damned if you do, damned if you dont

[trex_2010]

Picking an LCD right now is really frustrating. From reading forums and reviews for hours on end it seems that, most people agree, LCDs are 'worse' than CRTs, especially when it comes to responsiveness in games and during video playback. Qualitatively, how much worse are they?

I'm thinking of getting a non-TN, reasonably high end monitor (600-700 dollar range), and my biggest concern is movie playback, since this looks like the area where all LCDs suffer. I am not a videophile. Are the 'defects' of LCDs during video playback (DVD, DIVX) really noticable and frequent or do you have to look for them?

 

[trex_2010]

that's good to know. anyone else to back this up?

 

[jaguarskx]

Yes, watching a DVD movie on a LCD monitor is fine. I've watched several movies on my 4 year old Planar PX191 which has a black-to-black response time of 25ms without any issues. BTB response time is no longer used though, I would hazard to guess that the GTG response time on the Planar PX191 is around 16ms.

DivX or XviD encoded movies are only as good as the encoding process used and you are more likely to see artifacts on an LCD screen with these types of video files compared to a DVD movie.

 

[realzeus]

All I can say is that even though viewing DVDs on LCDs is acceptable it is less than perfect. You may not have artifacts nowadays but image quality is not as crisp and motion somehow fuzzy compared to a CRT. Also the colours are less than life-like. Then again it might be down to my TN panel but no TFT I have seen is as good as a high quality CRT.

 

[Traveller]

All I can say is that even though viewing DVDs on LCDs is acceptable it is less than perfect.

I'll agree with Real "Mr. CRT" Zeus above that LCD technology is certainly less than perfect and yes, you will notice all the inherent weaknesses in LCD technology as soon as you start to look for them.

However... what you won't bother to notice is the benefits - of which I can name at least five (relevent to video playback): geometry, color, brightness, Aspect Ratio and size.

Geometry: I have a Iiyama Vision Master Pro 454 (HM903DT) Diamondtron M² and even with its flat screen technology, I found myself fighting with the geometry almost on a daily basis. Usually I had to zoom in / out which is a straightforward adjustment, but sometimes I had to deal with shape too. My BenQ FP241W P-MVA LCD I have no such issues. Although I use DVI, I've never heard of anyone complaining about Geometry errors even when using a analog connection.

Color: AFAIK, LCD tehnology provides the opportunity for wider [color] gamuts then even the best crts. This article claims that it is due to their "higher luminances".
There is of course the prerequisite that you view an LCD panel more or less dead-on, but the higher-end panel technologies (S-IPS, S-PVA & P-MVA) do offer reasonable viewing angles if not on par with crt. All I can say is that I have no real problems with my P-MVA (when moving my head, etc.) If you try to view a movie at more than a 60deg angle then 1. you will note a change in color & contrast (so don't view it at 60+degrees!!!)

Brightness: As stated in the above article, brightness seems to be linked to colors in terms of gamut. Aside from that, I guarantee you that watching a movie on an LCD will blow you away when it comes to brightness which in turn translates to more vibrant images. Every modern monitor (be it LCD or CRT) comes with theme settings including a Movie Mode which ups the contrast and this will make the scenes pop out at you while making the blacks er, black (so that you can actually deal with the letterbox 😉).

Aspect Ratio: 16:10 is a lot closer to 16:9 then 4:3 is. Of course LCD panels are also available in 4:3 and worse, 5:4 and while there where widescreen CRTs, I don't recall having had many to choose from... .

Size: Sure, I would probably be very happy with a 24" Trinitron or Diamondtron CRT, IFF: 1. I can find one, 2. I can afford it and 3. I can find place on my desk for it. Even after managing the above three obstacles, I probably* would still have less "viewable" area than a 24" LCD.
*This certainly holds true when your goal is viewing 16:9 movies and keep in mind that a 24" monitor represents ~22" of viewable screen (due to the bezel hiding the inherit geomerty flaws at the perimeters, etc.

So again, I do agree that LCD technology has its flaws and backlight bleed, murkish blacks and ghosting are not pleasent prospects, but let's not forget that LCDs do have their strengths and CRT are not entirely perfect either...

 

[realzeus]

I would agree with some of your points Traveller. In terms of colour accuracy though I starkly object. I quote from http://www.pcreview.co.uk/articles/Consumer-Advice/LCD_vs_CRT/, which is a well respected site:

''Colour Purity: This is where the CRT monitors take a clear advantage. However the best LCD monitors are very good and for an average user the difference is hardly noticeable in side by side comparison. The difference can vary from slight to significant depending on the quality of the LCD monitor used in comparison.''

This only verifies my own experience.

Moreover, even though LCDs are brighter, that's not neccessarily a good thing. Actually, most LCDs are overbright in order to compensate for their poor contrast. Also bear in mind that good CRTs brightness level is set to around 30 out of a maximum of 100, meaning they can go 70% brighter if the need arises. LCDs by default are usually set at 100/100 brightness level. I always have to to dim them in order to achieve good image quality.

 

[Traveller]

I quote from pcreview which is a well respected site ... This only verifies my own experience.

I'm always willing to improve my knowledge on any subject and believe it or not, I'm not out to annoy you but the above article quotes someone's opnion without any technical backing what so ever. Is it so much to ask from this author (or any other source) to explain, in techincal terms, why CRTs offer better color purity?

... most LCDs are overbright in order to compensate for their poor contrast.

I set my M-PVA to about 33%. Furthermore, my experience has been the exact opposite of yours. My P-MVA can display the entire greyscale from say, Nokia's Monitor test, something my Diamondtron* never managed. Maybe my Diamondtron was defective from day-one, might be, but that has unfortunately been my own experience... .

Oh, and, if you are still comparing your office 19" TNT to your fav CRT, it's not quite a fair fight. The 19" TN I've got sitting in my office can't achive the greyscale test mentioned above, not even close.

*The one great thing about the Diamondtron was it's true blacks, something my old Samsung SyncMaster 17P (Shadow Mask) can't manage (but manages to display Nikia's greyscale, only there is no true black)... . But I digress, everyone is agreement that LCD can't do black.

 

[KingLoftusXII]

While for now I'm still in the CRT camp, two important LCD advantages you
missed, (unless I missed them), is much lower energy consumption and no risk
of an image "burning in" like on other displays.

 

[realzeus]

Traveller, it could be that your Diamondtron had some issues and it certainly is that my Philips TN is just that... a TN that fails to shine on the Philips grayscale test. Weird thing is that my Trinitron depicts the grayscale gamut flawlessly, I am surprised your's didn't. I am sure your MVA monitor is much better than a TN, but I still have not seen a TFT that matches a good CRT when it comes to colour purity. I have no numbers to support that, I am just stating my own experience. Anyway, I am getting used to the TN (by the way, I have the Trinitron at work) and find it less annoying than I used to, even though I can still tell the difference.

 

[Traveller]

I'm always willing to improve my knowledge on any subject..

speaking of which, I just came across an interesting article comparing LCD, Plasma, CRT & DLP. I'm still trying to absorb the info, it's quite intense... 😛

 

[realzeus]

Excellent find Traveller. I just could not resist posting the conclusion: ''If you can live with a bulky unit and a 40 inch or smaller screen size then the CRT is the clear image quality winner.'' 😀

 

[f61]

I have done some reading, and some review-reading, also. I concurr with the opinion that CRT>LCD. IMHO TN displays just don't belong in upper-end LCD's period. I've been looking over the 24" 1920x1200 monitor group, and I still see TN displays that are marginal at best being sold along side a rather good NEC (the 2470WXN).

The large difference is in experience and intended use. Gamers don't like larger screens due to the dreaded INPUT LAG. HTPC folks love the quality of display and rendition (albeit with tweaking). Going up the size ladder indroduces de-rez, but there are some 32" (TV/mon) sets with apparently good rez and viewability. Personally, I can't stand the thought of 37" 720p native. I note that when we cross this monitor/TV line that image delivery, image reception, and other signal quantification cause sublime variables to be introduced that complicates the experience. Your experience therefore depends upon your provider, and the "last 10 meters".

JMHO's
f61