Richard A. Sink
New member
--
Have a good day
Have a good day
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Which is the sharper moniter, CRT or LCD?
- Thread starter Richard A. Sink
- Start date
Graeme Cogger
Senior Member
To summarize:
An LCD will be sharper and brighter than a CRT (although brighter is not necessarily better). If you get a good one (e.g. Eizo), the colour rendition will be about as good as a decent CRT, although the shadow detail will not be as good.
The good LCD will be more expensive for the same size and will suffer slightly from viewing angle issues (i.e. brightness/contrast changes if you don't look at the screen from directly in front). It may not be quite as good for playing games/videos and will look terrible if not used at its maximum resolution. An LCD need sa hardware system to calibrate/profile it, whereas a CRT can get reasonable results from Adobe Gamma.
The LCD will be smaller, generate less heat and use less electricity, and probably be easier on the eyes if you use it for long periods of time.
I think that covers it
An LCD will be sharper and brighter than a CRT (although brighter is not necessarily better). If you get a good one (e.g. Eizo), the colour rendition will be about as good as a decent CRT, although the shadow detail will not be as good.
The good LCD will be more expensive for the same size and will suffer slightly from viewing angle issues (i.e. brightness/contrast changes if you don't look at the screen from directly in front). It may not be quite as good for playing games/videos and will look terrible if not used at its maximum resolution. An LCD need sa hardware system to calibrate/profile it, whereas a CRT can get reasonable results from Adobe Gamma.
The LCD will be smaller, generate less heat and use less electricity, and probably be easier on the eyes if you use it for long periods of time.
I think that covers it
Gordon S Walker
Senior Member
I have never used an LCD at home but we have them in the office and they look pretty good. I have a picture of a swan on my desktop at work and it seems a little flat (no pun intended) compared to my CRT at home. I prefer to be able to change the screen resolution and know that I can get up to 2048 x 1536 resolution on my 22" CRT. On a 17" LCD say, the resolution is fixed at eg: 1280 x 1024 and any lesser resolutions are merely interpolations of those numbers. That's why they don't perform very well at say 800x600. Also, the refresh rates are fairly low compared to CRT's , 60Hz is a norm, 120Hz is almost a no-no except on very expensive ones. LCD's are very economical to run and are easy to accommodate but faulty transisitors are considered normal so if you get a nice new one and there are a couple of bright specs visible, the warranty won't cover it. Also, no-one really knows how long the transisitors are going to last. Also, you can always put your cup of coffee on a CRT but I think tha LCD would struggle a little to balance a cup on. (The last part is a joke of course, don't put anything wet on your monitor, even if it is in a cup)
--
It's an L of a life, this photography lark
--
It's an L of a life, this photography lark
Jason64167
Leading Member
LCDs have perfect geometry and are very sharp. They do suffer from having color reproduction that is less accurate than on a CRT (24bits on LCD vs over 32 bits possible on CRT). Whether this is noticeable to you or not is a matter of conjecture.
LCDs can also have problems with slightly uneven lighting of the panel, resulting in brightness levels falling off at the corners or "hot" spots on the display.
All in all if you invest in a really good LCD you probably won't be disappointed, just make sure you get one with 24 bit color reproduction. I have a Dell FP2001 and I'm pretty happy with it overall compared to the high end NEC CRT it replaced.
Well you can run 800x600 on a 20 or 21 inch LCD (native 1600x1200) since the interpolation is exactly 1/2. I had a 21" Samsung LCD at work and it compared well to my 21" Trinitron at home. If push came to shove I'd still go with my Trinitron since it costed 1/3 as much, is equally sharp, with better contrast, saturation, and supports faster refresh rates. I have it optimized with a Matrox video card and a VGA-BNC cable. But the 21" LCD was awfully nice.
PC Wheeler
Forum Pro
Just nit picking, but a CRT is not limited to 32bits of colour depth and can display an infinite number of colours. Our eyes supposedly can't differentiate between different shades in 32bit colour so it is a moot point anyway
I've got an 18 inch Sony M81 that I've had for a couple of years now, and I'm really impressed. We have a lot of new Compaq 18 inch screens at work and they are equally as good for most things now, but the photographers have still got very expensive CRT's, presumably because of the greater contrast and colour depth. I second that it is vitally important to get one with at least 24bit colour depth (that's 8 bits per channel - anything less is silly with cameras capable of outputting 12 bits per channel!)
I cannot stand looking at a CRT though, and since most of the work I do is programming or music I don't think having an LCD makes any difference. In any case, as long as you know calibrate the display properly and know the limitations you shouldn't have any problems with either.
Refresh rates are less of an issue with an LCD display because the screen is not raster scanned like a CRT. All the pixels on an LCD are on at the same time, and the data they display is simply updated (ie there is no flicker).
A 30hz refresh rate would probably more than suffice for normal office work and photo editing, but would probably suck a bit for games. Due to rise/fall latency going much about 60hz on even the latest CRT's is pretty much pointless (60hz
Well, we had some 18" Eizo LCD's at work as soon as they came out and they are still going strong now (so that's about 5-6 years). The issue isn't really how long the transistors will last but how long the backlight will last. Once the backlight goes you had just as well replace the whole unit due to the cost of replacing the light. Those Eizo's have faded in brightness somewhat though, but they are still perfectly usable. Anyway, in 5 or 6 years monitor technology will have moved on and you will have upgraded.
No no no no no! You don't get it do you - that is what the CD tray is for! Why else would it have a big drainage hole in the middle? ;-)
Jason64167
Leading Member
That I said CRTs can do OVER 32 bits.Just nit picking, but a CRT is not limited to 32bits of colour
depth and can display an infinite number of colours. Our eyes
supposedly can't differentiate between different shades in 32bit
colour so it is a moot point anyway
Nitpicker!
thx1138
Veteran Member
Most LCD monitors are terrible for playing fast action games. Unless the response is 16ms or better forget for that use.To summarize:
An LCD will be sharper and brighter than a CRT (although brighter
is not necessarily better). If you get a good one (e.g. Eizo), the
colour rendition will be about as good as a decent CRT, although
the shadow detail will not be as good.
The good LCD will be more expensive for the same size and will
suffer slightly from viewing angle issues (i.e. brightness/contrast
changes if you don't look at the screen from directly in front).
It may not be quite as good for playing games/videos and will look
terrible if not used at its maximum resolution. An LCD need sa
hardware system to calibrate/profile it, whereas a CRT can get
reasonable results from Adobe Gamma.
The LCD will be smaller, generate less heat and use less
electricity, and probably be easier on the eyes if you use it for
long periods of time.
I think that covers it
LCD have poor contrast ratios next to CRT. Good LCD can maybe get 500:1 compared to 2000:1 for CRT.
Beware LCD that only offer 18bit colour and not 24bit.
As someone who uses a 21" monitor @ 1920x1400 no LCD comes close that is affordable and has fast response. Still be a few years before they get where they should be. In the mean time Toshiba and Canon will be releasing a new CRT technology which could render Plasma and LCD worthless. Think of it as plasma size, with individual electron guns for each pixel. First screens will ship Xmas 2004. Can't wait to see if they live up to expectations.
Durrrr!! That will teach me for trying to read too much too lateThat I said CRTs can do OVER 32 bits.
Nitpicker!
I played QuakeWorld and Quake3 competitively on an 25ms 18inch Sony, as have many other people. I'm not convinced that all displays have latency measured equally because I have seen 16ms screens that are dire in comparison to mine.
Agreed. Contrast is superior on better CRT screens. There are many cheaper CRTs that offer poor contrast though (I've had enough of them!). TFTs seem to be better when the ambient light is stronger and you can (reflecting some of the ambient light or something perhaps?).
This display is around 30 months old now and has 24bit colour, as do the current Sony range.
Sony make a 23" 1920 x 1200 display with a SRP of 2000USD (and a 20" 1600x1200 for 999USD) - not my kind of affordable, but it is if you think nothing of shelling out for a 1Ds Mk II
I dislike CRT screens for most of the work I do - I find the poor sharpness and distortion distracting now I've used TFTs for so long. And I like the extra desk space a TFT gives
The new CRT tech sounds interesting, but it will be big pixels if it is plasma size.Darin Genereux
Forum Enthusiast
Unfortunately, response time on an LCD varies quite a bit across the color spectrum. Most LCD specs assume a black to white transition, but that increases if the color transition is not so different. Since most "real-world" video contains many subtle color transitions, the actual response time will appear to be greater than the advertised spec.
Still, it's a minor issue for me and I just ordered 20" LCD to replace my 15" LCD. Don't think I could ever go back to a standard CRT.
E
Eugene Powers
Guest
LCD is sharper and brighter but that is exactly why you don't want it because even not so sharp or well exposed images will look sharp and bright but in reality they are not.
Even slightly out focus images look in focus on LCD but then you print them they look unsharp.
The only time you do want LCD is when you want to display your pictures.
Eugene
Canon is the best when it is working.
Even slightly out focus images look in focus on LCD but then you print them they look unsharp.
The only time you do want LCD is when you want to display your pictures.
--
Eugene
Canon is the best when it is working.
The flipside of this is that a CRT will display even sharp images as if they are slightly out of focus. Weigh each screen up for its individual merits - at 100% I can see quite easily on almost any screen whether my shots are in or out of focus, soft/sharp, correctly exposed, etc.
If you are working professionally on images, or are an amateur with a computer you are using exclusively for photo editing then I would probably buy a very good CRT. If you intend to spend extended periods time looking at websites, programming, writing letters, etc. then I'd buy a good LCD for the eye strain relief and reduced power consumption.
KEG
Veteran Member
800 x 600 on 21"?????
Why would anyone do that????????????????????
Also higher refresh than 60Hz is only needed on CRTs.
--
KEG
All comments should be taken as shameless plugs for me and my equipment
Why would anyone do that????????????????????
Also higher refresh than 60Hz is only needed on CRTs.
--
KEG
All comments should be taken as shameless plugs for me and my equipment
Sampson420
Leading Member
rsn48
Veteran Member
James,
The problem in Vancouver, BC is finding a CRT monitor (quality) over 19 inches. Everyone and their dog is flogging LCD. I can find a good Samsung 19 inch but would prefer a 21 inch. I tried to get the Sony (forget the particular model recommended) but it went the way of the goony bird. CRT's seem to be taking the Titanic nose dive as computer shops smell the cash as consumers are more easily swayed by the "sexier" technology and looks of LCD. And this is surprising as Vancouver is kind of a silicon valley "North" particularly when it comes to computer animation.
Although I might prefer a CRT purchase, out of frustration I might get an LCD. Another chap gave this advise which I might follow. He said - "no matter which type of screen you purchase, if your are printing a print that matters, you're going to have to run a test print anyway, so get an LCD."
Paul Stout
Leading Member
I run with three monitors - one CRT and two LCD monitors.
Check for color correct on the CRT and check for sharpness on LCD.
--
Photography on the Run
http://www.pbase.com/paul42/renaissance_fairs
more than one million hits!
Check for color correct on the CRT and check for sharpness on LCD.
--
Photography on the Run
http://www.pbase.com/paul42/renaissance_fairs
more than one million hits!
Gordon S Walker
Senior Member
I have a Belinea 22" CRT (20" visible) which I like immensley and it has a Mitsubishi tube (supposedly the better of many). Since I play games AND do image editing, it seems the best of both worlds. It doesn't seem that large any more but people who visit my house comment on its huge size. Perhaps I need a 28" widescreen monitor , not.
I couldn't fit it on my desk. Horses for courses, if it suits your needs, use it. LCD is nice, CRT is for me.
As for which is sharper, make sure you have 40/20 vision before you comment.
--
It's an L of a life, this photography lark
I couldn't fit it on my desk. Horses for courses, if it suits your needs, use it. LCD is nice, CRT is for me.
As for which is sharper, make sure you have 40/20 vision before you comment.
--
It's an L of a life, this photography lark
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum