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

Anyhow Im on my Mitsubishi 22" CRT till new TECH arrives, I was never happy with any TFT LCD's, in my Sharp 46" 1080p TV.

Would not mind a gander at these 24" widescreen Sony CRT's I had never heard of till this forum. :)
 
helmutcheese said:
" 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 :)
Click to expand...

What you quoted just confirmed what I said. Anything directly using ac power will power on and off 100x a second.
 
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.
Click to expand...

The Hertz is cycles per second. In angular AC power its

0> 90 > 0 (180) > -90 (270)> 0 (360)

Two maximum points of power/amplitude per cycle. Or 100 pulses per second @ 50Hz.

1.3.4.gif
 
Last edited:
wow been away a few days been eager to see replies!!


azzerz said:
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)
Click to expand...

I find this all very very true. The smoothness is unbelievable compared to any lcd and this is essential for first person shooters. I do feel that if anybody who plays fps games fairly seriously insists their lcd is comparable to a CRT for this type of game then its more ignorance than anything else. However i can understand that 95% + of gamers are so casual now that to them it'd make very little difference.
 
C64 said:
My eyes don't hurt at 75hz 1600-1200 i guess i am just used to it.
Click to expand...

I'd disagree with that though. I can understand the blacks are better etc etc but i'd overall prefer a sammy 226bw @ 1680x1050 than a CRT @ 1600x1200 @ 75hz for most gaming as it'd feel smoother. 75hz must be horrible! Mine does 85hz (at 1600x1200) and that does my head in too. I find 100hz on a CRT is just about bearable but any less, argh :)

Personally, like a few others have said in here I find its only when you get into mega high hz that CRT's are fantastic like 800x600@150hz or 1024x768 or in some cases 1600x1200 @ 120hz, how i'd love to try one of them CRT's :D I know a few of you on this forum have them.

Its a shame that on the vast majority of CRT's the unfortunate trade off is having to really lower the res to get into them super-duper high hz!
 
Still most are higher than LCD's HZ and you get capped with V-Sync on at that FPS and if you turn off you may see tearing (something I have never seen on any CRT I have owned)
 
LCD all the way for me. Since I got my first Dell 17" TFT a few years ago I haven't looked back, CRT monitors are so bulky, require high refresh rates to avoid eyestrain and invariably suffer from colour fade over the years.

I can't believe people are gaming at 800x600 on 21" screens just to get high Hz :confused: That must make your gaming experience look terrible.
 
Mattus said:
LCD all the way for me. Since I got my first Dell 17" TFT a few years ago I haven't looked back, CRT monitors are so bulky, require high refresh rates to avoid eyestrain and invariably suffer from colour fade over the years.

I can't believe people are gaming at 800x600 on 21" screens just to get high Hz :confused: That must make your gaming experience look terrible.
Click to expand...

Well LCD is still less eyestrain than CRT regardless of hz, lcd wins hands down surely for everybody in this respect?

I think the sort of people who still game @ 800x600@120hz etc are playing select games such as fast paced first person shooters, especially older ones with rubbish graphics on any resolution!

Its really interesting to get all different peoples pov's on this.
 
i've just moved from a 17" CRT (mitsubishi 750sb) to a Dell 2407 and i must say, i agree with many who have posted here. I'm a pretty heavy CSS player.

For everything bar games they are a massive step up, but for games like CSS they are going to be a huge disappointment to serious players of first person shooters.

If you play CSS and think it's absolutely fine on a TFT, i guarantee that you would be a better player if you went to a decent 21" CRT with a high refresh rate.

I'm sure the TN film screens will perform better than the Dell, but what really annoys me is the 60hz refresh more than anything.
 
When i got my first lcd i seriously thought it was faulty due to the fact that i simply couldnt calibrate brightness in the same way i did with my crt.

Things havent got THAT much better but its slowly getting there and over time my eyes and brain have adjusted to accept that washed out gray as black so i live with lcd's for the obvious benefits.

And they are truly benefits, no messed up geometry, far less eye strain, vibrant colours, extra desk space, low power consumption, no high pitched whistle in the back of your head and no radiation.

The list goes on really :)


WD
 
I've never had a LCD, but i've had my Iiyama 19" CRT since it was released. Beautiful picture, it's just so big though. I'd love a 24" LCD as I do a lot of photo and video editing. However the games on my 19" are superb, I run at 1280x1024 85hz and they look real good.
 
WDeranged said:
And they are truly benefits, no messed up geometry, far less eye strain, vibrant colours, extra desk space, low power consumption, no high pitched whistle in the back of your head and no radiation.

The list goes on really :)
Click to expand...

Shame the list is incorrect. It's well known that crts have better colour than lcds. And only the cheapo monitors may whine so that's not an issue either. Power consumption is barely different. And the geometry isn't messed up either unless you have your screen set up wrong.
 
The trouble with CRTs is they don't last. I ran mine at 1280*960 100hz for 2 years, and the picture quality has really died on it now. The clarity is gone unless I set it at 60hz.

I agree that the CRTs give a better picture quality overall, but I love the sharpness and clarity of LCD's.

On the subject of eyestrain, I've been a PC gamer since 1992. I stared at a CRT screen for 4 years of college IT, and another 4 in the workplace. I can tell you for a fact that it did my eyes no good at all. I was beginning to suffer from headaches and loss of concentration. I haven't had this problem since I moved to LCD's at home and at work.
 
LCD > CRT. End of! ;)



Only joking. :)

It's clear that both have their own plus points, just like they both have their own drawbacks.

Quite simply, for most people, the benefits of LCD (smaller size, lower power consumption, no eye strain) outway the benefits of CRT (blacker blacks, faster response).

I never really see the point in debates like these, because the market tends to be driven by the majority, whereas the 'entusiasts' who debate the relatively subtle differences, tend to make up a tiny minority of buyers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom