Big monitor debate!! LCD VS CRT!! come on in C64!!

Daytrader · 26 Sep 2007 at 23:30

crt for gaming and photo stuff, lcd for everything else, photos on lcd look bad compared to crt they just look over sharp and pixelated to me.

helmutcheese · 26 Sep 2007 at 23:59

CRT is still better for gamers, this is the one place some peeps actually accept that.

Ive had LCD's and HDTV's but they aint as nice as CRT yet and wont be mainstream as SED or OLED will come out bigger (SED is only postponed as of legal battle), also Slimfit CRT's had major GEO issues esp the Sammy's HD models.

MikeHunt79 · 27 Sep 2007 at 00:08

Aww, I was looking forward to flat CRT also.

Looks like I'll be keeping my 21" CRT monsters for a while yet.

helmutcheese · 27 Sep 2007 at 00:21

Well dont buy a 32" Sammy Slimfit HDTV whatever you do, they are only 1/3 slimmer anyhow.

HighlandeR · 27 Sep 2007 at 07:42

Yeah I recall these slim line CRTs due.... they were to have the added benefits of CRTS and be better then LCDS just bigger of course but that obviously never worked out.

Its pretty clear LCDS have replaced CRTS but overall for general purposes there still not better in a lot of ways over LCDs. Hopefully with LEDs/120hz and other technology appearing LCDS will finaly replace CRT.

Its betamax vs VHS all over again

Energize · 27 Sep 2007 at 13:38

HighlandeR said:
Yeah I recall these slim line CRTs due.... they were to have the added benefits of CRTS and be better then LCDS just bigger of course but that obviously never worked out.

sed tvs are due to be released next year.

fish99 · 27 Sep 2007 at 14:10

Energize said:
sed tvs are due to be released next year.

Hope so, I've been hearing 'next year' for about 3 years now

I'm a little worried they will still cause eyestrain and degrade eyesight though. They're still going to be firing electrons at a phosphor coated screen and each pixel will still only get fired once per refresh (the light from the pixels isn't continuous like with an LCD), so they could well inherit many of the bad aspects of CRTs. Hopefully they refresh at 100/120 Hz to minimize the problem. Also since they have definite physical pixels they won't have the resolution flexibility of a CRT.

I'm still looking forward to them though. It will be nice to get back the colour black

Daytrader · 27 Sep 2007 at 14:17

yeh black in games and movies mean every thing to me.

Energize · 27 Sep 2007 at 14:22

fish99 said:
I'm a little worried they will still cause eyestrain and degrade eyesight though.

Still? Never experienced any of those with a crt, or seen any scientific evidence for degraded eyesight either.

They're still going to be firing electrons at a phosphor coated screen and each pixel will still only get fired once per refresh (the light from the pixels isn't continuous like with an LCD)

The ambient light is constantly reflecting off the screen resulting in photons continously hitting your retina just at a different wavelength.

fish99 · 27 Sep 2007 at 16:27

Energize said:
Still? Never experienced any of those with a crt, or seen any scientific evidence for degraded eyesight either.

Great, but I have, and so have many people. I don't mean just at 60 Hz either.

Energize said:
The ambient light is constantly reflecting off the screen resulting in photons continously hitting your retina just at a different wavelength.

How it that relevant? The ambient light only represents a tiny fraction of the light coming off a CRT screen. In between CRT pixels getting fired their colour drops all the way back to black, , even with a high refresh rate, that's how short the persistence of the phosphor used is. It's very easy to capture an entire black frame on a running CRT with a short exposure photo. The only reason we don't see the black frame with our eyes is persistence of vision. Also as you said the small amount of reflected ambient light completely lacks the colour info of the screen since it's being reflected off the outside of the glass not the inside phosphor coating.

azzerz · 27 Sep 2007 at 16:44

CRTs are brilliant for gaming

I play counter-strike a lot and 150hz @ 800x600 is fantastic whereas 75 @ 800x600 on an lcd looks really blury and 1680x1050 can only use 60hz (226bw)

Apart from gaming though... i'd rarther have an LCD - I currently have a samsung 226bw and soon two 19" to go with it

also... CRT's do make my eyes feel unfocused at low hz... but at 150 its fine

(for me anyway)

C64 · 27 Sep 2007 at 16:57

My eyes don't hurt at 75hz 1600-1200 i guess i am just used to it.

helmutcheese · 27 Sep 2007 at 17:38

Thats because 75hz is the MIN and 85hz is the REC Refresh Rates (some USA Medical Boards Findings), esp at lower RES, the higher you go the less the HZ can be but try not go bellow 75HZ, I would not like 75HZ at 800x600 though sitting close to a PC.

Energize · 27 Sep 2007 at 17:55

fish99 said:
How it that relevant?

My point is that light is always hitting your eyes, your not getting your eyes damaged by light suddenly flashing on and off. In fact lightbulbs flash on and off 100 times a second. So it just shows that crts don't damage eyesight with their flickering.

helmutcheese · 27 Sep 2007 at 18:23

A lightbulb flashes 50x per sec, the power out out walls is 50hz per sec.

On a Oscilloscope the AC Power Curve on the screen would RISE and then FALL from the ZERO line 50x in each 1 SECOND segment.

CRT do damage your eyes if too low a HZ, too close and too long sitting at them, so do all screens eventually, take many breask from any screen in a working day.

Energize · 27 Sep 2007 at 18:47

helmutcheese said:
A lightbulb flashes 50x per sec, the power out out walls is 50hz per sec.

On a Oscilloscope the AC Power Curve on the screen would RISE and then FALL from the ZERO line 50x in each 1 SECOND segment.

It oscillates 50x per second. This causes it to flash 100x per second.

helmutcheese · 27 Sep 2007 at 18:55

I say 50x, that why your normal CRT TV is 50HZ as its a light bulb basically, they use circuitry to get 100HZ and its looks bad on CRT anyhow.

mrk · 27 Sep 2007 at 19:16

Daytrader said:
crt for gaming and photo stuff, lcd for everything else, photos on lcd look bad compared to crt they just look over sharp and pixelated to me.

Not if you're using the right panel technology on a TFT... S-IPS is where Photos come to life, compared to a Trinitron or FLatron CRT (I had both) photos look like you're looking at them through a window.

Energize · 27 Sep 2007 at 20:01

helmutcheese said:
I say 50x, that why your normal CRT TV is 50HZ as its a light bulb basically, they use circuitry to get 100HZ and its looks bad on CRT anyhow.

Whatever you think, a lightbulb switches on and off 100x per second, fact. A crt is 50hz because the power is 50hz so it doesn't require conversion, a crt is nothing like a lightbulb, for a start it converts power to dc. The reason 100hz looks bad is because they use interpolation to create false frames. A video game running at 100hz looks great on a crt.

helmutcheese · 27 Sep 2007 at 20:41

" Fluorescent lamps which operate directly from mains frequency AC will flicker at twice the mains frequency, since the power being delivered to the lamp drops to zero twice per cycle. This means the light flickers at 120 times per second (Hz) in countries which use 60-cycle-per-second (60 Hz) AC, and 100 times per second in those which use 50 Hz. This same principle can also cause hum from fluorescent lamps, actually from its ballast. Both the annoying hum and flicker are eliminated in lamps which use a high-frequency electronic ballast, such as the increasingly popular compact fluorescent bulb.

In some circumstances, fluorescent lamps operated at mains frequency can also produce flicker at the mains frequency (50 or 60 Hz) itself, which is noticeable by more people "

And I am talking old run of the mill BULB's not fluorescent