are cathode ray tubes better than lcd displays???

[10*transistor*10]

hi,


i would be grateful if you could tell me what you think are generally better cathode ray tubes or lcd displays??

(i think crts are better by far.)






thank-you

 

[SMUGangsta]

LCD's are better than CRT's in certain applications, can you imagine carrying round your mobile phone with a 4" CRT in it - i dont fancy that much at all, I do however think that you can achieve better colours with a properly calibrated CRT than a calibrated LCD for computer applications.

If I had to choose which is better for the majority of uses it would be LCD, but CRTs do have a place (I personally dont like LCD Oscilloscopes)

 

[10*transistor*10]

yes i agree but i do think crts are better in televisions despite the fact thar the can only be 50" maximum.

p.s. where did you get your username from???

 

[3v0]

I prefer LCDs.


Lighter, no alignment, no brain frying rays
CRTs start degrading from the first tme you use them.
LCDs much less so.

 

[SMUGangsta]

p.s. where did you get your username from???

My mates gave me it, due to my fleet of BMW 750 Limos, but mostly the the black one with drugdealer window tint, and blingin' alloys

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

yes i agree but i do think crts are better in televisions despite the fact thar the can only be 50" maximum.

The blurred picture on CRT's (and to a lesser extent on Plasma) hide the defects in an SD picture better - they aren't 'better' at all, actually worse, so don't show the defects as much.

But even so, good LCD's (like Sony ones) invariably out perform the CRT (even expensive ones) they replace.

You really need to see an LCD on HD though to really see the difference, because the required upscaling of SD creates undesireable artifacts.

 

[transistor495]

For a desktop application good quality CRT's are better I prefer. harmful rays are the only problem. For mobile applications LCD's are must. CRT resolution cannot be achieved in LCD's guess the case of 3D or graphics applications which require accurate pixel view.

 

[HarveyH42]

Over the past few months, I've come across a couple of good deals on LCD monitors, and quite impressed. The 20" is great ($139), using it on my security DVR. The 22" isn't bad, but a little wide for my desk, and has 4 dead pixels, but for $154, still a good deal. Thinking about wall mounting them.
I've got a 17" CRT on my XP computer, color has been screwed for years, but it's my last working monitor, kind of why I needed some new ones. It weighs a ton, well 60 lbs or so, and takes up more desk space than the 22" LCD. Definately not better.

 

[ericgibbs]

I'm running my 22inch wide screen LCD at 1680 * 1080, its far, far better than any 19inch CRT.

I dont understand why you think a CRT is better than an LCD for desktop use.?

 

[Diver300]

There is no flicker with LCDs. They win it on that score for me.

I can see the flicker rate of 100 Hz CRTs as I move my eyes to look from one part of the screen to another. 60 Hz and I can't be close to it for more than a few minutes.

Don't get me started on 100 Hz tail light LEDs on cars.......

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

I'm running my 22inch wide screen LCD at 1680 * 1080, its far, far better than any 19inch CRT.

I dont understand why you think a CRT is better than an LCD for desktop use.?

No, it's seems a totally bizarre suggestion?.

 

[dknguyen]

I think LCDs for the simple reason that if the world had to choose to only have LCDs and only CRTs, we'd probably choose LCDs. Sure they may not be as good as CRTs in some aspects, but there are some cases where you just can't use a CRT (any portable device or anything where size, weight, and power are constraints). Vague answer, but you asked a vague question.

THe only I've really noticed about LCDs that I don't like is when you are working with the wrong resolution so things are a bit fuzzy until you fix it and when you have more than one LCD beside each other displaying the same image (like a wallpaper) and the colour is slightly different between the two until you adjust it.

 

[colin mac]

As a monitor, I'd rather a LCD if only for the size difference. As a TV I'm not too pushed.
My main TV is a 32" Sony CRT. It cost a fortune a few years ago when widescreen was the new thing. I'll probably move to HD any one of these days now.

 

[10*transistor*10]

because they dont blur so much and they last longer than lcd displays.

 

[10*transistor*10]

who is that a picture of then?

 

[ericgibbs]

because they dont blur so much and they last longer than lcd displays.

Sorry 'transistor' you are talking nonsense..

You must have used some really cheap crappy LCD's to have come to that conclusion.

 

[Pommie]

I run 1680 x 1080 on a 23inch wide LCD. One of the best things I've bought recently.

Mike.

 

[ericgibbs]

I run 1680 x 1080 on a 23inch wide LCD. One of the best things I've bought recently.

Mike.

Hi Mike,
Exactly the same.!
Also upgraded the Video card at the same time, well pleased, ideal for MPLAB IDE usage.

 

[MrAl]

Hello,


I have found various pro's and con's about CRTs vs LCDs as well
as others here. Some points are worse than others so i'll mention
the most important for now.

First and foremost, the first thing i noticed when i got my first
LCD was that the dynamic color range bites really bad when compared
to a CRT. A CRT, by it's basic design, has the ability to create an
infinite number of colors and shades of those colors while the LCD
is limited by some other dimension like how dark an LCD pixel, at its
best, can go. A CRT 'pixel', can go almost perfectly black while
an LCD pixel always has a small bias of light to it. What this means
is that pictures that are relatively dark have a very limited dynamic
color resolution, although pictures that are relatively 'normal' or light
seem to display ok.
It seems that if they would incorporate a backlight dimmer this
problem could be adjusted, at least to some degree.


Second but a close tie with #1 above is the so called "Pixel Policy"
that most manufacturers have adopted. This basically states that
they will sell you a defective monitor and wont allow you to replace
it. Defective, in that one or more pixels can be fully lit up ALL THE
TIME or may be off ALL THE TIME and there is nothing on earth
you can do about it. They cant fix it, and they wont even try or
replace it for you.
I've already heard about one person buying a laptop sending 1500
dollars and it had a pixel out right in the center of the screen and they
wont replace it.
At least with a CRT if something goes wrong you can get it fixed.

One good point is that a LCD takes up much less space and is much
lighter in weight than a CRT. This means a larger screen fits in
a smaller area of the desk (more or less) and if you want to mount
it to a wall or something it doesnt take much to do that where a
CRT would take a very carefully designed mount.

 

[ericgibbs]

First and foremost, the first thing i noticed when i got my first
LCD was that the dynamic color range bites really bad when compared
to a CRT. A CRT, by it's basic design, has the ability to create an
infinite number of colors and shades of those colors while the LCD
is limited by some other dimension like how dark an LCD pixel, at its
best, can go. A CRT 'pixel', can go almost perfectly black while
an LCD pixel always has a small bias of light to it. What this means
is that pictures that are relatively dark have a very limited dynamic
color resolution, although pictures that are relatively 'normal' or light
seem to display ok.
It seems that if they would incorporate a backlight dimmer this
problem could be adjusted, at least to some degree.

Hi Al,
My screen is Black when a pixel is not lit, the range of colours is superb.

I have range of preset colour configs which I can choose from, as well as user settings.

The Movie config is 'brilliant'.

Regards