Are CRTs still better than LCDs?
 

I was wondering, not too long ago LCD were just marginal in quality. For having seen the 24" imac, I know it's not the case anymore, but I was wondering if CRTs still have an edge?

What do you all think about ViewSonic monitors?
They seem so cheap, something must be wrong, uh?

For example, this CRT here http://www.viewsonic.com/products/de...s/g90fB/#specs

If you scroll down and look down at the specs it says that when connected to a PC it's 1920 x 1440, that should cover HDV viewing, don't you think?

Is the LCD below better? And why?

http://www.viewsonic.com/products/de...eries/vp2130b/

At a purely practical level, the CRT is bulky, unweildy, weighs probably 5X as much and has a much smaller screen (a "19" CRT is really only 18"-ish in LCD terms).

A big advantage of the CRT is you can run it at whatever resolution you like up to the max and it will still be sharp. The LCD looks bad run at anything other than it's native resolution.

More expensive LCDs, or LCD T.V.s, will allow you to input composite, s-video and component signals so that you can check interlacing etc that a pure computer monitor doesn't display properly.

Others who know more will hopefully give you comments on the state of the game as far as color accuracy for monitoring.

What!? :)

Isn't an inch an inch?

It sure ain't - not with CRT's! Measure the viewable diagonal screen of a "19" CRT sometime and you'll see....

At that high a resolution, there might be unacceptable flicker. Practical resolution may be the lower figure.

2- For dual monitor setups, I would prefer 1 LCD + 1 CRT or two LCDs. But not two CRTs... because they will interfere with one another, so then you have to space them apart.

If you have a CRT broadcast monitor in there, that's a third CRT. For broadcast monitors, CRTs are the best in my opinion.

3- For computer monitors, LCDs may not be a bad choice. Unless you need to do color management for print work, which you presumably don't.

I've used several CRT pairs side-by-side without interference. But don't forget about all the heat they generate (I remember those rooms getting quite warm).

I do recall many CRTs that weren't nearly as sharp above some threshold resolution (e.g., I had a 19" ViewSonic from 5 years ago that looked fine at 1152x870 or thereabouts, but was definitely fuzzy at 1280x1024 or 1600x1200). I would expect performance at higher resolutions has continued to improve for CRTs, but I'd want to see a sample running at the highest resolution I plan on using before committing to it.

OK, I think I'll go LSD, I mean LCD, thank
Andrea

Do both - then the images would look, like, REALLY FANTASTIC! :)

Refresh rates over 60Hz
 

Flicker was a problem with CRTs since the phosphors start bright and fade till the next refresh. High refresh rates masked the problem. With LCDs, refresh rates other than 60Hz seem pointless since most of our editing is at 30frames or 60 fields per second anyway. Besides, in just a couple of years, virtually all CRTs will be in the recycle stream, especially with the demise of NTSC broadcasts in the US. But then thats another thread....

[QUOTE=Graham Hickling
snip

A big advantage of the CRT is you can run it at whatever resolution you like up to the max and it will still be sharp. The LCD looks bad run at anything other than it's native resolution.

snip

[/QUOTE]

Graham

I think I'll have to respectfully disagree on that point. Some LCD's look excellent when run at resolutions other than native. I have NO idea why some look good (at non native res') and others don't. ??? hahaha

Regards
JohnG

Really? That surprises me...perhaps these bigger ones use different scaling from the ones I've ever used. Thanks for pointing that out.

In that case what I'd still say is that one definitely needs to TRY them running at non-standard res if that's going to be important - it would be unwise to simply assume they'll look great.