CRT dead? why?

I realize this won't be of interest to many people, but there is something that you can do about black depth on a TFT. You can block some of the light coming out with some sort of filter. I've just bought some car window tinting film. It's the light smoked variety, so it blocks about 30% of light.

When you're playing that game that needs a dark black colour in a dark room, just blu-tac some of the film over your screen. It works a treat as well. Of course it darkens the whole screen by the same amount, but TFTs are pretty bright to start with, so the overall effect is similar to the sort of picture you would have on a CRT.

There's only a handful of games I would use it for - Thief, Thief 2, maybe Fear, Prey and Doom 3, games that either have lots of black shadows or have lots of low light environments. And it's only useable in a dark room since it's shiny. Cost me about £6 for a 6m * 0.5m roll.
 
Usual Suspect said:
??

You can tell when someone is trying to justify there TFT they have bought..

"CRT cons- big, heavy. Focus and geometry/convergence problems. Screenburn is a possibility, although unless you leave it on for days at a time you'll be ok."

Big heavy - yes and yes.. (but then they just sit on my desk, so this is by no means a problem)

focus and geo problems.. no unless u buy a stinker. Screenburn?? u serious put screen burn down on a CRT cons? You need to leave it on the same screen for months and months. And then youd have to have ** screen saver off. If u left a CRT, TFT LCD on all together and left them side by side.. which would die first?

CRT's are big and heavy... but are better qualitly in all areas as a monitor. Thats why there is 2 types of slim lines.. TFT and LCD.. they both claim a bit of each side of the CRT's performance.. but not all areas. If u play FPS games on a TFT with a uber PC.. then u are wasting money in my eyes.
Click to expand...


Big and heavy isn't a problem? Have you moved 21" and 22" CRT monitors all day? I can pickup a 32" TFT easily and put it in the box. Can't say the same for 22" monitors. This is coming from a IT technican who's worked with CAD operators. Move 22" CRT's from office to office day and day and report back.

CRT TV/PC monitors will never have perfect focus, if you know anything about CRT's you know that it requires proper optical and electrical focus. I've worked with CRT front and rear projectors, the technology and idea is the same. At least with those you can adjust it easily (eletrical drive and lens focus) with a TV (which usually have lousy geometry and convergence) you can't fix them yourself. Hard to get a monitor with perfect convergence too, and takes hours on a RP/FP projector.

To state that CRT is better in all areas is foolish, yes it does things better, but not everything. Can you fit dual CRT 20" widescreen monitor setup in a kids room (most single people will use smallest room for a PC study) I've owned both CRT and LCD, monitors, TV's and rear projectors, moved away from CRT towards TFT. IF CRT can do things that I want then I would consider them again. Can you buy a widescreen 20" CRT PC monitor for £300?

Yes for video CRT wins hands down, IF you get a perfect TV set or you can adjust it yourself/get an install (front projector/rear projector only) I would LIKE to have a 3" deep CRT 37" 1080P display, but that's not possible. LCD screens are out that match that requirement.

I understand your point about fps on a TFT, there is a slight bit of image lag on my TFT, but it's not that bad. In fact I only see it in FEAR and no other games, and I've played all other FPS's, spot no lag at all.

If I had the space I would have two, a TFT for windows/GUI/text (they are far easier on the eyes than CRT) and a nice widescreen CRT monitor for games, if you can pick them up.

Clearly you're in the pro-CRT area and don't want to hear conflicting opinions from people who have switched. :rolleyes:

If I were to make a choice again, I would choose flatscreen. I had a couple of nice CRT PC monitors in my time but they weren't perfect, even at 100hz still cause eyestrain, and the TFT is much more clearer. Although with CRT you don't need AA, so that helps with performance.
 
squiffy said:
Big and heavy isn't a problem? Have you moved 21" and 22" CRT monitors all day? I can pickup a 32" TFT easily and put it in the box. Can't say the same for 22" monitors. This is coming from a IT technican who's worked with CAD operators. Move 22" CRT's from office to office day and day and report back.
Click to expand...

Heavy isn't a problem if your a normal user who has their monitor on a desk and doesn't carry it around with them when using their pc.


Anyway it's not too long before sed which will replace lcds and crts anyway, so yes you will be able to have a 3" deep crt display at 1080p soon enough. :p
 
squiffy said:
LCD pros- slim, light, large sizes available, cheap, perfect focus and geometry. Less strain on the eyes.

LCD cons- dead/lit pixels or sub-pixels, poor black levels, off-axis brightness polarization. Not fantastic colour reproduction.
Click to expand...


allthough i agree with most of your post, you dont allways get dead or stuck pixels. I own an LCD tv, 3 LCD computer monitors and havent had a dead pixel on any of them, all from different brands. It does happen, but i wouldnt class it as a downside as so many people dont have them. As for black levels. the latest generation of S-IPS and S-PVA panels have amazing black reproduction. I will agree however, that TN film based panels dont have very good black levels and who sits at a computer desk at an angle ? nearly 90% of computer users will use their monitor face on, so viewing angles arent really an issue, unless your viewing an LCD telly in the front room, where it usually will be an issue.
 
MrLOL said:
[ picture of taxan crt]

side by side comparison of my dads CRT and my 20" Widescreen NEC TFT

i know which id rather have ...
Click to expand...

taxan's are crap, im not surprised. tft's are still a way off reproducing the speed and colour accuracy of a decent CRT, but the benefits of an LCD far outweight the cons - the weight,space and energy savings and style make them a more attractive buy, and the picture quality is improviing all the time:)
 
ste_bla said:
TFT's give me a head ache

CRT's dont, movies look better on them and they heat up your room for you!!
Click to expand...

i find the opposite happens to me, the flickering of the crt's give me a headache through prolonged use, whereas an lcd is a joy to use even for extended hours
 
james.miller said:
, and the picture quality is improviing all the time:)
Click to expand...

I have to say this is the problem i have.
My monitor is for viewing the excellent graphics my gaming system puts out not to look good to visitors to the house as an ornament.
It Never moves anywhere so size/weight are not an issue.
I really cannot understand compromising on picture quality just to save a bit of space or to look good cosmetically.
On top of this you pay three times as much for as you put it a picture that is improving all the time :confused:
I want the best pic quality Now which i have.
 
I move a lot, so I need TFT's for the ease of transport, plus my TFT does everything fine and much better than any (Cheap!) CRT I've had in the past :)
 
^^ Now that makes sense to me and i agree cheap CRT's are a headache and crap.
I had your standard CRT when i switched to the Mitsu Diamond Pro 930SB the difference is like chalk and cheese. One being weak coloured and kind of fuzzy this one being crystal and as sharp as a knife. Vibrant is a word that springs to mind when thinking about the colour it gives out, i love it.

On a complete swerve off i have to say the HDTV i saw in a local shop window playing PSE6 was Amazing. Now i would do many unsavoury things to own one of those. :p
 
Ive yet to see any LCDs that can match the performance of my 24" (16:10 aspect) perfectly flat Sony FW900 CRT, text looks great on it at 1920x1200 desktop resolution and I get all of the benefits of a CRT: No viewing angle worries, wide variety of resolutions without any loss of quality , superior black level details, higher refresh rates (which DOES matter when it comes to screen tearing without Vsync enabled), 0.5ms response time and no input lag issues ;)

IMG_0658.jpg


Xbox 360 via 1080P (camera caused the horizontal bar towards bottom):

FW900_360_1080p.jpg
 
BillytheImpaler said:
Do you have a small power station in your garden?
Click to expand...

The power savings on LCDs isnt much higher vs CRT for home users with 1 - 3 monitors , in fact if you do the research you'll see that a single LCD will save you about $10 per YEAR over a CRT, of course this would be beneficial in a large company with many monitors but for the average home user the savings is hardly worth bragging about.
 
apparently british gas charge me ~15p/kwh. your sony is rated at 170w operational consumption. assuming the monitor is used for 3 hours a day, that's 21 hours a week. (not an unreasonable assumption really)

21hours a week for a 170w appliance = 3.57kwh. BG would charge me 53.5p p/week to run your monitor. thats £27.8 a year.

a 24" 2405 dell uses 80watts:
21hours a week for a 80w appliance = 1.68kwh. BG would charge me 25.2p p/week to run your monitor. thats £13.1 a year.


im pretty sure that's right, anybody want to confirm that? Mathersar the question is how long do you really use that monitor for?
 
Im not sure if its the same with LCDs but CRTs dont use continuous power, for example when displaying a black background the power consumption drops, a pure white screen consumes more power , having the contrast cranked up higher consumer more power than having it set lower etc. ..so it varies depending on what your doing and the monitors settings (this is why CRTs with weak / failing power supplies shut themselves off when displaying a bright scene).

According to another FW900 user his monitor averages 100-110W usage during the day as shown by his UPS.

My monitor is on for most of the day , it gets shutdown (on average) at 11pm and is back on at 7am'ish.
 
Last edited:
170w is your monitors quoted consumption from sony, so im guessing its a trustable figure. anyway, you say ~18 hours a day. thats 126 hours per week.

126hours a week for a 170w appliance = 21.42kwh. BG would charge me £3.21 p/week to run your monitor. thats £167.06 a year.

a 24" 2405 dell uses 80watts:
126hours a week for a 80w appliance = 10.08kwh. BG would charge me £1.52p p/week to run that monitor. thats £78.62 a year.


thats a whole lot more than $10, even on one monitor. and if they aren't average power consumption figures then they are both *worst case*.
 
Last edited:
mathesar said:
I get all of the benefits of a CRT: No viewing angle worries,
Click to expand...

You wouldnt with an LCD either, you sit face on at a desk (like most computer users) so viewing angles arent an issue. Besides, have none of you lazy people considered that if your looking at the monitor from an angle then you could just turn it to face you so it was head on ?
mathesar said:
wide variety of resolutions without any loss of quality ,
Click to expand...
whats the point ? i run 1680 x 1050 the whole time, and never need to change it.
mathesar said:
superior black level details, higher refresh rates (which DOES matter when it comes to screen tearing without Vsync enabled), 0.5ms response time and no input lag issues ;)
Click to expand...

i also have no input lag issues, no screen tearing (your kidding yourself if you say you can tell the difference between 60fps and 100) and perfect blacks

Honestly,im no fan boy, i appreciate that CRTs are as good as LCDs. But i do wish people would stop ranting on about how much better CRTs are. They're about the same, except that in cheap LCDs the differences are worse. But then so are the differences in cheap CRTs as everybody points out. Only difference is LCDs do the same but with less heat production, and power/ desk space consumption.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom