crt or tft?

[dpg0815]

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?

 

[RichPLS]

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

I love my Dell 2405FPW, btw!

 

[waylander]

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.

 

[Cody_7]

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

 

[waylander]

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.

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.

 

[dpg0815]

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 )

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)

 

[Cody_7]

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...

 

[dragonhart]

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

 

[RichPLS]

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.

 

[dougie_boy]

TFT. timing are low and the deffinition is amazing.

 

[MrsD]

LCD is the only way to go. I love my BenQ FP93G!

 

[waylander]

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

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.

 

[Cody_7]

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.

 

[bmouring]

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.

 

[Cody_7]

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.

 

[MagicPants]

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.

 

[bmouring]

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.

 

[bmouring]

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.

 

[waylander]

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

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.

 

[dpg0815]

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 *weeeeeeeeee*

 

[RichPLS]

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

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

 

[Heyyou27]

What's your X1800XT clocked at? At 1680x1050, I've found games that don't play at the framerate I want.

 

[RichPLS]

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

 

[Cody_7]

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

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..

 

[Heyyou27]

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.