Are CRTs still better than LCDs? at DVinfo.net

Andrea Miller · October 10th, 2006, 05:49 PM

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/

Graham Hickling · October 10th, 2006, 07:40 PM

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.

Jarrod Whaley · October 10th, 2006, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham Hickling

a "19" CRT is really only 18"-ish in LCD terms

What!? :)

Isn't an inch an inch?

Graham Hickling · October 10th, 2006, 10:34 PM

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

Glenn Chan · October 10th, 2006, 11:03 PM

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

Quote:

See it all with 1920x1440 maximum resolution
With the maximum resolution of 1920x1440 you'll scroll less as you fit more on the screen. Your eyes will rest easy with a flicker-free 1600x1200 resolution at 77Hz.

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.

Terence Murphy · October 11th, 2006, 08:15 AM

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.

Andrea Miller · October 12th, 2006, 06:04 AM

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

Graham Hickling · October 12th, 2006, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrea Miller

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

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

Don Blish · October 12th, 2006, 04:03 PM

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....

John Godden · October 15th, 2006, 02:29 PM

[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

Graham Hickling · October 15th, 2006, 02:46 PM

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.

October 10th, 2006, 05:49 PM	#1
Andrea Miller Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Munich Posts: 28	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/

October 12th, 2006, 04:03 PM	#9
Don Blish Major Player Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Portland OR Posts: 227	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....

October 15th, 2006, 02:29 PM	#10
John Godden Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 172	[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 __________________ Nikon DSLR's finally a small 60P camcorder (Sanyo VPC-FH1)

October 10th, 2006, 07:40 PM	#2
Graham Hickling Trustee Join Date: May 2004 Location: Knoxville, Tennessee Posts: 1,669	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.

October 10th, 2006, 10:34 PM	#4
Graham Hickling Trustee Join Date: May 2004 Location: Knoxville, Tennessee Posts: 1,669	It sure ain't - not with CRT's! Measure the viewable diagonal screen of a "19" CRT sometime and you'll see....

October 11th, 2006, 08:15 AM	#6
Terence Murphy Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Baltimore, MD Posts: 161	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.

October 12th, 2006, 06:04 AM	#7
Andrea Miller Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Munich Posts: 28	OK, I think I'll go LSD, I mean LCD, thank Andrea

October 15th, 2006, 02:46 PM	#11
Graham Hickling Trustee Join Date: May 2004 Location: Knoxville, Tennessee Posts: 1,669	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.