Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.
Welcome to our site! Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.
LCD's generally don't go as black as Plasma's - but modern ones are extremely good - and my Plasma has really pretty crappy blacks!
Modern LCD's use dynamic control of the back lighting, so if the picture is overall fairly dark the backlights will be turned down accordingly - this gives excellent black performance.
However, ignore any 'contrast ratio' specifications - they are meaningless as there's no set method for measuring them.
Traditionally the only thing CRT has going for it is its ability to change pixels much quicker than LCD and the rest, although, looking at the recent 24" LCD monitors, I think we are getting to a point where that argument can be chucked.
LCD's use much less power, does not radiate, nor bombard your face with statically charged dust particles, does not stuff up your eyes as much, it does not attract as much dust, takes less space, does not generate nearly as much heat, oh and did I mention it uses much less power.
So if you still choose CRT over LCD, for example, think again. The small premium in price is worth it in the long run.
I do think really large LCD, Plasma and even rear projection tv's suck. For really large imaging, data projectors work well, but only in dim lit areas. So, don't go overboard and buy the biggest thing you can lay your hands on, sort of settle for something in the middle, always works for me.
For the vast majority of applications (computer monitor, cable TV viewing with some movies, video game systems) fixed pixels displays like LCD are the best. GOOD scaling is an absolute necessity.
For the absolute highest fidelity possible in a home environment, CRT's are still the best. A movie in a dedicated, light controlled home theater on an 8" or 9" CRT front projection is still superior to what the best fixed pixel displays can do. And they can do even higher res - 2500 x 2000 is possible on 9" CRT front projectors.
Am I ever buying another CRT ever again? Probably not. CRT front projectors, while still superior in the right environment, are a pain in the bum to keep calibrated because they heat up and the image changes and all kinds of silliness. The last guy I knew who had one switched to digital FPTV two years ago with a $4000 DLP unit. The DLP front projector has its advantages, but the experience watching his 8" CRT was still superior (even if it had a softer image). Better colors, better contrast, dimmer image (and yes this is an advantage in a front projection system - they can be too bright and often are).
MrAl is right CRTs have much better colour performance than LCDs.
All the LCDs I've seen produced washed out colours, plasma is better but shortlived and price wise I would say that CRTs are generally better value for money.
You'll be hard pressed to buy a CRT display in a few years anyway. Heavy and enviormentally unfriendly. LCD displays may not have the color gamut of CRT but 99% of the conusumers out there leave their gear on the factory setup anyway.
I think the OP is trying to justify his CRT purchase. Not sure why they bought a monitor is they needed composite video inputs?
I have 2 22" LCDs side by side on my desktop. The low end unit pales in comparison to the expensive one. If you do not have them side by side they both work fine as computer displays. The better one is nicer for video.
A friend with a well used top end CRT replaced it with the same unit as my cheaper LCD. He used the CRT as a 2nd in a dual monitor setup for a few months, then replaced it with a 24" LCD. He said he could not stand to look at the CRT.
The point is that a nice new well focused CRT is good stuff. But they do not stay that way for long. Without a LCD next to a CRT for comparison one should not make a judgement.
Then there is the radiation thing. Problems/deaths due to the radiation may be so small that it is hardly worth mentioning. That is unless you are one of the unlucky few. Last year the PhD who was my grad school advisor died from a brain tummor. Like many of us he spent a lot of hours within a foot of a CRT. I for one am more then happy to see them fade into history.
Wow, very sorry to hear that. I wonder if some people have a propensity
for this problem more than others. I've used a CRT for quite a few years
myself and hope i dont have any problems in the future.
I guess there are good and bad CRTs and LCDs, but one thing about the
dynamic color resolution is that it is not always easy to tell what the
difference is between monitors unless someone points it out to you.
You cant use a color ramp, a color curve, or a color map or even a
calibration image, because they wont show how different the LCD is
for pictures that are relatively dark. But, as someone pointed out,
perhaps the better LCDs also regulate the intensite of the backlight,
which unfortunately mine does not. Then i got mine at an unbelievably
low price for this size, so i guess it's a "cheap one".
Dont get me wrong, it's very good for text and it shows many pictures
more or less ok, it's just some of the dark colors just are not there and
there is no true black. In fact, if the monitor does to pure black background
(as in the XP standard screensaver) i can use the monitor as a night light.
This is no joke, as when the monitor attempts to display a pure black
picture it actually still has the screen lit up to some degree, and i could
almost read a book by this light. The CRT would go totally dark for a pure
black picture, with no light output other than the power indicator LED.
I guess i havent mentioned too many good points because i see a product
here which could be improved greatly with a few relatively simple changes.
Good points include:
Much smaller size (a CRT is much bigger)
Much lighter in weight (mounting is easier and shipping is cheaper)
Backlight supposedly lasts a long time which means colors wont fade
If the backlight does fade, it will just improve my dynamic color resolution!
Low heat output
Low power useage
Works directly with digital and analog, and even both at the same time
with two different video sources
There are quite a few good points.
One of the worst bad points however is the bad pixels.
As far as the dynamic color resolution goes, it appears that it is the
lack of pure black that is causing the problem. The backlight can not
be turned down so this cant be adjusted. However, since this is
related to the light output of the screen over the full range of colors,
perhaps a semi dark neutral gray clear plastic sheet over the front of the
monitor would help? Ideas?
Again I dont know how much this will influence the votining, because I dont know where everyone is from, but watched a thing on discovery a while back about these types of thing, and something that cropped up was the grading - whilst these monitors are in the factory.
It seems that it is largely due to the 'development' or 'richness' of a nation what stuff they have sold their. (sorry if its the incorrect term - but hopefully you know what i mean)
When they test the monitors, the very best ones get shipped to US, Canada, UK, France, Germany etc
Then the next best ones (mabey a few dead pixels, or not so good back lighting) get shipped to other less fortunate countries
With the worst ones going to 3rd world countries!
Another example of this was on 'how its made' - again on discovery - where they were making measuring tapes - THE FOUNDATION FOR BUILDING THINGS - the accurately printed ones go to the rich countrys, where as a simple 3 meter measuring tape sold in say northern africa - made by the same company could be up to a few inches out (in the space of 3m, thats really bad tolerence)
Im just thinking that some of the users here may be from countries that arn't getting the 'good' lcds yet (crts have been around a lot longer, and much more evolved - eg you can buy a really cheap crt and it will still be a good picture (when new))
Maybe displays with bad pixels get shipped to third world countries but they would be scrap otherwise. Maybe they should start selling them locally at half price. I'd certainly like a second 23inch monitor with a few dodgy pixels.
I just like the CRT on my desktop because I read as I scroll. This can be choppy looking unless it is a high end LCD. Also as far as LCD used in TVs, likewise, unless you shop around, and see it in action, you are likely to buy a TV that large Pixels fall all over your floor around the TV. However, I would prefer an LCD in small devices such as cell phones and portable devices.
I can tell you another thing.
I've been working with a lot of PC's and screens, mainly from two major players. Names withheld at this point.
For one of these, their LCD screens are so bad, I'd rather settle for a CRT.
We've had endless headache with this rubbish, and I believe they are ripping off the company we support also.
Take a guess
This is really comparing apples to oranges. Since a CRT video display requires retrace at a minimum and interlaced scanning at worst, while an LCD is a wholly digital device with neither interlace or retrace to deal with, you can't compare one to the other in a video application. The playing field isn't level!
For oscilloscope use, I prefer a CRT and non-digital electronics. Most cheap digital scopes only have 8-bit resolution and that makes for a really annoying "stair-steppy" display. 8-bit resolution is very visible on a CRT. A sloppy LCD display covers up low ADC resolution and can sometimes add to the problem. It takes about 10-bit resolution before the stairsteps disappear into the trace width of a CRT. A high-resolution LCD and a 12-bit ADC is fine for a scope, although in my advanced age, I still prefer a good lab-quality Tektronix analog scope. It's much cheaper and the one-shot performance can only be equaled by a digital scope in the five-figure category. There's nothing that a digital scope can do for me to warrant the stratospheric price.
I much prefer LCDs for video use, although I'm still waiting for the big price break. They're still not economical for what you get. I'll stick with my 32-inch CRT TV (DirecTV is digital) until I can replace it with one that's the same size vertically for under $300 - 400.
SMUGangsta maybe right after all, I have a laptop that has a dead pixel, but I am not sure the manufacturer is keen on replacing it, but with the low prices who cares...
My point was that some "cheaper" LCD's are really nasty, and in these cases I would choose a good CRT at similar price.
You will be surprised about how many users request us to remove their brand new LCD monitors and replace them with their "three year old" older models because the new ones cause much more strain than the older ones.
These "high profile manufacturers" does not give a damn about the quality of product they put on their client's tables, and at the price - I tell you, it's scary.
Needless to say, my home screen is a Hanns-g 19 LCD, and I believe my next screen will be LCD also, and that was how I voted, but I will never buy a eigchh.... screen. Utter rubbish.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
