CRT v.s. LCD

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
...back on topic...

I think SED is the way to go, rumor has it that it will be available sometime this summer. It has a CRT-like projector for each individual pixel and the slimness of an LCD, making for the best of both worlds. Though there are still the questions of how long it would last and how likely image burn-in would be.
 
what do current analysts say about the burn in and longevity?
Click to expand...

I don't know, really, I just know that regular CRTs have those weaknesses and SED might have the same, though the effect may be lessened due to the fact that the individual emitters will probably be a lot less strong than one big cathode ray tube.
 
You do realize that neither age nor experience brings the gaurantee of wisdom or knowledge, right?

I don't doubt, or for that matter really disagree with what you said. Its just that there are a lot of people saying that because they've seen a computer with a vacuum tube in it that they automatically know more than others.
Click to expand...

Re first point: Absolutely correct. It doesn't necessarily bring maturity either. Which is why I so frequently include caveats about the limitations of my knowledge and experience and its applicability to a particular case.

Re second point: Again, absolutely correct. While I do know a lot, I'll be the first to say that there are many things I don't know about. And I don't presume to give advice on subjects I don't know. If I do comment, then I will include clear and numerous caveats. But my experience does provide me with perspective that is useful.

I just don't like being attacked in the manner that some here have - ad hominum and as part of a fanboy rant that doesn't address the legitimate factual points I raised.
 
As a matter of fact I have no preference for cats over dogs or vice versa, my motive for saying that was more to hijack the thread and change the topic. Unfortunately now that I've admitted my hidden motives, the topic will revert to the constant repetition that is... CRT vs LCD.
 
There we go, I have MS paint to thank for that.

EDIT: Needs photoshop to shrink instead coz now its not centred

EDIT2: Much better, right proportions and much clearer. Photoshop > MS paint all the way :lol:
 
Well, whatever I may be on is nowhere near as nasty as what you have been consuming. In whatever form it was.

If I were you, I'd be seriously considering going on the wagon, ar at least dropping back to plain old booze.

If you really want hostility, I can provide it, but maybe in a more private mode like PM.

Speaking of chilling out, I think you might want to take your own advice.
 
You guys really do need to cool off. Aside from perhaps the ultra high end CRT's will be hard to find in 5 years for computers. Five years after that the ones that were around will be tired and worn out. Time will end this debate before some of you will give up.





You want a beast on you desk go for it. This just reminds me of debate between film vs digital. Many say film is better but few that go digital go back to film. The same holds true for CRT's and LCD.

I don't necessarily want a beast on my desk. I do want the best quality image Your implying that image quality is significantly worse. That just isn't the case. Once calibrated I can edit my photos just fine. I can get, and some versatility. As for the photography example, very poor choice. Film is visibly superior to digital Your opinion. Problem is that it is much less convenient, not instant results, and difficult to convert to digital form hardly most photos today printed on a digital printer as an example. The majority of people using digital cameras today are the same crowd that used the low-end cameras in earlier times. True, but many professionals, about 50% of portrait and wedding photographers, most journalist, sports and travel photographers are digital. It's the Landscape and artistic types that still cling to film use digital today They don't know or care about image quality. These are the sort that refused to understand basic principles of photography and got perfect exposures of the couch the kids were sitting on while burning out the faces because they were too close when they took the picture. Nothing has changed.
Click to expand...

That is funny you should say. Digital has surpassed film in detail in both 35mm and medium format. Dynamic range is on par with slide film and with raw processing close to professional negative film.

Further more distance from the couch wouldn't impact the exposure level of the shot. Metering mode maybe, focus point perhaps. In general practice being closer to the subject would give the automatic settings of the camera a better change of getting it right.

Apparently you don't know that much about photography yourself or just assume that other have no clue.

I happen to have been photography for quite some time 15+ years and can tell that digital has made my a better photography. I take fewer shots and don't need to bracket tricky shots. My print aren't grainy and don't have to worry about damaged negative or a box full of slides.

Your close mindedness is clearly evident I don't expect to open you mind to the new digital reality. I just ask that don't elevate your "opinions" to fact as they subjective.
 
Wow has this thread got off topic. But just in an interesting aside, CRT's, due to the flicker rate will actually hyper-stimulate your brain, making it difficult to fall asleep in front of them, and can knock your sleeping patterns way out of kilter, which is bad when u have to get up the next day.

LCD's have no such affect, which Is a good thing.
 
As far as I know, flat-screens don't have a problem with burn-in. Which is a good thing.

However, individual cells in the display do fail at random and if enough fail the display stops working. And has to be replaced. Furthermore, the number of cells DOA from the manufacturer can be surprisingly high, according to some articles I have read. This varies from one company to another.

The most problematic aspect of failing cells is in the context of a notebook. It can be a serious challenge to get a replacement monitor for even a relatively new notebook, given their very short product life-cycle. And even if you can get a repalcement monitor, the price is most likely to be seriously exhorbitant. It may be cheaper to get a new system. In the meantime, one can either hook up an external monitor and keep using the system or at least back up the data on the drive. But the main advantage of the notebook, portabilty, is gone.

I have seen CRTs that are efffectively 2/3 dead - colour not working correctlly, strange overall colour cast, somewhat fuzzy - but still usable. In some respects, LCDs are much less robust than CRTs.
 
See this is what happens when you don't have sex on a regular basis one tends to argue on the internet to release that once sexual fustration built up inside ... lol :roll:

Get laid already ... 8)


LCD or CRT it all depends on preference .... :x lol
 
You guys really do need to cool off. Aside from perhaps the ultra high end CRT's will be hard to find in 5 years for computers. Five years after that the ones that were around will be tired and worn out. Time will end this debate before some of you will give up.





You want a beast on you desk go for it. This just reminds me of debate between film vs digital. Many say film is better but few that go digital go back to film. The same holds true for CRT's and LCD.

I don't necessarily want a beast on my desk. I do want the best quality image Your implying that image quality is significantly worse. That just isn't the case. Once calibrated I can edit my photos just fine. Umm, no I didn't say it was significantly worse. Based on my eyesight and experience, for most applications, CRTs and LCDs are about the same. For some applications CRTs remain a better choice. And like I said earlier, text display remains a real issue on many mid-range LCDs. I can get, and some versatility. As for the photography example, very poor choice. Film is visibly superior to digital Your opinion. No, cold hard fact. See technical specs for the dynamic range and spectrum sensitivity of sensors vs film. Problem is that it is much less convenient, not instant results, and difficult to convert to digital form hardly most photos today printed on a digital printer as an example. Really. OK, I take my film camera, shoot some photos, then take them to get processed, get the prints and negatives back and then I get them into my computer how? With a scanner. And if I get a set of images on a CD, they are in JPEG - a LOSSY format. Quality lost. Scanning prints, negatives or slides is a pain. The majority of people using digital cameras today are the same crowd that used the low-end cameras in earlier times. True, but many professionals, about 50% of portrait and wedding photographers, most journalist, sports and travel photographers are digital. It's the Landscape and artistic types that still cling to film So? And the quality and performance difference between professional and amateur digital cameras isbest described how? And cell phone cameras are what quality? And what is the biggest print that even the best commercial digital cameras can produce? use digital today They don't know or care about image quality. These are the sort that refused to understand basic principles of photography and got perfect exposures of the couch the kids were sitting on while burning out the faces because they were too close when they took the picture. Nothing has changed.
Click to expand...

That is funny you should say. Digital has surpassed film in detail in both 35mm and medium format. Dynamic range is on par with slide film and with raw processing close to professional negative film. Maybe. According to what I have read, this is not quite correct. Digital cameras still don't perform well under low light conditions. But I could be mistaken or need to do more research.

Further more distance from the couch wouldn't impact the exposure level of the shot. Metering mode maybe, focus point perhaps. In general practice being closer to the subject would give the automatic settings of the camera a better change of getting it right. Well it depends on the camera one is using and how effective the built-in flash is. The cases I was citing the cameras mostly were cheap auto-exposure instamatic type but some were basic SLRs. Flashes work under specific rules of light fall-off something about intensity decreasing by a squared factor as distance increases linearly. And if the camera/flash is too close to the subject, the result is called overexposure. On a negative, overexposure results in a solid blob, from which detail can be retrieved only with great difficulty. And a one-hour processing shop isn't going to do that.

Apparently you don't know that much about photography yourself or just assume that other have no clue. Apparently, I know more about photography than you think I do. And I don't assume what others know. I do assume that someone who raises a particular subject has some knowledge and should be ready to "show me the money".

I happen to have been photography for quite some time 15+ years and can tell that digital has made my a better photography. I take fewer shots and don't need to bracket tricky shots. My print aren't grainy and don't have to worry about damaged negative or a box full of slides. Well now. Are you a professional photographer or an advanced amatuer? I got into photography in my first year of high school, went on to be president of our photo club, head yearbook photographer, and for my graduating year, about 65% of the photos in the yearbook were my work. That was a long time ago. I also made my living as a portrait photographer for a year. And I still do photography as a hobby. The reaon you don't have to bracket as many shots has nothing to do with digital vs film. It has everything to do with advances in metering technology developed for film camers. Graininess - well if you are limited to 4x6 or 5x7 prints, even good old TRI-X didn't have a problem. But it is only in the last couple of years that digital cameras have been able to routinely produce 8x10 or 11x14 prints. And as far as I know, not much bigger, without serious manipulation. Digital storage media are being shown to have a much shorter life expectancy than predicted. And this is before we get into issues of hardware obsolesence. Can you say disappearing ATA connectors on new MoBos?

Your close mindedness is clearly evident I don't expect to open you mind to the new digital reality. I just ask that don't elevate your "opinions" to fact as they subjective. I'd say that I have provided sufficient proof of knowledge and practical experience to safely say that my comments and observations are more solid than uninformed personal opinion. I also note that in none of my technical post did I ever say that LCDs and other digital technologies are inferior to analogue. I did say that based on my observations and experience, CRTs remain superior to LCDs for certain applications. I also indirectly noted that some digital technologies still need more development. How exactly is this being closed minded? Or are you one of those gung ho types like some smokers that have quit recently and find it necessary to bolster themselves by deriding smokers?

My secondary responses are in BROWN.
 
You guys really do need to cool off. Aside from perhaps the ultra high end CRT's will be hard to find in 5 years for computers. Five years after that the ones that were around will be tired and worn out. Time will end this debate before some of you will give up.





You want a beast on you desk go for it. This just reminds me of debate between film vs digital. Many say film is better but few that go digital go back to film. The same holds true for CRT's and LCD.

I don't necessarily want a beast on my desk. I do want the best quality image Your implying that image quality is significantly worse. That just isn't the case. Once calibrated I can edit my photos just fine. Umm, no I didn't say it was significantly worse. Based on my eyesight and experience, for most applications, CRTs and LCDs are about the same. For some applications CRTs remain a better choice. And like I said earlier, text display remains a real issue on many mid-range LCDs. I can get, and some versatility. As for the photography example, very poor choice. Film is visibly superior to digital Your opinion. No, cold hard fact. See technical specs for the dynamic range and spectrum sensitivity of sensors vs film. Problem is that it is much less convenient, not instant results, and difficult to convert to digital form hardly most photos today printed on a digital printer as an example. Really. OK, I take my film camera, shoot some photos, then take them to get processed, get the prints and negatives back and then I get them into my computer how? With a scanner. And if I get a set of images on a CD, they are in JPEG - a LOSSY format. Quality lost. Scanning prints, negatives or slides is a pain. The majority of people using digital cameras today are the same crowd that used the low-end cameras in earlier times. True, but many professionals, about 50% of portrait and wedding photographers, most journalist, sports and travel photographers are digital. It's the Landscape and artistic types that still cling to film So? And the quality and performance difference between professional and amateur digital cameras isbest described how? And cell phone cameras are what quality? And what is the biggest print that even the best commercial digital cameras can produce? use digital today They don't know or care about image quality. These are the sort that refused to understand basic principles of photography and got perfect exposures of the couch the kids were sitting on while burning out the faces because they were too close when they took the picture. Nothing has changed.
Click to expand...

That is funny you should say. Digital has surpassed film in detail in both 35mm and medium format. Dynamic range is on par with slide film and with raw processing close to professional negative film. Maybe. According to what I have read, this is not quite correct. Digital cameras still don't perform well under low light conditions. But I could be mistaken or need to do more research.

Further more distance from the couch wouldn't impact the exposure level of the shot. Metering mode maybe, focus point perhaps. In general practice being closer to the subject would give the automatic settings of the camera a better change of getting it right. Well it depends on the camera one is using and how effective the built-in flash is. The cases I was citing the cameras mostly were cheap auto-exposure instamatic type but some were basic SLRs. Flashes work under specific rules of light fall-off something about intensity decreasing by a squared factor as distance increases linearly. And if the camera/flash is too close to the subject, the result is called overexposure. On a negative, overexposure results in a solid blob, from which detail can be retrieved only with great difficulty. And a one-hour processing shop isn't going to do that.

Apparently you don't know that much about photography yourself or just assume that other have no clue. Apparently, I know more about photography than you think I do. And I don't assume what others know. I do assume that someone who raises a particular subject has some knowledge and should be ready to "show me the money".

I happen to have been photography for quite some time 15+ years and can tell that digital has made my a better photography. I take fewer shots and don't need to bracket tricky shots. My print aren't grainy and don't have to worry about damaged negative or a box full of slides. Well now. Are you a professional photographer or an advanced amatuer? I got into photography in my first year of high school, went on to be president of our photo club, head yearbook photographer, and for my graduating year, about 65% of the photos in the yearbook were my work. That was a long time ago. I also made my living as a portrait photographer for a year. And I still do photography as a hobby. The reaon you don't have to bracket as many shots has nothing to do with digital vs film. It has everything to do with advances in metering technology developed for film camers. Graininess - well if you are limited to 4x6 or 5x7 prints, even good old TRI-X didn't have a problem. But it is only in the last couple of years that digital cameras have been able to routinely produce 8x10 or 11x14 prints. And as far as I know, not much bigger, without serious manipulation. Digital storage media are being shown to have a much shorter life expectancy than predicted. And this is before we get into issues of hardware obsolesence. Can you say disappearing ATA connectors on new MoBos?

Your close mindedness is clearly evident I don't expect to open you mind to the new digital reality. I just ask that don't elevate your "opinions" to fact as they subjective. I'd say that I have provided sufficient proof of knowledge and practical experience to safely say that my comments and observations are more solid than uninformed personal opinion. I also note that in none of my technical post did I ever say that LCDs and other digital technologies are inferior to analogue. I did say that based on my observations and experience, CRTs remain superior to LCDs for certain applications. I also indirectly noted that some digital technologies still need more development. How exactly is this being closed minded? Or are you one of those gung ho types like some smokers that have quit recently and find it necessary to bolster themselves by deriding smokers?

My secondary responses are in BROWN.
Colorblind? or OLD age? :lol:
 
You guys really do need to cool off. Aside from perhaps the ultra high end CRT's will be hard to find in 5 years for computers. Five years after that the ones that were around will be tired and worn out. Time will end this debate before some of you will give up.





You want a beast on you desk go for it. This just reminds me of debate between film vs digital. Many say film is better but few that go digital go back to film. The same holds true for CRT's and LCD.

I don't necessarily want a beast on my desk. I do want the best quality image Your implying that image quality is significantly worse. That just isn't the case. Once calibrated I can edit my photos just fine. Umm, no I didn't say it was significantly worse. Based on my eyesight and experience, for most applications, CRTs and LCDs are about the same. For some applications CRTs remain a better choice. And like I said earlier, text display remains a real issue on many mid-range LCDs. I can get, and some versatility. As for the photography example, very poor choice. Film is visibly superior to digital Your opinion. No, cold hard fact. See technical specs for the dynamic range and spectrum sensitivity of sensors vs film. Problem is that it is much less convenient, not instant results, and difficult to convert to digital form hardly most photos today printed on a digital printer as an example. Really. OK, I take my film camera, shoot some photos, then take them to get processed, get the prints and negatives back and then I get them into my computer how? With a scanner. And if I get a set of images on a CD, they are in JPEG - a LOSSY format. Quality lost. Scanning prints, negatives or slides is a pain. The majority of people using digital cameras today are the same crowd that used the low-end cameras in earlier times. True, but many professionals, about 50% of portrait and wedding photographers, most journalist, sports and travel photographers are digital. It's the Landscape and artistic types that still cling to film So? And the quality and performance difference between professional and amateur digital cameras isbest described how? And cell phone cameras are what quality? And what is the biggest print that even the best commercial digital cameras can produce? use digital today They don't know or care about image quality. These are the sort that refused to understand basic principles of photography and got perfect exposures of the couch the kids were sitting on while burning out the faces because they were too close when they took the picture. Nothing has changed.
Click to expand...

That is funny you should say. Digital has surpassed film in detail in both 35mm and medium format. Dynamic range is on par with slide film and with raw processing close to professional negative film. Maybe. According to what I have read, this is not quite correct. Digital cameras still don't perform well under low light conditions. But I could be mistaken or need to do more research.

Further more distance from the couch wouldn't impact the exposure level of the shot. Metering mode maybe, focus point perhaps. In general practice being closer to the subject would give the automatic settings of the camera a better change of getting it right. Well it depends on the camera one is using and how effective the built-in flash is. The cases I was citing the cameras mostly were cheap auto-exposure instamatic type but some were basic SLRs. Flashes work under specific rules of light fall-off something about intensity decreasing by a squared factor as distance increases linearly. And if the camera/flash is too close to the subject, the result is called overexposure. On a negative, overexposure results in a solid blob, from which detail can be retrieved only with great difficulty. And a one-hour processing shop isn't going to do that.

Apparently you don't know that much about photography yourself or just assume that other have no clue. Apparently, I know more about photography than you think I do. And I don't assume what others know. I do assume that someone who raises a particular subject has some knowledge and should be ready to "show me the money".

I happen to have been photography for quite some time 15+ years and can tell that digital has made my a better photography. I take fewer shots and don't need to bracket tricky shots. My print aren't grainy and don't have to worry about damaged negative or a box full of slides. Well now. Are you a professional photographer or an advanced amatuer? I got into photography in my first year of high school, went on to be president of our photo club, head yearbook photographer, and for my graduating year, about 65% of the photos in the yearbook were my work. That was a long time ago. I also made my living as a portrait photographer for a year. And I still do photography as a hobby. The reaon you don't have to bracket as many shots has nothing to do with digital vs film. It has everything to do with advances in metering technology developed for film camers. Graininess - well if you are limited to 4x6 or 5x7 prints, even good old TRI-X didn't have a problem. But it is only in the last couple of years that digital cameras have been able to routinely produce 8x10 or 11x14 prints. And as far as I know, not much bigger, without serious manipulation. Digital storage media are being shown to have a much shorter life expectancy than predicted. And this is before we get into issues of hardware obsolesence. Can you say disappearing ATA connectors on new MoBos?

Your close mindedness is clearly evident I don't expect to open you mind to the new digital reality. I just ask that don't elevate your "opinions" to fact as they subjective. I'd say that I have provided sufficient proof of knowledge and practical experience to safely say that my comments and observations are more solid than uninformed personal opinion. I also note that in none of my technical post did I ever say that LCDs and other digital technologies are inferior to analogue. I did say that based on my observations and experience, CRTs remain superior to LCDs for certain applications. I also indirectly noted that some digital technologies still need more development. How exactly is this being closed minded? Or are you one of those gung ho types like some smokers that have quit recently and find it necessary to bolster themselves by deriding smokers?

My secondary responses are in BROWN.
Colorblind? or OLD age? :lol:Bad Monitor. 😛
 
Niether Colour Blindness, nor Old Age, and the monitor is fine.

Who am I to argue with THG colour designations? They called it "brown", so that's what I called it.

Since this seems to bother you, I urge you to immediately start a guerrella campaign to fix the problem. Don't be shy. You yourself may want to check your monitor and vision first, before doing anything rash.

Any other questions, comments or whatever you wish to raise?
 
How about having two moniters, one CRT and one LCD. Thats what I plan to do.

I prefer CRT. I can throw things at it when my PC dosn't work (i.e. user error) and it just sits there. My LCD would be in the skip.
 
My ego's fine. Thanks for the concern. :)

I'm sorry to see that you've done it again; twisted what I've said in complete disregard for what have been written.

I tried to reason something with you. But I can see you don't want to do that.

I was saying that if size if not a problem I'd recommend buying a CRT and was basing that assessment from a technical point of view; and you were suggesting people should buy LCD's because of availability, size and a couple of environmental issues. If it's not clear to you, then in fact it's you who are missing the point. :wink:

BTW, what's it with the ranting?

But you're right about one thing: this discussion has fizzled out. 8)
 
I did not twist what you said.

I merely said that you can't say a product has been available for 30 years, while discounting the fact that for 20 or so of those years, it was not an economically viable product, and was not sold in its current form.

No more, no less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom