Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

CRT v.s. LCD - Page 3

Last response: in Systems
Share
December 6, 2006 4:26:48 AM

Those very same old units that you say are adding nothing to the discussion are the ones that you yourself referred to as being around 30 years ago.

And I have not said nor advocated that LCD technology is superior, because that is not the case. I said that for basic home use, and LCD is a better way to go. I ALSO said that CRTs are superior when image quality/clarity is an issue.

I understand your size and weight argument, and it is a valid one. You can also make the argument that the reduced cost of operating the LCD monitor over its lifetime, along with its higher availability in the US, make a better option for the average user.

Gamers on the other hand, should pretty much go CRT unless they are either going ultra high end LCD, or are not concerned with visuals over game play.

Plus LCDs are better for the environment, both while they are operating, and after their disposal.

I was not attempting to poke holes in your argument, just point out portions of it that could be misleading to those that don't know any better.
December 6, 2006 4:58:14 AM

Quote:
SUP, LCD's have response times, contrast ratios, vewing angles, dot-pitches, etc. when i check out CRTs they dont have all those specs that LCDs have. i've heard that CRTs have thebest pictures but i haven't seen any specs to back them up like LCD's do. i know CRTs have them, i just cant find them, thats where i need help. i would like those specs so i can compair them to some LCD's i have in mind.

Thanks l8er :) 


Here's your answer: They don't compare.

Response time LCD: Milliseconds CRT: Nanoseconds
-CRT's are so fast the response time can't be comprehended

Contrast Ratios LCD: hundreds or thousands CRT:thousands or millions
-CRT's don't use a backlight, so they don't need to worry about light bleeding through as with LCD's.

Viewing Angle LCD: less than 180 degrees CRT: 180 degrees
-CRT's don't have the "off angle" problem and can be viewed accuratedly from any angle where the display can be seen

Dot Pitch: LCD-doesn't matter CRT: the finer the better.
-LCD's have a fixed number of pixels, for example 1600x1050 pixels, if you do the math you can determine the size. Two 19" LCD's with the same native resolution must have the same "dot pitch", so dot-pitch doesn't matter with LCD's, only native resolution matters.

CRT's have a much smaller dot pitch, but are limitted by the electronics that supports the tube rather than the tube itself.

So basically, the reason you don't see contrast ratios, view angles and response times for CRT's is because these are so high for CRT's that they don't matter. It's LCD's inferiority in these three areas that makes it matter for LCD's.
December 6, 2006 6:59:58 AM

Allow me to sum it all up:

CRT's:
PROs:-Able to support many display modes, both resolution and color depth
-Higher Contrast and Picture Quality (color and resolution)
-Higher refresh rates= More FPS compared to LCD
-No smearing or dead pixels
CONs:-Larger size and weight
-Uses more power
-Some people notice flickering (not all)
-Somewhat harder to find nowadays

LCD:
PROs:-Uses much less desk space
-Uses much less electricity
-Excellent for reading and Internet surfing, picture viewing
CONs:-Only one real resolution
-Lower Refresh rates= Lower FPS
-Lower Contrast and Color compared to CRT
-Some people complain of overly bright (not all)
-Dead Pixels

I personally own (and use) a ViewSonic A91f+ 19" CRT. I bought on sale at Best Buy with my current HP system. It was on sale for $200. One of the things I really enjoy about this model is that it has a front button that swiches the monitor brightness between 3 modes; Normal- The lowest for reading and surfing the web, Games-3X brighter, and Movies-5X brighter. I had to borrow a friends LCD once, a 17", and while it was really nice for reading and looking at stills, my CRT is much more versatile and useful. Whether it's playing many different games, watching movies, or just surfing the net, I love my CRT much better than any LCD I've ever tried.

Yes, it takes a bit of space. And yeah, it uses more electricity. But it's still better for my tastes/preferences than an LCD. CRT's are NOT obselete technology. But, the single biggest segment of the computer market are businesses. And businesses don't usually need the capability to display a lot of fast-moving/high-resolution images. For them, space and electric bills are much more of a concern. Hence, business is what has catapulted the LCD to the top of the market.

SO, if you really want the best COMPATABILTY and IMAGE QUALITY, CRT is still the best around. However, if SPACE and UTILITIES are your major concerns, LCD is the way to go.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
December 6, 2006 7:38:04 AM

Quote:
Allow me to sum it all up:

CRT's:
PROs:-Able to support many display modes, both resolution and color depth
-Higher Contrast and Picture Quality (color and resolution)
-Higher refresh rates= More FPS compared to LCD
-No smearing or dead pixels
CONs:-Larger size and weight
-Uses more power
-Some people notice flickering (not all)
-Somewhat harder to find nowadays

LCD:
PROs:-Uses much less desk space
-Uses much less electricity
-Excellent for reading and Internet surfing, picture viewing
CONs:-Only one real resolution
-Lower Refresh rates= Lower FPS
-Lower Contrast and Color compared to CRT
-Some people complain of overly bright (not all)
-Dead Pixels

I personally own (and use) a ViewSonic A91f+ 19" CRT. I bought on sale at Best Buy with my current HP system. It was on sale for $200. One of the things I really enjoy about this model is that it has a front button that swiches the monitor brightness between 3 modes; Normal- The lowest for reading and surfing the web, Games-3X brighter, and Movies-5X brighter. I had to borrow a friends LCD once, a 17", and while it was really nice for reading and looking at stills, my CRT is much more versatile and useful. Whether it's playing many different games, watching movies, or just surfing the net, I love my CRT much better than any LCD I've ever tried.

Yes, it takes a bit of space. And yeah, it uses more electricity. But it's still better for my tastes/preferences than an LCD. CRT's are NOT obselete technology. But, the single biggest segment of the computer market are businesses. And businesses don't usually need the capability to display a lot of fast-moving/high-resolution images. For them, space and electric bills are much more of a concern. Hence, business is what has catapulted the LCD to the top of the market.

SO, if you really want the best COMPATABILTY and IMAGE QUALITY, CRT is still the best around. However, if SPACE and UTILITIES are your major concerns, LCD is the way to go.
QFT.... :wink:
December 6, 2006 8:46:23 AM

Quote:
The only question I have for you is.....do you game??? cause if you do,go with the crt as lcd's still are not up to the real gaming yet.Although rumour has it there are a couple of very pricey 2ms lcd's kicking around.But as I said they are very pricey.Recommendation;Go with crt.If not a gamer,then have fun with an lcd.Goodluck.


Name a game you can't play on an LCD screen and tell me why.
Yes if you have an older screen with >20ms response time you will see a a bit of blurryness but modern day screens respond far quicker than this.
December 6, 2006 8:48:18 AM

Quote:
1 basic fact that people dont seem to understand about LCD's and CRT's is resolution, with larger and more powerful video cards these day's that seem to love high resolution's LCD's simply carnt cut it, you may notice an x1900 or 7900gt love 1600x1200 and up, this is where they perform best, i cant say i have seen an LCD on the market that can run at these resolution's, i am willing to sacrifice a little bench space (approx 3 times more than an LCD) for my trusty 22" mitsubishi diamond pro 2060u (weighing nearly 35 kilo's) that eats everything my video card (x1900cf master) can throw at it.


Look harder. Infact, you don't even have to look that hard they are about.
December 6, 2006 9:08:40 PM

For future reference; if you want to keep up a discussion with somebody else, you must keep track of what have been told:

Quote:
About all those marketed LCD "advancements", think about this: LCD technology has been around over 30 years. If it is so good why wasn't it adopted a bit earlier? And now that it is; why so many manufacturers are investing already on other technologies to replace it? Some of them will even admit LCD's have inferior image quality than CRT's of the same size.

Quote:
As for LCDs being around for 30 years, that is true, but misleading. Yes, they have been, but not in color, high resolution, or in the screen sizes needed for computers. Look at a "high quality" laptop screen from 6 or 8 years ago, and the pictures looks like crap compared to today (due a lot to contrast ratios and the failure to display black properly).

Quote:
The first units of every display technology had poorer resolutions and were black and white. The fact that nowadays such would be considered a prototype and not see day light is another issue. So the simple fact the first LCD's produced were black and white does not add anything to the discussion. Nothing misleading here.

Quote:
Those very same old units that you say are adding nothing to the discussion are the ones that you yourself referred to as being around 30 years ago.

So much about misleading… :roll:

Sorry man, but you completely took away the fun of this discussion trying to pull that one out...
December 6, 2006 10:52:59 PM

Quote:
Those very same old units that you say are adding nothing to the discussion are the ones that you yourself referred to as being around 30 years ago.

And I have not said nor advocated that LCD technology is superior, because that is not the case. I said that for basic home use, and LCD is a better way to go. I ALSO said that CRTs are superior when image quality/clarity is an issue.

I understand your size and weight argument, and it is a valid one. You can also make the argument that the reduced cost of operating the LCD monitor over its lifetime, along with its higher availability in the US, make a better option for the average user.

Gamers on the other hand, should pretty much go CRT unless they are either going ultra high end LCD, or are not concerned with visuals over game play.

Plus LCDs are better for the environment, both while they are operating, and after their disposal.

I was not attempting to poke holes in your argument, just point out portions of it that could be misleading to those that don't know any better.

Then I guess an ultra high end LCD can be had for $350 (without the $60 mail in rebate) which is how much I paid for mine. I honestly can't see how clarity and image quality can be any better than this monitor. It's infinitly times better than my CRT. I had no dead pixels and viewing my CRT in daylight was nearly impossible since this room is pretty sunlit, but it's no problem with my LCD. Games look incredible on this thing.
December 6, 2006 10:58:05 PM

Quote:
You should get out a bit more or surf some alot of TFT can do 75hrz mine is one of them.

Alot of info reguarding LCD in this thread is wrong or vary vary vary old.

WizardOZ have you even used a LCD? almost all of your cons of a LCD are way way off.
Quote:


Well bucko, first off, you have a serious attitude problem and you aren't anywhere near as smart or experienced as you think you are.

To answer your question: I have used and observed, not to mention bought and sold, all sorts of flat-screen displays. Including, among others, the plasma display of a Zenith lap-top. I wonder if you even know what system I am talking about here. As for information being "obsolete", fanboys like you are incapable of grasping reality. I note that you failed to address the issue of the price difference between full-on LCD TVs and LCD computer monitors. The price difference is NOT due to the inclusion of a tuner and other TV-specific electronics.

Secondly, a significant aspect of this discussion relates to performance in demanding applications like games, serious imaging and video editing. All of which require a sophisticated video card and a very good and responsive monitor. I wonder if "Hercules Graphics" has any meaning to you. I doubt it does.

Your posts demonstrate that you are an ignorant punk. You are too stupid to see that just because you have all kinds of disposable cash to throw around to get the upper-level but mid-range stuff commonly available, this does not justify or validate your fanboy attitude and opinions.

Many low-end (never mind higher) CRTs remain superior to 80% of current flat-screen dispalys. At equivalent screen sizes, it is necessary to spend several thousand dollars on a flat-screen to exceed the performance of a mid-priced, let alone truly professonal CRT. I again draw your attention to the price difference between a true LCD TV and a computer monitor of the same size. I also draw your attention to the fact that the world's largest and most successful graphics chip manufacturer is INTEL. Despite the fact that their graphics are the worst on the market. Why? Because these are the cheapest on-board GPUs available. Very popular in "business" machines. Like from DELL. An earlier post described the impact of corporate purchacing on the "success" of LCD screens. Here is the proof / support for the point. I haven't seen anything in your posts on this thread to show that you have anything more than a suprficial grasp of either the technology or the business. I earned a living in the business for a while.

What was it you were saying about "getting out more or surf more"? And about LCD "refresh rates"? But... But.... LCDs don't have refresh rates. CRTs do. You don't know what you are talking about; that being the case STFU you moron!
December 6, 2006 11:21:41 PM

LOL, I'm still viewing HIGH END LCD displays from multiple angles to check color on photos. Something I don't need to do with a CRT.
December 6, 2006 11:52:29 PM

Quote:

1) All LCDs operate at a specific native resolution. Usually, this is a pretty high setting. 15" LCDs usually work at 1024 x 768, 17" & 19" usually run at 1280 x 1024 (or higher). This means that your text and icons and many other items are pretty small. This may not be an issue if you are young and have good vision, but if your eyesight is less than perfect, there will be a problem. If you are older (over 40) this will definitely be a concern.


If you have these problems there are numerous settings in windows that will allow you to compensate.

rt-click on the desktop > properties > settings > advanced > DPI Setting > Large Size (120)

That will help immensly, also browsers usually allow you to use ctrl + + (control key and the plus key) to enlarge your fonts in the browser and you can of couse increase your mag in word or increase the font.

Also, having several flat screens, A SONY 23" SDM-P234 and 3 SyncMaster 213T 21.3 inchers....I have to say, I think the gripes about "Fuzzy" displays at non-native resolutions are way over hyped....The SyncMasters I keep at max res due to what I use them for, but my Sony runs at 1024x768 or there abouts for most games and Im not complaining about the picture at all.

UMM.. I know all these "tweaks". And your specific path applies to which version of Windows? XP perhaps? But what if I am using another version of Windows - how does this help? And what if I don't use Word? And Windows isn't the only OS out there - what are your suggestions in that case?. I congradulate you on your collection of monitors and related stuff - and your point in raising the list is?

I have used enough flat-screens at all sorts of quality / price points, as recently as this week, to stand by my comments about fuzzy text, especially when scrolling, unless the screen is very high-end and expensive. And I have used systems like the Zenith and Toshiba laptops with monochrome plasma displays.

Your post is arrogant, and I would estimate your age to be below 35. I am pushing 50. I have more experience than you do. Not to mention familiarity with truly obsolete technology, like slide rules, from the time when you were likely being potty trained. I also have enough direct experience with people over 40, let alone 60, who need glasses running monitors at 800 x 600 resolutions to get text and other screen elements big enough to see clearly to state unequivacally that the tweaks you "recommend" are absolutely inadequate. You get really crappy image quality on an LCD at 800 x 600. CRTs are far from dead.
December 7, 2006 12:19:44 AM

I 'm using a 19" used monitor that I got for $65US. Works great..

Course I am coveting a 40" Sony Bravia..
December 7, 2006 1:18:28 AM

Just a thought, but we might want to tone down the rhetoric a bit. This is getting out of hand for something that doesn't contain the words "Intel", "AMD" or "4x4". Just keep it a bit chill, okay my friend?
December 7, 2006 2:14:31 AM

Quote:
For future reference; if you want to keep up a discussion with somebody else, you must keep track of what have been told:

About all those marketed LCD "advancements", think about this: LCD technology has been around over 30 years. If it is so good why wasn't it adopted a bit earlier? And now that it is; why so many manufacturers are investing already on other technologies to replace it? Some of them will even admit LCD's have inferior image quality than CRT's of the same size.

Quote:
As for LCDs being around for 30 years, that is true, but misleading. Yes, they have been, but not in color, high resolution, or in the screen sizes needed for computers. Look at a "high quality" laptop screen from 6 or 8 years ago, and the pictures looks like crap compared to today (due a lot to contrast ratios and the failure to display black properly).

Quote:
The first units of every display technology had poorer resolutions and were black and white. The fact that nowadays such would be considered a prototype and not see day light is another issue. So the simple fact the first LCD's produced were black and white does not add anything to the discussion. Nothing misleading here.

Quote:
Those very same old units that you say are adding nothing to the discussion are the ones that you yourself referred to as being around 30 years ago.

So much about misleading… :roll:

Sorry man, but you completely took away the fun of this discussion trying to pull that one out...

For future reference, maybe you should think about whats said before you criticize people to make your ego feel better.

You seem to misunderstand what I said:

You said LCD's have been around for 30 years...

I said not in a usable form they haven't...

You said thats irrelevant to the discussion...

I said that by declaring the fact that they were prototypes irrelevant, you also must declare the fact that they've been around 30 years irrelevant, since they have not been marketable as laptop or PC screens for that time, they have only relatively recently become truly viable products, regardless of the reasons...

I hope thats straightforward enough for you to understand my meaning while not hurting your feelings or turning you off from this discussion.
December 7, 2006 2:40:14 AM

You guys really do need to cool off. Aside from perhaps the ultra high end CRT's will be hard to find in 5 years for computers. Five years after that the ones that were around will be tired and worn out. Time will end this debate before some of you will give up.

You want a beast on you desk go for it. This just reminds me of debate between film vs digital. Many say film is better but few that go digital go back to film. The same holds true for CRT's and LCD.
December 7, 2006 2:57:56 AM

Hey, I'm cool. As I've stated before, I don't particularly care one way or the other. They both have uses.

Its just fun to argue with this guy, especially when he seems to completely miss what I am trying to say.

On the other hand, as you said, this is a pointless debate (and here I thought it was a request for advice :twisted: ). We can sit here and debate it ad nauseum and never change anyone with a pre-defined opinions mind.
December 7, 2006 2:59:50 AM

To DaSick

What rhetoric?

And as for "toning it down", perhaps you could direct the same comment to EnFoRceR22, whose posts are fanboy rants, and who failed to address the points I raised in my original post. And made a direect personal attack on me. And others in other posts.

If someonee disagrees with my factual observations fine, but back it up. Too many of the posts in this thread that favour LCDs are nothing more than "Rah rah rah - LCD great CRT bad." As are some of the CRT supporters. I won't even go into the issue of the "cats vs dogs" posts. And if a "genius" like EnFoRceR22 chooses to launch personal attacks as part of a rant, well, what goes around, comes around.

As far as it goes, you have stated your preferance for CRTs with little back-up for why, while I was attempting to provide the OP with a proper and informative answer to the question asked, to the best of my abilities. Without getting into trivialities and technical overkill. And, I note, not attempting to tell the OP what specific choice to make, since I don't know the details of their situation.

I suspect that you believe that I am "miss-stating" the experience I have. Way back in 1974, in my high school introductory physics class we were required to buy and use a slide rule for calculation. No pocket calculators then. Half-way through the year, the teacher offerred to sell us a basic 4-function calculator with no memory for around $100.00. In kit form. I know from some of your other posts here that you weren't even born then. You might want to look up the term "Heathkit" for starters. Friends of mine built the very first Home / Personal computers sold on the market from their kits. Amazing systems those: a 4-bit (possibly 6) CPU, not more than 10 KB RAM, no floppy drive, mass-market hard drives didn't exist, mass storage on a cassette tape. Several thousand dollars too. More rhetoric, you bet. Dude, I don't need to exagerate my experience - or lie about it either.

Given how many of your posts in these forums are nothing more than quips, rhetoric, (not to mention some extended heavy flames of individuals who you felt had maintained a thread in an inapproprite forum), and the like, where do you get off "suggesting" that the "rhetoric" be toned down?
December 7, 2006 3:10:37 AM

I ask for calmness, and I get hell instead. I'm going to refrain from "combating" your post because such would fulfill your points. All I asked was for you to chill. I've been told to do so also.

The price I pay for trying to be mature for once.
December 7, 2006 3:23:31 AM

Not to jump in to anyone else's fight or anything, but mine kinda fizzled out and I'm a bit bored. :twisted: J/K

You do realize that neither age nor experience brings the gaurantee of wisdom or knowledge, right?

I don't doubt, or for that matter really disagree with what you said. Its just that there are a lot of people saying that because they've seen a computer with a vacuum tube in it that they automatically know more than others.

Again, I'm not doubting your knowledge or abilities, just throwing this out there mainly to see what others' thoughts on that matter are.
December 7, 2006 3:32:58 AM

Quote:
You guys really do need to cool off. Aside from perhaps the ultra high end CRT's will be hard to find in 5 years for computers. Five years after that the ones that were around will be tired and worn out. Time will end this debate before some of you will give up.

Absolutely, some here do need to cool off. But the OP had a reasonable question, and deserves a reasonable answer. CRTs aren't going to disappear, they'll just get rare and expensive. And LCDs will be replaced fairly soon as well. So what? And what difference does it make how old a particular technology is as long as it works well enough to do the job? A very popular example is the internal combustion engine - invented in the 1880s and still going strong.

You want a beast on you desk go for it. This just reminds me of debate between film vs digital. Many say film is better but few that go digital go back to film. The same holds true for CRT's and LCD.

I don't necessarily want a beast on my desk. I do want the best quality image I can get, and some versatility. As for the photography example, very poor choice. Film is visibly superior to digital. Problem is that it is much less convenient, not instant results, and difficult to convert to digital form. The majority of people using digital cameras today are the same crowd that used the low-end cameras in earlier times. They dont know or care about image quality. These are the sort that refused to understand basic principles of photography and got perfect exposures of the couch the kids were sitting on while burning out the faces becuase they were too close when they took the picture. Nothing has changed.
December 7, 2006 3:47:16 AM

Blah, blah blah, blah. Thats all I'm seeing (not just you WizardOZ, everyone). Same things being said over and over and over. About 4 people have already "summed it up". To much "rhetoric", as Ninja rightly (and obviously) pointed out.

This is what you're doing: :lol:  (talking/arguing)

This is what I want you to do: :?
December 7, 2006 3:49:34 AM

You know, you don't have to read the posts, or keep coming back.

This topic was pretty much pointless long ago (before I ever got into it). Can't you let those of us that are bored have some fun?
December 7, 2006 3:55:15 AM

I find 21 inch all the time goodones. got 3 at home. Try looking for new oldstock or go down to you local collage surplus they are getting rid of them a dime a dosen. IF you know what too look for you can get one thats hardly been used.
December 7, 2006 3:57:19 AM

Quote:
I ask for calmness, and I get hell instead. I'm going to refrain from "combating" your post because such would fulfill your points. All I asked was for you to chill. I've been told to do so also.

The price I pay for trying to be mature for once.


I don't see a need for "combat". And the majority of my posts are limited to technical discourse. On the one occasion where I really and truly went into moron mode, I subsequently edited the post to publicly appologize and retract the inappropriate comments. I too have made comments re inappropriate posts. I just don't agree that my posts you had trouble with are, shall we say. particularly excessive.

But thank you for bringing this to my attention.

Stay frosty.
December 7, 2006 3:59:05 AM

If we can come to that common ground, then I'm that much happier. Never let the sun set with you in a provoked state.
December 7, 2006 4:04:34 AM

...back on topic...

I think SED is the way to go, rumor has it that it will be available sometime this summer. It has a CRT-like projector for each individual pixel and the slimness of an LCD, making for the best of both worlds. Though there are still the questions of how long it would last and how likely image burn-in would be.
December 7, 2006 4:06:16 AM

I still think cats are better than dogs.
December 7, 2006 4:11:15 AM

Ill have to change that then wont I?
December 7, 2006 4:19:29 AM

Quote:
what do current analysts say about the burn in and longevity?


I don't know, really, I just know that regular CRTs have those weaknesses and SED might have the same, though the effect may be lessened due to the fact that the individual emitters will probably be a lot less strong than one big cathode ray tube.
December 7, 2006 4:21:13 AM

Quote:

You do realize that neither age nor experience brings the gaurantee of wisdom or knowledge, right?

I don't doubt, or for that matter really disagree with what you said. Its just that there are a lot of people saying that because they've seen a computer with a vacuum tube in it that they automatically know more than others.



Re first point: Absolutely correct. It doesn't necessarily bring maturity either. Which is why I so frequently include caveats about the limitations of my knowledge and experience and its applicability to a particular case.

Re second point: Again, absolutely correct. While I do know a lot, I'll be the first to say that there are many things I don't know about. And I don't presume to give advice on subjects I don't know. If I do comment, then I will include clear and numerous caveats. But my experience does provide me with perspective that is useful.

I just don't like being attacked in the manner that some here have - ad hominum and as part of a fanboy rant that doesn't address the legitimate factual points I raised.
December 7, 2006 4:22:59 AM

Quote:
Ill have to change that then wont I?


uh huh yeah thats what i thought..... 8O I mean yeah ,i am a dog person but i like kitties too. :oops: 

boy is it hot in here. :oops: 

Dog: Man's best friend

Cat: For women.

:wink:
December 7, 2006 4:25:00 AM

As a matter of fact I have no preference for cats over dogs or vice versa, my motive for saying that was more to hijack the thread and change the topic. Unfortunately now that I've admitted my hidden motives, the topic will revert to the constant repetition that is... CRT vs LCD.
December 7, 2006 4:27:29 AM

There we go, I have MS paint to thank for that.

EDIT: Needs photoshop to shrink instead coz now its not centred

EDIT2: Much better, right proportions and much clearer. Photoshop > MS paint all the way :lol: 
December 7, 2006 4:33:43 AM

Well, whatever I may be on is nowhere near as nasty as what you have been consuming. In whatever form it was.

If I were you, I'd be seriously considering going on the wagon, ar at least dropping back to plain old booze.

If you really want hostility, I can provide it, but maybe in a more private mode like PM.

Speaking of chilling out, I think you might want to take your own advice.
December 7, 2006 4:39:05 AM

Quote:
You guys really do need to cool off. Aside from perhaps the ultra high end CRT's will be hard to find in 5 years for computers. Five years after that the ones that were around will be tired and worn out. Time will end this debate before some of you will give up.





You want a beast on you desk go for it. This just reminds me of debate between film vs digital. Many say film is better but few that go digital go back to film. The same holds true for CRT's and LCD.

I don't necessarily want a beast on my desk. I do want the best quality image Your implying that image quality is significantly worse. That just isn't the case. Once calibrated I can edit my photos just fine. I can get, and some versatility. As for the photography example, very poor choice. Film is visibly superior to digital Your opinion. Problem is that it is much less convenient, not instant results, and difficult to convert to digital form hardly most photos today printed on a digital printer as an example. The majority of people using digital cameras today are the same crowd that used the low-end cameras in earlier times. True, but many professionals, about 50% of portrait and wedding photographers, most journalist, sports and travel photographers are digital. It's the Landscape and artistic types that still cling to film use digital today They don't know or care about image quality. These are the sort that refused to understand basic principles of photography and got perfect exposures of the couch the kids were sitting on while burning out the faces because they were too close when they took the picture. Nothing has changed.


That is funny you should say. Digital has surpassed film in detail in both 35mm and medium format. Dynamic range is on par with slide film and with raw processing close to professional negative film.

Further more distance from the couch wouldn't impact the exposure level of the shot. Metering mode maybe, focus point perhaps. In general practice being closer to the subject would give the automatic settings of the camera a better change of getting it right.

Apparently you don't know that much about photography yourself or just assume that other have no clue.

I happen to have been photography for quite some time 15+ years and can tell that digital has made my a better photography. I take fewer shots and don't need to bracket tricky shots. My print aren't grainy and don't have to worry about damaged negative or a box full of slides.

Your close mindedness is clearly evident I don't expect to open you mind to the new digital reality. I just ask that don't elevate your "opinions" to fact as they subjective.
December 7, 2006 4:44:34 AM

Wow has this thread got off topic. But just in an interesting aside, CRT's, due to the flicker rate will actually hyper-stimulate your brain, making it difficult to fall asleep in front of them, and can knock your sleeping patterns way out of kilter, which is bad when u have to get up the next day.

LCD's have no such affect, which Is a good thing.
December 7, 2006 4:52:16 AM

As far as I know, flat-screens don't have a problem with burn-in. Which is a good thing.

However, individual cells in the display do fail at random and if enough fail the display stops working. And has to be replaced. Furthermore, the number of cells DOA from the manufacturer can be surprisingly high, according to some articles I have read. This varies from one company to another.

The most problematic aspect of failing cells is in the context of a notebook. It can be a serious challenge to get a replacement monitor for even a relatively new notebook, given their very short product life-cycle. And even if you can get a repalcement monitor, the price is most likely to be seriously exhorbitant. It may be cheaper to get a new system. In the meantime, one can either hook up an external monitor and keep using the system or at least back up the data on the drive. But the main advantage of the notebook, portabilty, is gone.

I have seen CRTs that are efffectively 2/3 dead - colour not working correctlly, strange overall colour cast, somewhat fuzzy - but still usable. In some respects, LCDs are much less robust than CRTs.
December 7, 2006 5:01:06 AM

To sum it all up, CRT, good for some, bad for others. Why? It depends.
December 7, 2006 5:04:57 AM

See this is what happens when you don't have sex on a regular basis one tends to argue on the internet to release that once sexual fustration built up inside ... lol :roll:

Get laid already ... 8)


LCD or CRT it all depends on preference .... :x lol
December 7, 2006 5:58:14 AM

That's funny, I prefer the sex myself... :lol: 
December 7, 2006 6:27:32 AM

Quote:
You guys really do need to cool off. Aside from perhaps the ultra high end CRT's will be hard to find in 5 years for computers. Five years after that the ones that were around will be tired and worn out. Time will end this debate before some of you will give up.





You want a beast on you desk go for it. This just reminds me of debate between film vs digital. Many say film is better but few that go digital go back to film. The same holds true for CRT's and LCD.

I don't necessarily want a beast on my desk. I do want the best quality image Your implying that image quality is significantly worse. That just isn't the case. Once calibrated I can edit my photos just fine. Umm, no I didn't say it was significantly worse. Based on my eyesight and experience, for most applications, CRTs and LCDs are about the same. For some applications CRTs remain a better choice. And like I said earlier, text display remains a real issue on many mid-range LCDs. I can get, and some versatility. As for the photography example, very poor choice. Film is visibly superior to digital Your opinion. No, cold hard fact. See technical specs for the dynamic range and spectrum sensitivity of sensors vs film. Problem is that it is much less convenient, not instant results, and difficult to convert to digital form hardly most photos today printed on a digital printer as an example. Really. OK, I take my film camera, shoot some photos, then take them to get processed, get the prints and negatives back and then I get them into my computer how? With a scanner. And if I get a set of images on a CD, they are in JPEG - a LOSSY format. Quality lost. Scanning prints, negatives or slides is a pain. The majority of people using digital cameras today are the same crowd that used the low-end cameras in earlier times. True, but many professionals, about 50% of portrait and wedding photographers, most journalist, sports and travel photographers are digital. It's the Landscape and artistic types that still cling to film So? And the quality and performance difference between professional and amateur digital cameras isbest described how? And cell phone cameras are what quality? And what is the biggest print that even the best commercial digital cameras can produce? use digital today They don't know or care about image quality. These are the sort that refused to understand basic principles of photography and got perfect exposures of the couch the kids were sitting on while burning out the faces because they were too close when they took the picture. Nothing has changed.


That is funny you should say. Digital has surpassed film in detail in both 35mm and medium format. Dynamic range is on par with slide film and with raw processing close to professional negative film. Maybe. According to what I have read, this is not quite correct. Digital cameras still don't perform well under low light conditions. But I could be mistaken or need to do more research.

Further more distance from the couch wouldn't impact the exposure level of the shot. Metering mode maybe, focus point perhaps. In general practice being closer to the subject would give the automatic settings of the camera a better change of getting it right. Well it depends on the camera one is using and how effective the built-in flash is. The cases I was citing the cameras mostly were cheap auto-exposure instamatic type but some were basic SLRs. Flashes work under specific rules of light fall-off something about intensity decreasing by a squared factor as distance increases linearly. And if the camera/flash is too close to the subject, the result is called overexposure. On a negative, overexposure results in a solid blob, from which detail can be retrieved only with great difficulty. And a one-hour processing shop isn't going to do that.

Apparently you don't know that much about photography yourself or just assume that other have no clue. Apparently, I know more about photography than you think I do. And I don't assume what others know. I do assume that someone who raises a particular subject has some knowledge and should be ready to "show me the money".

I happen to have been photography for quite some time 15+ years and can tell that digital has made my a better photography. I take fewer shots and don't need to bracket tricky shots. My print aren't grainy and don't have to worry about damaged negative or a box full of slides. Well now. Are you a professional photographer or an advanced amatuer? I got into photography in my first year of high school, went on to be president of our photo club, head yearbook photographer, and for my graduating year, about 65% of the photos in the yearbook were my work. That was a long time ago. I also made my living as a portrait photographer for a year. And I still do photography as a hobby. The reaon you don't have to bracket as many shots has nothing to do with digital vs film. It has everything to do with advances in metering technology developed for film camers. Graininess - well if you are limited to 4x6 or 5x7 prints, even good old TRI-X didn't have a problem. But it is only in the last couple of years that digital cameras have been able to routinely produce 8x10 or 11x14 prints. And as far as I know, not much bigger, without serious manipulation. Digital storage media are being shown to have a much shorter life expectancy than predicted. And this is before we get into issues of hardware obsolesence. Can you say disappearing ATA connectors on new MoBos?

Your close mindedness is clearly evident I don't expect to open you mind to the new digital reality. I just ask that don't elevate your "opinions" to fact as they subjective. I'd say that I have provided sufficient proof of knowledge and practical experience to safely say that my comments and observations are more solid than uninformed personal opinion. I also note that in none of my technical post did I ever say that LCDs and other digital technologies are inferior to analogue. I did say that based on my observations and experience, CRTs remain superior to LCDs for certain applications. I also indirectly noted that some digital technologies still need more development. How exactly is this being closed minded? Or are you one of those gung ho types like some smokers that have quit recently and find it necessary to bolster themselves by deriding smokers?

My secondary responses are in BROWN.
December 7, 2006 11:07:16 AM

Quote:
You guys really do need to cool off. Aside from perhaps the ultra high end CRT's will be hard to find in 5 years for computers. Five years after that the ones that were around will be tired and worn out. Time will end this debate before some of you will give up.





You want a beast on you desk go for it. This just reminds me of debate between film vs digital. Many say film is better but few that go digital go back to film. The same holds true for CRT's and LCD.

I don't necessarily want a beast on my desk. I do want the best quality image Your implying that image quality is significantly worse. That just isn't the case. Once calibrated I can edit my photos just fine. Umm, no I didn't say it was significantly worse. Based on my eyesight and experience, for most applications, CRTs and LCDs are about the same. For some applications CRTs remain a better choice. And like I said earlier, text display remains a real issue on many mid-range LCDs. I can get, and some versatility. As for the photography example, very poor choice. Film is visibly superior to digital Your opinion. No, cold hard fact. See technical specs for the dynamic range and spectrum sensitivity of sensors vs film. Problem is that it is much less convenient, not instant results, and difficult to convert to digital form hardly most photos today printed on a digital printer as an example. Really. OK, I take my film camera, shoot some photos, then take them to get processed, get the prints and negatives back and then I get them into my computer how? With a scanner. And if I get a set of images on a CD, they are in JPEG - a LOSSY format. Quality lost. Scanning prints, negatives or slides is a pain. The majority of people using digital cameras today are the same crowd that used the low-end cameras in earlier times. True, but many professionals, about 50% of portrait and wedding photographers, most journalist, sports and travel photographers are digital. It's the Landscape and artistic types that still cling to film So? And the quality and performance difference between professional and amateur digital cameras isbest described how? And cell phone cameras are what quality? And what is the biggest print that even the best commercial digital cameras can produce? use digital today They don't know or care about image quality. These are the sort that refused to understand basic principles of photography and got perfect exposures of the couch the kids were sitting on while burning out the faces because they were too close when they took the picture. Nothing has changed.


That is funny you should say. Digital has surpassed film in detail in both 35mm and medium format. Dynamic range is on par with slide film and with raw processing close to professional negative film. Maybe. According to what I have read, this is not quite correct. Digital cameras still don't perform well under low light conditions. But I could be mistaken or need to do more research.

Further more distance from the couch wouldn't impact the exposure level of the shot. Metering mode maybe, focus point perhaps. In general practice being closer to the subject would give the automatic settings of the camera a better change of getting it right. Well it depends on the camera one is using and how effective the built-in flash is. The cases I was citing the cameras mostly were cheap auto-exposure instamatic type but some were basic SLRs. Flashes work under specific rules of light fall-off something about intensity decreasing by a squared factor as distance increases linearly. And if the camera/flash is too close to the subject, the result is called overexposure. On a negative, overexposure results in a solid blob, from which detail can be retrieved only with great difficulty. And a one-hour processing shop isn't going to do that.

Apparently you don't know that much about photography yourself or just assume that other have no clue. Apparently, I know more about photography than you think I do. And I don't assume what others know. I do assume that someone who raises a particular subject has some knowledge and should be ready to "show me the money".

I happen to have been photography for quite some time 15+ years and can tell that digital has made my a better photography. I take fewer shots and don't need to bracket tricky shots. My print aren't grainy and don't have to worry about damaged negative or a box full of slides. Well now. Are you a professional photographer or an advanced amatuer? I got into photography in my first year of high school, went on to be president of our photo club, head yearbook photographer, and for my graduating year, about 65% of the photos in the yearbook were my work. That was a long time ago. I also made my living as a portrait photographer for a year. And I still do photography as a hobby. The reaon you don't have to bracket as many shots has nothing to do with digital vs film. It has everything to do with advances in metering technology developed for film camers. Graininess - well if you are limited to 4x6 or 5x7 prints, even good old TRI-X didn't have a problem. But it is only in the last couple of years that digital cameras have been able to routinely produce 8x10 or 11x14 prints. And as far as I know, not much bigger, without serious manipulation. Digital storage media are being shown to have a much shorter life expectancy than predicted. And this is before we get into issues of hardware obsolesence. Can you say disappearing ATA connectors on new MoBos?

Your close mindedness is clearly evident I don't expect to open you mind to the new digital reality. I just ask that don't elevate your "opinions" to fact as they subjective. I'd say that I have provided sufficient proof of knowledge and practical experience to safely say that my comments and observations are more solid than uninformed personal opinion. I also note that in none of my technical post did I ever say that LCDs and other digital technologies are inferior to analogue. I did say that based on my observations and experience, CRTs remain superior to LCDs for certain applications. I also indirectly noted that some digital technologies still need more development. How exactly is this being closed minded? Or are you one of those gung ho types like some smokers that have quit recently and find it necessary to bolster themselves by deriding smokers?

My secondary responses are in BROWN.
Colorblind? or OLD age? :lol: 
December 7, 2006 11:11:04 AM

Quote:
You guys really do need to cool off. Aside from perhaps the ultra high end CRT's will be hard to find in 5 years for computers. Five years after that the ones that were around will be tired and worn out. Time will end this debate before some of you will give up.





You want a beast on you desk go for it. This just reminds me of debate between film vs digital. Many say film is better but few that go digital go back to film. The same holds true for CRT's and LCD.

I don't necessarily want a beast on my desk. I do want the best quality image Your implying that image quality is significantly worse. That just isn't the case. Once calibrated I can edit my photos just fine. Umm, no I didn't say it was significantly worse. Based on my eyesight and experience, for most applications, CRTs and LCDs are about the same. For some applications CRTs remain a better choice. And like I said earlier, text display remains a real issue on many mid-range LCDs. I can get, and some versatility. As for the photography example, very poor choice. Film is visibly superior to digital Your opinion. No, cold hard fact. See technical specs for the dynamic range and spectrum sensitivity of sensors vs film. Problem is that it is much less convenient, not instant results, and difficult to convert to digital form hardly most photos today printed on a digital printer as an example. Really. OK, I take my film camera, shoot some photos, then take them to get processed, get the prints and negatives back and then I get them into my computer how? With a scanner. And if I get a set of images on a CD, they are in JPEG - a LOSSY format. Quality lost. Scanning prints, negatives or slides is a pain. The majority of people using digital cameras today are the same crowd that used the low-end cameras in earlier times. True, but many professionals, about 50% of portrait and wedding photographers, most journalist, sports and travel photographers are digital. It's the Landscape and artistic types that still cling to film So? And the quality and performance difference between professional and amateur digital cameras isbest described how? And cell phone cameras are what quality? And what is the biggest print that even the best commercial digital cameras can produce? use digital today They don't know or care about image quality. These are the sort that refused to understand basic principles of photography and got perfect exposures of the couch the kids were sitting on while burning out the faces because they were too close when they took the picture. Nothing has changed.


That is funny you should say. Digital has surpassed film in detail in both 35mm and medium format. Dynamic range is on par with slide film and with raw processing close to professional negative film. Maybe. According to what I have read, this is not quite correct. Digital cameras still don't perform well under low light conditions. But I could be mistaken or need to do more research.

Further more distance from the couch wouldn't impact the exposure level of the shot. Metering mode maybe, focus point perhaps. In general practice being closer to the subject would give the automatic settings of the camera a better change of getting it right. Well it depends on the camera one is using and how effective the built-in flash is. The cases I was citing the cameras mostly were cheap auto-exposure instamatic type but some were basic SLRs. Flashes work under specific rules of light fall-off something about intensity decreasing by a squared factor as distance increases linearly. And if the camera/flash is too close to the subject, the result is called overexposure. On a negative, overexposure results in a solid blob, from which detail can be retrieved only with great difficulty. And a one-hour processing shop isn't going to do that.

Apparently you don't know that much about photography yourself or just assume that other have no clue. Apparently, I know more about photography than you think I do. And I don't assume what others know. I do assume that someone who raises a particular subject has some knowledge and should be ready to "show me the money".

I happen to have been photography for quite some time 15+ years and can tell that digital has made my a better photography. I take fewer shots and don't need to bracket tricky shots. My print aren't grainy and don't have to worry about damaged negative or a box full of slides. Well now. Are you a professional photographer or an advanced amatuer? I got into photography in my first year of high school, went on to be president of our photo club, head yearbook photographer, and for my graduating year, about 65% of the photos in the yearbook were my work. That was a long time ago. I also made my living as a portrait photographer for a year. And I still do photography as a hobby. The reaon you don't have to bracket as many shots has nothing to do with digital vs film. It has everything to do with advances in metering technology developed for film camers. Graininess - well if you are limited to 4x6 or 5x7 prints, even good old TRI-X didn't have a problem. But it is only in the last couple of years that digital cameras have been able to routinely produce 8x10 or 11x14 prints. And as far as I know, not much bigger, without serious manipulation. Digital storage media are being shown to have a much shorter life expectancy than predicted. And this is before we get into issues of hardware obsolesence. Can you say disappearing ATA connectors on new MoBos?

Your close mindedness is clearly evident I don't expect to open you mind to the new digital reality. I just ask that don't elevate your "opinions" to fact as they subjective. I'd say that I have provided sufficient proof of knowledge and practical experience to safely say that my comments and observations are more solid than uninformed personal opinion. I also note that in none of my technical post did I ever say that LCDs and other digital technologies are inferior to analogue. I did say that based on my observations and experience, CRTs remain superior to LCDs for certain applications. I also indirectly noted that some digital technologies still need more development. How exactly is this being closed minded? Or are you one of those gung ho types like some smokers that have quit recently and find it necessary to bolster themselves by deriding smokers?

My secondary responses are in BROWN.
Colorblind? or OLD age? :lol: Bad Monitor. :p 
December 7, 2006 12:37:19 PM

Niether Colour Blindness, nor Old Age, and the monitor is fine.

Who am I to argue with THG colour designations? They called it "brown", so that's what I called it.

Since this seems to bother you, I urge you to immediately start a guerrella campaign to fix the problem. Don't be shy. You yourself may want to check your monitor and vision first, before doing anything rash.

Any other questions, comments or whatever you wish to raise?
December 7, 2006 1:49:55 PM

Please use red.
December 7, 2006 3:41:37 PM

How about having two moniters, one CRT and one LCD. Thats what I plan to do.

I prefer CRT. I can throw things at it when my PC dosn't work (i.e. user error) and it just sits there. My LCD would be in the skip.
December 7, 2006 5:05:43 PM

Quote:
You guys really do need to cool off...

Don’t worry about it. It’s all cool. :) 
December 7, 2006 5:09:35 PM

My ego's fine. Thanks for the concern. :) 

I'm sorry to see that you've done it again; twisted what I've said in complete disregard for what have been written.

I tried to reason something with you. But I can see you don't want to do that.

I was saying that if size if not a problem I'd recommend buying a CRT and was basing that assessment from a technical point of view; and you were suggesting people should buy LCD's because of availability, size and a couple of environmental issues. If it's not clear to you, then in fact it's you who are missing the point. :wink:

BTW, what's it with the ranting?

But you're right about one thing: this discussion has fizzled out. 8)
December 7, 2006 5:23:49 PM

I did not twist what you said.

I merely said that you can't say a product has been available for 30 years, while discounting the fact that for 20 or so of those years, it was not an economically viable product, and was not sold in its current form.

No more, no less.
!