Have LCDs Caught Up With CRTs Yet?

[bennyprofane]

So yeah, title says it all, I guess.

I've been out of the gaming monitor market for about 3 years. While I'm sure the technology has come a long way since then, I still tend to notice some ghosting and poor contrast when I walk past a display system running one of the newer shooters.

Also, if you selected on of the "Yes" options above, which monitors would you suggest in the 19" - 22" range?

Thanks,
Benny

 

[bennyprofane]

p.s. I realize this might be common knowledge, so I've added a fifth poll option in anticipation of this possibility.

 

[kapuu]

no way. PVA quality > CRT have both.

 

[asgallant]

It depends on what you mean by "caught up." Are LCD's as fast as CRT's? Technically no, they are not, and they probably never will be. Are they fast enough? I think so. I had a Samsung 173P 17" LCD monitor - which is rated at a 25ms response time - and I never noticed ghosting on it (though, strangely enough, I have seen it on other monitors with faster response times). You can buy LCD's with rated response times as low as 2ms (which is a lie, but the only way to determine the truth is through a thorough analysis using the proper tools).

Color can be better on CRT's than LCD's, but this is not universally true - 24 bit LCD panels have the same color range as typical CRT's. Viewing angles are better on CRT's. Brightness and contrast are typically higher with CRT's.

LCD's typically produce a sharper image - they don't have the fuzzy blurring which can occur with CRT's. There is no distortion of the image around the edges of an LCD screen. LCD's come in a much wider range of sizes and formats than CRT's. There is little to no eyestrain associated with using LCD's.

So, are LCD's good enough now? I think so, and I think the majority of users here will agree with me. You will need to define what you intend to use the monitor for, though, so we can help you find one that suits your needs, because, generally speaking, LCD's have trade-offs: the fastest panels typically use 18-bit color instead of 24-bit and their viewing angles are typically poor, LCD's with good color reproduction and good viewing angles are typically slower.

 

[nevasumma]

CRT all the way. I don't care about saving space. I care about quality. You will hear people telling you that a new 2ms LCD is good for gaming. BUT they are not willing to admit that there is still ghosting, blurriness and other drawbacks. The fact is that CRT monitors are the best picture in the world... right now. I have a Dell P1690 24" CRT and a Dell P992 19" CRT dual monitor setup. The newer FD Trinitron 24" CRT is phenomenal(max. reported res. - 2048x1536). It's better than a 24" LCD gaming monitor in every way. You can adjust everything. I play at 1280x960@85mhz OR 1600x1024@85mhz-most of the time. SMOOTH, PERFECT, VIBRANT, NEVER any ghosting, blurriness or dead pixels!
Those game displays in the malls or game shops etc. are pure crappy bottom of the line tvs for the purposes of advertising the game, not the monitor/tv. THEY don't do the games justice. When I look at the differences, even the best $50,000.00 Pioneer LCD/Plasma displays STILL have pixellation and ghosting and every other bothersome thing. I don't know why they don't just improve on CRT technology and make it " space saving ". As far as I know(and have seen) DLP is the best quality picture in the space saving displays that we have to choose from today.

 

[Falken699]

Kinda grew used to Widescreen settings, I like LCD much better, no reflections either, flat, light, and your UPS lasts MUCH longer when there is a power outage. Glad to see CRT die, sick of the size, weight, and having no room on your desk. Real waste of materials too, 10x heavier. Get something less than 5ms response in an LCD and don't look back.

 

[fatcat]

I don't know if LCD have caught up but I am very hesitant to replace my old fashion CRT. As the previous poster, it sports a Trinitron tube and it gives a pretty darn good image.

 

[Falken699]

oh yeah, and I am sick of the eyestrain of CRT. My eyes are done with being blasted by a flickering POS CRT. LCD is like looking at a well-lit object, very different especially if you work on a computer all day. My eyes used to BURN when I did 10 hr days in some sweatshop graphics place. I had an LCD at my previous employer and I find it much easier on the eyes for AutoCAD work. AND LCD doesn't suffer from burn-in.

 

[kapuu]

.

LCD's typically produce a sharper image - they don't have the fuzzy blurring which can occur with CRT's. There is no distortion of the image around the edges of an LCD screen. LCD's come in a much wider range of sizes and formats than CRT's. There is little to no eyestrain associated with using LCD's.

This is what i call quality. Image on my LCD is "perfect" --- Samsung 173P Plus.

 

[Gryphyn]

I have dual CRTs, and I tend to prefer a CRT. However, if one were to die, I would probably buy a new LCD. The problem with this is that in order to get something near the quality of my CRT I'm going to end up paying quite a lot of money.

 

[notherdude]

I had a 20" trinitron CRT for years and when it died I went to a 24" LCD. Technically, people will tell you the CRT is more accurate and has less ghosting but the proof is in the viewing and I much prefer the LCD. CRTs seem dull and washed out in comparison to the bright, vibrant presence of the LCD.

If there is any ghosting on my 24" LCD I can't see it. It looks FANTASTIC. This is the age of the LCD my friend, go for it.

 

[sailer]

I have three computers. One has a 22" Sony Trinitron CRT, one a 19" Viewsonic LCD, and the third has a 22" wide screen Samsung LCD. Without doubt in my mind, the Trinitron CRT presents a better picture. At the same time, the CRT is a big, heavy monster that takes up a lot of deskspace. Another thing is that the CRT can be set at several different resolutions without problem, while the LCDs have a native resolution and don't work well with any other resolution, or don't even work at all. I do hope that the LCD companies improve the picture quality and all, but I'm not sure how much can really be done. Still, when it comes to moving a monitor and the amount of space it takes up, the LCDs have it all over the CRT. Just my opinions on the state of things.

 

[bennyprofane]

Well, color me surprised.

I honestly thought the debate would be over by now, but it's obviously still going strong.

To answer one of the posters above: I have dual monitor setup. I use a Samsung 214T for photo editing and a Samsung 997DF CRT for gaming. The CRT has seen better days, and I'm wondering if it couldn't use a replacement soon.

I couldn't possibly care less about space, so that isn't an issue. It's the ghosting I can't live with. I've tried, believe me. Never gotten used to it; never will. Even the slightest bit just bugs the hell out of me.

And yeah, now that I've had a nice LCD for awhile, looking at my CRT can be rough on the eyes. But I'd trade ghosting for eyestrain any day of the week. But that's just me.

-B

 

[miahallen]

I finally just gave up my CRT, a Viewsonic P95F+ 19". I gamed on it at 1600x1200@85Hz or 2048x1536@60Hz. I liked it a lot, but at only 18" viewable (above average when i bought it) it's small by todays standards. I replaced it with a Sharp 32" LCD @ 1920x1080, it have great picture, takes up less desk space, and relaxes my posture because I'm no longer hunched over my desk. I miss the the black levels, and contrast ratio of my CRT, but I do not see ANY ghosting (something that has steered me away from LCDs for a long time). I do not miss the "geometery" tweaking that my CRT constantly needed, or the lack of proper color convergence.