What is it with the 16:9 only lately?!

2. Sorry, I have never had any issues with black in games. Again this might have been an issue years ago, but I haven't had it with my LCD (which happens to be my first). 3. No. I don't know any place that even sells CRT monitors any more, so you'd have to go to an online retailer to find anything good and you'll probably pay more than you would for a superior LCD.Johnny_Rock

2. In the middle of the night, turn off all the lights. Then view a completely black image on your monitor, and cover all external light sources (including the monitor's "on" light.) If you can tell that the monitor is on, it doesn't have as good black as CRTs do. As I said, I play games in darkness, it's the only way certain games like horror games and Thief can be played. If the monitor doesn't have perfect black, it ruins the immersion. IMO

3. I don't know about you, but I have several stores and flea markets near me that sell old CRT monitors for like 5-20 euros. I got mine for 10 euros. You can't find a matching quality LCD for the same price.

You gotta sit down in front of it and game on it. Seriously, I was just like you before and I held on to my high end 21" CRT forever...and I used to see LCD's on the store shelves and would snub them knowing their cons. Then a few years later in a move my CRT was smashed and I had to buy a new monitor and decided to take the plunge...seriously was so happy with my purchase. They are crisp, bright, wide (of course lol), and look very good. There is no more ghosting (if you buy one with < 5m response time) and you no longer have this huge 50lb beast taking up room on your desk.

Anyways, the first time I booted up a game in wide aspect on my new LCD I was sold...and for me CRT is history. I do understand the pro of CRT though with old games...but honestly for me even though I still occasionally play old games, I would rather have the LCD for new games and that's what I play more of.

dnuggs40

I might try it sometime. But as long as I have functioning CRT monitors, I'm not gonna spend money on LCDs. I'd rather just wait for OLED to get cheap.

Nothing wrong with that...I wouldn't had switched either if my CRT didn't get smashed...though I guess I am glad it did :Ddnuggs40

Yup. I've been getting some backup CRTs "just in case" so I currently have 7 of 'em (1x21", 2x19", 1x17", 3x15") so I doubt I'll be running out of them soon. :P

My $300 LCD will beat that $700 CRT through and through. Please... 10,000:1, 2MS response time, much, much better color display. There is nothing a CRT has got over my 22" Samsung.Johnny_Rock

Actually, you'd be wrong on pertty much every account.

Contrast ratios are a load of crud. They are measuredd by taking a small segment of the screen and checking its darknes at 0% while comparing the brightness of the same are at 100% white. The only problem is that most manufacturers will lower the brightness to 0 then take the dark sample, then up the brightness to 100 then take the 100% white sample. Its inflating the numbers by taking the two extreme in situations that no user would ever use. At 100 brightness the blacks will be bright and washed out. At 0 brightness the darks will be dark, ut your whites will be grays. Even the best LCD's only have around a real-use scenario of 450:1 contrast.

I dont remember off the top of my head what its like for CRTs but its alot better than that. Unfortnately, over time CRTs tend to fade and lose brightness cause most CRTs out there today to have pretty poor contrast ratios.

Theres no such thing as an LCD with a 2ms response time. It doesn't exist. Its a bit of numbers play on the developer's part where they measure time-rising and time-falling of 10% color to 90% color. This is actually alot easier to do that gray-to-gray switching because the pixels aren't being essentially switched on and off causing rapid overdrive of color switching. Subtle changes respond slower on LCD's by about 3 to 4 times than the value stated. Even so, the actual value stated for 10%-to-90% can't always be accurate because some manufacturers don't state their criteria of when counting actually begins.

CRT's on the other hand have 0 lag in response times in either scenario.

As for color displays, its simply wrong. Even the best IPS panels with LED backlighting (over $2000) - the best, most even kind of backlighting - will not produce better colors than a good quality CRT (sub $1000). CRTs produce their own light to create the colors. LCD's are "filtered" with backlighting to produce colors.

OLED will rectify that problem for future flat panel screens though.

The nly things your 22" Samsung has is considerably less space occupancy and significantly less power consumption... Thats about it.

I just bought an iiyama 24",i moved from a 1280x1024 native lcd,i had a crt about a year before that purchase...this owns them both(cheap too) its 1920x1080 native..i kinda wish i went 1920x1200..but all my games look far better now compared to my old lcd and crt.

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"]

People still use CRT's? That sucks...getting my 22" LCD was one of the best upgrades I ever did. Get out of the past, the future is wide screen not crappy 4:3.

Franko_3

[QUOTE="Johnny_Rock"] My $300 LCD will beat that $700 CRT through and through. Please... 10,000:1, 2MS response time, much, much better color display. There is nothing a CRT has got over my 22" Samsung.XaosII

Actually, you'd be wrong on pertty much every account.

Contrast ratios are a load of crud. They are measuredd by taking a small segment of the screen and checking its darknes at 0% while comparing the brightness of the same are at 100% white. The only problem is that most manufacturers will lower the brightness to 0 then take the dark sample, then up the brightness to 100 then take the 100% white sample. Its inflating the numbers by taking the two extreme in situations that no user would ever use. At 100 brightness the blacks will be bright and washed out. At 0 brightness the darks will be dark, ut your whites will be grays. Even the best LCD's only have around a real-use scenario of 450:1 contrast.

I dont remember off the top of my head what its like for CRTs but its alot better than that. Unfortnately, over time CRTs tend to fade and lose brightness cause most CRTs out there today to have pretty poor contrast ratios.

Theres no such thing as an LCD with a 2ms response time. It doesn't exist. Its a bit of numbers play on the developer's part where they measure time-rising and time-falling of 10% color to 90% color. This is actually alot easier to do that gray-to-gray switching because the pixels aren't being essentially switched on and off causing rapid overdrive of color switching. Subtle changes respond slower on LCD's by about 3 to 4 times than the value stated. Even so, the actual value stated for 10%-to-90% can't always be accurate because some manufacturers don't state their criteria of when counting actually begins.

CRT's on the other hand have 0 lag in response times in either scenario.

As for color displays, its simply wrong. Even the best IPS panels with LED backlighting (over $2000) - the best, most even kind of backlighting - will not produce better colors than a good quality CRT (sub $1000). CRTs produce their own light to create the colors. LCD's are "filtered" with backlighting to produce colors.

OLED will rectify that problem for future flat panel screens though.

The nly things your 22" Samsung has is considerably less space occupancy and significantly less power consumption... Thats about it.

I would still be using my CRT moniter if it didn't break. My cat loved restng on it, it was warm for him. Sure, a few pieces of his fur slipped through the cracks, but it did't short circuit until he barfed on it... I'm glad I have a bad sense of smell...

[QUOTE="attirex"]CRT flicker = fail. LCDs save eyes.HenriH-42

Only if you don't know how to change the refresh rate. 100+ Hz = no flicker.

I would still be using my CRT moniter if it didn't break. My cat loved restng on it, it was warm for him. Sure, a few pieces of his fur slipped through the cracks, but it did't short circuit until he barfed on it... I'm glad I have a bad sense of smell...

ssvegeta555

I had really good CRT monitor, but after I got my 22" Samsung SyncMaster T220, I understood how crap CRT actually is.

And my laptop's LCD screen isn't that bad either.

CRT is yesterday, LCD is today.

People still use CRT's? That sucks...getting my 22" LCD was one of the best upgrades I ever did. Get out of the past, the future is wide screen not crappy 4:3.

It pisses me off, since I haven't yet downgraded to LCD monitors. If a game doesn't support 4:3 - I don't buy it.

CRT > LCD. Anyone who appreciates image quality knows that it's true.

I just upgraded from a LG 17" CRT to a Samsung T220 and it's like night and day.

I definetly respect that CRT's easily have better & excellent colours/blacks. However, CRT fails really badly in one aspect for me: they're blurry as HELL, compared to my 22" LCD.

Seriously, after switching back to my CRT - just to see what it was like - to play a game of Company of Heroes, I just couldn't believe how blurred everything looked, not to mention how much strain that puts on your eyes. Zooming in close on the Panther tank, I can clearly remember when using my LCD being amazed by the sheer detail of scratches and nicks in the tank's armour. Of course, this was on max settings. On the other hand, when using the CRT, I was actually getting frustrated by being unable to pick up any of those fine details on the Panther, & other sweet little graphical details in the game. As an admirer of attention to detail; in my artwork, games, photography, you name it; to me, that's a major immersion killer. When you start regularly using a good quality LCD, you actually take the sharpness/crispness of the image for granted if you ask me.

Oh and one other thing, HenriH-42 states that in a pitch black room, devoid of any light source, you can't actually tell whether his CRT monitor is on or off when displaying a pure black image. I'm sorry, but that's one step too far. I'm calling BS on that man. Unless you can prove me wrong by providing some evidence, I don't care what screen it is; you can always blatantly notice that that image is on and isn't pure black.