LCD Monitors

[JHAQ]

I was advised by my computer repair technician NOT to use an LCD monitor but only a CRT one on my computer . He gave several reasons for this ( picture distortion /contortion /shrinkage under certain circumstances ) , not the least being that a CRT type lasts twice as long . Does any reader have any input on this ? My CRT 20 in monitor just failed after about 6 years ( an IBM type , not Mac system ) .

[Sayonara]

Generally speaking, the only reason you would want to use a less energy-efficient, comparatively more expensive, and bulkier technology like a CRT monitor, is because you are a graphical designer who needs a much higher resolution and more realistic colour representation than LCD monitors can supply.

 

Anyone else ought to have stopped buying CRTs by now. He is possibly suffering from a nostalgia attack.

[EvoN1020v]

I don't see any problem in having a CRT monitor. It might be bulky but at least it still show you the screen of the computer. The differences between LCD and CRT are quality and price.

[gcol]

The radiology (x-ray) department in my local general hospital changed from crt to lcd some years ago. Cant be too bad if they are good enough for examining x-ray pictures and CAT scans. Nevertheless, for me there is/was some subjective vibrancy to the old crt screen that is now lost.

[husmusen]

That assumes that the new equipment was better, not always the case in hospital sometimes "cheaper" is more important in the eyes of hospital management.

 

Husmusen

[-Demosthenes-]

I think I can look at an LCD longer, but I don't like how it looks as much.

[Glider]

The radiology (x-ray) department in my local general hospital changed from crt to lcd some years ago. Cant be too bad if they are good enough for examining x-ray pictures and CAT scans. Nevertheless, for me there is/was some subjective vibrancy to the old crt screen that is now lost.

There has been a change to the way orthopaedics depts. share information. New software has allowed x-rays and CTs to be shared electronically now (this is fairly recent). However, whilst you can browse these images at home, for clinical purposes, the monitor has to be of 'diagnostic quality', i.e. it has to have sufficient resolution, accuracy and clarity to be able to show extremely fine detail. I don't know whether the diagnostic class monitors are CRT or LCD, but I do know they are very expensive. Not your normal 'gamers' monitors.

[Klaynos]

One MASSIVE advantage LCD's have is power consumption, it is considerably less than TFT's which for me, added with the space issue is reason enough to change over.

[Ndi]

6 years is quite right for a nice CRT.

 

CRT

 

+ CRT has better colors

+ CRT can produce higher-quality images

+ CRTs have lower latency

+ CRT can in 99% of the cases produce a very accurate image for multiple resolutions, as opposed to LCDs that have a "designed" resolution with a cell per pixel. Which is fine if you don't leave the desktop much.

- CRTs are less energy efficient

- CRTs arguably have a higher health impact, even though they are improving continuously.

 

 

LCD

 

+ LCD are lighter

+ LCDs are thinner

+ LCDs are more efficient

+ NEWER, more expensive LCDs can produce almost as much luminance as a CRT if equipped with the latest in LED back lighting. Typically, they can't match a CRT.

- Lesser quality

- Less versatile (not an issue if you never run things like stereoscopic, etc)

 

 

So in short, CRT is still the king of image, LCD is the king of style.

 

It's really up to you. As for the hospital, those LCDs work at designed resolutions and if you need detail, you can zoom. They are LCDs because they are cheaper and more stylish, as are most front-office monitors. You will not find a bulky high-quality monitor on a reception desk. That does not make them less. It will be a long time before I switch to LCDs. Sorry, I just like my image to be crystal-clean.

[insane_alien]

eventually LCD will overtake CRT, maybe 5 years an we'll have LCD screens of ridiculously high resolutions and low response times (even though i can't tell a 8 ms response time myself. and thats what my LCD screen does)

[Ndi]

If the technology keeps improving at the same rate, LCDs will overtake CRTs, but there are other technologies around that beat on CRTs for supremacy (Plasma?). Oh and I forgot to add to my previous post, the LCDs are (a)much more resilient to interference, allowing for worse conditions for mounting and (b) a lot cheaper to build for large screens.

 

8 ms means that at 125 Hz the image starts to smudge colors from one frame to the other(plus tearing, etc). In theory. In practice I expect it to start doing so from a (slightly) lower rate. Capping the monitor at 100 Hz will most likely make this almost invisible. It also only happens for color shifts so it most likely only affects high-paced/graphically intensive games (movies can be fast but they don't go at that rate). Because of the design, it doesn't affect windows or mouse movements.

[insane_alien]

plasmas are already falling behind LCD's although they do allow better colour