Sony TFTs???

[realzeus]

Okay lads, need some opinions here. Let me say first that I am an ardent CRT fan, but unfortunately one cannot find a new CRT these days. Thus, I am afraid I will have to convert to a TFT ( ), for which I do not know much about apart that they have inferior image quality (I have seen the difference and hence never got interested in learning more about this technology).

Coming to the actual question now, what do you (knowledgable people) think about Sony TFTs? I realise that spec-wise they are not that good but just cannot think that the once mighty CRT Trinitron manufacturer has fallen behind LG and Samsung on the LCD field. So, are the contrast and speed numbers a reliable measurement of the quality of a monitor? Or do Sonys perform well despite their lower specs?

More precisely, I am interested in the S95AR (Contrast Ratio: 550:1, 8 ms response time) based purely on the firm's past record with its supreme CRTs. The rivaling LG 1970 for example tops 3000:1 and 2 ms. But do these numbers really count or in practise things are different?

Finally, is it true that Sony has discontinued its monitor production?

Thanks a lot in advance.

 

[Traveller]

Finally, is it true that Sony has discontinued its monitor production?

Yes, the've pulled out of the monitor sector but of course are very prominent in the TV scene with their 100HZ Bravia line, etc.

Personally, I'm not thrilled that they pulled out of the monitor product line and for that reason alone, I'd avoid any remaining stock. Of course, Sony's current strategy in no way reflect a lack of quality in their past product line and I am sure the S95AR is a decent monitor. Tom reviewed a Sony with favorable results.

Back to you & what makes one LCD better than the other. There are a few very good threads there were recently written / updated with a ton of info about LCDs and I recommend that you take the time to read a few of them. The most important thing to realize is that there are several panel technologies and each suited for a specific usage. There are few "all-arounders" and no panel suitable for all activities (e.g. movie playback, graphics, color-accuracy-dependant apps, gaming or other fast-motion playback).

 

[jaguarskx]

Since you are an ardent CRT fan, you will want to avoid all 6-bit TN panels since they typically have bad color accuracy, viewing angles, and easily visible artifacts (at least to me). TN panels are the least expensive LCD panel technology, so if you see a really good deal on an LCD monitor, then most likely it is a TN panel.

You need to look at P-MVA and S-PVA panels since they use 8-bit tech. These monitors are more expensive than monitors with TN panels. It is superior to TN in just about ever aspect except response times, the fastest is 6ms.

S-IPS panels (and it's variations) comes closest to CRT image quality, but will neither equal or exceed a CRT. These are expensive monitors especially when you are talking about the 24" range and larger. This are typically for graphics designers.

All 22" LCDs use TN panels. You will want to avoid these.

24" and larger LCD monitors use the P-MVA, S-PVA, or S-IPS panels.

15" - 21.3" and 23" uses one of 4 mentioned types of panel technologies I listed above.

 

[jaguarskx]

One other thing. There are basically two types of screen finishes that will affect have vibrant colors are.

Monitors with glossy finishes will have colors that are more vibrant, but they are also highly reflective. Therefore, placement and orientation of the monitor itself will affect how much the glossy finish will reflect.

Monitors with matte finish do not really suffer from reflections, however colors can look duller. The majority of LCD monitors use panels with a matte finish.

 

[realzeus]

Thanks for the eye opening answers guys. I didn't even know that there were different LCD types. Back in the good old days if you wanted a top notch monitor you bought yourself a Sony Trinitron (or an Eizo or Philips Trinitron for that matter) or a Mitsubishi Diamtron and you had a real eye-candy. Nowadays, not only have we got displays with much inferior image quality to what we had 5 years ago, but also the plethora of differing types makes a sound choice a real headache.

If I am not fortunate enough to find a new CRT I will at least know that there is much more to LCD image quality than those rather misleading numbers. I mean that that 23'' Sony was the best in Toms test but the officially quoted contrast ratio is not top at all. Seems to me that the proven manufacturers still make the best monitors even if the newer ones try to impress with fickle numbers (3000:1 contrast that is actually 1000:1 and so on). Just proves the saying that stating statistics is the best way to lie. 8)

I am also disappointed that Sony pulled out of the monitor sector but not half as much as I was when they stopped their CRTs.

Cheers.

 

[picture_perfect]

😱

CRTs are still around

iiyama is the only one i can find who still makes "tron" (aperture grill) CRTs, considered the best.
check out this review where they compare it to the 2ms VX922 - there's no comparison.

if pricey, there's always a refurbished trinitron.

other CRTs:

samsung
viewsonic
NEC

 

[realzeus]

😱

CRTs are still around

iiyama is the only one i can find who still makes "tron" (aperture grill) CRTs, considered the best.
check out this review where they compare it to the 2ms VX922 - there's no comparison.

if pricey, there's always a refurbished trinitron.

other CRTs:

samsung
viewsonic
NEC

The problem is that where I currently live you cannot find a CRT anymore, on-line stores included. Things were much better in the UK... :x

 

[Traveller]

... or a Mitsubishi Diamtron and you had a real eye-candy. ...displays with much inferior image quality...

As an owner of an Iiyama Vision Master Pro 454 CRT monitor w/ Diamondtron M² tube as well as a BenQ FP241W LCD Monitor, I can tell you that there are a few positive aspects with LCD technology.

First off, my Diamontron's Geometry was generally dead on, but there was the odd instance where it suffered from barel / hourglass distortion. However, the CRT took a looong time to warm up, during which the size of the visible area changed dramatically (well, about one physical inch / 2.5cm or so). Sometimes after changing res (e.g., loading a game) and/or changing back (to desktop res) I had to zoom in/out accordingly.

Long story short, all that crap is non-existant with LCD technology (and a digital - DVI - interface)!

Secondly, just as my LCD is brighter than the sun and can't produce true black under most circumstances, my CRT was too dark (for gaming, DVD playback), although it managed perfect blacks.

LCD, bad response times. CRTs, flickering @ "XP-standard" 60Hz.

Color reproduction? If I understood the data out there correctly, modern LCDs are capable of a wider color gamut than CRTs... .

Bottom line, it's hard to state that one technology is better than the other in all aspects for all uses...

 

[RichPLS]

I am a CAD drafter and gamer... and I luv my 24" Dell LCD! It f'n ruleZ... n CRTsuXXX!
Yeah, I still have a VS 21" CRT, but can not tolerate it since the colors are dull and output is bleak... Not to mention eyestrain and radiation emittance...
LCD imo are better in every way noticable the user...

 

[realzeus]

Traveller: Already having an Acer TFT for office use, I beg to differ on the colour fidelity matter. And who uses 60 Hz on a CRT? That's like doing 60 in a Ferrari and saying that it feels just as slow as any other car doing 60... just step on it! lol

RichPLS: Monitors do age you know. My 10 year old 15'' Sony Trinitron that died on me the other day had nothing to do with the monitor it was when new. It had lost more than 70% of its brightness and the colours were off too. Comparing a new CRT to a new LCD though, well, there is no comparisson really.

Cheers!

 

[Traveller]

having an Acer TFT for office use, I beg to differ on the colour fidelity matter.

Are you really trying to compare the color fidelity of your office Acer to a Sony "F" class CRT...? Really? rofl... ok, I see that you need to spend a little more time reading up on the art of the LCD* 😉

*You could start with NEC's marketing piece on wide gamut LCD tech as well as read up on current and near-future LCD technologies such as 100/120HZ panels and LED back-backlighting.

And who uses 60 Hz on a CRT?

Of course, you are quite right - no one runs their CRTs at less than 75Hz these days (unless they insist on pushing the CRT's max resolution which is often tied to a refresh rate of less than 75HZ). Still, I thought it reasonable to list most of the obvious differences between LCD and CRT technologies

 

[realzeus]

having an Acer TFT for office use, I beg to differ on the colour fidelity matter.

Are you really trying to compare the color fidelity of your office Acer to a Sony "F" class CRT...? Really? rofl... ok, I see that you need to spend a little more time reading up on the art of the LCD* 😉

*You could start with NEC's marketing piece on wide gamut LCD tech as well as read up on current and near-future LCD technologies such as 100/120HZ panels and LED back-backlighting.

And who uses 60 Hz on a CRT?

Of course, you are quite right - no one runs their CRTs at less than 75Hz these days (unless they insist on pushing the CRT's max resolution which is often tied to a refresh rate of less than 75HZ). Still, I thought it reasonable to list most of the obvious differences between LCD and CRT technologies


Of course you realise that it is only logical that they will try to sell their current offerings and make claims that they are as good, if not better than traditional CRTs. It has got to do with profit margins. Not to mention that some LCD manufacturers have actually admitted that their 75 Hz panels do not actually do 75 (there is an article on this board somewhere). SED is the future and that is CRT essentially.

Personally, I never run under 85Hz and I am currently working at 100 Hz. I would like to see an LCD do that.

It's not all bad for LCDs though. It is the eye-friendlier technology but not the best picture quality one.

 

[jaguarskx]

RichPLS: Monitors do age you know. My 10 year old 15'' Sony Trinitron that died on me the other day had nothing to do with the monitor it was when new. It had lost more than 70% of its brightness and the colours were off too. Comparing a new CRT to a new LCD though, well, there is no comparisson really.

Ah, yes.

That's what happened to my Viewsonic PS790 (??) 19" Short Neck CRT. It served me well from 1998 to 2003, until on day the monitor had to "warm up" for several minutes before brightness and colors were displayed properly. It also started to have issues with geometry setting. That's when I started to look for an LCD monitor and finally purchased the Planar PX191. Love it, but I think I want a 24" LCD now.

I still have my the Viewsonic CRT. It's connected to my HTPC as a primary display. The TV is the secondary display since I sometimes do work on it. Once I recover from paying the TAX MAN for taxes owed on 2006 income, I'll buy the BenQ FP241WZ, hopefully by then they will solve the 1:1 mapping issue on the HDMI connection that I heard about.

 

[Traveller]

Sigh...

Here's one more for the road (as in this thread's going nowhere fast...)

 

[picture_perfect]

8O

read that carefully... they start off debunking two myths regarding CRT superiority (brightness homogeneity & color rendering) then accept them in real world application (contradictory)

we found 14% gaps with ViewSonic´s [CRT] Shadow Mask monitor........ but we don´t see them on the displayed image.

Gaps measured between color requested and the one displayed are as significant as with LCD monitors..... this tube monitor is much closer than what we will have on paper after printing.

 

[realzeus]

8O

read that carefully... they start off debunking two myths regarding CRT superiority (brightness homogeneity & color rendering) then accept them in real world application (contradictory)

we found 14% gaps with ViewSonic´s [CRT] Shadow Mask monitor........ but we don´t see them on the displayed image.

Gaps measured between color requested and the one displayed are as significant as with LCD monitors..... this tube monitor is much closer than what we will have on paper after printing.

Not to mention that the overal assumption of any intelligent person is that CRTs remain better, even if LCDs are closer than they used to. Finally, I will go with that professional gamer who plays only with CRTs.