# CRT or LCD for graphics? x__x



## t3htig3r (Dec 4, 2006)

Hi guys! I'm just wondering if I should get a widesceen LCD or just get a bigger CRT monitor.. I currently have a 17" CRT monitor and running several programs kinda chokes up my monitor space so I'm considering getting a bigger monitor. Now my choice is either getting that 20-22" wide monitor (the "wide" format really helps when I'm drawing in photoshop) or get a 19-20" CRT monitor.. help please >.<


----------



## SageHusky (Dec 4, 2006)

LCD will be clearer for drawing in my opinion. That being said it is also my favorite of the two since the responce time is barely noticable when gaming.

*Hugs his Samsung 730e DVI monitor*


----------



## WelcomeTheCollapse (Dec 4, 2006)

Doooo eeeeeeet.

/I'm a hotlinking bastard
//I'm sure apple's servers can handle the...stress?


----------



## DavidN (Dec 4, 2006)

I'd go for the widescreen one (even though I'm not a Mac fan, I have to admit that monitor above is fantastic). I've never quite understood the advantages that people say CRT still has over LCD.


----------



## Hanazawa (Dec 4, 2006)

I just got a 22" LCD for my desktop. It's niiiiiiice, even more so because my taskbar doesn't work properly anymore... >_>;

the most common complaint I read about LCDs is gamma too high/too bright/poor color matching.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 4, 2006)

It depends on the brand but I've had more issues with LCDs because I need my gamma calibrated for drawing.


----------



## DavidN (Dec 4, 2006)

That's a point, actually - I've been fiddling with my left one for ages and it still seems a bit yellow.

(Oh, the out of context potential.)


----------



## Kougar (Dec 5, 2006)

If you buy a good quality LCD, it'll match a CRT on almost any point. Another thing to remember is that with CRTs, they include the plastic bezel in measuring the screen size. With LCD's they only measure the screen itself, so a 20"LCD is going to offer more "screen" than a 20" CRT  

Widescreen is a huge plus, I changed to a large widscreen here from a 17" CRT, and wouldn't go back even if I was paid to. Also the issues of the gamma/brightness on the CRT fading over time is nonexistent... Just make sure to get a 1280 or larger resolution screen when ya find one, since the resolution is fixed. 22" models are the sweet spot right now...


----------



## t3htig3r (Dec 5, 2006)

wow I'm learning sooo much from all of you guys thank you all! 

er.. for a $500 budget, what do you guys think is the best LCD monitor to get? ^_^; I'm so sorry I can't afford the $1,000+ ones ; - ;

can you guys post how much your monitors are so I can compare? ; - ;


----------



## SageHusky (Dec 5, 2006)

about 300 mine is. nothing spectacular, just at 17" Samsung 730e


----------



## nobuyuki (Dec 5, 2006)

LCD's suck in almost every image quality category compared to a CRT.  If you can stand having a big heavy potentially explosive monitor up by your face all day, get one.  You will hate yourself if you end up getting a cheap to mediocre LCD and end up with ghosting, a craptastic viewing angle, and gamma correction problems you'll never be able to fix.


----------



## Rhainor (Dec 5, 2006)

SageHusky said:
			
		

> ...the responce time is barely noticable when gaming.



You must have a DAMN fast LCD.

LCDs have the slowest response time of all monitor/television technologies.



			
				DavidN said:
			
		

> I've never quite understood the advantages that people say CRT still has over LCD.



They're slightly cheaper, and lots more reliable.  They offer better contrast levels, more accurate colors, and truer blacks.  CRT computer monitors also have no set native resolution, unlike LCDs.

The only problem with CRT computer monitors is that the casing is so damn big.


----------



## Emerson (Dec 5, 2006)

nobuyuki said:
			
		

> LCD's suck in almost every image quality category compared to a CRT.Â Â If you can stand having a big heavy potentially explosive monitor up by your face all day, get one.Â Â You will hate yourself if you end up getting a cheap to mediocre LCD and end up with ghosting, a craptastic viewing angle, and gamma correction problems you'll never be able to fix.



Would the same be true of a flat panel LCD television?


----------



## Rhainor (Dec 5, 2006)

Emerson said:
			
		

> Would the same be true of a flat panel LCD television?



Very much so.

If you don't _insist_ on having a 50+inch TV, and you don't _insist_ on having a flat-panel TV (meaning the ones you can hang on a wall), CRT is the way to go for HDTV.  If you want huge screen size, but can do without a flat-panel, go DLP.  Avoid plasma if you're going to do much gaming on it; Plasma TVs have heavy burn-in issues.


----------



## Emerson (Dec 5, 2006)

Rhainor said:
			
		

> Emerson said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Due to budget/apartment size, I'm looking at a 32" inch TV. Flat-panel isn't really a must-have. I'm more interested in picture quality and product reliability than I am in the size. I watch very little TV, but I do game a lot, and watch DVDs a lot.


----------



## nobuyuki (Dec 5, 2006)

They make some good HDTV CRT's for a decent price, but it's one of those things you gotta keep your eyeballs out for.  Samsung comes to mind.


----------



## Rhainor (Dec 5, 2006)

Emerson said:
			
		

> Due to budget/apartment size, I'm looking at a 32" inch TV. Flat-panel isn't really a must-have. I'm more interested in picture quality and product reliability than I am in the size. I watch very little TV, but I do game a lot, and watch DVDs a lot.



CRT is the way to go for your HDTV needs.  A friend of mine got a pretty good LG 30" CRT from Best Buy for ~$550.  Samsung makes good stuff also.

If you can find a Sony CRT with *XS955* or *XBR960* in the model number, GRAB IT.  These TVs have Sony's SPF ("Super Fine Pitch") tube design, and give the best picture quality available for any CRT TV.  Unfortunately, the SFP tube was not used in the XBR970, and the XS955 and XBR960 have been discontinued.


----------



## Emerson (Dec 5, 2006)

Actually, I did see some decent looking Samsung models. I'm going to swing by Best Buy this weekend to look at what they actually have on display.

In the Land of Reality, is there that big of a difference between a 30 and 32" screen? Other than, you know, two inches? :3


----------



## Rhainor (Dec 5, 2006)

Emerson said:
			
		

> In the Land of Reality, is there that big of a difference between a 30 and 32" screen? Other than, you know, two inches? :3



Not a bit.  720p is the highest progressive-scan resolution any CRT television will produce, and any HDTV is at least 720p (480p is technically "Enhanced Definition").  The TV you get may (probably will) support 1080i, but 720p will actually give you a sharper picture, particularly when stuff onscreen is moving around quickly.  Only 1080p is better, and to get that resolution on a TV you need a DLP or LCD that's over 50".


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 5, 2006)

Emerson said:
			
		

> In the Land of Reality, is there that big of a difference between a 30 and 32" screen? Other than, you know, two inches? :3



You are really opening yourself to a lot of leeway here aren't you?


----------



## SageHusky (Dec 5, 2006)

for the money, CRT is much cheaper


Rhainorr - 8ms response time from DVI connection.  30ms on VGA


----------



## Rhainor (Dec 6, 2006)

SageHusky said:
			
		

> Rhainorr - 8ms response time from DVI connection.  30ms on VGA



Wow...and you're claiming no blur?  I see response-time-blur on 5ms LCD displays, and even on some 2ms ones.  In my experience, a 30-millisecond response time is unheard of.


----------



## nobuyuki (Dec 6, 2006)

one other thing to consider:  720p  is essentially your normal monitor resolution.  1080i and 1080p are a little gimmicky as of right now so if you're satisfied with that resolution (1280x720)  then go for it


----------



## Emerson (Dec 6, 2006)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Emerson said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Who, me? Nevar. :roll:


----------



## Pyrodemonfox (Dec 6, 2006)

I use my 32" tv for a drawing monitor and my CRT for gaming, and my LCD for surfing the internet.

P.S. Yes they are all hooked together


----------



## SageHusky (Dec 6, 2006)

I play CS and HL2 and I kick ass on it, so either I don't notice it or i'm used to it but not bragging I kick ass


----------



## Kougar (Dec 6, 2006)

Yeah, I'd claim no blurring on mine. There are no set standards for measuring a monitor's response times, so I completely ignore those numbers as they can mean anything the manufacturer wants. And while LCD's won't display the full range of colors out there as well as a CRT will, the good ones will hide the drawback so well it's not noticed, including when working with subtle color gradients.

$500 is way more than you would need for a 22" LCD widescreen. I've heard good things of the ViewSonic VX2235WM, and Samsung has a couple excellent 22" widescreen monitors as well. To answer your question, I have a Dell 2407WFP...Â Â it was going for below $500 during Black Friday, but I highly doubt it's anywhere near that price anymore...  It is definitely a brighter screen than my 17" CRT ever was, much to my surprise. Your best option is to read a few recent LCD reviews, and then browse the local comp stores and view them firsthand if possible.


----------



## tesfox (Dec 10, 2006)

LCD all the way.  I've worked with both and I've seen what a good LCD can produce, and in my opinion, as far as color and contrast LCD'd beat out CRT's, but I will admit, some LCD's do have minor gamma problems.


----------



## uncia2000 (Dec 11, 2006)

Kougar said:
			
		

> To answer your question, I have a Dell 2407WFP...  it was going for below $500 during Black Friday, but I highly doubt it's anywhere near that price anymore...



*rofl*. Bargain price of $1,105 on their UK site, just now.

Color blending on a brand-new high-quality CRT might still be better vs. most LCDs, but your previous point about CRT fading is very true, too.


----------



## kontonno (Dec 11, 2006)

DavidN said:
			
		

> I'd go for the widescreen one (even though I'm not a Mac fan, I have to admit that monitor above is fantastic). I've never quite understood the advantages that people say CRT still has over LCD.



CRT lasts longer and displays better "Blacks" as they say. In the end I don't really care as long as I have a functional and sharp monitor.


----------



## Aikon (Dec 12, 2006)

I got my first LCD about a year and a half ago and while it produices a sharper image, it also tends to band colors moreso than my CRT (I have the two sitting side my side[ dual setup]).  The CRT is like 3 or 4 years old.  The colors are, obviously much richer on the LCD though, which is why I decided to switch.  

Graphic pros swear by only CRT's, the beasts that'll eat your wallet for lunch and break your back trying to lift it.  There's the black issue, and they can display more colors, at least that was the case a year and a half ago, maybe LCD's finally caught up?  Do your research.

For all intents and purposes, LCD's are fine.  If you're a true "professional" though, CRT is the only way to go.


----------



## nrr (Dec 12, 2006)

Aikon said:
			
		

> For all intents and purposes, LCD's are fine.  If you're a true "professional" though, CRT is the only way to go.


Agreed.  If you're pulling in a substantial income by doing graphic design work, invest in a good CRT and hope that your electric bills don't go through the roof.

... but, seeing from the OP's post, it doesn't look like that's the case.  Go with a flat panel.  FWIW, I bought a pair of Hyundai L90D+ panels (right before they went EOL) for something close to $230 a pop, and they're very nice so far.  Granted, most of my work is text since I stare at code or papers most of the time, but I must say that they're reasonably comparable to the Sony GDM-5402 pair they replaced for the work that I was doing.


----------



## crabby_the_frog (Dec 12, 2006)

I use LCD, and it works well enough.

When I get my new computer I may get one of Apple's Cinematic Displays, but unless you have the extra money I suggest LCD.


----------



## t3htig3r (Dec 17, 2006)

hmm.. i do see that there is really something to look at before buying a monitor .__. btw what resolution should I keep in mind if I'm buying a 20" and a 22" LCD monitor? I already have Samsung 225BW and ViewSonic VX2235wm (for the 22" ) and ViewSonic VX2025wm 20-inch Wide LCD Monitor (for the 20") ^_^; I hope these are good enough..help  please x__x; lol


----------



## nrr (Dec 17, 2006)

t3htig3r said:
			
		

> btw what resolution should I keep in mind if I'm buying a 20" and a 22" LCD monitor? I already have Samsung 225BW and ViewSonic VX2235wm (for the 22" ) and ViewSonic VX2025wm 20-inch Wide LCD Monitor (for the 20") ^_^; I hope these are good enough..help  please x__x; lol


The documentation for your monitors (and these are reasonably nice monitors) should tell you the best resolution at which to run them.

As much as I hate to say it, RTFM.


----------



## uncia2000 (Dec 17, 2006)

I read that more as "what resolution should I be aiming for"....

All of those screens are 1680x1050 which sounds pretty adequate from over here for most purposes aside from high-end DtP or CAD/CAM work.


----------



## t3htig3r (Dec 17, 2006)

uncia2000 said:
			
		

> I read that more as "what resolution should I be aiming for"....
> 
> All of those screens are 1680x1050 which sounds pretty adequate from over here for most purposes aside from high-end DtP or CAD/CAM work.



so LCD's are bad for programs like AutoCAD and the like? >.<


----------



## uncia2000 (Dec 17, 2006)

t3htig3r said:
			
		

> uncia2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, not "bad", afaik; just that some people using such applications might _prefer_ to have (even) higher resolution.
If that's enough screen real-estate for you/your own purposes, no probs...


----------



## Xonic the Fox (Dec 23, 2006)

I'd say CRT because it's cheap and in my opinion gives the best quality.


----------



## Kairyu (Dec 24, 2006)

*You can close this thread now =3*



			
				Aikon said:
			
		

> Graphic pros swear by only CRT's, the beasts that'll eat your wallet for lunch and break your back trying to lift it.  There's the black issue, and they can display more colors, at least that was the case a year and a half ago, maybe LCD's finally caught up?  Do your research.
> 
> For all intents and purposes, LCD's are fine.  If you're a true "professional" though, CRT is the only way to go.


Yep I think lcd monitors caught up considerably.
I'll admit there is still a "true black" issue with lcd monitors in general, but that's why any buyer (regular joe or the graphic artists pro) should look out for the contrast ratio and light bleeds. Most of the 22" widescreen lcd monitors have decent contrast ratios, usually 700~1000:1. But like you said, do your research!

Oh and the coloring issue, haha. That totally depends on the manufacturer though many of the low end TN lcd monitors can only display 262,000 real colors rather than the full 16.7 million. The cheaper TN lcds make up the lost colors by use of dithering (aka Frame Rate Control.) So... usually you can see its color capabilities labeled as, "16.2 million colors + dithering" Or something close to that. Most regular users simply can't tell the difference but people that work with graphics or photography might! ~Seeing that I do work with graphics often its a very big issue for me, more so than refresh rates. So I had to do alot of research before finally choosing my monitor.

If you're looking around for a decent lcd monitor you should read through this link. And if you have extra time I would read through everything the site has to offer =p. 

And for the record, I'd go with lcds.
*Advantages?*
- Eat up much less electricity. As a long term investment you'll actually save money.
- They don't weight a ton and save plenty of space.
- Land of widescreen computer monitors can only exist here.
- LCD images are definitely sharper, more vibrant and bright compared to CRTs.

*Disadvantages?*
- Color banding issues, less colors, and light bleeds on many intermediate and low end lcds. But really, you do get what you pay for.*
- Its initial investment can be quite high.
- Screen lag. Though this is mostly an issue for the hardcore gamer.*
- For some people the screen can be too sharp =/.*

* = If you're smart and actually look around you'll avoid these downpoints altogether.


----------



## Xonic the Fox (Dec 27, 2006)

I can absolutely tell the difference.


----------



## benanderson (Jan 28, 2007)

CRT for graphics... it's a fact that CRT monitors have smoother, clearer, warmer and more natural colours. The colour on a TFT and LCD looks sharp (blending is poor), look cold and way too bright. if you really want to use a computer for graphics or to get the best out of a graphics card for a game, get a CRT. No question about it...


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Jan 31, 2007)

Personally, I'd pick CRT over any LCD (that goes for my TVs too, though RP DLP is fine in that instance. ).  If only they weren't so damn big!


----------



## foxystallion (Jan 31, 2007)

Hanazawa said:
			
		

> I just got a 22" LCD for my desktop. It's niiiiiiice, even more so because my taskbar doesn't work properly anymore... >_>;
> 
> the most common complaint I read about LCDs is gamma too high/too bright/poor color matching.



Easy to fix.  Both Windows and Mac OS X have color calibration software packaged with the OS that will allow you to get just the response you want.  Making LCDs is more of a black art than CRTs, so there is greater unit to unit variation.  I considered my LCD mediocre until I went through the calibration routine, first the simple version, then the advanced.  Now I love it.  It is much better than any CRT I have ever used.  I can see about 36 million colors (Sherman Williams Paint Company wanted to hire me), so I'm pretty fussy.

One tip: calibration can't do anything to improve the maximum possible bright/dark ratio, often called the contrast ratio.  Get an LCD with at least 400:1, and preferably more like 800:1 if you want realy dark scenes with deep shadows to look good.

Every LCD needs to be individually calibrated by the user for first class results.  Even the most expensive ones.


----------



## foxystallion (Jan 31, 2007)

t3htig3r said:
			
		

> wow I'm learning sooo much from all of you guys thank you all!
> 
> er.. for a $500 budget, what do you guys think is the best LCD monitor to get? ^_^; I'm so sorry I can't afford the $1,000+ ones ; - ;
> 
> can you guys post how much your monitors are so I can compare? ; - ;



Mine is a 19" Dell LCD with a contrast ratio of 800:1.  Cost was less than $300 about a year ago, and should be less now.  Model 1905FP.  If you want good results, you MUST go thoough the calibration routine.


----------



## Evangeline (Feb 3, 2007)

foxystallion said:
			
		

> Hanazawa said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So a 400:1 contrast ratio is the best you can get? And if so a 500:1 is pretty good.


----------



## Rhainor (Feb 4, 2007)

Evangeline said:
			
		

> So a 400:1 contrast ratio is the best you can get? And if so a 500:1 is pretty good.



No, 400 to one is pretty lousy.  LCD televisions (for example) are reaching contrast ratios of several _thousand_ to one.

Higher contrast ratio = good.

That said, no LCD can produce a true black, since the light source (in this case, a fluorescent backlight) is always on, and the pixels block light in order to make colors and "blacks".   With a CRT, each pixel produces its own light; if it needs to be black, it isn't activated, so it's actually _black_.


----------



## foxystallion (Feb 5, 2007)

Evangeline said:
			
		

> foxystallion said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A contrast ratio of 400:1 is pretty obsolete nowdays.  It is easy to find a cheap LCD with 800:1, and some are ofer 1000:1.  The higher the better, but a 1600:1 isn't worth twice as much as 800:1 unless you are doing specialized professional work.  Get 800:1 or batter, and go through the color calibration, and you are almost certain to like what you see.  Not only do LCDs vary from model to model, they vary from unit to unit within the same model, and human color vision isn't uniform from person to person either - so calibrate.  It is easy, albiet a bit time consuming.


----------



## Evangeline (Feb 6, 2007)

foxystallion said:
			
		

> Evangeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well Technically my LCD Monitor isn't a computer monitor, it's a LCD HDTV, 19" Widescreen, and when I got it I didn't realize it had a VGA and DVI port so It's not really meant for Computer work, but it cleared up a TV and a Monitor from my room giving me more space.


----------



## foxystallion (Feb 10, 2007)

Evangeline said:
			
		

> foxystallion said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Since it is already hooked up to your computer's VGA port, just go to the Windows operating system utilities  and calibrate the colors, gamma, etc.  It is really easy.  The computer shows images on the screen and you adjust mouse controlled sliders to make one part of the image match another part.  You'll probably be surprised at the improvement, especially in low light image areas.


----------



## Evangeline (Feb 10, 2007)

foxystallion said:
			
		

> Evangeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I can't seem to find the Windows operating system utilities, so where might I find it?


----------



## foxystallion (Feb 13, 2007)

Evangeline said:
			
		

> foxystallion said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I use Mac OS X, where it can be found under "system preferences".  I don't use Windows, but know that there is a color adjustment utility built into the operating system.  First look for something called "system preferences" or "I/O" or "monitor".  There should be some sort of Windows help system; try typing in "color calibration" or "monitor calibration" or "color" or "calibration" or "monitor".  If you still can't find it, go to Microsoft's website's tech support section, and type in the above search terms.  Or ask someone who uses Windows.  Sorry that I couldn't be more helpful.  Hopefully a Windows user will answer your question in a specific manner.


----------



## Purplecat (Mar 10, 2007)

benanderson said:
			
		

> CRT for graphics... it's a fact that CRT monitors have smoother, clearer, warmer and more natural colours. The colour on a TFT and LCD looks sharp (blending is poor), look cold and way too bright. if you really want to use a computer for graphics or to get the best out of a graphics card for a game, get a CRT. No question about it...


The sharpness of LCD is why I prefer using thoose screens for high-res stuff than CRT's.

Personally, I have a multi-monitor setup where I have two screens, on high-end LCD and a high-end CRT.

I think I prefer the LCD screen, although some might find it's native resolution (1280x1024) a bit small. I use 1280x1024 on the other screen as well, as it's adequate for most of the things I do, and anything smaller would just be a bit harder to see (it's not right in front of my eyes after all).

Only difference I really notice is that going outside LCD's native resolution nets you black borders or stretched ugly pictures, depending on your settings. (I prefer black borders over ugly stretching). This is a rather minor issue though, as I rarely need to have a diffrent resolution than my native.


----------



## benanderson (Mar 12, 2007)

Purplecat said:
			
		

> Personally, I have a multi-monitor setup where I have two screens, on high-end LCD and a high-end CRT.
> 
> I think I prefer the LCD screen, although some might find it's native resolution (1280x1024) a bit small. I use 1280x1024 on the other screen as well, as it's adequate for most of the things I do, and anything smaller would just be a bit harder to see (it's not right in front of my eyes after all).
> 
> Only difference I really notice is that going outside LCD's native resolution nets you black borders or stretched ugly pictures, depending on your settings. (I prefer black borders over ugly stretching). This is a rather minor issue though, as I rarely need to have a diffrent resolution than my native.


1280x1024 is considered the factory default resolution now, anything bigger and you are going to need a widescreen monitor (hence the black borders)

It all really depends what you use the monitor for I guess, I much prefer a CRT for (what littlle) pc games I have and for artwork. (Hence why the CRT is hooked upto the good computer in the study) For everything else I prefer a TFT & LCD hooked up in a multi-monitor to my laptop, they make the desktop (and many other desktop applications) appear more crisp and clear on the screen. Easyer to read and doesn't cause as much eye-strain, thats a bonus for me when I have to sit infront of the thing for hours writing an assigment. XP


----------



## darkdoomer (Mar 12, 2007)

i couldnt work without my trintron CRT. ( screen res, colors, resizeability... ) expected if someday i find a plasma screen with an intresting pitch and resolution ( 21" - at least 1600x1200 or 1920 )  but LCD, lol..never .  It's just good for the laptops. ps: they should make evolve the neon tube backlight to a led matrix. that would already fix problems of power consumption and the shitty contrast.


----------

