Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Are CRT's Dead?

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
December 5, 2005 9:23:50 PM

I have an Old 19" Monitor I want to replace.

I see all the Reviews on this site are all LCD's.

I borrowd my wide 17" LCD Monitor its a couple year old Proview with a 12ms Sticker on it.

I use my machine mostly to Play EQ, BF2, and Shooters for a couple months when they come out until i beat them . The above list of games is in the order that I use them.

Anyways When I was using my Wifes monitor Playing EQ, I have a tendency to not sit in one spot I will sit up in my chair and then Lean back and then the Picture quality changes get darker because of the angle.

Are all LCD's like this or is it just That my wife's LCD was a cheaper unit and doesnt have a great View angle?

Or should I just keep with Getting a CRT that is good quality. And if so what are some good CRT's?

My old monitor I have to turn the Contrast all the way up to get a decent Picture so I think its Slowly Dying.

More about : crt dead

December 6, 2005 4:20:18 AM

CRT's are far from dead... but they're on their way out for sure. Most LCD's will slightly look different from any angle no matter what you do. I've been using an LCD at work for about 2 weeks now and I first noticed the same thing. However, after about 2-3 days I stopped noticing it.

It's all a matter of preference really. Many will say CRT's still look better than LCD's. In most cases this is true, however LCD are much brighter and make colors more vivid. Individual pixels are much smaller on CRTs whereas LCD's are much larger. So technically speaking CRT's have a sharper image.

I personally prefer LCD's to CRTs, though I still use a CRT at home. I will be upgrading to an LCD fairly soon however.

-mpjesse
December 7, 2005 4:22:26 PM

I'd repeat what mpjesse said, but I'm too lazy. :) 

Ditto.

Mike.
Related resources
December 11, 2005 2:08:50 AM

These sites don't offer you what you want to buy, they offer you what the manufacturer wants to sell. That's a sad fact of operating on free review samples, but it's also evidence that LCD's are quickly taking over the market. Good CRT's will remain on the market for several years, but I expect to find in around 3 years that all CRT's have gone either professional (expensive) or economy grade (cheaper to produce than LCD's), leaving mainstream CRT buyers with nothing.
December 12, 2005 5:53:04 AM

In time I suspect CRTs will entirely disappear from the budget and mainstream market.

CRTs may be cheaper to produce now, but like DVD vs VHS, eventually LCDs will win out. Not because of inherently superior technology, but because they're mechanically a hell of a lot simpler (no tube, complex chassis, etc) and the more popular they get, the cheaper they get until the cost of shipping alone becomes a factor. That's when CRTs become pointless.
March 26, 2006 2:45:37 AM

For many applications, CRTs have much better picture quality. But they're big and heavy and LCDs look so much prettier when they're off.

A shame, but style is winning over PQ here. Sony has already discontinued their monitors, even their fantastic GDM series.

Dead? Well, dying anyway...

(SED panels will finally, hopefully, be a worthy successor, but will be a while yet.)
March 26, 2006 3:50:38 AM

I'll be in the CRT business for a LONG time, most likely. I deal in refurbs, and at least 20% of the CRT's I've dealt with have a 10 year lifespan. That's an awefully large lot of survivors. I've never found a 5-year-old LCD that didn't have signficant problems, at least not on the used market.
March 26, 2006 8:45:01 AM

Interesting how experiences differ. My two LCD panels, a Samsung and an LG, are five and four years old respectively and perfect. Not a single dead pixel or any other problem.

Irritating really, as I'd like to justify replacing them with larger screens but can't.
March 26, 2006 12:50:43 PM

come over tothe dark side. its so much brighter over here :p 

i've been using lcd's for over a year now, but my last one was on my laptop. it suffered alot from brightness/darkness. of course the key is to get it at a 90* angle to you. of course it had its uses in that i could make it brighter or darker just by adjusting the angle.

my latest one is far better, it hardly changes at all. you might notice it more but it is hard to tell any major differences. the other great thing is its stand. if you get a LCD it is very important the stand can be adjusted. with this stand i can tilt it forward/back, rotate it left/right and adjust its height. it makes all the difference.

i say go with LCD but beware its max res in relation to its size. also do a checl on the model your after to make sure there are no frequent problems with the backlight or anything else. dont judge all LCd's by a few bad apples.
March 27, 2006 2:18:15 PM

A lot of bad information here...

Quote:
In most cases this is true, however LCD are much brighter and make colors more vivid.


Quick correction: CRT's are brighter than LCD's. A CRT is more capable of producing more light, by nature. I believe it was viewsonic that came out with the ultra-bright option in their later CRTs that could blind a small child.

That's also the problem...

CRT's produce more raditation that's considered harmful to the eyes, and can severly impact eyesight long-term. A typical CRT also consumes about 100W whereas an LCD typically consumes about 50W (It varies by model, of course). CRT's are also much brighter, which means that you can hurt your eyes if you use one in the dark a lot. CRT's have less contrast than LCD's.

On the FLIP side:

A BIG reason why CRTs are still around (and why I still use them) is because you can get a GREAT picture at any resolution. All LCD's have a "Native Resolution", which means LCD's have a fixed number of pixels. For us old-fogies, picture an LCD as a light-bright. You can only put as many pegs in as you have holes. This means that if your native resolution is 1280x1024 and your computer is rendering at 1600x1200, your monitor has to scale the image down to 1280x1024 to render it. If you go lower than 1024x768, then the monitor has to scale the image up, which means you're giong to get distortion (or a smaller image on your screen).

A CRT on the other hand is not bound to a native resolution because the CRT actually bends the light and projects it on to the glass that you see. This is why early CRT's had curved tubes (e.g. The "Flat-Tubes" came out only a few years ago thanks to solid-state circuitry). The maximum resolution for a CRT is dependant upon the size of the tube, the accuracy of the steering coils, and the quality of the phosphor screen.

CRT's also have a refresh rate, which is how fast the monitor can progressively draw lines in a full screen, left to right. The higher the resolution, the higher the refresh rate you want so you can avoid flicker (the human eye samples data so many times per second. If your screen is drawing slower than your eyes can sample, you get flicker which can cause headaches). Generally you want to have a refresh rate of 72 Hz or higher (or 72 times per second), which modern CRT's can perform easily. LCD's have a latency in MS rather than refresh rate in Hz. They're pretty much the same thing. A 72Hz refresh rate translates to a 13.8 ms latency. Good monitors can go up to 125 Hz.

So for gaming, if you have a frame rate of 92 fps and a refresh rate of 72 Hz, you're STILL only seeing 72 fps, because that's how fast the monitor can draw the image. If you have a 25ms LCD, then the most you're seeing is 40 frames per second. A true 8ms latency will put you at 125 fps, though the human eye only samples at 75 Hz, on average.

To summarize, CRT's have deeper blacks, whiter whites, and the best gaming quality money can buy. Proven Long term eye damage caused by CRT monitors can be avoided by only using the monitor with a lot of ambient light (Don't watch your TV/Play your computer in the dark ;) ) LCD's have MUCH better contrast and MUCH better control over color, which is why they look so good at the stores. LCD's tend to be special-purpose (Either gaming speed OR color quality), whereas even mediocre CRT's will always excel in both areas.

Even tho CRT's really still have better quality than LCD's, LCD's are replacing CRT's for good measure. Mainly, CRT's have really peaked technology-wise, and albeit some creative advances by Sony, you won't see much bleeding-edge tube technology coming out. LCD's on the other hand have a LOT of room to grow, use less energy, less space, are cheaper to manufacture and easier to ship. Once nano-technology emerges, LCD's will easily slaughter any CRT out there.

Until then, if you watch movies, do work, and game on the same PC, stick with a CRT. If you really seperate your home computer from your work and your entertainment (movies), if you play the computer in the dark, or if you just value color-quality, then get an LCD (or two).
March 27, 2006 2:30:26 PM

Oops: the recommendation.

If you like shooters (like BF2), you need a good quality 8-ms LCD. You almost always get viewing-angle distorition with an LCD, but it's not as bad as it used to be. If you don't want to fork out $300+ for a good LCD, you can get a nice 19" CRT for around $100 that will give you better quality than an LCD (in all but contrast and color accuracy), and will probably outlive your LCD, too.

If you tilt your chair a lot, you'll probably still get a darker iamge with a newer LCD. If you play EQ a lot in the dark, get an LCD and save your eyesight. You'll thank me later ;)  If you value your framerate in BF2 and shooters (And you don't play a lot in the dark), get a CRT.

Keep in mind that a CRT is generally over 50-100 lbs and 4 times the depth of an LCD. Just in terms of storage and shipment, it's you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to know why stores have been pushing LCD's for the past X years. Add the better image on display as a result of contrast and color accuracy, and the LCD's sell like hot-cakes. Right now, you're really just funding LCD R&D until LCD's can truly rival CRT quality. We're almost there though...
March 27, 2006 3:24:23 PM

Quote:
A lot of bad information here...Proven Long term eye damage caused by CRT monitors...


Please provide a link to back up this serious claim as to eye damage.

LCDs can be made much brighter than CRTs and often are. You really need a darker environment for CRTs to perform their best. (Hence the hood that comes with some pro-CRTS.) In any case, CRT brightness is extremely adjustable.

LCDs are sharper between individual pixels than a CRT can be, making for sharper text, but CRTs can have a full screen contrast ratio in the neighborhood of 15:000 to 1 versus some tiny, pathetic, fraction of that for LCD's. This failure in providing contrast compromises almost all aspects of LCD picture quality.

CRT's have excellent color. Many LCD's do not.

If you value picture quality above all else, get a CRT, if you can still find one.
March 27, 2006 4:39:36 PM

Quote:
Please provide a link to back up this serious claim as to eye damage.


Increased Use of Computers, Portable Gadgets Leading to More Visual Fatigue And Discomfort

The Eye Clinic Frequently Asked Questions - Computer Monitor

Proven permanent damage only occurs when watching a birght light source in a dark room. "Screen Flicker" is the worst at 60 Hz on a white screen, and will always occur to some degree when the refreh rate is < 72 Hz, even if it's not noticible. This is why people complain about headaches when sitting in front of a computer for an extended period of time. The default refresh rate is 60 Hz, and is often not changed.

Eye strain, while generally not harmful, can cause near-sightedness.

Myopia

When the ambient light in a room is low, your pupils dialate, allowing more light in. The light from a TV is concentrated, and the lackof ambient light tricks the eyes into allowing more light from the TV in that can damage sensitive receptors in the eyes. That's why when you turn the TV off at night and blink, you can still see the image of the TV. Watching a TV in the dark for 3 hours is roughly equivelant to staring a flashlight for 3 hours. We tolerate it for the same reason we tolerate ear-damaging sounds from our i-pods: because we derive enjoyment from it.

You can lower the brightness of an LCD without comprimising quality. The same can't be said about a CRT.

LCD's and similar generally range from 70 to 250 nits, whereas CRT monitors have the same range. This is really important to note because most current documentation will tell you LCDs are brighter than CRT's, but that's just not the case. Take the Sony XBR (34XBR970) 34" tube: it has a typical brightness of 250 nits. The discontinued Mitsubishi Diamond Plus 74SB had a brightness rating of 300 nits, so it's not something new or exclusive to TV tubes. If you don't believe me, put an LCD and a CRT side-by-side in a dark room.

An LCD's brightness is determined by the strength of the backlight, which is not uniform and thus does not produce consistent brightness. By nature, a tube's projection has more potential for brightness because it produces more light from the source and is spacially uniform. LCD's will eventually be brighter than CRT's, but not yet.

Quote:
CRT's have excellent color. Many LCD's do not.


It depends on the quality of the LCD. An LCD (generally speaking) has more control over the color of each pixel, and appears more clear because there's never any bleeding between pixels. Plus, phosphors are round and LCD pixles are square.
March 27, 2006 5:22:32 PM

There have been concerns about EM radiation, but they remain very controversial. Nothing is proven. Eyestrain can be a problem with any display you stare at for a while. Reduction of reflections on the screen, use of high refresh rates on a CRT (85Hz or above), and the other steps your link mentioned are sensible. I have heard that watching a display in the dark is not the greatest idea, but haven't seen any hard research on this.

There are two kinds of contrast. Yes, between pixels, LCDs have an advantage. And this is great for text. However, CRTs still do fine in that regard and have massively better contrast on the full screen (distance between the darkest black and the brightest bright).

Have you set up a CRT? Not only do CRT's look best with their brightness lowered -- you have to do this to get the truer black and great contrast ratios that are this display's great advantage. And you'll want to lower those ambient lights, because a properly set up CRT is not that bright.
March 27, 2006 5:55:01 PM

Cool article.

I wish I had some supporting documents regarding watching TV in the dark, but I know light overexposure can cause permanent eye damage, and that watching TV in the dark overexposes your eye to light.

I only use CRT's (Except on my laptops, of course ;) ). I find that lowering my brightness on my CRT makes the darker colors less visible, but the image is just as clear on my LCD no matter how dark I go.
March 27, 2006 6:55:11 PM

Quote:
Cool article.

I wish I had some supporting documents regarding watching TV in the dark, but I know light overexposure can cause permanent eye damage, and that watching TV in the dark overexposes your eye to light.

I only use CRT's (Except on my laptops, of course ;) ). I find that lowering my brightness on my CRT makes the darker colors less visible, but the image is just as clear on my LCD no matter how dark I go.


That makes sense. Got to be careful with the eyes.

The shades will drop out from a CRT as you lower the brightness control. Have to find the best compromise between visible grey scale and true black. (If you work in a bright environment, LCDs are probably superior as the subtlety that CRTs are capable of on the lower end of the grey scale require a darker room.)

LCDs also have their charms, but I hope to hold onto my CRT until SED comes out...
March 28, 2006 2:09:59 PM

Yeah I still love my CRT's. I'm going to hold out until I can afford a computer that will actually run my games at 1280x1024. I can't use a smaller native resolution like 10x7 or 8x6 (I develop software so I need the real-estate). Unfortunately my comp can't run some of the newer games at 12x10, even with the settings cannibalized.

Plus, I like my old DOS games 8) , which have REALLY LCD un-friendly resolutions like 400x300.

It's amazing how many things I see out there about LCD brightness being better than CRT. I personally think the picture seems better on an LCD, but it also seems to me that anyone who buys an LCD at this point is still buying much less of a product compared to a CRT; again, funding LCD R&D. It's just a shame that it's so hard to find a good, new CRT nowadays.
March 28, 2006 6:06:20 PM

Quote:
A lot of bad information here...

In most cases this is true, however LCD are much brighter and make colors more vivid.

LCD's.

LCD's have MUCH better contrast and MUCH better control over color, which is why they look so good at the stores. LCD's tend to be special-purpose (Either gaming speed OR color quality), whereas even mediocre CRT's will always excel in both areas.


I agree with most of your stuff. BUT CRT's still have a larger colour depth. Simply put, a 10 bit colour path (CRT) will always produce better colours than an 8bit colour path (LCD)
February 21, 2010 2:03:40 PM

plzzz give me your number sir my number is 9542482006 my name is sairaj
July 11, 2010 10:57:45 AM

@ sairaj---wtf yaar---what's wrong with you ? koi hindustani site par yeh sab kar.

iss firangi (amreeki) site pe nahi !!!
July 11, 2010 8:05:06 PM

Whizzard9992 said:
A lot of bad information here...

Quote:
In most cases this is true, however LCD are much brighter and make colors more vivid.


Quick correction: CRT's are brighter than LCD's. A CRT is more capable of producing more light, by nature. I believe it was viewsonic that came out with the ultra-bright option in their later CRTs that could blind a small child.

That's also the problem...

CRT's produce more raditation that's considered harmful to the eyes, and can severly impact eyesight long-term.


Some misinformation here, too. :lol: 
a b C Monitor
July 14, 2010 2:26:14 AM

What I like about LCDs is that they are compact, lighter, and throw out less heat. Heat is a negative factor in summer, besides being a drain on energy.
!