CRT v.s. LCD

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
what do current analysts say about the burn in and longevity?
Click to expand...
According to some previews and statements from Canon and Toshiba on the web, they should be as good as CRT's.

My main concern is about the electron emitter platter, though, as there's one for each screen dot. I don't know what measures have been adopted in the event one of those emitters fails.

So far, that I know of, there has been very little in-depth technical info on SED's. There are mainly presentations to show image quality and its basic internal operation.
 
And I believe that if the investments were placed, I doubt very much it would not become viable considerably earlier.

Unless you know of some technological breakthrough that was absolutely necessary for that to happen that I don't know of.

If so, I'll gladly retract.
 
I do not disagree with what you said, that is always the case. Nothing matures without research investments. The first LCD was actually made in 1968, with the first real screen being from 1972 I think. However, they weren't used as computer screens for at least 10 more years.

That being said, the absence of said investments was due directly to the fact that CRTs were WAY cheaper at the time, and had no drawbacks that warranted the amount of investment that would be required to make LCDs a viable product. That is, until laptops came around, and even more so, as was mentioned before, when screen size vs huge bulk started to become an issue for CRTs. That is when investment really started to pick up for LCDs.

So, in a way, the advent of laptops (the first of which that featured a very crude LCD screen debuted in '82 or '83, and they didn't have VGA capabilities till 1988 or so) would be the technological breakthrough that was necessary for that to happen.

Once laptops started to get smaller, the need for a bigger screen area without much increased space drove investment. Once the aforementioned CRT space issues arose as well, investment again increased and we ended up with the LCDs we have today..

There have obviously been numerous other necessary technological advancements, such as color screens, smaller pixel sizes, improved manufacturing processes allowing high yields, cheaper production, and most importantly, larger panels. But all of these were driven by investment, and so don't really qualify as driving forces behind viability.
 
Well, I would have used red or green, but someone else used them first. And the blue and indigo had also been used. I needed some other colour to differentiate the secondary replies from the original post and my first reply.

The light colours available tend to be hard to read.

Sorry if this upsets you.

Maybe you should join 1Tanker in that guerrella campaign against the THG text colour choices. It should be entertaining to watch.
 
Two monitors - Sounds like a plan.

I personally prefer CRTs for overall performance and versatility reasons. Generally speaking image quality is pretty good on the LCD side, but some aspects are still not quite there.

I find the attitude of many posters here interesting indeed. Too many fanboys, and may your Higher Power protect you if you challenge them. Especially if facts and logic are used. Sigh.

I find it amusing that so far no one has addressed the question of why a 19" LCD TV set is up to $300.00 more expensive than a 19" LCD computer monitor. And how much would the price of a monitor really have to increase if it incorporated the same performance as a TV screen? Anyone?
 
I've had trouble with the quote tags. It could be a browser issue related to the specific version of Netscape I am using.

Besides, somehow, the specific post that I replied to ended up as all one big quote, with the first post nested. Very strange.

But at 3:00 AM, some things just aren't worth fighting with.
 
You should get out a bit more or surf some alot of TFT can do 75hrz mine is one of them.

Alot of info reguarding LCD in this thread is wrong or vary vary vary old.

WizardOZ have you even used a LCD? almost all of your cons of a LCD are way way off.
Click to expand...

Well bucko, first off, you have a serious attitude problem and you aren't anywhere near as smart or experienced as you think you are.

To answer your question: I have used and observed, not to mention bought and sold, all sorts of flat-screen displays. Including, among others, the plasma display of a Zenith lap-top. I wonder if you even know what system I am talking about here. As for information being "obsolete", fanboys like you are incapable of grasping reality. I note that you failed to address the issue of the price difference between full-on LCD TVs and LCD computer monitors. The price difference is NOT due to the inclusion of a tuner and other TV-specific electronics.

Secondly, a significant aspect of this discussion relates to performance in demanding applications like games, serious imaging and video editing. All of which require a sophisticated video card and a very good and responsive monitor. I wonder if "Hercules Graphics" has any meaning to you. I doubt it does.

Your posts demonstrate that you are an ignorant punk. You are too stupid to see that just because you have all kinds of disposable cash to throw around to get the upper-level but mid-range stuff commonly available, this does not justify or validate your fanboy attitude and opinions.

Many low-end (never mind higher) CRTs remain superior to 80% of current flat-screen dispalys. At equivalent screen sizes, it is necessary to spend several thousand dollars on a flat-screen to exceed the performance of a mid-priced, let alone truly professonal CRT. I again draw your attention to the price difference between a true LCD TV and a computer monitor of the same size. I also draw your attention to the fact that the world's largest and most successful graphics chip manufacturer is INTEL. Despite the fact that their graphics are the worst on the market. Why? Because these are the cheapest on-board GPUs available. Very popular in "business" machines. Like from DELL. An earlier post described the impact of corporate purchacing on the "success" of LCD screens. Here is the proof / support for the point. I haven't seen anything in your posts on this thread to show that you have anything more than a suprficial grasp of either the technology or the business. I earned a living in the business for a while.

What was it you were saying about "getting out more or surf more"? And about LCD "refresh rates"? But... But.... LCDs don't have refresh rates. CRTs do. You don't know what you are talking about; that being the case STFU you moron!

K well i lost this thread somehow when the forums messed up but im going to respond to this idiotic post really fast.

I love how you call me a fanboy because your upset about me calling you on your vary old indeed info on lcd's good going.

I'm talking about computer monitors here buddy get it right i could care less about tv's.

Hercules use to make the best video cards among other things your cheap and laughable "accusation" im a kid is equaly idiotic. In fact i do alot of high speed gaming and your info is still old. selling the junker monitors ina store like i use to btw doesnt make youa expert in how well LCD works in gaming. Most stores sell junk ass monitors to begin with.
Like i said before LCD in color production isnt up to par with crt yet please read next time. BTW i have owned all sorts of the top end CRT monitors but only have personaly owned this one LCD.

my post was demonstrated how little you seem to know about how far LCD has come since you supposidly researched it and ill use research lightly since almost all of your cons of LCD are either dated info or 100% inccorect.

once again does calling me a fanboy make you sleep better at night? i would love to see you even remotly backup that accusation.

many lower end crt's never mind mid rang crts have always and still blow in image quality which is why i never got them.

many thousands of dollars? seriously try google once again your info is vary dated.

and once again whos talking about tv's?

when you sell a onboard chip with every motherboard your bound to get those numbers its hardly surprising and doesnt prove anything.

My grasp on business and the tech between tv's and computer monitors arent even relavent here since we are talking about computer monitors. So your comparasin is duely ignored.

Actualy once again you are 100% wrong. Even though the LCD does not in fact refresh the card still has to send a refresh to the display and it HAS to accept it. It must comply with the old analog standard.

In fact after reading this stupid post i agree that someoen have no diea what they are talking about however i believe it is you and calling me a moron really man if thats how you have to get a point acrost you have no room to insinuate someone else is younger.

Now that i know you are a saleman of a store that sells LCD i can see why you have such a distorted view of LCD's in general people like you and the garbage most people sell in stores they want to call LCD is exactly why i dont goto a store to buy things anymore.

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.
Click to expand...

I didnt attack you i simply questioned your con table for lcd as being incorrect or old data. Seems however after now finaly reading the posts after that one you seem to do a good job irritating people and getting them to "attack" you. just like your responce was full of what could be considered "attacking" wording. I dont find ti at all surprising everyone questioned you logic when it came to the cons since they are flawed.

I also noticed a superiority complex you seem to have and how you throw around fanboy in a mannor which only says to me you dont have the slightest clue what it even means. I'm not advocating everyone buy a LCD i was simply (and only saying) i dont see how CRT's are at all supirer to a LCD anymore aside color reproduction. I personaly will never buy another CRT again cuz im suck of the refresh killing my eyes and giving me a migrane no matter how high i set it. I'm sick of the fuzzy text especialy in the corners of even a $1000 supposidly professional grade CRT.

I also paid no more! for my LCD then i ever did for any of my CRT monitors in fact checking the prices of a crt i would buy compaired to the price of my LCD i actualy paid less in some cases ALOT less.

I defanily agree with a previous post you need to open your mind and stop being so narrow sighted.
 
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?
Click to expand...
Obviously your eyes are failing you, if you see that this is bothering me. I jokingly(denoted by smiley) said....."bad monitor". Don't make a mountain out of a molehill.
 
Dual 30" Apple Cinima Displays at 2560 x 1600 and Im comparing the picture to a Sony Bravia XBR and thinking.....these are sweeeeeeeet. :lol:

CRT's may be nice but can't compete with this kind of realestate.
 
the native resolution is now natural resolution 😱

i believe the high def resolution (video standard) is actualy 1920x1080 not 1920x1200 the first is 16:9 the latter is 16:10. there are also larger lcd monitors with the same resolution however most aside a hand full of 30" displays (which have a higher resolution) use the 16:9 standard. I personaly preffer the 16:10 aspect ratio though. but not all LCD monitors that support 16:10 or 16:9 support those standards in 1080p which from what i understand is actualy requiered for high def standards such as blue ray and hd dvd.

not to mention a 16:10 aspect monitor will show thinner black bars on the top and bottom unless you change the res and distort the picture.

Though i dont agree with your 19" opinion.
 
Agreed.

Some people might want to watch movies on thier computer however. since i dont really own a TV im one of them 😀 course i dont have either high def video drive lol.
 
that is a creepy picture. Makes me wonder who is buying those things for $800 thats as much as my monitor cost 😱 but i sure cant afford a blue ray or hd dvd player.
 
Brightness seems a tad low on the spec sheet, but it should ge a fine monitor. Just remember your video cards need the DVI-D Dual link connectors to handle the top end resolution.
 
here is the 244t brightness contrast

Brightness: 500 cd/m2
Contrast Ratio: 1000:1

here is the 30" brightness contrast.

Brightness: 400 cd/m²
Contrast Ratio: 1000:1

your right it is a bit lower. I hope that its not horribly drastic. I did turn the brightness down on my monitor a bit defanitly something to look into there. I wonder how i test my current monitors birhgtness to see how close it is to the 400cd/m2.
 
yes, that picture is creepy, escpecially the full picture, its so creepy I shall not display, but I will give you think link

http://www.webwombat.com.au/entertainment/movies/images/borat-preview-1.jpg

The picture also makes me mad, because it reminds that I shall never have enough money to ever spend 7k on a computer with 2gtxs, a 82" plasma screen, both hd dvd player types, fatest cpu, mobo, ram combination available at the time, and it makes me more mad that I know at least some one here has accomplished most of that (except for maybe the screen part, probably 24" or 30")
Click to expand...
Stick with us and you will.
By the way....



















borat-preview-1.jpg

Yes. I'm that evil.
 
yes, that picture is creepy, escpecially the full picture, its so creepy I shall not display, but I will give you think link

http://www.webwombat.com.au/entertainment/movies/images/borat-preview-1.jpg

The picture also makes me mad, because it reminds that I shall never have enough money to ever spend 7k on a computer with 2gtxs, a 82" plasma screen, both hd dvd player types, fatest cpu, mobo, ram combination available at the time, and it makes me more mad that I know at least some one here has accomplished most of that (except for maybe the screen part, probably 24" or 30")
Click to expand...

Why not? I started adult life with $40 in my pocket and the clothes I was wearing.....In my case I joined the NAVY and worked my way to the point where I will be ordering a top of the line Mach V from Falcon North West in Sept or Oct 2007...depending on when Vista settles down and becomes stable...more or less.

It's not impossible to work your way into wealth, it takes time and patience and hard work....and a bit of luck some times.
 
yes, that picture is creepy, escpecially the full picture, its so creepy I shall not display, but I will give you think link

http://www.webwombat.com.au/entertainment/movies/images/borat-preview-1.jpg

The picture also makes me mad, because it reminds that I shall never have enough money to ever spend 7k on a computer with 2gtxs, a 82" plasma screen, both hd dvd player types, fatest cpu, mobo, ram combination available at the time, and it makes me more mad that I know at least some one here has accomplished most of that (except for maybe the screen part, probably 24" or 30")
Click to expand...

Why not? I started adult life with $40 in my pocket and the clothes I was wearing.....In my case I joined the NAVY and worked my way to the point where I will be ordering a top of the line Mach V from Falcon North West in Sept or Oct 2007...depending on when Vista settles down and becomes stable...more or less.

It's not impossible to work your way into wealth, it takes time and patience and hard work....and a bit of luck some times.Or as they say..."it's not who ya know, it's who ya blow." :wink:
 
Wealth is rarely earned, but is usually bestowed upon physically charming people.

A member of my wife's family is 25 and extremely successful, making lots of money as a plant manager. Here's how he got there:

1.) He worked at McDonalds, but skipped work at least once a week. Usually twice.
2.) He went to a Junior College and took three years to graduate as an HTML programmer on the 18-month program.
3.) While in college, he walked into Blockbuster and filled out a job application. When called in for an interview, he was hired as a MANAGER, even though he had no management experience and had skipped work frequently at his only prior job (McDonalds).
4.) After college, he applied for a job as an HTML programmer at a large production plant. Of course they didn't need an HTML programmer, so they gave him a job as plant manager.
5.) His intelligence is average at best, and he has no motivation or work ethic.

So what’s the secret of his success? He’s 6 feet 4 inches tall and has boyish good looks. When he asks people to do things, they do it because they like him. Nobody knows why they like him, he never does things for people, but they claim it’s because he’s such a nice guy.

He should run for political office.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom