CRT dead? why?

Soldato
Joined
17 Aug 2003
Posts
20,158
Location
Woburn Sand Dunes
LCD's by design dont have perfect blacks. your kidding yourself if you think they do and yes, people can tell the difference between 60 and 100fps. I'm not not here to oppose anybody views in this thread but i wont see misinformation spread:)
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
33,397
Location
West Yorks
sorry but at this point its become apparent your a fanboy.

unless you sit staring at a black screen and think "mmm thats not black enough for me" then your not going notice the levels in general usage. Black levels on modern MVA and IPS based panels are that good that unless you go looking for them by staring at pure blank screens, you wouldnt tell the difference.

and as for 60fps being slow. absolute ****

people have been watching at TV at 45fps for donkeys and never complained it was jerky. a solid 60fps is no way discernable from a solid 75fps
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Aug 2003
Posts
20,158
Location
Woburn Sand Dunes
<edit, ill rephrase that>. I suggest you read a little more thoroughly next time. i have an lcd. my last 3 monitors have been lcds. I prefer lcd's, tell me how does that make me a fanboy? and when did i say 60fps is slow? take a step back and learn to read.

I'm not not here to oppose anybody views in this thread but i wont see misinformation spread

while i appreciate the pro's of using an lcd (which I have stated), i recognise the drawbacks also (which i have also stated). If you want to argue over which is better fine, do it. but get some facts straight on them. there's a reason why i watch films on a crt tv and not an lcd monitor, and its not just because my tv is bigger. hint - picture quality not limited to black levels.

people have been watching at TV at 45fps for donkeys and never complained it was jerky. a solid 60fps is no way discernable from a solid 75fps
that's because its interlaced (@25fps not 45). slight difference there, you should look it up.
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
7 Nov 2005
Posts
121
Location
California
MrLOL said:
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 ?

whats the point ? i run 1680 x 1050 the whole time, and never need to change it.


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.

Ive already tried various LCD's sitting right next to my CRTs (via Clone mode) so my opinions are based on those experiences, LCDs cant touch a good CRT in the black level department, im not talking how well they display black on a web page..im talking watching movies or playing dark games at night with the lights out in your room , lcd's display pitch black as a dark grey at best AND they crush black details (loss of detail on the bottom end of the grey scale). A Trinitron CRT has an average contrast ratio of 10,000:1 ,LCDs arent anywhere near that and I dont see it happening anytime soon.

You may think you dont have any input lag but all lcd's have some form of delay although it can be pretty minimal depending on the model (this article has more info on input lag).

I like running without Vsync not only for the higher framerate but the increased performance , Vsync is known to cause framerate drops that would NOT occur with it disabled ,the only time vsync doesnt effect framerate is when the game supports Triple Buffering , unfortunately a lot of games dont support it because it causes an added input delay due to extra frames being post processed. Also because of the way LCDs refresh the screen you simply cant disable Vsync without it looking horrid ..when I compared CRT & LCD with *both* at 60hz the screen tearing was noticeably worse on the LCD. 100hz refresh with vsync disabled looks great on my CRT.

I like running 1920x1200 desktop res but when it comes to gaming I like being able to choose my resolution, some games ill run at 1280x800 and others 1600x1024 or even 2304x1440, it just depends on the game and every res looks great.

I also hate the rough matte screen surface most LCDs use, they use it to reduce glare but it causes a 'gritty' or 'grainy' look to images which was very obvious with a CRT sitting next to it ,If I were to buy an LCD it would have to be something like the NEC 20WGX which uses the smooth 'glossy' screen.

I keep up on LCD models because I know this CRT isnt going to last forever (its currently 5 years old but still looks fantastic) , So far im not impressed with any LCDs on the market but If I had to choose right now I'd go with the NEC 20WGX.
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
15 Jul 2006
Posts
1,932
Location
1.96 to OcUK on foot
thanks for this thread... i've got an iiyama hm903dtb... (18') and was looking to change to the nec20wgx2 at £370 however i'm now torn. i run my current monitor at 100hz (mainly because anything lower appears to flicker) i know i wouldn't have that problem with an LCD. i do run at high rez in my games... (1600x1200) halflife, f.e.a.r and farcry most of all and now i don't think i'm going to see much difference (not counting size and widescreen)...... now you've all kind of put me off... what to do? anyone with any advice?
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
33,397
Location
West Yorks
ca9phoenix said:
thanks for this thread... i've got an iiyama hm903dtb... (18') and was looking to change to the nec20wgx2 at £370 however i'm now torn. i run my current monitor at 100hz (mainly because anything lower appears to flicker) i know i wouldn't have that problem with an LCD. i do run at high rez in my games... (1600x1200) halflife, f.e.a.r and farcry most of all and now i don't think i'm going to see much difference (not counting size and widescreen)...... now you've all kind of put me off... what to do? anyone with any advice?

if you've got a good quality CRT you wont see much visual difference no

its just you'll get your desk back :D
 
Suspended
Joined
17 Mar 2006
Posts
9,055
LCD cannot reproduce a true black- DLP is much better but it's still not perfect as it has other issues (rainbows and some light bleed around a shut off pixel) CRT wins hands down for that. You might say big deal only black, but as other person said a lack of true black crushes detail, the difference between lightest and whitest is far greater on a CRT.

For Windows this doesn't matter at all, in my case I do prefer LCD here, but play Doom 3 and Fear on a CRT and LCD and see what you think. For video CRT wins easily.
 
Soldato
Joined
19 May 2005
Posts
5,053
Location
Doncaster
Anyone who thinks a TFT can produce real black is kidding themselves. I've got a modern IPS panel (Dell 2007WFP) and it's nowhere near true black. On a casual viewing it may look like black, but do this simple test to see how far off it really is-

-wait till it's dark (11pm), turn off the lights so you're in a dark room, set your screen to display an entirely black screen - and now look at your screen. Horrible isn't it.

And before anyone says that's an unreasonable test, plenty of people like to watch movies or play games in a dark room, it gives you a better atmosphere.

Having said all that, for the other reasons already mentioned here (power consumption, desk space, CRTs being bad for your eyes etc) I wouldn't swap my Dell 2007WFP for my old Viewsonic CRT now.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
33,397
Location
West Yorks
fish99 said:
Anyone who thinks a TFT can produce real black is kidding themselves. I've got a modern IPS panel (Dell 2007WFP) and it's nowhere near true black. On a casual viewing it may look like black, but do this simple test to see how far off it really is-

-wait till it's dark (11pm), turn off the lights so you're in a dark room, set your screen to display an entirely black screen - and now look at your screen. Horrible isn't it.

And before anyone says that's an unreasonable test, plenty of people like to watch movies or play games in a dark room, it gives you a better atmosphere.

Having said all that, for the other reasons already mentioned here (power consumption, desk space, CRTs being bad for your eyes etc) I wouldn't swap my Dell 2007WFP for my old Viewsonic CRT now.

thanks for that

you've just prooved my point.

you only notice it if you go looking for it.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Aug 2003
Posts
20,158
Location
Woburn Sand Dunes
no, thats something which exemplifies the problem. the fact is, because of the black problems you loose a lot of detail in dark scenes on a tft. It's that way by design and even people with the best tft's around will openly admit that, so what makes you think you know better than they do? they arent as good - fact.
 
Suspended
Joined
17 Mar 2006
Posts
9,055
MrLOL said:
thanks for that

you've just prooved my point.

you only notice it if you go looking for it.


You don't understand the principle of how a black is a reference and how greyscale is related to it. LCD cannot reproduce true black so all other colours will be off. This is important for video colour reproduction. LCD always seem "off" no matter how you adjust it, just can't get it right. I've owned CRT RP and FP's and they look FAB, when setup right.

I own a LCD TFT, it's great but it's not as good as CRT in some areas CRT isn't perfect either, neither is Plasma or DLP.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
15 Jan 2006
Posts
32,405
Location
Tosche Station
I must say you can only really get the CRT experience if you own one that has a properly flat screen. I remember my CTX one, it was cheap but it was so damn clear and gorgeous. it got rained on (DAMN ROOF) and has since been rather borked :(
 
Soldato
Joined
19 May 2005
Posts
5,053
Location
Doncaster
MrLOL said:
thanks for that

you've just prooved my point.

you only notice it if you go looking for it.

How is that 'going looking for it' ? You're saying I'm not allowed to play dark games or watch a movie with the lights out? It's a perfectly normal use for a computer monitor. I don't even need the lights out to see the lack of detail in dark areas. Even in a well lit room, if you fill the whole screen with black and compare to something that's really black, the difference is shocking.

Try playing something like Doom 3 on a TFT (light or dark room) and you have to turn the brightness up to get any detail from dark areas, and it totally kills the atmosphere. Turn the brightness back down, you lose a lot of detail in dark areas and the blacks don't even get any darker. It's like the bottom 5% of colours are just missing.

I've seen black depth quoted for all the best MVA and PVA panel TFTs and the best was 0.26 cd/m2, whereas a good CRT will display a black depth of 0.07 cd/m2, four times darker.
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Jun 2004
Posts
2,786
I'd like a nice thin flat monitor, but, apart from space saving, i've yet to see one in the flesh which i'm impressed enough with to buy.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
19 Oct 2002
Posts
29,533
Location
Surrey
I love that FW900. I almost bought one many years ago but opted for the standard 21" version instead (F520). Sadly it's consigned to storage right now because I'm short of desktop space. But for gaming and movies it was superb.

I think a cheap TFT will beat a cheap CRT. But an expensive CRT like the top end FW900 is very hard to match for gaming, video and colour reproduction.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2003
Posts
2,939
Location
Cardiff
Wouldn't swap my Eizo 24" TFT for any CRT - and I came from a Sony W900.

Of course, that is just my personal opinion. :D

I will concede that watching movies in the dark is where the CRT wins out in a really obvious manner, but for everything else, sorry, I wouldn't give my TFT up.
 
Associate
Joined
7 Nov 2005
Posts
121
Location
California
BubbySoup said:
Wouldn't swap my Eizo 24" TFT for any CRT - and I came from a Sony W900.

Of course, that is just my personal opinion. :D

I will concede that watching movies in the dark is where the CRT wins out in a really obvious manner, but for everything else, sorry, I wouldn't give my TFT up.

If you really meant W900 then I would understand why , The W900 was inferior to the newer FW900 model. also the FW900 is extremely tweakable if you buy the Sony service cable & download sony's windas software, it lets you tweak the monitors firmware settings , You can adjust the focus to perfection and it has a 128 point Convergence adjustment that allows for literally perfect convergence corner to corner.
 
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Joined
25 Oct 2002
Posts
31,754
Location
Hampshire
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.

It isn't much of a problem for a lot of everyday users who want to have a nice monitor just sat on their desk all day everyday - it's a little unfair to brand the size/weight as a big con for CRT when that only matters in some circumstances (e.g. office). Don't get me wrong, in an ideal world CRTs would be lighter (I recently bought an LCD TV, in part due to the weight issue) but when it comes to gaming I'm not prepared to sacrifice on quality.

To the OP, check out the Samsung 1100MB, 21", 130kHz, 0.20dp which costs around £279inc.
 
Back
Top Bottom