What monitor would you buy: CRT or LCD?

and you would get...

  • The 21" CRT

    Votes: 9 22.5%
  • Two 19" CRT's

    Votes: 4 10.0%
  • 17" LCD

    Votes: 16 40.0%
  • Other Monitor(s)

    Votes: 5 12.5%
  • Spend it on modding my NSX instead

    Votes: 3 7.5%
  • Huh? Let me just vote ... i love polls

    Votes: 3 7.5%

  • Total voters
    40
  • Poll closed .
Joined
2 October 2001
Messages
8,546
Location
Melb. AUSTRALIA
My beloved 17" Sony monitor of six years died today... :(
Now i must get a replacement before this 15" drives me mad. :p


What would you get:

<LI> a HUGE 21" Sony CRT :cool:
<LI> 2x 19" Sony CRT's
<LI> a 17" LCD (16ms, maybe get two?)


I'd LOVE the 21"... the big daddy of all monitors; but then two 19" monitors would cost about the same. LCD's are nice, but i'd hate to get one with dead-pixels. A 19" LCD is out of the question as it's has trailers during the occasional game. ;)

I'd be using it for Photoshop/video editing/NSXprime :D

i kinda know what i want, but would love other opinions ...
 
I have owned a NEC 21" CRT for over 8 years. I find 21" CRTs to be the best. In fact I happen to have a spare with which I would be willing to part. It is currently attached to an obsolete system I have and no longer use. If you're interested, let me know.
 
I will share this story. We got a 19 inch LCD from dell months ago. It was like $600 bucks. It just died for no reason at all. So they sent us another, but I am not happy about it at all. I have had my 19inch CRT for 5 years and it has NEVER had a problem. This fancy LCD craps out for nothing...???

You chose.
 
I have 2 Viewsonic VX-900 19" LCD monitors and absolutely love them. I do a lot of online gaming and they perform flawlessly with very demanding games like Quake III and Batttlefield 1942.

The videocard is very important of course. I'm currently using a MSI Nvidia Ti 4600 8X AGP which has dual digital outputs so there is no anolog to digital dongle that needs to be used.

I build PCs as a little side business so feel free to contact me via PM or email if you have specific questions.

Hugh
 
Last edited:
Unless you are absolutely in a space crunch, I do not see the need to spend $$$$ on an LCD monitor when you can get an excellent 17" or 19" for low bucks.
 
I have dual 18.1" NEC's for both home and office. Love them.

p13157b.JPG
 
I've had a Dell 1800FP in my home office for nearly a year. It's an entry-level 18.1" LCD. I'm in front of the 8+ hours per day and going from CRT to LCD reduced eye strain tremendously. I don't think I could ever go back to CRT. I don't do a lot gaming, but it seems to perform well enough for me.

The monitor had a single dead pixel at first, then a vertical dead "line." I called Dell and a replacement arrived the following morning.

My only gripe would be 1280x1024 native resolution; 1600x1200 would have been nice. Then again, that's rare in sub-19" LCDs.
 
If you are going to be doing Photoshop work, you probably have to stick with CRT. I use both a CRT and LCD and the digital imaging always comes out better with the CRT. Also, you need to be sure that your computer and monitor can be adjusted to aRGB manually. Some cannot and that's an obstacle that I needed to overcome with one of my laptops with an LCD.

For an experiment, photoshop a picture using two different monitors and then print the picture's that you manipulated with each monitor. You'll be surprised at what comes out.
 
If your doing text, I would consider the LCD. If your going graphics, then I would go with the CRT.

Some things I like about an LCD.
-Extremely sharp if you use the native resolution. Any other resolution and the pixels seem to blur.
-Uses a lot less power. (1/3 the power of a CRT).
-Very light and uses little space.

Some things I like about a CRT
- Can look sharp in any resolution as long as you have an excellent video card (Matrox-for text) and a monitor that can handle high frequencies (at least 85 Hz)
- Very inexpensive. (I got my 19-inch Dell for $179 a few weeks ago). So cheap, I bought 2.
- Don't have to worry about pixels going out. A few pixels missing in an LCD isn't considered defective!

As much as I like the sharp resolution of the LCD, I would still stick to a CRT. Its more flexible for my needs.
 
I use to have a 19" CRT at home and a 22" CRT Flat Screen at work and I thought they're the best until I bought a 19" Dell digital LCD. It's awesome - CRT doesnt come close. Excellent - vivid colors almost life like especially on heavy graphics, photos or videos. No flicker nor glare at all - NO EYESTRAIN!

Keep in mind to get the LCD which is digital video (DVI) capable and your video card should have a DVI port to match it otherwise you'll end up with a analog video signal - which is not as good as the digital video.

I'll never go back to CRT again.
 
Last edited:
I am running the Apple 23" HD Cinema displays (yes, 2 of them)

although they are for Apple computers (Power & USB hub & DVI runs through 1 cable), you can get a breakout box, that will split it to a normal DVI plug, Power Cord, and USB connector. Make sure you graphics card will support widescreen resolutions (native on the 23"HD is 1900x1200)

they are alot nicer than the Sony 19" LCD, and the Viewsonic 19" they replaced.

quite impressed with the LCDs, just make sure it has a high contrast ratio.....that seems to make everything more "lively looking"

-Ray
 
Some good replies... glad i started this.

i'm still not convinced with LCD's because in my line of work i see a notebooks with dead pixels. :(

Also, most LCD's that i've seen dont use DVI inputs; but cheaper analog. i haven't noticed much difference in quality.


<B>DocL</B> : Your points on RGB differences between monitors when photoshopping are VERY true. Since photoshoping is a part of my work (not the samuari babes) this is a very real consideration.


at the moment, I'm thinking perhaps a 19" and an LCD ... keep trendy but the CRT is safe. :D

BTW, if i get a 21", will FuryNSX release a special 2560x2048 version of his wallpaper? ;)
 
No LCD RGB issues here

In my experience it's not so much the difference in RGB balance between LCDs and CRTs that causes issues in image editing applications, such as Photoshop. The difference in gamma response seems to be a much bigger factor.

Specifically, when trying to achieve the same output on my two monitors, the darks still look slightly darker on my LCD than they do on my CRT. There's nothing that can be done as far as adjusting each monitor's brightness, contrast, and RGB balance to get the two to respond identically. However, you can easily use Adobe Gamma (comes with PhotoShop) to dial out these differences, and more importantly, calibrate your display.

BTW: All decent LCD monitors (not counting notebooks) I'm aware of have the ability to set color temperature and RGB balance.
 
Last edited:

Specifically, when trying to achieve the same output on my two monitors, the darks still look slightly darker on my LCD than they do on my CRT. There's nothing that can be done as far as adjusting each monitor's brightness, contrast, and RGB balance to get the two to respond identically. However, you can easily use Adobe Gamma (comes with PhotoShop) to dial out these differences, and more importantly, calibrate your display.


As others have mentioned if you're doing professional print, photo or video editing, then a CRT is preferable. Two main issues are the gamma response on the TFT panel vs the CRT and the number of bits per component that drive the display. In english this means that you'll have a larger colour range on the CRT, and the darks for example won't all be clumped together in the lower range.

If you do opt to go with a panel, make sure to get one with a digital connector (DVI). VGA connectors mean that the graphics cards digital output is converted to analog and then back to digital again and the image on-screen won't be as sharp (you can see the blurriness first-hand with panels that have both connectors).

If the above colour issues are not of paramount concern, then a panel is a much nicer/sharper choice.

Let me know if you need me to go into technical details.
 
<B>Zurest</B> : thanx for that info... the price has put an end to that idea. :rolleyes: Besides, large LCD's are usually slower; and that sux.


With LCD's I was reading recently that most LCD's do not display 16.8mil colors -- they can only display 232,000 colours; they achieve 16.8mil by alterating between two colours at very hi-speed. Useless information, but interesting.


I've nailed my choices down to a <A HREF="http://www.sony.com.au/product_detail.asp?CCod=16060&CCod2=16607&ProdCod=CPDG520">21" Sony G520</A> and a <A HREF="http://www.nec-mitsubishi.com/coremedia/generator/Internet/Subsidiaries/Headquarter/Content/Products/CRT-DiamondPro2070SB/CRT-DiamondPro2070SB,spec=_3F__uk__en.html">Mitsubishi 22" Diamond Pro 2070SB</A>. I'd prefer the Sony label, but the Mitsubishi is slightly better. :(
 
My only complaint about newer CRTs is that most of them are aperture grille and while they have great colors and contrast, they all have those two faint lines at around the 1/4 and 3/4 position.
 
I would wait around for a good sale on 19inch LCDs if I were you. Find three or four high quality monitors you like and camp the hot deals forums for a deal. When finances permit, buy the second 19 inch. A dual or triple 19inch LCD display would last you as long as the dispalys lasted in my opinion.
 
If trhe Mitsubishi is better, well take that one. Why would you prefer a SONY instead or wishing to prefer it? Ok, I have to take a life ;) ... but I really do not like SONY and I do not understand why it is so overstimated... :)
 
Back
Top