iv decide to go with CRT is this bad (some questions)

well i decide to go with CRT becuase i read a book in BCIS class on monitors and there were alot of disadvantegs to Flat panel (LCD) and alot of advantegse to CRT. Am i choosing the right decision?

Also can someone recommend a good CRT with maybe a 1680 X 1050 or better

well i decide to go with CRT becuase i read a book in BCIS class on monitors and there were alot of disadvantegs to Flat panel (LCD) and alot of advantegse to CRT. Am i choosing the right decision?

Also can someone recommend a good CRT with maybe a 1680 X 1050 or better

sabbath2gamer

What were some of the disadvantages? How old was the book, it could be outdated.

CRTs are better, but seriously just get a LCD monitor. You won't be able to find a good widescreen CRT monitor.

I really don't know why people are constantly saying LCD is better. I had a Phillips HD WS CRT 30" that crapped out recently and replaced it with a 37" Samsung LCD, let me tell you the Phillips at about 1/3 of the price of the Samsung had a much better picture quality. LCD is where its at because its convenient. Lighter and better looking > Quality picture.

I also have a 22" WS Acer monitor, while very nice, my old 17" CRT monitor is far more vibrant and crisp.

CRTS are analog...with no HDCP.
LCDS are digital...and you can get some that are practically on par with CRT picture quality.

Personally i'd try out some LCD's, the thin size, and widescreen look is very nice looking.
Darkfire6247

Those cost a bit though,

My grandpa bought a 15" 720p HD TV with VGA in, and it beats his monitor big time in color, sharpness, brightness, and contrast. It cost $200 though which is a pretty high cost. If you go into a store and look, the LCDs look better for the most part, except for the junky ones that ghost.

CRTs have two main advantages over LCDs:

1. Price

2. Resolution Flexibility

LCDs are still notibly more expensive than similarly sized CRTs. LCDs also limit you to a native resolution, that if you don't use, will cause a noticable decline in image quality. CRTs can use pretty much any resolution under the sun with no image quality problems. However the big advantage that LCDs have over CRTs is thier size and weight. A 21" LCD takes up alot less space on a desk and is much easier to move around than a 21" CRT. Image quality is pretty much the same between the two these days. You also don't have to worry about an LCDs refresh rate, unlike a CRT's which can cause image tearing if you don't use V-sync in you games.

CRTs have two main advantages over LCDs:

1. Price

2. Resolution Flexibility

LCDs are still notibly more expensive than similarly sized CRTs. LCDs also limit you to a native resolution, that if you don't use, will cause a noticable decline in image quality. CRTs can use pretty much any resolution under the sun with no image quality problems. However the big advantage that LCDs have over CRTs is thier size and weight. A 21" LCD takes up alot less space on a desk and is much easier to move around than a 21" CRT. Image quality is pretty much the same between the two these days. You also don't have to worry about an LCDs refresh rate, unlike a CRT's which can cause image tearing if you don't use V-sync in you games.

ProudLarry

Does that noticable drop in image quality when using a resolution other than the native affect the desktop and graphic applications or mainly just stuff like games?

some of you guys have said to get a widescreen i prefer that it isnt widescreen its like seeing the image streched ewww...

well can some of you guys recommend a good full screen CT

and good fullscreen LCD

There are still some bad arse CRT monitors, like the Sony FW-900, but for the heat/power/space/weight combination, I'd buy a LCD.

[QUOTE="ProudLarry"]

CRTs have two main advantages over LCDs:

1. Price

2. Resolution Flexibility

LCDs are still notibly more expensive than similarly sized CRTs. LCDs also limit you to a native resolution, that if you don't use, will cause a noticable decline in image quality. CRTs can use pretty much any resolution under the sun with no image quality problems. However the big advantage that LCDs have over CRTs is thier size and weight. A 21" LCD takes up alot less space on a desk and is much easier to move around than a 21" CRT. Image quality is pretty much the same between the two these days. You also don't have to worry about an LCDs refresh rate, unlike a CRT's which can cause image tearing if you don't use V-sync in you games.

jed-at-war

Does that noticable drop in image quality when using a resolution other than the native affect the desktop and graphic applications or mainly just stuff like games?

It will affect everything. With LCDs, you have a specific number of pixels, which translates into a specific resolution. So if the native resoluion is 1280x1024, running at anything else will mean that you're trying to display a different number of pixels than your LCD actually has. So it results in image distortion.

can someone just plz link me a good CRT or LCD not widescreen and not over $150sabbath2gamer

How large are we talking? That is not a very high budget.

You can't get a good lcd or CRT for $150.

some of you guys have said to get a widescreen i prefer that it isnt widescreen its like seeing the image streched ewww...

well can some of you guys recommend a good full screen CT

and good fullscreen LCD

sabbath2gamer

the image on a widescreen isnt stretched so please learn that before you jump to conclusion

I have been researching up on monitors, and I have found that the viewable area of a CRT is about 1" less than it is listed. That is something that should be considered.

How far off can the colors of an LCD be off? If you calabrate it, shouldn't you be able to get it to look the way it should, enough to match a CRT? I am a graphic designer, and the monitor I have now does not have the contrast I like. I looked, and a CRT to replace it would cost way more than a LCD of equal viewable area.

OMG...

fine can someon just link a good monitor under $200 lcd crt i dont care anymore i thought this topic would end after 3 posts well i guess its my fault just link the best bang for my buck btw my specs are

x1950pro

amd 5200 2.6 ghz

windows vista premium

plz link a monitor...... jesus:roll:

LCD's are better than CRT is most cases (At least in recent years) that book must be several years old,and there are no 1680x1050 CRT's.Indestructible2

CRTS are analog...with no HDCP.
LCDS are digital...and you can get some that are practically on par with CRT picture quality.

Personally i'd try out some LCD's, the thin size, and widescreen look is very nice looking.
Darkfire6247

some of you guys have said to get a widescreen i prefer that it isnt widescreen its like seeing the image streched ewww...

well can some of you guys recommend a good full screen CT

and good fullscreen LCD

sabbath2gamer

can someone just plz link me a good CRT or LCD not widescreen and not over $150sabbath2gamer

I have been researching up on monitors, and I have found that the viewable area of a CRT is about 1" less than it is listed. That is something that should be considered.

How far off can the colors of an LCD be off? If you calabrate it, shouldn't you be able to get it to look the way it should, enough to match a CRT? I am a graphic designer, and the monitor I have now does not have the contrast I like. I looked, and a CRT to replace it would cost way more than a LCD of equal viewable area.

jed-at-war

A Tn Film monitor can't display true colours. If you get a colour outside its range it will put two similar colours beside itself to simulate the colour. This is called dithering. Basically any lcd under 200$ is going to do this (May be a Few exceptions). If you want good colour reproduction on an LCD, a 1680x1050 monitor will cost you $350min and more likely $500 or so. You get what you pay for.

[QUOTE="jed-at-war"]

I have been researching up on monitors, and I have found that the viewable area of a CRT is about 1" less than it is listed. That is something that should be considered.

How far off can the colors of an LCD be off? If you calabrate it, shouldn't you be able to get it to look the way it should, enough to match a CRT? I am a graphic designer, and the monitor I have now does not have the contrast I like. I looked, and a CRT to replace it would cost way more than a LCD of equal viewable area.

Aedric

A Tn Film monitor can't display true colours. If you get a colour outside its range it will put two similar colours beside itself to simulate the colour. This is called dithering. Basically any lcd under 200$ is going to do this (May be a Few exceptions). If you want good colour reproduction on an LCD, a 1680x1050 monitor will cost you $350min and more likely $500 or so. You get what you pay for.

I assume that you are talking about TFT LCD's which are about +$350 for a good one. I noticed that the monitor I listed above is a TFT/TN. I don't know how they mix those technologies, but it is a stat "lie." TFT LCDs can show 16.7million colors and have a wider veiw angle than TN. This is a good monitor, but it is out of his price range. I am suspicious of that low price though. Of course it is a smaller screen size for a 1680x1050 monitor.

I would personally go for this one though, maybe. Its pixel pitch is a little high, and its contrast is only 800:1.

[QUOTE="Aedric"][QUOTE="jed-at-war"]

I have been researching up on monitors, and I have found that the viewable area of a CRT is about 1" less than it is listed. That is something that should be considered.

How far off can the colors of an LCD be off? If you calabrate it, shouldn't you be able to get it to look the way it should, enough to match a CRT? I am a graphic designer, and the monitor I have now does not have the contrast I like. I looked, and a CRT to replace it would cost way more than a LCD of equal viewable area.

jed-at-war

A Tn Film monitor can't display true colours. If you get a colour outside its range it will put two similar colours beside itself to simulate the colour. This is called dithering. Basically any lcd under 200$ is going to do this (May be a Few exceptions). If you want good colour reproduction on an LCD, a 1680x1050 monitor will cost you $350min and more likely $500 or so. You get what you pay for.

I assume that you are talking about TFT LCD's which are about +$350 for a good one. I noticed that the monitor I listed above is a TFT/TN. I don't know how they mix those technologies, but it is a stat "lie." TFT LCDs can show 16.7million colors and have a wider veiw angle than TN. This is a good monitor, but it is out of his price range. I am suspicious of that low price though. Of course it is a smaller screen size for a 1680x1050 monitor.

I would personally go for this one though, maybe. Its pixel pitch is a little high, and its contrast is only 800:1.

-

TFT stands for Thin-Film Transistor, and it is a type of active matrix LCD used in ALMOST ALL CONSUMER MONITORS. Basically, if you're buying an LCD screen, it's a TFT. This is in contrast to passive-LCDs, such as those used in pocket calculators, which use a different type of LCD screen.

Anyway, basically any monitor you're buying a TFT display.

There are three main types of TFT panels used in consumer monitors:


TN (twisted nematic)

MVA (multi-domain vertical alignment)

IPS (in-plane switching)

-

Now, panels come in different color depths, 6-bit, 8-bit, and occasionally even higher depth panels (though not in typical consumer panels). There are *few* if *any* 8-bit TN panels. To the best of my knowledge, there are *no* commercially available 8-bit TN panels, despite what the companies claim. This is because 8-bit panels are more expensive to manufacture, and consumers who care enough to demand true 8-bit panels are willing to also pay for the superior blacks, viewing angles, and color fidelity of MVA / PVA (samsung's varient) or IPS technology.

6-bit panels can only display 262,000 colors, versus the 16.7 million colors of an 8-bit panel.

How come so many TN panels claim to display 16.2 or 16.7 million colors then, when in reality the are *incapable of doing so*? Dithering. The panel sets two adjacent pixels as colors a little above and below the target color, and it "tricks" your eyes into seeing the inbetween color. In reality, what it does is create serious color banding. Take an TN display to a smooth gradient, and it will break in into little stair-steps.

TN-panels make smooth color transitions look cel-shaded.

ANY TN-panel you can buy is 6-bit (despite what the marketing claims) and will offer you *poor* color reproduction, in part simply because it *cannot* actually display millions upon millions of colors.

-

As far as contrast, response time, et cetera for any TN panel, or frankly most monitors under a grand - you can toss those metrics out the window. Few if any marketing teams adhere to a standard means of measuring such things. In fact, the main reason LCD panels have become significantly "faster" lately in terms of response times is because grey-to-grey response has replaced black-to-white in many listings, and TN panels have replaced much higher quality MVA and IPS panels in the low-end and midrange.

[QUOTE="jed-at-war"][QUOTE="Aedric"][QUOTE="jed-at-war"]

I have been researching up on monitors, and I have found that the viewable area of a CRT is about 1" less than it is listed. That is something that should be considered.

How far off can the colors of an LCD be off? If you calabrate it, shouldn't you be able to get it to look the way it should, enough to match a CRT? I am a graphic designer, and the monitor I have now does not have the contrast I like. I looked, and a CRT to replace it would cost way more than a LCD of equal viewable area.

subrosian

A Tn Film monitor can't display true colours. If you get a colour outside its range it will put two similar colours beside itself to simulate the colour. This is called dithering. Basically any lcd under 200$ is going to do this (May be a Few exceptions). If you want good colour reproduction on an LCD, a 1680x1050 monitor will cost you $350min and more likely $500 or so. You get what you pay for.

I assume that you are talking about TFT LCD's which are about +$350 for a good one. I noticed that the monitor I listed above is a TFT/TN. I don't know how they mix those technologies, but it is a stat "lie." TFT LCDs can show 16.7million colors and have a wider veiw angle than TN. This is a good monitor, but it is out of his price range. I am suspicious of that low price though. Of course it is a smaller screen size for a 1680x1050 monitor.

I would personally go for this one though, maybe. Its pixel pitch is a little high, and its contrast is only 800:1.

-

TFT stands for Thin-Film Transistor, and it is a type of active matrix LCD used in ALMOST ALL CONSUMER MONITORS. Basically, if you're buying an LCD screen, it's a TFT. This is in contrast to passive-LCDs, such as those used in pocket calculators, which use a different type of LCD screen.

Anyway, basically any monitor you're buying a TFT display.

There are three main types of TFT panels used in consumer monitors:


TN (twisted nematic)

MVA (multi-domain vertical alignment)

IPS (in-plane switching)

-

Now, panels come in different color depths, 6-bit, 8-bit, and occasionally even higher depth panels (though not in typical consumer panels). There are *few* if *any* 8-bit TN panels. To the best of my knowledge, there are *no* commercially available 8-bit TN panels, despite what the companies claim. This is because 8-bit panels are more expensive to manufacture, and consumers who care enough to demand true 8-bit panels are willing to also pay for the superior blacks, viewing angles, and color fidelity of MVA / PVA (samsung's varient) or IPS technology.

6-bit panels can only display 262,000 colors, versus the 16.7 million colors of an 8-bit panel.

How come so many TN panels claim to display 16.2 or 16.7 million colors then, when in reality the are *incapable of doing so*? Dithering. The panel sets two adjacent pixels as colors a little above and below the target color, and it "tricks" your eyes into seeing the inbetween color. In reality, what it does is create serious color banding. Take an TN display to a smooth gradient, and it will break in into little stair-steps.

TN-panels make smooth color transitions look cel-shaded.

ANY TN-panel you can buy is 6-bit (despite what the marketing claims) and will offer you *poor* color reproduction, in part simply because it *cannot* actually display millions upon millions of colors.

-

As far as contrast, response time, et cetera for any TN panel, or frankly most monitors under a grand - you can toss those metrics out the window. Few if any marketing teams adhere to a standard means of measuring such things. In fact, the main reason LCD panels have become significantly "faster" lately in terms of response times is because grey-to-grey response has replaced black-to-white in many listings, and TN panels have replaced much higher quality MVA and IPS panels in the low-end and midrange.

I got that from the internet. :)

I know what I said is true, but I confused TFT with something else. So the real technologies that support 8-bit is IPS amd MVA?

I got that from the internet. :)

I know what I said is true, but I confused TFT with something else. So the real technologies that support 8-bit is IPS amd MVA?

jed-at-war

Thinker_145

I don't mean to beat the dead horse but I may repeat what has already been said. With that out of the way, I will first say I prefer LCD monitors. In fact, I own an NEC 20wmgx2:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824002319

However, if you are on a budget I reccomend a CRT. Not just because they are cheaper, but because they scale better than CRTs. LCDs look beautiful, but quickly degrade in quality when you run Windows or games at non native resolutions. If you have an equally budget rig, you probably won't want to crank the resolution too high, or have to use AA anyways.

The greatest advantage CRTs have is definetly response time. While it is instant on a CRT a few milliseconds can actually make quite a difference in tearing. This way, CRT users can completely ditch V sync, which will also give them better performance.

Besides these two issues, CRTs don't really win anywhere else. LCDs (that aren't huge) have become fast enough to overcome noticable ghosting. In my case, color accuracy is actually better on my LCd than my old CRT. This is because of a technology called DVM, which dynamically adjusts contrast, and because it it has an opticlear coating. Both are unheard of to CRTs. Lets not forget widescreen either. You'd be hard pressed to find enough quality widescreen CRTs as you could CRTs. If you're really ambitous, you can even go for Triple Head To Go, yet another limitation of CRTs. And yes, they are clunky and sometimes you are paying for a lot of plastic case. LCds generally offer more inputs (i.e. usb, component, vga, dvi-d, composite, and coax are all present on my monitor). They may not be vital for everyone, but I appreciate the versatility.

In conclusion, LCDs continue to grow and evolve while staying affordable and CRTs have been standing still for quite some time.

UPDATE: Yes Jed-at-war, but you forgot AS-IPS.

[QUOTE="jed-at-war"]

I got that from the internet. :)

I know what I said is true, but I confused TFT with something else. So the real technologies that support 8-bit is IPS amd MVA?

subrosian

Because of the "liying" done in the stats, the only way that I know how to tell the difference between mold and gold is the view angle. TNs are unable to go higher than 160deg while the best are able to go quite a bit more.

[QUOTE="subrosian"][QUOTE="jed-at-war"]

I got that from the internet. :)

I know what I said is true, but I confused TFT with something else. So the real technologies that support 8-bit is IPS amd MVA?

jed-at-war

Because of the "liying" done in the stats, the only way that I know how to tell the difference between mold and gold is the view angle. TNs are unable to go higher than 160deg while the best are able to go quite a bit more.