Are CRTs bad?

Indeed. On an LCD monitor you are looking at a relatively low-intensity light source called a backlight that is passed through various filtering layers. The refresh rate of the light source has nothing to do with the rate at which the pixels are refreshed on the screen.
 
I miss my 19' Mitsubishi Diamond Pro CRT.

Best monitor i have ever owned, better colours,contrast,blacks than any LCD that i've used since 2006 when i switched to my Viewsonic LCD..:(

I absolutley DETEST this 'native resolution' crap with LCD's.....with my old CRT i could run any res from 512x348 to 1600x1200 and it the output was still pin sharp....

Doing the same thing with LCD's looks like someone has smeared vaseline over the screen...

Also CRT's are vastly superior for Emulators......

Come to think of it, worst mistake i've made with my PC setup, was switching to LCD...:mad:
 
It's not fair to compare an expensive crt to a cheap lcd. Decent modern LCDs rival or match the 'colours,contrast,blacks' of crts, if i had my two monitors in the same city I would take some pictures. A cheap monitor be it lcd or crt will have a lot of compromises and will obviously be lower quality than something high end. The same is true for native resolution, an expensive lcd will have a better image processor for more convincing up scaling, and the option to match the source ratio or even map the source pixel to pixel (e.g. if the source was 1600*1200 and the monitor was 1920*1200 320 horizontal pixels would be blank).

The one remaining advantage expensive crts have over expensive lcds is response time + input lag.
 
I do miss my old Dell CRT that was 21", 1600x1200 and weighted about 30kg!

I've spent a lot of money on graphics cards since getting a 24" TFT, but the quality when everything is maxed out is amazing.
 
CRT's may look amazing but you having to remember that any monitor that reflects a lot of light is bad, you will end up with bloodshot eyes and headaches don't do it, unless for skipping work or Halloween lol. If you have a CRT keep it above 85Hz. It should "reduce" the eye strain.
 
I've mentioned it before, but people should try Ag Neovo Glass Fronted TFT's. I've owned Iiyama diamondtron monitors in past, and these provide similar colour and contrast. This combined with precision of digital TFT. They totally blow away Dell TFT's I've used at work.

I'm running 4 x 19" of the above, I can work for hours without any eye strain. In games I never noticed any lag either.

Also with hard glass fronted TFT's you can wash the screen down with water, on normal monitors I'm totally fed up with greasy embedded figure marks from other people. These it's impossible to happen.
 
Dist said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you've got a CRT you can use pretty much any aspect ratio you want, whether that be 5:4, 4:3, 16:10, 16:9 or whatever. CRTs are inherently better than LCDs in that regard, there is no such thing as 'native resolution' so rather than just sticking to 1280x1024, if you want 4:3 you could switch to 1280x960 instead. If you want 16:10, then use 1280x800. If you want 16:9, use 1280x720 :)

You need to make sure your graphics driver supports those resolutions, but there are usually ways round it (powerstrip etc).

So essentially if you've got people telling you that aspect ratio is a reason why CRT is worse than LCD, they are severely misinformed, it's actually the other way round.
 
Surely though if the resolution set doesn't match with the actual phsyical dimensions of the CRT then won't the pixels be stretched? for example if I run 1280x720 instead of 1280x1024 then does that not mean that vertically 720 pixels have been stretched to fit the same space that 1024 pixels were previously being displayed into?
 
CRTs aren't especially bad for your eyes, looking at anything close for long periods is bad for your eyes, so that includes CRTs, LCDs, books etc. As for headaches, that's only if your run a CRT at 60Hz. 75 Hz and above, and definitely 85 Hz, you won't get headaches.

The main area CRTs are still unmatched is black depth. Anytime you see an LCD claim to have a contrast ratio over about 1500:1 it's a lie, a con, it's dynamic contrast and the screen is dimming its backlight when there's a lot of black on screen. The actual static contrast ratio measured on a single frame will be around 1000:1 at best. Even with such tricks LCD can't get close to the black levels a CRT can produce. The very best black depth I've seen on an LCD is still probably 4 times brighter than a CRT can produce.

Also viewing angles, I've owned 3 IPS panels now, and while they're infinitely superior to TN panels the viewing angles still do not compare to a CRT.

I've also yet to see an LCD that doesn't suffer pixel blur due to the pixel response time. Forget the headline pixel response time, again it's a con, even the quickest 1ms screens (which btw can't do any pixel transitions in 1ms, it's total BS) will be nowhere near that quick with some colour transitions and you'll get overdrive halos as well.

Ontop of all that you've a good chance of getting input lag, especially if it's a HDTV.

LCDs do have their benefits - they're very sharp, power consumption is low, they're very bright (debateable whether that's a good thing), they don't take up a lot of space etc - but CRTs have them beat in most aspects of picture quality.
 
Last edited:
Dist said:
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.
Click to expand...

Standard def is 16:9, only really old movies are 4:3. Since CRT's are 4:3 though you may want to use 1280x960 which is the correct aspect ratio to use.

Combat Fighter said:
CRT's bad for your eyes = shortsight
Click to expand...

There's no evidence to support that.
 
Last edited:
Cooper said:
I absolutley DETEST this 'native resolution' crap with LCD's.....with my old CRT i could run any res from 512x348 to 1600x1200 and it the output was still pin sharp....

Doing the same thing with LCD's looks like someone has smeared vaseline over the screen...:
Click to expand...

I still have a CRT for my Dreamcast. A TFT simply doesn't cut it!
 
i have a CRT for the only reason that it still works and it makes a great second screen.

i think its a cheapy any way things appear better on the flat panel.

also i over drive its refresh rate from 60hz to 70hz to stop it giving headaches.
 
For gaming I liked my CRT more then my current 26" iiyama...

But the trick with CRT's is, you need one with high hz.

Mine was doing 1600x1200 @ 100Hz or 1280x1024 @ 120Hz
If you game at those resolutions then it's great. You won't find many monitors with those specs

IBM P275
Dell P1130
Same crt tube...

Or the Sony FW900. The king of CRT's :D
 
CRT's are still vastly better for colour/movement etc. If I could get one at 26" for 1920*1200 I would have one.... but the price for a good one is mental.. and moving it would be a nightmare.. they are REALLY heavy :-(
 
I too was in this problem many years ago so I finally seattled on a samsung T240 red rose to be honest I don't miss the CRT, at least not in terms of picture, I did notice it flickered a lot and I had to start looking away for a second. ( I used to have a AOC 17inch only could mange 1024 at 60Hz which is perfectic) still got and it is still in working order, but I will never go back to CRT.. becasue they are too damm big I would hate to see a 24inch CRT :p

I do think the CRTs do have good viewing angles and colour...but than again my samsung does as well so I don't think I , losing much here
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom