PDA

View Full Version : One last time: CRT vs. LCD



Hawgdog
01-27-2006, 08:12 AM
Used LCD's for a few years. I'm thinking of going back to CRT.
I could get a 21" monitor over my current 19"
My current Samsung has an 8ms response time.
What to look for in a CRT, its been years since I had to price them.
Faster bench scores with CRT? Or is there a better reason to keep the 19?
regards

Hawgdog
01-27-2006, 08:12 AM
Used LCD's for a few years. I'm thinking of going back to CRT.
I could get a 21" monitor over my current 19"
My current Samsung has an 8ms response time.
What to look for in a CRT, its been years since I had to price them.
Faster bench scores with CRT? Or is there a better reason to keep the 19?
regards

Chivas
01-27-2006, 11:26 AM
Hello dog

I bought a Samsung 21' LCD with a 20ms response time a year ago which had amazing color but didn't look so good when I panned around in cockpit.
I took it back and ordered a 22" MultSync FP2141SB CRT which I'm very happy with. I will look into the LCD market again when something interesting appears and depending if BOB is set up to take advantage of a wide screen display.

TheGozr
01-27-2006, 11:35 AM
CRT no dought

vanjast
01-27-2006, 12:10 PM
CRt always have the speed advantage, but when panning at speed what do you really see ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hawgdog
01-27-2006, 12:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by vanjast:
CRt always have the speed advantage, but when panning at speed what do you really see ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Usually someone getting on my 6 and pasting me with machine gun fire...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

vanjast
01-27-2006, 12:16 PM
Let me rephrase that..
You do not see much panning at speed whether it's CRT or LCD. The brain doesn't keep up with the screen or visa versa, as it ends up a blur.

My LCd has about a 8ms response time which is fine as I run at 60(~15mS) or 50Hz(20mS) refresh rates

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

TheGozr
01-27-2006, 12:38 PM
Tottaly no true. All it depend of each pilot and other factors.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">CRt always have the speed advantage, but when panning at speed what do you really see ? Wink </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try a crt and scan around ofcourse you anderstand that Track ir's is in use and a good FPS. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

p-11.cAce
01-27-2006, 01:17 PM
You will have to pry my 26" flat panel out of my cold dead fingers! (in MSFS I run secondary panels on the 19" crt to its left and nav on the laptop)
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c99/acmeaviator/BillCoronation067.jpg

Hawgdog
01-27-2006, 01:31 PM
They had a demo for sale last fall at compusa, 25" widescreen about like that. Reasonable price, but its response time was 25 I recall....
that and I wasn't sure at the time if the IL2 screen could be hacked to view it correctly. Everytime I make a rush purchase, it sits...in the basement....collecting dust

|CoB|_Spectre
01-27-2006, 02:00 PM
Something nobody's mentioned...with a CRT you've got more options for screen rez rather than the native resolution chosen by the manufacturer. Kind of unlocks the potential of that hideously expensive videocard you paid so much for, doesnt' it?

Cajun76
01-27-2006, 02:02 PM
Straight up price, you can't beat CRT. If your willing to pay more, then LCD have some definate benefits like widescreen, digital input, less space. (My widescreen LCD rotates 90 to let me view long pages or images more naturally)

Even in Computer Gamer I think it was, they listed the hottest LCD's around Christmas time last year, praising different models, and then in a smal caption put something like "For picture quality, CRT are still superior"

I just bought a Gateway 21" widescreen @ 8ms, and I'm satisfied with it, but I know if I had spent that $600 on a CRT I would have an even bigger screen with better picture. It's getting to the point though that the human eye will have trouble actually finding the differences anymore as the technology improves.

If your looking for overall quality and nothing else, find the biggest CRT with the lowest dot pitch you can afford, and have a video card that can crank the res up, and you'll have a picture that no LCD I know of can touch.

It's mostly down to personal preference and budget, and depends on what you want out of your screen.

p-11.cAce
01-27-2006, 02:13 PM
Why would you have to hack the screen? My 26 is a 1024x768 and I have no problems with lag or ghosting - not even with multiple fires and explosions. I can't imagine going back to a smaller screen.
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c99/acmeaviator/a013.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c99/acmeaviator/a014.jpg (http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c99/acmeaviator/a014.jpg%5B/IMG%5D)
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c99/acmeaviator/a016.jpg

Cajun76
01-27-2006, 02:38 PM
Heh, I couldn't imagine going back to 1024 X 768. IIRC, I'm running at 1400 X 1050 on my WS LCD. On my previous 19" CRT I was running 1600 X 1200.

VW-IceFire
01-27-2006, 03:17 PM
I am VERY pleased with the clarity that my Samsung 17in 173P+ LCD offers. 1500:1 contrast ratio and 8ms response time...hells yes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hawgdog
01-27-2006, 03:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Why would you have to hack the screen? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


In my UBI/IL2/Setup there was no option for 1280x1024, had to modify the config.ini file

BaldieJr
01-27-2006, 04:35 PM
The money you save buying a crt is a negative value due power costs over the lifetime of the device.

Also, crt's loose thier phosphuresence in 2 years. So much so that no factory will refurb a crt monitor after it has seen 2 years of duty.

My lcd is 2 years old and still matches the color alignment as it should. The money I've saved just keeps adding up and i don't have to worry about which land fill my crt will end up in.

Willey
01-27-2006, 04:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by |CoB|_Spectre:
Something nobody's mentioned...with a CRT you've got more options for screen rez rather than the native resolution chosen by the manufacturer. Kind of unlocks the potential of that hideously expensive videocard you paid so much for, doesnt' it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dead on - and, if you're on the other end, you'll just have the option to lower the res for more fps. That's at least very possible with 64 or 128MB cards. 1024 looks crappy on a 1280x1024 TFT. Even 1024x960 does.

Willey
01-27-2006, 04:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
Why would you have to hack the screen? My 26 is a 1024x768 and I have no problems with lag or ghosting - not even with multiple fires and explosions. I can't imagine going back to a smaller screen.
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c99/acmeaviator/a013.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c99/acmeaviator/a014.jpg (http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c99/acmeaviator/a014.jpg%5B/IMG%5D)
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c99/acmeaviator/a016.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dude, your screen is streched, and that looks awful http://www.ubisoft.de/smileys/3.gif

That panel looks rather like 1600x900 or something like that, and not 4:3. I would switch the res.

Willey
01-27-2006, 04:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaldieJr:
The money you save buying a crt is a negative value due power costs over the lifetime of the device.

Also, crt's loose thier phosphuresence in 2 years. So much so that no factory will refurb a crt monitor after it has seen 2 years of duty.

My lcd is 2 years old and still matches the color alignment as it should. The money I've saved just keeps adding up and i don't have to worry about which land fill my crt will end up in. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're right, but your heating bill will be more expensive http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

russ.nl
01-27-2006, 06:29 PM
You guys may find this interesting for the near future. SED (http://www.canon.com/technology/display/index.html)

p-11.cAce
01-27-2006, 06:37 PM
I think it is the angle of the shot more than anything - according to my nVidia manager I'm running 1024x768 at 75hz
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c99/acmeaviator/a014.jpg

BaldieJr
01-27-2006, 06:42 PM
SED = Bad joke.

Its phosphor. Its junk. It'll wear out in two years.

Real pilots want OLED now!

|CoB|_Spectre
01-27-2006, 06:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by russ.nl:
You guys may find this interesting for the near future. SED (http://www.canon.com/technology/display/index.html) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great link, russ.nl! This looks inherently superior to LCD technology which uses fluorescent lamps behind the liquid crystal screen for luminosity. I would expect the SED to be brighter, have a wider viewing angle and not be accompanied by a disclaimer allowing x-number of dead pixels in the purchase agreement as is common with LCD monitors.

Baldie, Jr.- OLEDs seem to hold great promise. I suggest you start holding your breath pending their mass release for large screen computer monitors right (readies stopwatch)....Now!

BaldieJr
01-27-2006, 07:43 PM
phosphor is great for blurring out a jerky video system. thats why its been used for so long in TV, and exactly why it is being phased out of hdtv: its slow to de-light. it will murder a "hi-def" signal.

Chivas
01-27-2006, 08:16 PM
The dead pixel is the bain of the combat flight sim pilot. Doctors call it the pixel twitch, very nasty little bug. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

panther3485
01-27-2006, 10:02 PM
Hiya Hawgdog,

As a technology, CRT has been around a very long time and is fully matured. It's already as good as it's gonna get.

LCD/TFT monitors are comparatively recent arrivals, especially for desktops. The older models really couldn't compete with CRT as regards picture quality, viewing angle or response times. But, being a relatively new technology, they have improved in leaps and bounds. As little as 3 years ago, I would not have touched LCD with a bargepole, at least not for serious 3D gaming.

Today, it's a somewhat different story. Depending on your preferences and how much money you want to spend, LCD can be an excellent proposition. This is especially true if you want to take advantage of widescreen formats or if space is an issue.

LCD's are lighter, take up less room and use less power. With further improvements in the newer technology, the balance can only continue to shift in their favour. Another 3 years at most, IMHO, and hardly anyone buying new will want CRT, the LCD's will be that much better and cheaper. Right now, I think we're at the 'break even' point, where you could easily go one way or the other.


Having said all this, a good quality CRT still represents extremely good value and is well worth considering. Quality is the key here, and you can buy a good size (19" - 21") flat screen CRT, of the very best quality, for considerably less than an equivalent size and quality LCD. The tube, naturally, is the critical component.

I'm running a Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2070SB 21" flat screen CRT (20" viewable), which I purchased less than two years ago. Some of my friends have CRT monitors of differing brands but with this same tube. They have owned them for various lengths of time (mine is the newest) and one of them has had his for about five years.

There is no sign whatsoever of deterioration in any of these monitors. Looking at my friend's 5-yr-old screen, there is no perceptible difference between his or mine, or any of the others. His is just as clear, just as crisp and just as bright. Period. It is reasonable to expect that these monitors will continue to give perfectly good performance for years to come.

My usual gaming resolutions are either 1280x960 or 1600x1200 at 85Hz. I get really great picture quality that I've seen just about equalled on the best new LCD's I've looked at, but not yet bettered.

As for power consumption, set against the overall usage in my household (which is considerable), I don't think the fact that I've got CRT rather than LCD is gonna have any great effect on our electricity bill!


That sums up my thoughts, having purchased my CRT nearly two years ago.

If I was going out to buy a monitor tomorrow, however, I would have a good hard look at the LCD's that are now coming out.


Best regards,
panther3485

Arms1
01-28-2006, 12:04 AM
this is the one i bought dawg

http://www.sceptre.com/Products/LCD/Specifications/spec_x9gNagaIV.htm

it is priced much cheaper than other lcds with similar specs, happy with it so far as a replacement for my aging dell trinitron 21' crt. the biggest bonus i find is the free desktop space plus the viewable on a 19'lcd is the same as a 21' crt.

panther3485
01-28-2006, 02:23 AM
Hi, Arms1

Quote:

"this is the one i bought dawg

http://www.sceptre.com/Products/LCD/Specifications/spec_x9gNagaIV.htm

it is priced much cheaper than other lcds with similar specs, happy with it so far as a replacement for my aging dell trinitron 21' crt. the biggest bonus i find is the free desktop space plus the viewable on a 19'lcd is the same as a 21' crt.


I'm considering a new monitor for my son's PC since he move it into his room, where space is more critical. (His old CRT will be handy as a 'spare' or for testing purposes - I fix other peoples's PC's.)

If you don't mind, how much was this one? The specs look pretty good to me!


Best regards,
panther3485

bolillo_loco
01-28-2006, 03:09 AM
Man, you guys are borderline cheaters! Look what the rest of us poor people have to use!

http://www.recycledgoods.com/Images/s_p_13045_1.jpg

russ.nl
01-28-2006, 09:17 AM
OLED Looks nice to. I know Philips has diveloped a roleble screen and textiel that can be used as a screen. As if this isn't great enough they also diveloped a painteble lcd screen.
These technologies are still very new and not yet able to sattisfy to our needs but just imagen the future for us. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Arms1
01-28-2006, 12:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by panther3485:
Hi, Arms1

Quote:

"this is the one i bought dawg

http://www.sceptre.com/Products/LCD/Specifications/spec_x9gNagaIV.htm

it is priced much cheaper than other lcds with similar specs, happy with it so far as a replacement for my aging dell trinitron 21' crt. the biggest bonus i find is the free desktop space plus the viewable on a 19'lcd is the same as a 21' crt.


I'm considering a new monitor for my son's PC since he move it into his room, where space is more critical. (His old CRT will be handy as a 'spare' or for testing purposes - I fix other peoples's PC's.)

If you don't mind, how much was this one? The specs look pretty good to me!


Best regards,
panther3485 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i paid just over 400 cdn for it from tiger direct but they have a hard time keeping it in stock, if you are in the us newegg had in on for 300 us but they dont ship up here.

onscreen menu is a pain to use and i cant comment on the speakers because i dont use them but for the price im very happy, i suggest you read reviews of it at newegg or tiger direct before you make your descision.

hope this helps panther

BaldieJr
01-28-2006, 02:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There is no sign whatsoever of deterioration in any of these monitors. Looking at my friend's 5-yr-old screen, there is no perceptible difference between his or mine, or any of the others. His is just as clear, just as crisp and just as bright. Period. It is reasonable to expect that these monitors will continue to give perfectly good performance for years to come. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


As a former monitor engineer with more industry experience than I care to mention, let me just point out how non-chartable, ungraphable, and impossible these statememnts are.

I worked on every crt ever made. From cheapy samsungs to uberduper sonys. One thing holds true: if its over two years old its scrap. Its chances of passing color alignment is near nill. 1 in 100 will pass.

I begged upper management to let these 'borderline' monitors go back to customers (and put more money in our pockets). Nothing doing. If it is two years old it gets tossed because its color will not fall within spec's. EVER.

Don't fool yourself. You are looking at weak phosphor and it can not compare to an lcd. It can't even compare to a new monitor.

Pixel accuracy is my next argument. A moving electron beam vs fixed-location crystals. Guess which is more accurate, I dare you.

CRT technology is dead.

panther3485
01-28-2006, 09:14 PM
Hi there, BaldieJr

Quote:

quote:
There is no sign whatsoever of deterioration in any of these monitors. Looking at my friend's 5-yr-old screen, there is no perceptible difference between his or mine, or any of the others. His is just as clear, just as crisp and just as bright. Period. It is reasonable to expect that these monitors will continue to give perfectly good performance for years to come.


As a former monitor engineer with more industry experience than I care to mention, let me just point out how non-chartable, ungraphable, and impossible these statememnts are.

I worked on every crt ever made. From cheapy samsungs to uberduper sonys. One thing holds true: if its over two years old its scrap. Its chances of passing color alignment is near nill. 1 in 100 will pass.

I begged upper management to let these 'borderline' monitors go back to customers (and put more money in our pockets). Nothing doing. If it is two years old it gets tossed because its color will not fall within spec's. EVER.

Don't fool yourself. You are looking at weak phosphor and it can not compare to an lcd. It can't even compare to a new monitor.

Pixel accuracy is my next argument. A moving electron beam vs fixed-location crystals. Guess which is more accurate, I dare you.

CRT technology is dead.


Thanks for the technical update, Baldie. It appears from your post that you should have the background knowledge to substatiate your statements.

however

I know what I see and have not fantasised, imagined or 'kidded myself'. I am simply and honestly reporting what I can see .

My friends and I (and I'm sure, most other CRT users) really couldn't give a flying f u c k about what's going on technically inside our tubes (if the 'phosphor is weak' or whatever else), so long as we are happy with the quality of the picture and we do not become disappointed with it over a reasonable time of ownership. And a reasonable time for most users is a lot more than two years.

The fact remains (and I have checked this as recently as two months ago), my friend's 5-yr-old monitor looks just as good as mine when he's playing games at high resolution and mine isn't two years old yet. Mine looks just as good to me as it did when it was new and there is no perceptible difference between mine and new CRT's of equivalent quality.

Of course, I couldn't attest to what's going on inside his tube because I don't have the necessary technical background, but what I can say, with absolute honesty, is that there is no perceptible difference. I respectfully submit that this is what counts to the user.

The suggestion that I should ever consider scrapping my monitor, when it becomes two years old, is ludicrous and it would be just as ludicrous for my friend to throw his out because it is 5 years old! Why throw them away when, from the point of view of the user, they are performing to perfect satisfaction ?????

Among the communites of computer users that I have known, when CRT monitors have failed, they have usually failed completely - $hit themselves - and become instant junk. Otherwise, and in the majority of cases, they continue in satisfactory use until they are got rid of because the user wants to 'update' to a flat screen, or a bigger screen, or whatever - rather than because of any perceived deterioration in picture quality.

Gamers aside, there are considerable numbers of other users who have CRT monitors for 5, 8, or even 10 years before changing them.

The corporation I work for uses literally thousands of monitors nation wide. Over the last couple of years, they have been upgrading all the workstations from 14-15" CRT to 17" CRT. The smaller units varied in age but most were between 5 and 9 years old. In almost all cases, those monitors had been functioning perfectly well but were now deemed to be 'too small'. It's likely to be quite a few more years before our 'new' 17" CRT's get replaced with something else.


CRT dead? It's definitely old technology that's on the way out, but there's a little way to go yet before it's 'dead'.

It'll be dead when you can't buy a new CRT any more and almost nobody uses them any more.


Best regards,
panther3485

Professor_1942
01-28-2006, 11:23 PM
I bought an LCD about a year ago (Samsung 710T) but didn't decide to use it for the gaming machine until about a month ago. I had read all sorts of complaints about "ghosting", "trailing", "looks horrible at non-native resolutions" etc. but these were all completely untrue. In fact, 1024x768 and even 800x600 look better than they did on my 19" CRT.

I like it much better - crisp, bright and clear. I agree that CRT technology is dead. Still, some people will hold out and insist it's better for a few more years, just like those people still running Windows 98. :P

panther3485
01-29-2006, 12:19 AM
Hi, Professor_1942,

Good post. No doubt there are LCD units that perform as well as you have stated. Some of the new ones, better yet.

If you are referring to my posts (not sure if you are), I do not claim that CRT will be 'better' for a few more years; rather that for many users, they will still be viable for a few more years.

I do not even claim CRT is really 'better', overall today (as some do try to claim). The balance of my advice to the original poster was somewhat in favour of LCD, if buying now .

In fact, as I've already said, were I to purchase a new monitor tomorrow I would have a good hard look at the new LCD's that are available. I intend to buy one for my son.

My position is merely that if all users, budgets and opinions are taken into account, we should not yet write off the CRT completely. It still has good value for some.

When I purchased my CRT, nearly two years ago, it was my assessment that the then affordable LCD's (or a least, the ones I was able to test, see, read reviews on etc), were not quite ready. At that time, there were still certain aspects where a good quality CRT was better, unless you wanted to spend a horrific amount of money on a top quality LCD.

Some exceptions may have existed but my assesment was, I believe, correct in general and was well supported then, by numerous reviews etc (I usually research quite a bit before making a major purchase).

But things change quickly and of course, as I've previously indicated, it's quite a different story today.

When my current CRT gets binned or sold off (probably in about 3 years or so), I will undoubtedly replace it with LCD or whatever is best by then.

I am merely saying that CRT's remain good for a variety of users and some gamers still like them. Certainly, I am very happy indeed with mine and so are my friends with theirs.

CRT's will stil be available for a while and will continue in perfectly satisfactory use for some years yet.

In my book, that's more like 'on the way out' than 'dead'.

But if you and Baldie want to dig the hole and get the coffin ready, then that's OK by me!


Best regards,
panther3485

panther3485
01-29-2006, 01:52 AM
Hiya again, Arms1

Quote:

quote:
Originally posted by panther3485:
Hi, Arms1

Quote:

"this is the one i bought dawg

http://www.sceptre.com/Products/LCD/Specifications/spec_x9gNagaIV.htm

it is priced much cheaper than other lcds with similar specs, happy with it so far as a replacement for my aging dell trinitron 21' crt. the biggest bonus i find is the free desktop space plus the viewable on a 19'lcd is the same as a 21' crt.


I'm considering a new monitor for my son's PC since he move it into his room, where space is more critical. (His old CRT will be handy as a 'spare' or for testing purposes - I fix other peoples's PC's.)

If you don't mind, how much was this one? The specs look pretty good to me!


Best regards,
panther3485


i paid just over 400 cdn for it from tiger direct but they have a hard time keeping it in stock, if you are in the us newegg had in on for 300 us but they dont ship up here.

onscreen menu is a pain to use and i cant comment on the speakers because i dont use them but for the price im very happy, i suggest you read reviews of it at newegg or tiger direct before you make your descision.

hope this helps panther

Thanks mate,
That model definitely rates consideration. Will see if I can get it here (Oz) and at what price.


Best regards,
panther3485

madsarmy
01-29-2006, 01:53 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/tommybomb/gravestones.jpg

panther3485
01-29-2006, 02:05 AM
Hey there, Professor and Baldie,

Relax and put those shovels away!

madsarmy, I'd like to reserve a plot for my CRT in your beautifully kept graveyard. See ya in 3 years!


Best regards,
panther3485

Professor_1942
01-29-2006, 02:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by madsarmy:
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol, Ctrl-E association

Sounds like a perfect fit for me - how much does it cost to join? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BaldieJr
01-29-2006, 09:05 AM
If you can not percieve a change in color after two years you may as well get out of this discussion as you are color blind.

Seriously. Manufacturers throw working CRT's away after 2 years. They wont ever donate thme to charities.

Taylortony
01-29-2006, 09:51 AM
I have watched with interest over the passing days and the general consensus that CRT is dead..

Gentlemen and good ladies, Let me put you at rest on this issue, far from being dead CRT is about to make a major comeback in a big big way..

And the way is called SED this is a derivative of the good old CRT screen technology which instead of firing the image from an electron gun at the rear of the tube is a sideways firing item, it will have all the advantages of a Current CRT tube but with the depth closer to that of a plasma or LCD monitor...

It is about ayear away from production as we stand............ for more info please see
links below and read the item posted below

Toshiba is announcing that they plan to shift a portion of their TV line to the SED technology (Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Display). We talked about Toshiba's SED this in September.

SED has many benefits from the traditional Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) displays. The contrast is better and the reaction time is excellent.

Additionally, SED also has advantages of LCD/Plasma technology: the image is sharp and the form factor is very flat. Even the power consumption is very good (low). These TV will be available in Japan in H2 2005.


Probably the best way to describe something this visual is to think back to when you first saw HDTV. Remember the impact it had on you and the jump you saw in picture quality? That's what SED feels like; it's like making the jump from SDTV to HDTV all over again. It's that good.


http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/08/sed-up-close-and-personal/

http://gear.ign.com/articles/679/679235p1.html

WWTharn
01-29-2006, 07:17 PM
SED sounds very cool- I hope it works out technically and pricewise.
But until things simmer down on that end Iv'e been following prices on large-27inch lcd HDTV's with an average of 8ms - that can easily act as a computer monitor with gaming in mind- prices are near or under the 700$ mark at this time and are sure to go lower- why pay 600$ for a 21 inch lcd monitor when these 27inch hdtvs can do the same thing?

Cajun76
01-29-2006, 08:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWTharn:
SED sounds very cool- I hope it works out technically and pricewise.
But until things simmer down on that end Iv'e been following prices on large-27inch lcd HDTV's with an average of 8ms - that can easily act as a computer monitor with gaming in mind- prices are near or under the 700$ mark at this time and are sure to go lower- why pay 600$ for a 21 inch lcd monitor when these 27inch hdtvs can do the same thing? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because I'm pretty sure that TV dosen't support over 1024 X 768 or so...

Resolution is definately were the difference lies.

WOLFMondo
01-30-2006, 02:09 AM
I'm pretty sure HDTV supports larger resolutions than that.

Cajun76
01-30-2006, 04:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The formats used in HDTV are:

* 720p - 1280x720 pixels progressive
* 1080i - 1920x1080 pixels interlaced
* 1080p - 1920x1080 pixels progressive

"Interlaced" or "progressive" refers to the scanning system. In an interlaced format, the screen shows every odd line at one scan of the screen, and then follows that up with the even lines in a second scan. Since there are 30 frames shown per second, the screen shows one half of the frame every sixtieth of a second. For smaller screens, this is less noticeable. As screens get larger, the problem with interlacing is flicker.

Progressive scanning shows the whole picture, every line in one showing, every sixtieth of a second. This provides for a much smoother picture, but uses slightly more bandwidth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, my bad. I remembered the 1080 figure, but I thought that was the higher of the two numbers since that's a typical marketing gimmick for stuff like that. Just make sure that LCD TV has DVI-D inputs, otherwise you won't be getting straight digital signal between your PC and the screen.

panther3485
01-30-2006, 05:53 AM
Hello again, BaldieJr,

Quote 1:
"If you can not percieve a change in color after two years you may as well get out of this discussion as you are color blind."

Not completely sure if you were addressing me , but reading through this thread again there seems little possibility you could have meant anyone else. So, assuming you did aim your comments at me and assuming also that you are not trolling (by no means certain, of course):

I can assure you most emphatically that there is nothing whatsoever wrong with my colour perception. My previous line of employment would not have allowed me to be even the slightest bit colour blind.
Neither is there anything wrong with the colour perception of my closer friends, the owners of the monitors I spoke of before, whom I know very well.
And I am quite sure that most of my current work colleagues are also quite healthy in this regard.

Or are you going to pin the credibility of your argument on the suggestion that we are all colour blind?

I'm sure there are ways to accurately measure the performance of a monitor as it ages and I am equally sure that, over time, there must be some deterioration. I have never tried to argue that there wouldn't be.
I have simply stated that in a CRT monitor of good quality, such deterioration as occurs is not perceptible to the majority of users, at least not within the time spans I have mentioned before, which go well beyond the two years you seem determined to insist on.

My friend with the 5-yr-old CRT (same tube as mine) visited me a few days after I purchased my current monitor. At this time, his was almost 3-and-a-half years old. According to you, he should have noticed a significant difference between my picture quality and his own. Then, when I visited him the following week, I should have seen that his picture quality was (again, according to you) significantly inferior to mine. Neither of us noticed a difference at all. If there had been much of any real perceptible difference, we would have seen it straight away.

All the users I know (and I know quite a lot), who have changed to LCD/TFT, have done so for a variety of reasons, chief among them being space saving, light weight, modern streamlined looks and wide-screen viewing. In one or two cases, they changed because they wanted to gain the above advantages after their old monitor shat itself. They did not change because of any significant dissatisfaction with the picture quality as such , on their CRT's. And this was true whether they had their CRT for 1 yr, 3 yrs, 5 years and sometimes longer.

However, (and it's a significant 'however' for some) those who ran their CRT's at fairly low refresh rates (generally, they tended to have older and/or inferior quality CRT's, or simply didn't understand how to set their refresh rates correctly), have all stated that they like the flicker-free image of LCD and find it easier on the eye. Fair comment in those cases!


As for telling me that I "may as well get out of this discussion" , sorry to disappoint you. Not just yet, thanks.


Quote 2:
"Seriously. Manufacturers throw working CRT's away after 2 years. They wont ever donate thme to charities."

Don't you get it? So what? Who cares?

What counts is whatever the user/customer perceives. If he/she percieves that the product is OK, then it's OK. End of story. When they become dissatisfied, they move on. Again, end of story. Plenty of people are happy to stay with their CRT's for now and will move on when they are ready . When they do, most will have had their CRT's for longer than you think they should have had them, and will not have been unhappy with the picture quality per se, during that time.


Best regards,
panther3485

WOLFMondo
01-30-2006, 06:02 AM
I have 3 two year old Iiyama Visionmaster pro 413's which still all have a very nice image quality and at the time they where pretty good CRT's, but it in no way ever could compare in any respect to my Hyundai L90D+ TFT. One of them is side by side with my new TFT and the colour degridation on the CRT is very clear.

Space saving was never something I figured into the equasion when buying my new monitor late last year. It was all about which gives the best picture quality etc. Right now TFT's have become allot more affordable and offer the same if not better display than any CRT's ever have mixed with very good response times so no ghosting etc. If I still thought I could have got a CRT with better quality I would have bought one.

panther3485
01-30-2006, 06:02 AM
Hey, Taylortony,

Quote:

"I have watched with interest over the passing days and the general consensus that CRT is dead..
Gentlemen and good ladies, Let me put you at rest on this issue, far from being dead CRT is about to make a major comeback in a big big way..
And the way is called SED this is a derivative of the good old CRT screen technology which instead of firing the image from an electron gun at the rear of the tube is a sideways firing item, it will have all the advantages of a Current CRT tube but with the depth closer to that of a plasma or LCD monitor...
It is about ayear away from production as we stand........


And here's me thinking that CRT had been developed as far as it possibly could and it would all be over within 3 years! And I thought I was being conservative at that!

Seems then, there's life in the old girl yet?


Interesting, mate, and thanks for the HUD on that.


Best regards,
panther3485

panther3485
01-30-2006, 07:05 AM
Hi WOLFMondo,

Quote 1:
"I have 3 two year old Iiyama Visionmaster pro 413's which still all have a very nice image quality and at the time they where pretty good CRT's, but it in no way ever could compare in any respect to my Hyundai L90D+ TFT."

Fair enough! That's comparing a CRT that you considered 'pretty good' two years ago with a new (fairly current type) and very good LCD (TFT being a superior type of LCD). Don't see how anyone could argue with that!


Quote 2:
"One of them is side by side with my new TFT and the colour degridation on the CRT is very clear."

Surely, what you mean is that the colour inferiority on the CRT is very clear? Again, I'm sure that must be the case.

But degradation? How can you tell that the colour on the CRT has got significantly worse over two years, simply by comparing with a totally different unit, of a totally different and newer technology?

Surely, to measure degradation, you would need to compare with a new CRT of the same make and model as your 2-yr-old. If not the same make and model, at least the same picture tube (which are the types of comparisons I have made).

If you did such a test, I'm sure you'd find that there is very little difference between the new CRT and the 2-yr-old CRT, but there would be a big difference between both of those and your new Hyundai TFT!!!!! That new TFT just blows the CRT's away, period. I'm sure it'd look better than my CRT as well, no matter what age my unit is.


Quote 3:
"Space saving was never something I figured into the equasion..."

Fair enough, but for many consumers it is an important consideration and for some, it has been as decisive one.


Quote 4:
"Right now TFT's have become allot more affordable and offer the same if not better display than any CRT's ever have mixed with very good response times so no ghosting etc. If I still thought I could have got a CRT with better quality I would have bought one."

In general, I'd have to agree. If I were buying right now, I'd probably get a TFT myself for the same reasons:
(a) Vastly improved quality over older LCD's, to the point where CRT's no longer hold any real advantage in any important aspect. (My CRT can go to something like 2560x1920 but I really don't think that's important). And LCD/TFT continues to improve!
(b) Greater affordability. Good ones are still not quite as cheap as equivalent size/quality CRT, but getting close. Close enough for me!


Best regards,
panther3485

BaldieJr
01-30-2006, 07:44 AM
Here is a simple test for you:

Go to the supermarket and look in the cereal section for any cereal that offers a glow-in-the-dark-toy.

Purchase cereal.

Dash home with your newly acquired scientific apparatus.

Eat cereal untill the "test equipment" is found.

Place test equipment under bright light.

Go to some dark place and be amazed at the glow.

Repeat every day and keep a log of your perception of the brightness.

Come here and post a response to the following questions:

Why aren't phosphor toys used to light the night for near-free?
How long did your phosphor toy last before it would no longer glow?
Why is phosphor a patently dumb idea for hi-def visual equipment?
What percentage of men are color-blind?

BaldieJr
01-30-2006, 08:00 AM
Reaction time of crts is good for turn-on, but turn-off is ick. Thats why crt's are good for mucking up good clean video: the pixels stay lit longer than in liquid crystal or oled. They turn on very fast are but as slow to turn off (in a dark room watch tv. cover your eyes for 1 minute and have someone turn off the tv. look at the crt. why does it glow? phosphor is garbage, thats why).

sed is just the empire striking back. they dont want to loose thier trillion-dollar investment into the crt making machines (the cost is in putting the phospor onto the tube). they never tell you that they are moving to a matrix-ignition system because pixel accuracy in a crt is poopoo. oh if i could only make you understand h/v sweep circuits and the f-ing voodoo that makes a crt work.

and phosphor wears out. it wont glow after a while and thats why crts get scraped. the deterioration process starts the first time the thing is turned on.

RIP CRT

panther3485
01-30-2006, 08:50 AM
Back again, Baldie?

OK, perhaps for the sake of entertainment only, I'll play a small part of this silly game you've proposed, but only a small part. So small, I'll post the answers now:


Questions 1, 2 and 3:

You can't be serious! Stupid questions, designed either as a joke (very weak), or to mislead (pathetic), or (very clumsily) to trap. Or maybe all three.

I was talking about what most users will or will not perceive when they look at their CRT monitors over a period of time. When asked "How noticeable would the deterioration in picture quality, in a good CRT, truly be after 2 years?" I have effectively said, and still say, that very few users would notice it. This is borne out by my experience and observations and by the experiences and observations of my friends and colleagues.

As far as I can tell, this is the only point of contention between us and even that, for all I know, may just be some half-baked idea of a joke on your part.


Question 4 (What percentage of men are colour blind?):

Figures are only available for 'White Caucasian' races (i.e., mainly Western countries). Depending on whose figures you accept, the colour blindness rates for Adult males are between 8% (about one individual in every 12) and 12% (about one individual in every 8). These are almost always 'partial', since total colour blindness (seeing only Black/Grey/White) is extremely rare. Among Adult females, the rate is much lower, around 0.5 percent in most surveys; certainly less than 1%.

So,

Myself:
Perfectly good colour vision (rigorously tested for professional reasons).

My close friends:
Perfectly good colour vision (as with my own, I know from their backgrounds, previous job profiles and medical histories. All bar one has worked in the same professions as myself.)

My current work colleagues: As most of my colleagues (more than 80 percent) are women, I wouldn't expect to find much colour blindness at work either!


Best regards
panther3485

BaldieJr
01-30-2006, 09:46 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

The tomfoolery!

BSS_AIJO
01-30-2006, 10:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Arms1:
this is the one i bought dawg

http://www.sceptre.com/Products/LCD/Specifications/spec_x9gNagaIV.htm

it is priced much cheaper than other lcds with similar specs, happy with it so far as a replacement for my aging dell trinitron 21' crt. the biggest bonus i find is the free desktop space plus the viewable on a 19'lcd is the same as a 21' crt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, I got the same one from tiger direct last year. I chose it because feature wise it seemed pretty good, and price wise it was very good. I have to say I have been pretty happy with it, but I wish I had waited 6 months or so as the 21's are now what I paid for the 19. I used it as a replacement of a very very nice 21 inch that I had been running for a about 4 years. Mostly I was interested in lowering my electrical consumption ( a bit ) and keeping the heat down in the room where I have all of this setup. I still will not be giving up the CRT anytime soon though, its just sitting around unplugged for now.

BSS_AIJO