Crt May Be Better Than Lcd

[curt234]

Anyone else notice when you play non HD DVD movie's and Divx that it look's pix elated, blotchy and even fuzzy and is terrible looking on a LCD monitor? On a CRT monitor it look's a lot better. I just got my first LCD monitor which is a Acer 22" and is a nice monitor and I like it better for everything expect watching movies. It seems to me since everything isn't high definition holding off to buy a LCD might be a good idea, Or do you just need two monitors? What do you guys think?? Oh I notice the same thing for LCD T.V's as well.

Edited December 2, 2008 by curt234

[Waco]

Noise is covered up much better by CRTs. Even the best LCD and Plasma displays have trouble displaying the range of colors and contrast that even a halfway decent CRT can.

[slngsht]

Yeah, it's because CRT's natively run at a lower resolution, and therefore, the pixels don't have to be blown up to fill the screen, and therefore, they look better. Higher resolutions on the other hand smash the pixels so that the image doesn't run off the edge of the screen. does that make any sense?

[Krieg1337]

If you break the back of the CRT, I think it can kill you. Don't they have poisonous substances in the back of them?(CRT's)

[Savan]

Firstly, LOL

 

Secondly, I hope you are being sarcastic with that response

 

and Thirdly, yes, CRT's and TV's have poisons gas inside the actual screen

[suchuwato]

does that make any sense?

 

Nope, because that's not right.

 

Firstly, the flatscreen isn't probably set up right. You have to do a lot of tweaking to get a decent image (which virtually nobody ever does...) unlike a CRT. Also, you're seeing the compression artefacts which are more visible because of the matte screen, the angle roll-off and the contrast. The flatscreen can probably only display around 70% of the colours a CRT can, so some things get crushed or clipped, which makes it all more visible. Most likely thing is that also you're noticing pixel edges which weren't there before, as the LCD can't over or underscan (unless something is really wrong) so you're actually seeing a pixel-accurate representation, which is virtually impossible on a CRT.

 

As for the danger, you've got to watch for charge stored in capacitors, and just don't breathe in the phosphor dust if it smashes. Anything like barium inside the emitter should oxidise when it breaks. Leaded glass isn't really too much of an issue, unless you're a fish. Contrary to popular belief, there's no poison gas... for a CRT to work it needs to be a vacuum.

[hardnrg]

most people use 6-bit TN film LCD displays, which are severely limited in blackpoint and colours... the thing is though, my largest CRT is 22" and weighs a ton, my largest LCD is 24" widescreen... and I have an LCD projector that does something like 21 *FEET* diagonal... so ... in this case, bigger is better, cos with CRT it's impossible or weighs more than my house

[Archerzz]

for a CRT to work it needs to be a vacuum.

 

I was going to say I know its a vacuum because when you cover the screen with a towel ( to prevent shrapnel) and you beat the screen with a hammer you hear this cool WHOOOOSHH!! sound

[Silverfox]

Don't CRT monitors benefit greatly from often tiny dot pitch values when compared to LCD screens? I though that contributed a fair amount too, but am probably wrong

[suchuwato]

Don't CRT monitors benefit greatly from often tiny dot pitch values when compared to LCD screens? I though that contributed a fair amount too, but am probably wrong

 

Depends what type they are, and what quality LCD you're using... I had a Trinitron that had a crazy small dot pitch (screen burn in though... sucked) but a ViewSonic which was nowhere near as good.

 

As some of you may know, I get a bit agitated when people say they're using a 42" 1080p display, because it just doesn't work for computer stuff

[Kash]

Suchowato is correct, LCD and plasma screens are pretty good for watching movies and playing games once you've calibrated them correctly. Plus, do you think you're the first person to notice a difference in quality between a CRT and a LCD? It's a bit arrogant to presume that nobody else has made such an astute observation before and that we're all a bunch of Neanderthals who don't know what a good quality image looks like.

[Savan]

dont be so mean Kash, its his second post