitch) the fuzzier the image. Therefore, the lower the dot pitch the sharper the image and text will be especially at higher resolution. Cheap CRTs can have dot pitch as high as .30mm, really good CRTs have dot pitch as low as .22mm (maybe smaller).

CRTs shoots an electron beam from the back of the CRT tube to the front that causes the phosphors to light up. The electron beam is adjusted to increase or decrease resolution. No "blending" is involved when a CRT changes resolution.
July 14, 2006 2:14:31 AM

Okay, I see. I would actually consider buying a CRT for gaming - (NOT because of the response rate / ghosting) but for these several reasons.

1)The first is the highest resolution that a typical 22" CRT monitor supports (2048x1536) is my maximum video card supported (I would LOVE having that much desktop real-estate)

2) and the second, because when running a low resolution it doesn't pixelate / interpolate nearly as much as LCDs. It seriously looks BAD running a game in even one resolution down (1024x768) on my (128x1024) LCD monitor. So bad that I almost can't stand it. It seriously drives me nuts.

BUT, these things really keep me from ever doing it:

1) The obvious one, I would loose so much of my desk space that it isn't even funny.

2) I often spend many hours of gaming (heck, even hours on these forums) at a time and i've never gotten a headache doing that on my LCD. I have a feeling my head would be screming after using a CRT for that long.

3) I looked at the largest CRT monitors available at NewEgg (Here) and i see no form of measurment for contrast (800:1, etc) and no brightness measure (400 cdm/2 etc) on those CRTs. The biggest thing I like about this LCD is the un-paralelled contrast and colour while using it. Am I just suppost to make a blind guess when buying a CRT with no light / contrast measurments?

4) Lastly, CRTs are slowly but surley being put out of production. If you notice, there's only 19 CRT monitors to choose from on NewEgg, as opposed to a staggering 300 or so available LCDs. If you haven't heard, very recently Apple just announced they would no longer sell CRTs with their computers.

4.b) not important enough to make a No. 5 for, but LCDs are so innovativley designed, and are becoming the standard now (WOW, only 19 CRTs on newegg?) that it doesn't seem like a future-proof investment to buy one. Note that you really can't get CRTs much larger than 22" for your PC. I could hook up my PC to our 37" Plasma TV and enjoy the picture if I wanted to...

As you can kind of tell, I can't justify getting a CRT. I just thought I should approach the "CRT vs TFT" a little differently. Yes, they are my opinions, but many people do things like look at the PC for hours same as me.
July 14, 2006 3:05:36 AM

If You Chose The Right TFT Interpolation Shouldnt Be A Problem. My 1600SW Come Out In 2002 And It Interpolates Clear Down To 800x600 With No Problems, Its Only Relly Noticable On The Windows Desktop But Still Barely Noticable (But Why In The Hell Would You Run A Lower Resolution On The Desktop Anywayse) My Point, As I Said In My Last Post, Choose Wisely And Youll Be Happy...OUT.....
July 14, 2006 9:54:25 AM

its allready solved anyways guys :)  (if you wouldve read the whole thread u all wouldve recognised ;)  )

thanks though for all the info (still VERY happy with it cause even people who are totally convinced of the superb quality of tfts have looked at this screen like 8O, and i myself who call myself VERY picky am SUPERHAPPY with it)

everyone that has the space on the desk, and who is really picky when it comes to quality, should think twice or even 3 times to buying a tft.

better keep your crt for now and wait till SED is out...that will truely be quality then...
!