Thunderscope
CAGiversary!
I'm about to upgrade to HD and can't decide between a 23-32inch LCD or a 30in CRT, btw its for my room so I cant really go any bigger than that.
Whats better for my 360? LCD HD or CRT HD?
- Thread starter Thunderscope
- Start date
klwillis45
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Thunderscope']I'm about to upgrade to HD and can't decide between a 23-32inch LCD or a 30in CRT, btw its for my room so I cant really go any bigger than that.[/quote]
At that screen size, either type will look awesome with your 360. Base your decision on the other factors.
At that screen size, either type will look awesome with your 360. Base your decision on the other factors.
rodeojones903
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 81 (100%)
I would go with the LCD, but that is because I HATE it when CRTs have bad geometry setting (which most of them do). I will never buy anything besides an LCD (or SED when they eventually come out).
Professor Oreo
CAGiversary!
I love my 34" CRT, but it's heavy as all hell! Think about whether or not you've got the space to place a 150-200 pound tv in your room. I might go with an LCD just for tha reason as you'd have more options of where to put it and what you can place it on.
[quote name='Chacrana']LCD looks better.[/quote]
CRT is still considered the best for reproduction of picture. It has the purest blacks and is still the reference that analysts use for testing out new LCD's and Plasma's. So saying that LCD looks better is not only untrue, but just plain crazy. The only downside to CRT is the size, but if you dont mind a 34' 30' 27' 26'. I would get a CRT and I use a CRT as my backup HDTV. LCD blows at reproducing black levels and the refresh rate is so - so. Dont give me that 8ms is fine crap cause its not I always notice small amounts of blur. While i was at CES 07 we were discussing gaming with almost everyone in the home theater industry and they all agreed if your going for PURE best picture quality CRT is by far the best, followed by plasma. Black levels are the main reason why, if your blacks aren't black your blues aren't as blue and reds red and etc. Until SED, which is way off still, nothing will touch CRT.
CRT is still considered the best for reproduction of picture. It has the purest blacks and is still the reference that analysts use for testing out new LCD's and Plasma's. So saying that LCD looks better is not only untrue, but just plain crazy. The only downside to CRT is the size, but if you dont mind a 34' 30' 27' 26'. I would get a CRT and I use a CRT as my backup HDTV. LCD blows at reproducing black levels and the refresh rate is so - so. Dont give me that 8ms is fine crap cause its not I always notice small amounts of blur. While i was at CES 07 we were discussing gaming with almost everyone in the home theater industry and they all agreed if your going for PURE best picture quality CRT is by far the best, followed by plasma. Black levels are the main reason why, if your blacks aren't black your blues aren't as blue and reds red and etc. Until SED, which is way off still, nothing will touch CRT.
Thunderscope
CAGiversary!
Well I was looking at a phillips model, but considering I have alot of amazon.com credit I want to buy one from them. Im leaning towards a LCD just for the space factor.
[quote name='Maynard']CRT is still considered the best for reproduction of picture. It has the purest blacks and is still the reference that analysts use for testing out new LCD's and Plasma's. So saying that LCD looks better is not only untrue, but just plain crazy. The only downside to CRT is the size, but if you dont mind a 34' 30' 27' 26'. I would get a CRT and I use a CRT as my backup HDTV. LCD blows at reproducing black levels and the refresh rate is so - so. Dont give me that 8ms is fine crap cause its not I always notice small amounts of blur. While i was at CES 07 we were discussing gaming with almost everyone in the home theater industry and they all agreed if your going for PURE best picture quality CRT is by far the best, followed by plasma. Black levels are the main reason why, if your blacks aren't black your blues aren't as blue and reds red and etc. Until SED, which is way off still, nothing will touch CRT.[/QUOTE]
Quite an explanation for a statement that was simply intended to annoy Sarang.
Quite an explanation for a statement that was simply intended to annoy Sarang.
A
Apossum
Guest
had an LCD that looked amazing with HD games but nothing else. my CRT isn't quite as crisp, but it's more well rounded. of course, the CRT weighs a shitload and is almost comically huge for a 27", but it's also 5 years old.
I bought a 30" widescreen hdtv crt for my bedroom a couple years ago. At the time the reason I got a crt was the price. If I was going out and buying a tv today I would get a LCD instead. The main reason is the size. Also I really only use the tv in my room for gaming and watching movies. On games the overscan on my tv cuts off part of the picture. So on some games I can't see the score, ammo or health bar. On movies that are in 2.35:1 the black bars aren't perfectly straight. There is a dip in them because most crts have some sort of geometry problem.
Duo_Maxwell
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='Maynard']CRT is still considered the best for reproduction of picture. It has the purest blacks and is still the reference that analysts use for testing out new LCD's and Plasma's. So saying that LCD looks better is not only untrue, but just plain crazy. The only downside to CRT is the size, but if you dont mind a 34' 30' 27' 26'. I would get a CRT and I use a CRT as my backup HDTV. LCD blows at reproducing black levels and the refresh rate is so - so. Dont give me that 8ms is fine crap cause its not I always notice small amounts of blur. While i was at CES 07 we were discussing gaming with almost everyone in the home theater industry and they all agreed if your going for PURE best picture quality CRT is by far the best, followed by plasma. Black levels are the main reason why, if your blacks aren't black your blues aren't as blue and reds red and etc. Until SED, which is way off still, nothing will touch CRT.[/QUOTE]
You probably don't notice ghosting at or below a true 8ms refresh rate. Keep in mind, not every manufactuer claiming an 8ms rate actually puts out a true, constant refresh rate of 8 ms. Plus eeven if you did, more and more sets are produced with something below 8 ms anymore (you have to search to find a PC montior with anything above 6-8). As for color reproduction, reference plasmas are damn close to CRTs and LCDs have improved alot. As someone who actually sells TVs to the average customer, not a single person notices the "off" blacks in LCDs unless I tell them about it. Good color and picture reproduction yes,best of them all, but bad at everything else in comparison. Bottomline though, it's essentially dead tech and not worth dropping the money on any more.
You probably don't notice ghosting at or below a true 8ms refresh rate. Keep in mind, not every manufactuer claiming an 8ms rate actually puts out a true, constant refresh rate of 8 ms. Plus eeven if you did, more and more sets are produced with something below 8 ms anymore (you have to search to find a PC montior with anything above 6-8). As for color reproduction, reference plasmas are damn close to CRTs and LCDs have improved alot. As someone who actually sells TVs to the average customer, not a single person notices the "off" blacks in LCDs unless I tell them about it. Good color and picture reproduction yes,best of them all, but bad at everything else in comparison. Bottomline though, it's essentially dead tech and not worth dropping the money on any more.
If you can afford the space it takes up and want to save money, CRT. Still the best picture available. If space is an issue and you don't mind spending extra to get the same size, LCD.
CRT may be "dead tech," but that just guarantees that you'll get a better price. And at least in this case, dead tech doesn't mean inferior tech.
CRT may be "dead tech," but that just guarantees that you'll get a better price. And at least in this case, dead tech doesn't mean inferior tech.
Isn't that what matters most on a TV?
secretvampire
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 141 (100%)
What the others have said. If you don't have a problem with the additional weight and size, CRT is currently going to give you the best quality picture you can get.
Duo_Maxwell
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='KaneRobot']If you can afford the space it takes up and want to save money, CRT. Still the best picture available. If space is an issue and you don't mind spending extra to get the same size, LCD.
CRT may be "dead tech," but that just guarantees that you'll get a better price. And at least in this case, dead tech doesn't mean inferior tech.
Isn't that what matters most on a TV?[/QUOTE]
If that's the only plus of a CRT, the only thing kepping it alive, then why buy one? CRTs are not that much cheaper anymore either. Unless a decent sale is going on you can get an LCD for the same price as a CRT if you go maybe 4" less in screen size, some brands like Olevia or Vizio you can even get the same if not bigger screen size for about the same price. 2 or so years ago I'd be agreeing with you all and telling him to buy a CRT, back then the gap was bigger in PQ, but anymore it is not as big and CRT is not going to be worth the investment you throw at it. Unless he can get a bang up deal on a CRT I can't recommend he buy one now. And what's most important to you is not exactly important to everyone. I can give you several reasons why I didn't buy a CRT TV, does that mean it's a bad buy? If you get one cheap enough vs. LCD (which is totally possible btw), then no not really. However not everyone notices the details in the color reproduction difference. Still like I said, in my experience, most of the customers don't notice any real difference in color reprouction with HD sources. It's there, I notice it, but most don't pick up on it. So really, it's up to the individual more than anything, which brings me to my overall point.
So here's what you do OP don't listen to other people on a message board bicker. Go to the store (a good one that takes care of the TVs) and use your eyes and then do your own research. If you look at a CRT vs. a LCD playing the same HD source and say to yourself "Man this color reproduction (or whatever) looks so much better on the CRT, etc., etc." then get it. If you instead say, "Hey I can hardly notice a difference in picture/color quality, etc. etc." Then look to other things to compare the pros and cons. If you do that my guess is LCD will come out on top in the end, but maybe not. Bottomline is you need to make the real decision based on how you think things look, react, your need now and in the future, etc. because you are the guy forking over $500+ dollars.
CRT may be "dead tech," but that just guarantees that you'll get a better price. And at least in this case, dead tech doesn't mean inferior tech.
Isn't that what matters most on a TV?[/QUOTE]
If that's the only plus of a CRT, the only thing kepping it alive, then why buy one? CRTs are not that much cheaper anymore either. Unless a decent sale is going on you can get an LCD for the same price as a CRT if you go maybe 4" less in screen size, some brands like Olevia or Vizio you can even get the same if not bigger screen size for about the same price. 2 or so years ago I'd be agreeing with you all and telling him to buy a CRT, back then the gap was bigger in PQ, but anymore it is not as big and CRT is not going to be worth the investment you throw at it. Unless he can get a bang up deal on a CRT I can't recommend he buy one now. And what's most important to you is not exactly important to everyone. I can give you several reasons why I didn't buy a CRT TV, does that mean it's a bad buy? If you get one cheap enough vs. LCD (which is totally possible btw), then no not really. However not everyone notices the details in the color reproduction difference. Still like I said, in my experience, most of the customers don't notice any real difference in color reprouction with HD sources. It's there, I notice it, but most don't pick up on it. So really, it's up to the individual more than anything, which brings me to my overall point.
So here's what you do OP don't listen to other people on a message board bicker. Go to the store (a good one that takes care of the TVs) and use your eyes and then do your own research. If you look at a CRT vs. a LCD playing the same HD source and say to yourself "Man this color reproduction (or whatever) looks so much better on the CRT, etc., etc." then get it. If you instead say, "Hey I can hardly notice a difference in picture/color quality, etc. etc." Then look to other things to compare the pros and cons. If you do that my guess is LCD will come out on top in the end, but maybe not. Bottomline is you need to make the real decision based on how you think things look, react, your need now and in the future, etc. because you are the guy forking over $500+ dollars.
The best CRTs are still better than the best LCDs but that margin is closing everyday as the top CRT manufactures stop production (like Sony already has) and LCD tech improves. As mentioned before, the best piece of advise is to go to a store and check out the displays for yourself. Just be aware of the fact that many electronic shops don't have the displays properly calibrated so what you see in store may not be the same as what you see in your house. For example, many sets are set to be much brighter in store than they should be to attract customers to the picture.
Also, check out avsforum.com for lots of discussion about different display models. CRTs are not created equally and I'd be a bit leary of that Phillips you mentioned so check out opinions on avsforum. I'd recommend looking closer at some Sony XBR models - you can often find them on clearance for under $600 and they are among the best CRT has to offer. The best CRT will give you better performance for the $ but the added bulk may not make it worthwhile. Either way you go, enjoy your new HD set!
-Bob
And as long as everyone's all high up on SED and plasma, I'll disagree and say you get the best performance from liquid crystal on sylicon (LCoS)
You can't tell me those Sony SXRDs and JVS D-ILAs aren't engineering at its finest! Rear projection FTW!
Also, check out avsforum.com for lots of discussion about different display models. CRTs are not created equally and I'd be a bit leary of that Phillips you mentioned so check out opinions on avsforum. I'd recommend looking closer at some Sony XBR models - you can often find them on clearance for under $600 and they are among the best CRT has to offer. The best CRT will give you better performance for the $ but the added bulk may not make it worthwhile. Either way you go, enjoy your new HD set!
-Bob
And as long as everyone's all high up on SED and plasma, I'll disagree and say you get the best performance from liquid crystal on sylicon (LCoS)
You can't tell me those Sony SXRDs and JVS D-ILAs aren't engineering at its finest! Rear projection FTW!
I would have to agree with the last few posts about going to the store and checking out each TV, CRT vs LCD, etc etc. Bring your XBOX 360 in, hook it to the TV see how it looks, the only thing I can recommend it take it off the VIVID setting that every store uses on their display models for starters too.
Now my story with LCD vs CRT is that I bought a Sony KD-34XBR960 (CRT) about a year and a half ago. Phenomenal picture but I had issues with the screen a little over a year into it that ultimately got me to go out and buy another TV. I ended up with the KDL-46XBR2 (LCD) which i am absolutely thrilled with. Mainly I'm not limited to the typical 34" CRT size limit, the picture quality is really good and 1080p. I ended up using my Circuit City Plan and called to get my CRT repaired, I had a decision to either get the TV fixed or get money to buy another TV. Well I didn't think moving a 200lbs CRT around was fun so I opted for a KDL-V32XBR2 because 32lbs and, again, picture quality on this LCD was good to me. So ultimately convenience won me over.
I will state that the 960 had a great picture, pretty much the best I've seen. Sony's last HD CRT was a KD-34XBR970 which you'd think is a step up from the 960 I had, but its not the tube (SFP) is extremely far superior to the 970 model, let alone a few other options omitted from the 970.
Now my story with LCD vs CRT is that I bought a Sony KD-34XBR960 (CRT) about a year and a half ago. Phenomenal picture but I had issues with the screen a little over a year into it that ultimately got me to go out and buy another TV. I ended up with the KDL-46XBR2 (LCD) which i am absolutely thrilled with. Mainly I'm not limited to the typical 34" CRT size limit, the picture quality is really good and 1080p. I ended up using my Circuit City Plan and called to get my CRT repaired, I had a decision to either get the TV fixed or get money to buy another TV. Well I didn't think moving a 200lbs CRT around was fun so I opted for a KDL-V32XBR2 because 32lbs and, again, picture quality on this LCD was good to me. So ultimately convenience won me over.
I will state that the 960 had a great picture, pretty much the best I've seen. Sony's last HD CRT was a KD-34XBR970 which you'd think is a step up from the 960 I had, but its not the tube (SFP) is extremely far superior to the 970 model, let alone a few other options omitted from the 970.
klingon666
CAGiversary!
I pretty sure its LED not CED for the next generation of DLP TVS. Which will eleminated the color wheel in the DLP and hopfully will eleminate the Rainbow effect some pepole see. www.avsforum.com
Thunderscope
CAGiversary!
Well I bit the bullet and got a 32inch LCD HDTV with tuner from frys for $450
Wolfpup
CAGiversary!
I don't know about all LCDs, but a good one is awesome. Brighter, seemingly better color, no geometry issues, they use less power, take up less space, no radiation (stand or sit as close as you want!), no flicker from interlacing, etc.
I'd never use a CRT at this point. Not since LCD refresh rates got good enough to be irrelevant. Both my 8ms monitor, and my 8ms Sony TV have no ghosting I can see at all under any circumstances. Actually my old Sony 21" monitor had more ghosting (seriously-not that it was bad).
I'd never use a CRT at this point. Not since LCD refresh rates got good enough to be irrelevant. Both my 8ms monitor, and my 8ms Sony TV have no ghosting I can see at all under any circumstances. Actually my old Sony 21" monitor had more ghosting (seriously-not that it was bad).
Thunderscope
CAGiversary!
Now I play the DHL Shipping Waiting game...
[quote name='woxl']The best CRTs are still better than the best LCDs but that margin is closing everyday as the top CRT manufactures stop production (like Sony already has) and LCD tech improves. [/QUOTE]
Yes unfortunately they want to shove an inferior technology down my
ing throat. This is why I hope against hope SED succeeds, only if they end up existing on the very high end market.
Does anyone know where I could buy an old, NON HDTV CRT model Japanese model new or almost? I want the biggest quality tv I can find for playing old games on systems that only use RGB.
Yes unfortunately they want to shove an inferior technology down my
ing throat. This is why I hope against hope SED succeeds, only if they end up existing on the very high end market.Does anyone know where I could buy an old, NON HDTV CRT model Japanese model new or almost? I want the biggest quality tv I can find for playing old games on systems that only use RGB.
Professor Oreo
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Wolfpup']A lot of people would disagree with you about CRTs being "better" than LCDs. I've used a lot of high-end CRTs-I'm sure not the best, but pretty high end-and none of them have compared to LCDs. The big problem with LCDs was just response time, and that's been solved.[/quote]
The biggest problem I had with LCD was the narrow viewing angle. When I was looking at buying one a few years ago I was floored by the fact that if you weren't sitting dirctly in front of it, the image got all weirdly relfective and oil-stain looking. For that reason alone I went with a CRT (Sony KV-34XBR910).
Have they sorted ot the narrow viewing angle issues on LCD's yet? I'm assuming they have by now right?
The biggest problem I had with LCD was the narrow viewing angle. When I was looking at buying one a few years ago I was floored by the fact that if you weren't sitting dirctly in front of it, the image got all weirdly relfective and oil-stain looking. For that reason alone I went with a CRT (Sony KV-34XBR910).
Have they sorted ot the narrow viewing angle issues on LCD's yet? I'm assuming they have by now right?
Wolfpup
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Professor Oreo']The biggest problem I had with LCD was the narrow viewing angle. When I was looking at buying one a few years ago I was floored by the fact that if you weren't sitting dirctly in front of it, the image got all weirdly relfective and oil-stain looking. For that reason alone I went with a CRT (Sony KV-34XBR910).
Have they sorted ot the narrow viewing angle issues on LCD's yet? I'm assuming they have by now right?[/QUOTE]
They're might not be as wide as CRTs, but the image becomes unwatchable just because you're sitting too far to the side way before you run into a viewing angle issue. I've never noticed a difference on mine even when I'm standing next to my computer, completely to the left of my TV.
It probably depends on the quality of the panel though, but good ones (ie Sony) don't have viewing angle problems.
Have they sorted ot the narrow viewing angle issues on LCD's yet? I'm assuming they have by now right?[/QUOTE]
They're might not be as wide as CRTs, but the image becomes unwatchable just because you're sitting too far to the side way before you run into a viewing angle issue. I've never noticed a difference on mine even when I'm standing next to my computer, completely to the left of my TV.
It probably depends on the quality of the panel though, but good ones (ie Sony) don't have viewing angle problems.
[quote name='Wolfpup']A lot of people would disagree with you about CRTs being "better" than LCDs. I've used a lot of high-end CRTs-I'm sure not the best, but pretty high end-and none of them have compared to LCDs. The big problem with LCDs was just response time, and that's been solved.[/QUOTE]
They can't match CRT's on blacks so I'll pass.
They can't match CRT's on blacks so I'll pass.
Wolfpup
CAGiversary!
Just FYI, I double checked my LCD, and it's image looks exactly the same as normal even if you're literally standing completely to the side of it. As various reviewers have said, on a good modern LCD you have to be standing behind the thing to get a bad viewing angle.
[quote name='Sarang01']They can't match CRT's on blacks so I'll pass.[/QUOTE]
Theoretically no, but in practice the colors "pop" compared to a CRT.
[quote name='Doom5']A properly calibrated CRT blows away LCDs in response time, black levels, viewing angles, contrast ratio, and accurate color reproduction.
I will replace my current, ISF calibrated CRT HDTV, with another used CRT if it dies or with a SED set, if it's available.[/QUOTE]
No, CRTs really don't. And less now than ever, as you can't really even buy a good CRT anymore, since no one makes them.
I'll say it again, every one of my LCDs blows away my old 21" Sony FD monitor which was a $2000 monitor I got for $1500 or so. And every LCD I own has better color, better response time, no geometry issues, is brighter, etc.
I'm guessing anyone who knocks LCDs hasn't really used them. I can't vouch for some $500 Westinghouse, but you take home a Sony-even their "cheap" line-and you're going to get a fantastic image (and also a fantastic scaler-my PS2 looks better on it than on my old CRT too, and of course the 360 looks gorgeous). LCDs just don't have image quality issues anymore.
Also bear in mind that a set at the store may not be set up right at all. The source may be wrong, aspect ration may be wrong, color settings wrong, etc. Mine looked fine in the store, but much better at home-I did have to adjust a few things for my PS2 to look it's best (though the 360 looked great with default settings-I'd guess 'cause it's HD).
[quote name='Sarang01']They can't match CRT's on blacks so I'll pass.[/QUOTE]
Theoretically no, but in practice the colors "pop" compared to a CRT.
[quote name='Doom5']A properly calibrated CRT blows away LCDs in response time, black levels, viewing angles, contrast ratio, and accurate color reproduction.
I will replace my current, ISF calibrated CRT HDTV, with another used CRT if it dies or with a SED set, if it's available.[/QUOTE]
No, CRTs really don't. And less now than ever, as you can't really even buy a good CRT anymore, since no one makes them.
I'll say it again, every one of my LCDs blows away my old 21" Sony FD monitor which was a $2000 monitor I got for $1500 or so. And every LCD I own has better color, better response time, no geometry issues, is brighter, etc.
I'm guessing anyone who knocks LCDs hasn't really used them. I can't vouch for some $500 Westinghouse, but you take home a Sony-even their "cheap" line-and you're going to get a fantastic image (and also a fantastic scaler-my PS2 looks better on it than on my old CRT too, and of course the 360 looks gorgeous). LCDs just don't have image quality issues anymore.
Also bear in mind that a set at the store may not be set up right at all. The source may be wrong, aspect ration may be wrong, color settings wrong, etc. Mine looked fine in the store, but much better at home-I did have to adjust a few things for my PS2 to look it's best (though the 360 looked great with default settings-I'd guess 'cause it's HD).
It's simple.
They both have advantages and disadvantages to displays.
Crts display a huge amount of contrast. Go here:
http://www.hdtvexpert.com/pages/shmontrast.htm
However, they aren't so good for hdtv stuff.
Lcds are very sharp and are made for hidef stuff.
http://www.displaymate.com/crtvslcd.html
" The CRT beam produces images with softer edges that are not as sharp as an LCD at its native resolution. Imperfect focus and color registration also reduce sharpness. Generally sharper than LCDs at other than native resolutions."
IF YOUR AT IT'S NATIVE RESOLUTION.
If it's hidef and your on the hidef resolution, then it's better for hidef then a crt.
It depends on what you want. Sharpness versus better contrast. Are your eyes really good? Do you want to look at small details really good, versus small colors popping out very good?
They both have advantages and disadvantages to displays.
Crts display a huge amount of contrast. Go here:
http://www.hdtvexpert.com/pages/shmontrast.htm
However, they aren't so good for hdtv stuff.
Lcds are very sharp and are made for hidef stuff.
http://www.displaymate.com/crtvslcd.html
" The CRT beam produces images with softer edges that are not as sharp as an LCD at its native resolution. Imperfect focus and color registration also reduce sharpness. Generally sharper than LCDs at other than native resolutions."
IF YOUR AT IT'S NATIVE RESOLUTION.
If it's hidef and your on the hidef resolution, then it's better for hidef then a crt.
It depends on what you want. Sharpness versus better contrast. Are your eyes really good? Do you want to look at small details really good, versus small colors popping out very good?
defiance_17
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 55 (100%)
I'm having a love affair with my 26 inch Samsung LCD.
The only problem with it is that the sound...well, blows. I imagine most people have some time of surround sound setup, so that really isn't a major issue. I'll just deal with it until I'm willing to sink $1000 or so into some audio equipment.
Viewing angle isn't an issue with my TV--my friend brought it up while he was over, and I couldn't notice anything, even standing almost perpendicular to the set.
The only problem with it is that the sound...well, blows. I imagine most people have some time of surround sound setup, so that really isn't a major issue. I'll just deal with it until I'm willing to sink $1000 or so into some audio equipment.
Viewing angle isn't an issue with my TV--my friend brought it up while he was over, and I couldn't notice anything, even standing almost perpendicular to the set.
[quote name='Wolfpup']
I'll say it again, every one of my LCDs blows away my old 21" Sony FD monitor which was a $2000 monitor I got for $1500 or so. And every LCD I own has better color, better response time, no geometry issues, is brighter, etc.
[/quote]
Better response time on an LCD? That's impossible.
Better color reproduction? Please, cite me one reliable source that will back you up on this. There's a reason why artists and graphics professionals use CRT displays.
Geometry issues? Yes, that is an inherent flaw in CRTs; higher end CRTs typically do not suffer from this as much, as they contain more adjustments for fine tuning.
Brighter? Yes, LCDs are brighter, but a CRT is certaintly bright enough. I prefer the extreme contrast ratio a CRT provides, for true blacks, and proper lighting in viewing material.
I'm glad you're happy with your lcd; however, many people, such as myself prefer CRTs for various reasons. I like to be able to use the full display area on my monitor without it looking like ass with a non-native resolution.
I'll say it again, every one of my LCDs blows away my old 21" Sony FD monitor which was a $2000 monitor I got for $1500 or so. And every LCD I own has better color, better response time, no geometry issues, is brighter, etc.
[/quote]
Better response time on an LCD? That's impossible.
Better color reproduction? Please, cite me one reliable source that will back you up on this. There's a reason why artists and graphics professionals use CRT displays.
Geometry issues? Yes, that is an inherent flaw in CRTs; higher end CRTs typically do not suffer from this as much, as they contain more adjustments for fine tuning.
Brighter? Yes, LCDs are brighter, but a CRT is certaintly bright enough. I prefer the extreme contrast ratio a CRT provides, for true blacks, and proper lighting in viewing material.
I'm glad you're happy with your lcd; however, many people, such as myself prefer CRTs for various reasons. I like to be able to use the full display area on my monitor without it looking like ass with a non-native resolution.
red flare graf
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 8 (100%)
[quote name='rodeojones903']I would go with the LCD, but that is because I HATE it when CRTs have bad geometry setting (which most of them do). [/QUOTE]
My feelings exactly.. CRTs definately have a sharper image, but I had to get rid of that bent ass picture. My WEGA kind of changed my opinion on the LCD thing though.
My feelings exactly.. CRTs definately have a sharper image, but I had to get rid of that bent ass picture. My WEGA kind of changed my opinion on the LCD thing though.
Wolfpup
CAGiversary!
[quote name='AdultLink']It's simple.
They both have advantages and disadvantages to displays.
Crts display a huge amount of contrast. Go here:
http://www.hdtvexpert.com/pages/shmontrast.htm
However, they aren't so good for hdtv stuff.
Lcds are very sharp and are made for hidef stuff.
http://www.displaymate.com/crtvslcd.html
" The CRT beam produces images with softer edges that are not as sharp as an LCD at its native resolution. Imperfect focus and color registration also reduce sharpness. Generally sharper than LCDs at other than native resolutions."
IF YOUR AT IT'S NATIVE RESOLUTION.
If it's hidef and your on the hidef resolution, then it's better for hidef then a crt.
It depends on what you want. Sharpness versus better contrast. Are your eyes really good? Do you want to look at small details really good, versus small colors popping out very good?[/QUOTE]
Every LCD I own makes colors jump out of the screen more than CRTs I've owned. Regardless of what the piece of paper says, I like the color better on my LCDs too.
[quote name='defiance_17']I'm having a love affair with my 26 inch Samsung LCD.
The only problem with it is that the sound...well, blows. I imagine most people have some time of surround sound setup, so that really isn't a major issue. I'll just deal with it until I'm willing to sink $1000 or so into some audio equipment.
Viewing angle isn't an issue with my TV--my friend brought it up while he was over, and I couldn't notice anything, even standing almost perpendicular to the set.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that's the first legit complaint I've seen in this thread about LCD TVs. Sony's sets are supposed to be the best, but even still mine is only as good as my middle of the road Toshiba CRT, and worse than my old Sony CRT.
I think it's just because of the size of the cabinets. Their isn't as much space in there. I got used to it though, and playing with the audio settings punched it up a bit. It's not BAD by any stretch, just not as naturally dynamic as my old Sony V series (of course my new set is an S series...maybe the V and XBR sets still sound better?)
[quote name='Doom5']Better response time on an LCD? That's impossible. [/quote]
Regardless of being impossible, my old $1500 21" Sony monitor blurred a bit in games, and my newer LCDs don't. (My older 25ms monitor does for some games, although that's somewhat offset by the better image quality).
*Shrug* I'd imagine at this point there's equipment to calibrate LCDs too. But regardless, I'm playing games, not designing a layout for some art expo. The colors look more vibrant and punchy on all my LCDs than the CRTs they replaced, so I don't particularly care if they're "accurate" or not.
Yeah, but I still couldn't get even a high end Sony exactly correct, after constantly messing with it. It's not a terrible flaw IMO, but it's just one of many things I like better about my LCDs.
True for desktop stuff, but that's why both Apple and Microsoft are working on/have included more features for resolution independence in their OSes. And also you just try to match the resolution with what you like.
For PC games, my LCD monitors have handled non-native resolutions fine. I wouldn't be able to tell they weren't native if I didn't flip back and forth between native and non native. My TV scales stuff so well that SD content looks better than on my SD CRT it replaced.
They both have advantages and disadvantages to displays.
Crts display a huge amount of contrast. Go here:
http://www.hdtvexpert.com/pages/shmontrast.htm
However, they aren't so good for hdtv stuff.
Lcds are very sharp and are made for hidef stuff.
http://www.displaymate.com/crtvslcd.html
" The CRT beam produces images with softer edges that are not as sharp as an LCD at its native resolution. Imperfect focus and color registration also reduce sharpness. Generally sharper than LCDs at other than native resolutions."
IF YOUR AT IT'S NATIVE RESOLUTION.
If it's hidef and your on the hidef resolution, then it's better for hidef then a crt.
It depends on what you want. Sharpness versus better contrast. Are your eyes really good? Do you want to look at small details really good, versus small colors popping out very good?[/QUOTE]
Every LCD I own makes colors jump out of the screen more than CRTs I've owned. Regardless of what the piece of paper says, I like the color better on my LCDs too.
[quote name='defiance_17']I'm having a love affair with my 26 inch Samsung LCD.
The only problem with it is that the sound...well, blows. I imagine most people have some time of surround sound setup, so that really isn't a major issue. I'll just deal with it until I'm willing to sink $1000 or so into some audio equipment.
Viewing angle isn't an issue with my TV--my friend brought it up while he was over, and I couldn't notice anything, even standing almost perpendicular to the set.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that's the first legit complaint I've seen in this thread about LCD TVs. Sony's sets are supposed to be the best, but even still mine is only as good as my middle of the road Toshiba CRT, and worse than my old Sony CRT.
I think it's just because of the size of the cabinets. Their isn't as much space in there. I got used to it though, and playing with the audio settings punched it up a bit. It's not BAD by any stretch, just not as naturally dynamic as my old Sony V series (of course my new set is an S series...maybe the V and XBR sets still sound better?)
[quote name='Doom5']Better response time on an LCD? That's impossible. [/quote]
Regardless of being impossible, my old $1500 21" Sony monitor blurred a bit in games, and my newer LCDs don't. (My older 25ms monitor does for some games, although that's somewhat offset by the better image quality).
*Shrug* I'd imagine at this point there's equipment to calibrate LCDs too. But regardless, I'm playing games, not designing a layout for some art expo. The colors look more vibrant and punchy on all my LCDs than the CRTs they replaced, so I don't particularly care if they're "accurate" or not.
Yeah, but I still couldn't get even a high end Sony exactly correct, after constantly messing with it. It's not a terrible flaw IMO, but it's just one of many things I like better about my LCDs.
True for desktop stuff, but that's why both Apple and Microsoft are working on/have included more features for resolution independence in their OSes. And also you just try to match the resolution with what you like.
For PC games, my LCD monitors have handled non-native resolutions fine. I wouldn't be able to tell they weren't native if I didn't flip back and forth between native and non native. My TV scales stuff so well that SD content looks better than on my SD CRT it replaced.
Thunderscope
CAGiversary!
[quote name='defiance_17']I'm having a love affair with my 26 inch Samsung LCD.
The only problem with it is that the sound...well, blows. I imagine most people have some time of surround sound setup, so that really isn't a major issue. I'll just deal with it until I'm willing to sink $1000 or so into some audio equipment.
Viewing angle isn't an issue with my TV--my friend brought it up while he was over, and I couldn't notice anything, even standing almost perpendicular to the set.[/QUOTE]
You don't need to spend $1000 on a good surround system, I spent $200 for my Panasonic 500watt one when it was on sale a couple years ago and it sounds great.
The only problem with it is that the sound...well, blows. I imagine most people have some time of surround sound setup, so that really isn't a major issue. I'll just deal with it until I'm willing to sink $1000 or so into some audio equipment.
Viewing angle isn't an issue with my TV--my friend brought it up while he was over, and I couldn't notice anything, even standing almost perpendicular to the set.[/QUOTE]
You don't need to spend $1000 on a good surround system, I spent $200 for my Panasonic 500watt one when it was on sale a couple years ago and it sounds great.
anarchyburger
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 21 (100%)
whats the difference between LCD and CRT??
i know it was probably already posted somewhere here but i dont want to read thru all 3 pages
i know it was probably already posted somewhere here but i dont want to read thru all 3 pages
KingBroly
CAGiversary!
I have 26 inch Bravia LCD (1080i thank you very much short attention span), and I like it. I especially like having HD service. Sure, it might be overpriced right now, but 480i sucks on HDTV's, period.
I only have a Wii, but I have component cables. I recommend an LCD because most gamers use LCD tv's. Plus, they won't fade after so many years.
I only have a Wii, but I have component cables. I recommend an LCD because most gamers use LCD tv's. Plus, they won't fade after so many years.
It's because of the sharpness and brightness.
Part of viewing has to do with sharpeness and brightness. Things hafta mimic reality before they look like reality.
What I'm saying is, contrast isn't just color. It's color based on color spectrums of light and dark. The brighter and more closer to reality it is, the better the colors jump out.
What exactly happens when darkness comes, and you go outside and try to look around? Do you not realize that you get the vision of a dog, and only see in shades of brown and blue?
The brighter the color spectrum, the better you are able to distinguish reality, so in that way, lcds with high contrast look worlds better then crts.
Sharpness also plays a big part on this. THings must mimic reality. If it doesn't, your eyes don't perceive the colors as jumping out.
THis is why an lcds colors jump out to you, because of the sharpness and brightness.
Try an older lcd, with 500:1 contrast. Does the colors jump out at you as much?
The higher an lcds contrast is, the more it allows it's colors to jump out as well.
If crts had the same amount of brightness as an lcd, they would do more then jump out at you, they would be a marvel to behold. But alas, they don't.
I'm wondering if, with an lcds sharpness, the new lcds won't look BETTER than sed. Lcds don't have high contrast because of the way they are made. They actually leak colors, due to the way it is processed. Try looking it up.
If the colors don't leak, it would probably process the same amount of colors as SED, and given it's sharpness, would look tons better.
Part of viewing has to do with sharpeness and brightness. Things hafta mimic reality before they look like reality.
What I'm saying is, contrast isn't just color. It's color based on color spectrums of light and dark. The brighter and more closer to reality it is, the better the colors jump out.
What exactly happens when darkness comes, and you go outside and try to look around? Do you not realize that you get the vision of a dog, and only see in shades of brown and blue?
The brighter the color spectrum, the better you are able to distinguish reality, so in that way, lcds with high contrast look worlds better then crts.
Sharpness also plays a big part on this. THings must mimic reality. If it doesn't, your eyes don't perceive the colors as jumping out.
THis is why an lcds colors jump out to you, because of the sharpness and brightness.
Try an older lcd, with 500:1 contrast. Does the colors jump out at you as much?
The higher an lcds contrast is, the more it allows it's colors to jump out as well.
If crts had the same amount of brightness as an lcd, they would do more then jump out at you, they would be a marvel to behold. But alas, they don't.
I'm wondering if, with an lcds sharpness, the new lcds won't look BETTER than sed. Lcds don't have high contrast because of the way they are made. They actually leak colors, due to the way it is processed. Try looking it up.
If the colors don't leak, it would probably process the same amount of colors as SED, and given it's sharpness, would look tons better.
Wolfpup
CAGiversary!
[quote name='anarchyburger']whats the difference between LCD and CRT??
i know it was probably already posted somewhere here but i dont want to read thru all 3 pages[/QUOTE]
You mean the basics? A Cathode Ray Tube shoots electrons at the front of the screen to "paint" an image on it. It's what TVs have been since the beginning.
Active Matrix LCDs (which is probably all TVs and modern computer monitors) have hundreds of thousands (or millions) of individual...well, basically little filters that open and shut to let light through. They're all addressed individually in an active matrix screen.
LCDs are usually a lot brighter and sharper than CRTs (in addition to being smaller and using less power). In the past, LCDs response time was slow, so that for moving images you'd often see basically muddy streaks left behind. That hasn't been the case for years though.
i know it was probably already posted somewhere here but i dont want to read thru all 3 pages[/QUOTE]
You mean the basics? A Cathode Ray Tube shoots electrons at the front of the screen to "paint" an image on it. It's what TVs have been since the beginning.
Active Matrix LCDs (which is probably all TVs and modern computer monitors) have hundreds of thousands (or millions) of individual...well, basically little filters that open and shut to let light through. They're all addressed individually in an active matrix screen.
LCDs are usually a lot brighter and sharper than CRTs (in addition to being smaller and using less power). In the past, LCDs response time was slow, so that for moving images you'd often see basically muddy streaks left behind. That hasn't been the case for years though.
bread's done