can any tft rival a crt?

after reading that review ill go with the LG, unless something comes along withing nxt 2 weeks, doubt it, im guess oc ones are firmware revision 1.14 or higher yer???
 
Duel said:
Can't believe the LCD V CRT debate is still going on...

Surely LCDs made an undeniable usurpation sometime ago, even on cheaper models.
Click to expand...
Only in numbers sold, and that's mainly due to desk space and generally cool factor. If you're talking PQ then both LCD and CRT have their strengths and weaknesses.

There's quite a list of areas where LCDs are inferior - speed, lag, black depth, near black detail, non-native resolutions, contrast, movie playback, viewing angles, refresh rates ... and there's probably a few I've missed too.

There's also a substantial list of areas where LCD is ahead - sharpness, geometry, desk footprint, power consumption, eye strain, brightness, cool factor etc.
 
I'm a die hard CRT fan, been using the same 17" monitor since 1998 :) Actually was on [an auction site] looking at Lacie 22" CRTs earlier, they are tempting. The reason why I love CRT is coz I like playing first person shooter games and the like and no LCD has the same level of non-ghosting. I'm sure LCDs beat CRTs at everything else though.
 
As far as i am concerned the only thing any lcd is better than crt @
is power consumption I've no idea how you all put up with these things.
Lets hope the new thin panel crt makes an appearance sometime soon.
 
fish99 said:
Only in numbers sold, and that's mainly due to desk space and generally cool factor. If you're talking PQ then both LCD and CRT have their strengths and weaknesses.

There's quite a list of areas where LCDs are inferior - speed, lag, black depth, near black detail, non-native resolutions, contrast, movie playback, viewing angles, refresh rates ... and there's probably a few I've missed too.

There's also a substantial list of areas where LCD is ahead - sharpness, geometry, desk footprint, power consumption, eye strain, brightness, cool factor etc.
Click to expand...

Do any new LCDs (excluding lowest end crap possibly) suffer from lag and speed issues anymore? I'm yet to have a panel with those issues since switching to LCD four years ago. And the technology has improved so much since then...

LCDs have also surpassed in movie playback (HD and good scalers), you can 100Hz+ LCDs and if you get a good screen then contrast should not ne an issue. Viewing angle problems are also a thing of the past on a good set. Black depth however does seem to be problematic for some people, unless you buy a very good quality screen. Some of these points may be valid if you buy a cheap/poor quality monitor but even then it's hard to see how these disadvantages could prompt a purchase of a CRT.

IMO ;)
 
C64 said:
As far as i am concerned the only thing any lcd is better than crt @
is power consumption I've no idea how you all put up with these things.
Lets hope the new thin panel crt makes an appearance sometime soon.
Click to expand...
Um, how about geometry, eye-strain, physical footprint? 3 other things you pretty much cannot argue with vs CRT.
 
Duel said:
Do any new LCDs (excluding lowest end crap possibly) suffer from lag and speed issues anymore? I'm yet to have a panel with those issues since switching to LCD four years ago. And the technology has improved so much since then...

LCDs have also surpassed in movie playback (HD and good scalers), you can 100Hz+ LCDs and if you get a good screen then contrast should not ne an issue. Viewing angle problems are also a thing of the past on a good set. Black depth however does seem to be problematic for some people, unless you buy a very good quality screen. Some of these points may be valid if you buy a cheap/poor quality monitor but even then it's hard to see how these disadvantages could prompt a purchase of a CRT.
Click to expand...
I never said anyone should buy a CRT, I'm using an LCD myself, I'm just being honest about their weaknesses.

The quickest LCD still isn't as quick as a CRT. BeHardware took photos of moving objects on a range of screens and even the quickest 2 ms TFT (VX922) was producing a ghost image, whereas the CRT was ghost free. They also did an article looking at lag, and again every TFT tested including the VX922 had more lag than the CRT they tested.

Static contrast ratio for most LCD PC monitors is lower than that of a CRT. Don't get fooled by manufacturers quoting 'dynamic' contrast ratio these days (where the white and black measurement aren't took at the same time), that's just a trick to boost sales. It's achieved by analysing the screen contents in realtime and diming the backlight and upping the voltage to the LCD panel when a dark scene is being shown, and most people switch it off because it looks unpleasant.

My Dell 2007WFP has some of the best viewing angles you'll find on an LCD but they still don't compare with a CRT at wide angles, especially vertically. Movie playback, well you just have to read this forum for a few months and see the number of posts from people complaining about movie playback on TFT monitors, including some of the best screens like the Dell 2407WFP and 2007WFP. I've got the 2007WFP myself and I find movie playback pretty poor. It's partly due to LCDs being very sharp and showing up the compression and low resolution on DVDs, combined with the short viewing distance PC monitors are used at, but nevertheless CRT for was far more forgiving under the same conditions.

Black depth, if you're gaming or watching a movie in a dark room, no LCD PC monitor gets near a CRT black level. The best black depth you'll see on an LCD under those conditions is about 4 times brighter than on a CRT (based on BeHardware article). There are technologies on the way to improve the situation (like LED backlighting) but they haven't found their way into LCD PC monitors yet. LCD monitors (the ones without glass screens) have a better black depth in a well lit room though due to the shiny CRT glass screen being far more reflective.

It would be wrong to assume LCD must have surpassed CRT in every area just through the passing of the years. It's a technology with some fundamental weaknesses. They are getting closer but it hasn't happened yet. However, having said all that I wouldn't switch back to CRT. Here's those articles-

http://www.behardware.com/articles/632-1/lcds-images-delayed-compared-to-crts-yes.html
http://www.behardware.com/articles/511-1/screen-comparative-test-crt-vs-lcd.html
 
I didn't say that LCD has surpassed CRT in every area, just that if you weigh up the pros and cons, LCD is a clear winner. Sure, there will be the odd exception who prefers CRT. There are exceptions of this kind in every debate, but for the vast majority that debate is over.

When you get to things like the quickest LCD versus the quickest CRT, who cares? They can be measured in a lab but who can actually notice a difference with their own eyes?

As for movie playback, yes some like the Dell 2407WFP are very poor for movie playback. But they are exceptions rather than a rule, for instance if you bought any HDTV new now (including budget sets), you would be unlucky to notice any ghosting at all. I'm viewing right now on my Mirai 32" and there's never any ghosting. And this was a £300~ TV.
 
I was just answering your specific questions about the strengths and weaknesses of the two technologies. I never once said CRT is superior overall. Like I said I'm using LCDs myself.

You need to read your posts again - you did ask if any of them suffer speeds issues or lag, you commented that viewing angle problems are a thing of the past, you said black depth is now fine on quality LCDs and you said movie playback is superior on LCD. So I answered those points/questions.

And since you've suggested these things can only be differentiated in a lab, I should say that I can easily see the ghosting on my LCDTV (32LC2D) and my 2007WFP. I can also perceive the lag on both of them when gaming. I can see how poor the black depth is (despite both being quality IPS panels). I can see the viewing angles are far from perfect. And finally I can also see that movie playback is substandard on both screens.

I'm not the only one who can see these things either. There has been many many threads here about all of the above issues.
 
You need to read your posts again - you did ask if any of them suffer speeds issues or lag, you commented that viewing angle problems are a thing of the past, you said black depth is now fine on quality LCDs and you said movie playback is superior on LCD. So I answered those points/questions.
Click to expand...

It was a rhetorical question. If you look before you leap when purchasing a monitor you shouldn't get speed/lag issues imo. Same for viewing angles - research what you buy and you won't have issues (works for me). I said black depth IS actually a problem for a number of people. With regards to movie playback I was implying that the top-end LCDs surpass CRT (with specs such as 100Hz). But I would also say they are closely matched at lower levels too.

I don't know why I'm arguing with you about this though, the reason I made the first post was because I think the argument is now out-of-date (though was once a strong one). I don't give a monkeys if someone prefers LCD, plasma, CRT or w/e. But in my mind it's no contest between CRT and LCD for an all-round choice. I've stated my views, agree or not is up to you. :D
 
Last edited:
Again you're bringing it down to a debate over whether LCD is better than CRT overall, something I've never once commented on. Like I've said several times now, I've recently switched from CRT to LCD for both my PC monitor and TV and wouldn't switch back.

And your rhetorical question clearly implied that speed and lag aren't problems any more, and I've posted my personal experiences that I think they are, and provided links to an article that backs up that point of view. Also the quickest screens are all TN and do not have acceptable viewing angles. The quality panels (IPS/PVA/MVA) with the best viewing angles are slower and have more lag, and again I posted a link to an article which backs that up.

I don't see why some people get so touchy though when there's an honest debate about the strengths and weaknesses of LCD technology. Surely it's better to have an open and honest debate about it? If people buy them knowing their weaknesses they're far more likely to be satisfied with their purchase.
 
The title of the topic is "can any tft rival a crt". That's what my initial response was related to and is what I have expanded my argument upon.

I've already explained my question - research a little before you buy and you won't have those problems. For me it's as simple as that. I don't care who says what about viewing angles. This may sound ignorant but if you are buying a screen where angles are important (like for a living room TV) then again research and you can get an LCD that handles them fine. I got one cheap that does the job great, no reasons why anyone else can't. Arguments against what I'm saying stand if you are the kind of person who buys without looking into exactly what you are purchasing. People like that will not get into this kind of debate, so it's irrelevant.

Sorry if I seemed like I'm getting touchy, I just didn't want to get into a debate on this subject. I don't see the point, think it's a waste of time and don't care if people agree with me or not. My first post was a response of surprise, I certainly didn't intend to spark off this discussion.
 
black levels arent good enough on lcd's
responce times are *in my opinion*
viewing angles have never been a problem for me - you sit infront of it, not to the side
colour reproduction is good enough *on a top end panel*.
power usage isnt as low as peopel seem to think. a 22" will happily eat away 50w. my 40" sony using 185w, more than the majority of large crts out there.

you can say black levels are good enough - you're entitled to an opinion after all. but you've either forgotten how good crt's are or havent seen a plasma in action, one of the two. blacks arent good enough on my sony 40w2000: im sorry but i have to laugh when people try and tell me their 22/24" dell is more than good enough. It isnt, end of.
 
You shouldn't write off LCDs completely.

New 92% gamut versions of the fast TN panels are beginning to appear such as the Samsung 226CW. They should have a subjectively better image quality than older models like the 226bw, although the limited viewing angles remain an issue.

The same applies with models such as the Dell 2407wfp-hc/3007wfp-hc. The image quality will be better than the Benq you tried, although ghosting/blurring issues will remain a problem.

You could be a bit of a guinea pig and try out Samsungs XL20 which employs LED backlighting. It gets a pretty thorough review here.

I myself was a worried CRT user, yet having tried a 2ms TN panel, I find gaming and general use to subjectively be every bit as good as what I was used to. Admittedly I don't do any work with photos, but the image quality is also good in my eyes.
 
james.miller said:
black levels arent good enough on lcd's
responce times are *in my opinion*
viewing angles have never been a problem for me - you sit infront of it, not to the side
colour reproduction is good enough *on a top end panel*.
power usage isnt as low as peopel seem to think. a 22" will happily eat away 50w. my 40" sony using 185w, more than the majority of large crts out there.

you can say black levels are good enough - you're entitled to an opinion after all. but you've either forgotten how good crt's are or havent seen a plasma in action, one of the two. blacks arent good enough on my sony 40w2000: im sorry but i have to laugh when people try and tell me their 22/24" dell is more than good enough. It isnt, end of.
Click to expand...

Can you post these many many threads? your view is the first I have ever seen saying that about an IPS panel because quite frankly at 178 degrees h/v it's pretty much almost 90 degree from any angle unlike the 160~ on a TN/MVA so unless you're using your TFT at a 90 degree angle I fail to see how you can spot the poor viewing angles on the Dell at all.
 
Duel said:
I've already explained my question - research a little before you buy and you won't have those problems.
Click to expand...
Research won't escape the fact that TN panels have poor viewing angles, and panels which aren't TN are slower and have more lag. You can't get both in one screen currently.

Also there's a difference between saying response time, lag, viewing angles etc are 'good enough' and saying they are as good as on a CRT. I agree they are good enough, I don't find the blurring on my 2007WFP a big problem, or the bit of lag it has, or the viewing angles. They are there but they don't bother me. However I would never claim it can rival a CRT in those areas, it just can't.

Black depth is another matter though, that's definitely not up to scratch on any LCD I've seen, including 2 high quality S-IPS and 2 high quality PVA panels. What you actually said about black depth is that it's poor except on good quality screens. I'm saying it's poor on all LCDs since I've used 4 good quality screens.

It's a debate worth having in the context of the new screen technologies on the way like OLED, SED and FED, which claim to do deep black, better than CRT response time and near CRT viewing angles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom