Skyfire

I still feel that CRT's are superior to LCD's in every way, shape, and form. It's bulky size is it's only defect. I laugh at LCD users who complain about dead pixels. My next monitor upgrade sure as hell won't be to LCD's...it will be one of the two only "true successors" to CRT's. Here's a few links to the two "superior" products that devoted CRT users like me are likely to migrate to when they are released to the masses.

[COLOR=#800080]http://www.behardware.com/articles/593-1/close-encounters-of-the-third-kind-sed.html[/COLOR] 100,000:1 contrast ratio, response time < 1ms, viewing angle:180 degrees

[COLOR=#800080]http://www.brightsidetech.com/[/COLOR] 200,000:1 contrast ratio, 16 bits per color...3 colors(red, blue, green), so you end up with 48 bit color instead of 32 bit color which is what all monitors(that i know of) are capable of. Of course, it's kind of hard to tell at what point the human eye won't be able to tell the difference...such as 4 billion, 8 billion colors...they both look the same to me.

Both of these look like they will be far superior to LCD's(low contrast ratio, dead pixels, backlight leakage, blacks aren't black due to backlight), Plasma(image burn-in, and possibly a few other problems...never really looked into them), and CRT's(bulky...only real problem, other than they aren't being made anymore. Damn companies forcing us to buy inferior products by not making CRT's)

and now...cast your votes

Judas

Swimtech i beleive had introduced me to SEDs quite awhile ago and what they were capable off.

However initially i thought no LCD could possibly surpass a CRT in quality.... let alone fighting dead pixels and other things were my major beef.

But, those are long gone. Responce times are insanely fast, zero ghosting. Dead Pixels are non-excistant and IF you end up with a few, send it back and get a replacement, they are highly uncommon now.

PLUS, LCDs are by far the best thing for your eyes.

The SEDs initially looked great, but it's still follows the rules of CRTS relying on a pulse of light being used, and refresh rates as far as i understand, imo, this is where lcds shine.

__________________

Skyfire

quick response...just finished up with the poll and saw your post.

I'm wondering if it's a bit too far stretched to say that LCD's have reached the point to being superior in EVERY way to CRT's. Of course, my opinion probably doesn't count for much since I've stayed away from LCD's, and never really gave them a try.

Also, could you possibly inform me what's bad about having a native resolution? I've heard it was bad(of course), but never really knew what was so bad about it. Dead pixels, well, I'm not completely sure they are non existant. CRT's being hard on my eyes, well, I'll agree with that since staring at a computer screen for 8-10 hours a day can cause eye strain(kind of painful). As for Ghosting and response times, from what I've heard(take it with a grain of salt), response time pretty much affects the contrast ratio in a negative way(inverse)...so the lower you have the response time, the lower the contrast ratio. Along with this, I have heard(Danger will robinson, danger), that lcd's tend to be good at one or two things, but sucks at another...for instance, clarity of text, gaming, watching movies...

Please correct any mistakes I may have made. But in the end, I guess all the LCD problems of the past kind of scared me away from taking that path, and I'm just sitting here waiting for something to finally come out that will be much better than a CRT in every way.

technonerd

Still have the NEC 19inch CRT for 2 1/2 years. Since the LCD is improving and getting better than CRT, I'm leading toward to one of the widescreen LCD.

Judas

like i said, LCDs have VASTLY changed within the last 2 years significantly, that's why you see more people or more stores handling LCDs for example. Why where they really in mass supply before? One being dead pixels and responce times not to mention contrast ratios to boot.


Those 1milllion to 1 or 100,000 to 1 or whatever contrast ratios are kinda misleading i personally beleive as any good quality low contrast ratio lcd seem to produce similare if not better brightness and blackness then some of those insanely high contrast ratio designs... but we'll see what SEDs REALLY look like when they hit.


Reguardless heres the scoop:


Native resolutions are, pretty much as they are, CRTS are excellent for adjusting the resolutions and not having to REALLY worry about getting a bit uglier resolution crap happening when your out of native mode. However, ALL CRTS have a recommended and tuned to resolution. For example, i've a monitor that is recommended to run 1280x1024 @ 85hz , however i can run 1600x1200, 2048x480 or 640x480. Sure, it's all possible, but realistically, not many people jump around the resolutions, they set the resolution in which there desktop and there games play great at an go. But not always the case i don't deny it.

CRTS are good like that, but the fact that higher resolutions lower the refresh rates, which increase eye strain significantly to the point of feeling like your forehead is going to touch your chin kinda pain. Plus, most of the CRTS get blurring at lower/higher resolutions if it's not TOP OF THE LINE or running OUT OF RECOMMENDED Spec frequency(refreshrates).

LCDS, Native resolution is pretty much your stuck there, you can go lower, but expect basically gobby looking resolutions above and below (mostly below as most lcds are produced to run at there maximum). However while running native mode, you can expect to see zero dead pixels and EXCELLENT crisp high quality images and color saturation. Going from my proffesional 900IFT or 1100DF (19 and 21 inch CRTS with insane quality) to the 19" ACER AL1951 or the mighty Dell 3007FPW (30 inch lcd) is like going from snowy farmer vision TV (attenna) to HDTV Broadcast over satalite or cable.

I was like you, always downplaying the lcd, always. Aside from the dell monitors (4million lcd crystals to go wrong) having occasional dead pixels which sending right back and get a replace quickly and easily for one that doesn't have any. I've yet to get a good quality lcd that has an issue, has brutal gameplay ghosting or motion blurring or problems. EXTREMELY bright and excellently black.

LCDS have officially changed for the better then CRT for ME the begining of 2006. Trust me, you spend a decent amount of cash on a LCD, you SHOULDN'T be disappointed. And spending 10-16 hours in front of that thing will leave you with still a confortable viewing experience, several days a week, for weeks on end.

If your looking at anything, i highly recommend the DELL FPW's (2007/2407/3007) or Acers Gaming Lineup which are also quite excellent.

__________________

TheBlackCat

LCDs have the strange problem of randomly dropping frames. This is not a problem in normal use, but I for very specific roles that are very frame-specific LCDs simply cannot be used. I am not sure why this happens. I use an LCD myself simply because space is too valuable.

__________________
[color=#000000]There is always an easy solution to every human problem—neat, plausible and wrong.[/color]
-H. L. Mencken

Lowfat

The SED screen looks amazing, but I highly doubt it will ever be used in desktops anytime soon. I have used LCDs for about 2 years and won't turn back. I have a BenQ LCD and a Samsung CRT here. I am cabable of dual-monitor'ing, but I just prefer the LCD so much I never ever turn on the second screen.

The only issue I have with my LCD is the weak contrast ratio (600:1). I watch a lot of movies on it, and the 'grey' bars on the top and bottom when watch a widescreen movie are quite annoying.

__________________

Skyfire

Thanks a lot Judas for clearing up that stuff for me.

One thing always struck me as kind of odd though...why is it that 1280x1024 pixels is a "standard" resolution for 4:3 ratio monitors, even though the "true" 4:3 ratio would be 1280x960? did the people who decided which resolutions would be the "standard" resolutions just favor 1024 since it's 2^10? Was it because the standard resolution below that had 1024 pixels for the "4" in 4:3, and decided to move it over to the "3" position? Doesn't make much sense to me regardless of why the decision was made, which, of course, is the motive for asking this question.

TheBlackCat

And along similar lines, why are widescreen monitors 8:5 (16:10) instead of 16:9?

__________________
[color=#000000]There is always an easy solution to every human problem—neat, plausible and wrong.[/color]
-H. L. Mencken

CDsDontBurn

ditto

i too myself was at one point a CRT head. but now, i've changed my perspective on LCDs and i actually want one now. I had an envision 19in. monitor running at 1600x1200 @ 75hz up until it died. now, i have a cheapy gateway 700v monitor that does 1280x1024 @ 65hz. oh, how it hurts. I'm planning to purchase myself the dell 2407wfp monitor come early 2007. i know that will be an upgrade worth getting, and one that will last through at least two computer builds .

just to know (because i don't ), what are SEDs?

__________________

BlueMak

1280x1024 is not 4:3 resolution. It is 5:4. Everything is more squized (spelling?). You might not notice because the graphics card /monitor is actualy scalling the images.

Unfortunately I don't remember why it is a stantard for 19" LCD monitors.


As for the original question, I don't know enough of the other technologies, but after using LCDs for about 4 years now, I do not see me going back to CRTs any day soon. I like my eyes.

__________________

The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others(Bertrand Russell)"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil,You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." - Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis
This is slavery, not to speak one's thought. [Euripides-The Phoenician Women (c.411-409 B.C.)] http://www.macedonia.info/FALLACIESANDFACTS.htm Sic semper tyrannis.

H3X4D3C1M4L

I've been using CRT's since back in the day and my eye sight is far better than 20/20. As long as the lighting is good and you do take occaisional breaks for long stretches of computing you won't damage your eyes. An LCD will only save your eyes if you can't take frequent breaks (for whatever reason that would be) and you must be sitting in a dark room working on your PC.

CDsDontBurn

i don't like the light. i'd rather be in a dark room, where the only light being emitted is that from my monitor. i've been using CRTs since i was in the 6th grade......so it's been a while. and AFAIK, my vision is still at 20/20 .

__________________

Zelig

I'd like to get an LCD, but I paid $250 for my 21" Sony G520P, runs 1600x1200@100Hz, and anything comparable in an LCD would cost me more than I can afford.

__________________
--

Judas

as for the ratio of the monitors and where 4:3 is "standard" ratio, yet most lcds are 1280x1024, yeah i'm not completely sure why they are like that....but hey, i'll take the extra pixel depth of 1024 vs 960.

as for the lowfat, the acer AL1951 has true black, blacker then black. Watching anything that has a black is what it is, i've seen ALOT of LCDs that can't even touch this monitor, and with a 700:1 contrast ratio, the whites are incredibly bright too. BEST damn lcd i've seen.

Walking into my suppliers, they had 30 odd LCDs all hooked up and running side by side (4x high by nearly 8 wide), the acer AL1951 was the ONLY one that actually had a black look to it. couldn't recommend it enough. (75hz @ 1280x1024, true DVI connection with VGA as well, little mini stereo speakers in the base that can be quite useful)

__________________