Are CRTs bad?

Dist

Dist

Dist

Soldato
Joined
1 Jun 2005
Posts
5,152
Location
Kent
Recently I was talking to some people about monitors and I mentioned that I have a CRT, now after the laughing had ended I mentioned that the main reason I have it is that it has full viewing angles, it has better colour than any LCD I've seen, and its limited res (1280x1024) means the resolution doesn't push my 8800gt too hard, which is getting a little old now. The reason I bring this thread up is that my CRT doesn't bother me, and I could easily continue using it for another 10+ years, but someone mentioned that CRTs are known to have some issues.

First off it was mentioned that my resolution is 5:4, which is not that great because standard def is 4:3, and for HD content 16:9 or 16:10 would be a LOT better. Secondly I was told that because the eye focuses an inch behind the screen for some reason that it is bad for the eyes. Now I have been using this monitor for what must be something like 10 years now and have had no major issues with my eyes, only a few minor things, and if this monitor is doing lasting damage to my eyesight that I would realy like to know.

The main reason I have yet to upgrade to a LCD screen is that first off I would want a 24'' screen, and the sort of resolution my graphics card would have to pump out may be too much for my 8800gt, unless I go below native res but I thought that can look bad or something? Also, my main concern is that I don't want to get rid of a perfectly good CRT (ignoring any potential eyesight issues for the moment) when even high end LCDs such as the top Dell 24'' that is >£400 has yellow tint issues. I don't like the fact that I could buy a monitor that performs amazing but there is a chance of dead pixels, tint issues, things like that. It seems the LCD market even with high end models have a higher chance of sub par monitors being sold than any other PC part.

So my main questions are, Are CRT monitors bad for eyesight over prolonged use? Are there any good 24'' monitors that can be purchased that are good for mostly gaming and movies, but I can also get a great issue free display with no dead pixels, ghosting, input lag, or tint issues etc?
 
Not a great input i know, but when i switched from crt to lcd it stopped my headaches when i was sat on the pc for a long time
 
Renni 95 said:
Not a great input i know, but when i switched from crt to lcd it stopped my headaches when i was sat on the pc for a long time
Click to expand...

which is due to a low refresh rate.

ops CRT sounds like a crap one though unless hes pumping out 100hz at that res then its a bit "meh" for a crt.

CRT generally have a much better picture , higher refresh rates (most modern monitors only do 60hz) , better colours , black is black , great contrast , brilliant viewing angle , heats your room in the winter etc.

most CRT monitors that were good back in the day are only beaten by £400+ monitors these days so its understandable a lot of people just keep using CRT.

i only recently upgraded from a sony G220 i think its native was around 1156x768 @ 100hz with a max res of 1600x1200@ 75
 
In my experience CRT's color and contrast becomes worse over time much quicker than that of tft's. Every CRT I used to have looked like absolute **** after a couple of years of use, they became darker and lost color...
 
TFT is easier on the eyes, uses less power, less weight, less space.
If you have a high end crt i wouldnt bother changing it until you have to; a cheap crt should be changed as soon as possible.
 
Well my CRTs refresh rate its at 60Hz, which is the max it is capable of at this resolution, and it is not a high end CRT, it is just the standard one that came with my PC many years ago. So far the only degradation I can see is a slight red tinted band about an inch thick along the top of my screen, but this is so faint that I only see it on realy light backgrounds. The screen as a whole could have degraded but it may be so gradual over so many years that I just may not notice that the colours may not be as vivid any more.

Size, heat and energy efficiency are not anywhere near as much of a concern for me as picture quality (I spend 6 to 8 hours a day on a computer, so I want it to be a good experience), production quality (I don't want to have to put up with any dead pixels or issues which are down to defects in the monitor, meaning I have to return it (and some monitors can't be returned for dead pixels)), and performance (I game a lot, so highly noticble ghosting and input lag would be a big downside).
 
i'd get rid if its only 60hz its a poor quality crt and even a cheapo monitor will seem like an improvemen to you, noones forcing you to run your monitor at its native resolution for gaming either.

im surpised you dont get a lot of head aches with it only beeing 60hz as you must notice the flickering picture? you need around 85 on a crt for the image to apear stable.
TFT's work differently
 
Last edited:
The monitor has no flickering at all, perfectly smooth. As for head aches I do get them at times but in all the years of me using the monitor I see no correlation between the head aches and the use of the monitor any more than any other environmental factor.
 
I had a 17" crt and got around six or seven years out of it, though during the last two years the picture quality started to deteriorate. Mine was a 75hz iirc, never had any head aches from using one but then again, I never really have suffered from this anyway.

Couldn't imagine going back to one of those now.
 
Last edited:
Dist said:
So my main questions are, Are CRT monitors bad for eyesight over prolonged use?
Click to expand...
No worse than LCD unless you are running them below 85Hz.
Dist said:
Are there any good 24'' monitors that can be purchased that are good for mostly gaming and movies, but I can also get a great issue free display with no dead pixels, ghosting, input lag, or tint issues etc?
Click to expand...
I think Sony used to make one, it was bloody heavy though!

It's a shame LCD still isn't as good as CRT in many respects, but they're still improving...
 
I am an experienced and current user of high-end CRTs, high-end LCDs and lower end LCDs. In areas such as contrast, resolution flexibility and responsiveness CRTs are currently unmatched. The colour reproduction is also very good on a CRT, although the colour gamut is considerably smaller than on some high-end LCD monitors and does seem to degrade more rapidly with use. Another area that is very important but hasn't been touched upon is sharpness, which no CRT can match even current 'budget' LCD monitors on. It isn't only important at face value for improving text and images - it also affects the average contrast. Whilst high-end CRTs can display good 'white' and good 'black' and also good solid blocks of colour there is considerable overlap between supposed pixels. Since most images are very varied in nature this means that light colours are intertwined with dark colours - and the light colors make the dark colours lighter than they should be due to this - 'overlap'. Often the effect of this is far less significant than good ol' excess backlight bleed on an LCD but it's worth remembering that quoted contrast figures for CRTs never tell the full story (a bit like LCD dynamic contrast). If you combine all of the advantages discussed above (and add to them) and remove the disadvantages you get a technology that is much more appealing than either LCD or CRT. Enter OLED. ;)
 
A year ago I was in a similar position to the op, I wanted a good 24" screen but all the cheap lcd's were a downgrade in terms of picture quality.

I ended up biting the bullet and getting an ips screen, an hp lp2475w. Sitting it next to my old 21" crt (dell P1130, does 1600*1200@100hz or 1280x1024@120hz) the ips is clearly better overall. The colour saturation is better (it is a wide gamut monitor) and I think the crt must have degraded a bit because the sharpness is much better as well. The edges are comparatively fuzzy on the crt. This is most noticeable when you look at the graphs on say task manager, it's not really bad but it is there. The blacks are comparable, the top line on here is completely visible on both. The crt is still better at fast paced old school fps games like quake because of its zero input lag and high refresh rate. The ips does angles better than most lcds but still has slight vertical contrast change compared to the crt (it's nothing compared to a tn panel mind).

I had to get an expensive lcd to feel like I wasn't downgrading in terms of IQ and I wasn't disappointed. I think if I had bought a cheap tn screen I would have been though.

OP if your crt can do a maximum of 1280x1024@60hz then it is a very low quality crt (I can see my crt flickering at 75hz and 60 is unbearable) and even if you bought a 24" tn lcd you probably won't be disappointed. Especially if your crt has developed issues and degraded.
 
The viewing angle is specific to the type of panel. TN panels are cheap, but have limited viewing angles. IPS panels have great viewing angles, and other benefits, but are expensive. I personally use a 24" Dell UltraSharp - which is fantastic!

CRT is very bad for your eyes - this alone should be motivation for you to stop using decade-old technology.

You said you would want a 24 inch, and you're generally correct that your 8800GT won't fare so well in newer games at higher qualities, but it's not black and white - I was running Eve on this 24 inch at reasonable quality with a 7900GT. Your screen will long outlive your GPU.

I would question why you need viewing angle. One reason I went for the IPS panel is because I watch films on it from accross the room - if you're only running 1280x1024 I doubt you're doing this! You probably don't need to be thinking about viewing angles.

If I was you, I would get a 24 inch TN panel, go for 16:9 because it's good for full HD and cheaper than 16:10 and a little less taxing on the GPU. As it happens, there's a decent one on offer right now:
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-124-SA&groupid=17&catid=510&subcat=
 
billysielu said:
CRT is very bad for your eyes - this alone should be motivation for you to stop using decade-old technology.
Click to expand...

This is only true at low refresh rates, 100Hz up the refresh rate is undetectable and doesn't lead to eye strain. Case in point, many years ago when I had a crap crt I would get bad headaches after 1-2 hours. With the 21" crt at 100+Hz that I mentioned in my previous post I could use for 10 hours and have no headache.
 
Vinni3 @H|H said:
I've always wondered - do they still make decent CRTs for computing use?
Click to expand...

definitely not

the only ones you can really get a hold of nowadays are Sony FW900's which are amazing screens but you can only find them in very small numbers and cost about £400
 
jimbob27 said:
I'm pretty sure the 60hz 42" lcd I'm currently using is a lot worse.

It just looks so good.... I put up with the headaches ;)
Click to expand...
doubt it because LCD displays dont update the same way as CRT do.

get a video camera/phone camera and aim it at a crt monitor, then do the same thing to an LCD.

the CRT will has flickering because the actual screen is refreshing XXX times persecond for 60hz the screen flashs 60 times and this is why people got head aches on poor quality CRT's you need atleast 85hz for the picture to apear solid.

on LCD's the screen isnt flashing so in a sense its probably better for your eyes but still about as good for you as starring at a 24inch spot on the wall
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom