CRT vs LCD?

V

vonfeldt7

New Member
Most of us here probably know that LCD monitors aren't as good as CRT monitors for a few reasons. The most acknowledged reason is the fact that they only have one native resolution. From what I've heard, they look horrible unless they are at the native resolution. I'm not positive if all of this is factual which is why I'm asking CF.

Will modern CRT monitors look good if they are set higher than the native resolution? What about if it's at a lower res. than the native res?

Will someone please explain this to me/give me suggestions because I'm thinking about getting a new monitor. Thanks.
 
yes, I'm very serious. I look into things before I buy them, just like I'm doing here. I don't want to get some shitty LCD and then be pissed off when it sucks balls. I want a decent product, that I know will work.
 
CRTs are said to have a better, crisper, more accurate picture as far as coloring go. If you're in the business of super precise photo editing or use Photoshop a ton then that's the only reason I would ever go with a CRT. CRTs also are less likely to get dead pixels. They get burn in if you leave a screen up for a long time, but that's an easy fix. They're also very bright and have more support for different resolutions. They've also got a quick refresh rate which is nice for gaming. They are a tad bit more strenuous on the eyes though, because of the quick refresh rate.

LCDs are great, because they save so much space and the color difference isn't that much better a CRT. They may only have one native resolution, but big deal? I'm running 1280 by 1024 and I don't know if I would ever want to change it. It's easier on my eyes, saves a ton of desk space, and I don't do hardly any gaming so the refresh rate doesn't bug me at all. Mine is an Acer and it has one green dead pixel smack dab in the middle of my screen which is kinda annoying, but oh well.

Either choice is great. For me, I kind of prefer LCDs, but I'm not opposed to CRTs either. I've got both LCDs and CRTs at home so I'm constantly switching. Each has their own Pros and Cons so just choose one.
 
I just don't like big ghetto looking CRT's... Gaming is not even a noticeable difference going from CRT to LCD... Just get one with a decent refresh rate, resolution, and size...
 
There's really no reason to debate whether to get a CRT or LCD anymore. LCD is the way to go. Unless you go out and buy the cheapest one you can find, you really shouldn't notice much difference. My LCD is ALOT better looking than my Dell 19" CRT monitor.
 
brycematheson712 said:
CRTs are said to have a better, crisper, more accurate picture as far as coloring go. If you're in the business of super precise photo editing or use Photoshop a ton then that's the only reason I would ever go with a CRT. CRTs also are less likely to get dead pixels. They get burn in if you leave a screen up for a long time, but that's an easy fix. They're also very bright and have more support for different resolutions. They've also got a quick refresh rate which is nice for gaming. They are a tad bit more strenuous on the eyes though, because of the quick refresh rate.

LCDs are great, because they save so much space and the color difference isn't that much better a CRT. They may only have one native resolution, but big deal? I'm running 1280 by 1024 and I don't know if I would ever want to change it. It's easier on my eyes, saves a ton of desk space, and I don't do hardly any gaming so the refresh rate doesn't bug me at all. Mine is an Acer and it has one green dead pixel smack dab in the middle of my screen which is kinda annoying, but oh well.

Either choice is great. For me, I kind of prefer LCDs, but I'm not opposed to CRTs either. I've got both LCDs and CRTs at home so I'm constantly switching. Each has their own Pros and Cons so just choose one.
Click to expand...

It's impossible for a CRT to have a dead pixel. They have no pixels. Refresh rate doesn't really apply to an LCD since everything stays lit until it's told to change, unlike a CRT which constantly needs new instructions. Response times (in ms) apply to LCDs.

CRTs are not crisper or sharper; that's one of the main advertised advantages of an LCD. They do usually have better color accuracy and are faster.

A refresh rate doesn't make a monitor "fast" like you implied. Faster refresh rates reduce flicker and eye strain, also the opposite of what you implied. Response times make a monitor faster. Response time is nearly instantaneous in a CRT.
 
LCD I have a 2004 Model and no dead pixels yet (18inch)
Although I had an old Dell 1500fp and the back light went out

"it's impossible for a CRT to have a dead pixel. They have no pixels."
Uh... I'm pretty sure CRT's do have pixels, their commonly known as "Phosphor dots", their just electrons, unlike in LCD's they use voltage.
pixel stands for Picture Element
 
Last edited:
CRT monitors are not pixel based and cannot develop dead, stuck or hot pixels. The tube shoots the image at the "screen" "pixel" by "pixel" 60+ times per second, hence vertical refresh rate. This creates the illusion of a full image. There are no actual pixels.

Thanks for the definition, but that's in reference to digital media, not physical devices. LCD monitors have pixels, CRT monitors do not.
 
i have been using crts for the last 8 yrs. just bought my hp flat wide screen and I AM NEVER GOING BACK TO CRTS AGAIN. PIECE OF SHIT MONITORS !!!
 
fortyways said:
It's impossible for a CRT to have a dead pixel. They have no pixels. Refresh rate doesn't really apply to an LCD since everything stays lit until it's told to change, unlike a CRT which constantly needs new instructions. Response times (in ms) apply to LCDs.

CRTs are not crisper or sharper; that's one of the main advertised advantages of an LCD. They do usually have better color accuracy and are faster.

A refresh rate doesn't make a monitor "fast" like you implied. Faster refresh rates reduce flicker and eye strain, also the opposite of what you implied. Response times make a monitor faster. Response time is nearly instantaneous in a CRT.
Click to expand...

response time may be instantaneous, but VGA can only support a maximum of 16ms response time

oh and my lcd in my sig looks simply amazing, crisp and sharp, far better then all of my crt's
 
lovely? said:
response time may be instantaneous, but VGA can only support a maximum of 16ms response time

oh and my lcd in my sig looks simply amazing, crisp and sharp, far better then all of my crt's
Click to expand...
Do you mean maximum of 16ms or minimum of 16ms?

And if you do mean minimum, I doubt that because I never notice any ghosting on my 4ms LCD monitor or on my 8ms LCD TV, however I do notice it on my 12ms/16ms laptop monitor.
 
CRT screens last much longer than LCD screen. I had to throw away my BENQ LCD screen a few months because it started developing a few spots here and there.
CRT is great as long as it's not too big.
 
fortyways said:
It's impossible for a CRT to have a dead pixel. They have no pixels. Refresh rate doesn't really apply to an LCD since everything stays lit until it's told to change, unlike a CRT which constantly needs new instructions. Response times (in ms) apply to LCDs.
QUOTE]

CRTs still have pixels. You're crazy if you think they don't. They may not get dead pixels, but they still get burn-in. And if you don't believe that, then you're full of crap because I have 2 monitors that both have burn-in. I went on vacation leaving my monitor on the entire time for 2 weeks (on accident, and no standy features). That one now has a slight image of the Windows XP Desktop. Haha.
Click to expand...
 
brycematheson712 said:
CRTs still have pixels. You're crazy if you think they don't. They may not get dead pixels, but they still get burn-in.
Click to expand...

Ugh. I hope you didn't mean to imply that burn-in is somehow pixel related. And if you honestly believe CRT monitors have physical pixels, I have nothing more to say to you. Please educate yourself.
 
Pixels, by definition means: One of the small units that make up an image on a computer or television screen. It is derived from the words picture and element to make pixel.

Hook up a CRT, and look at it closely. Please tell me that it's not made up of 'small units that make up an image'. Ask anyone!
 
You're right, people, this thread is a debate over CRT and LCD screens. Please do not turn it into a discussion about pixels. Start a new thread if you want :P:D
 
Listen mister, you aren't understanding. Look here:

pixelsam7.jpg


This is a 2x2 image, blown up in Photoshop to 200x200. Let's say you were to print this image and set it to "fit to page width" or whatever. Are you following so far?

Now, on your printed image, you'll surely see the red, black, white and green squares, the pixels of your image. Still with me?

Tell me this: does this mean that your paper is pixel-based? No. Paper is analog, and so are CRT monitors. Digital images are pixel-based and are displayed as such on any medium, but the monitor itself, just like the paper, has no physical pixels.

There's a reason LCD monitors have only one native resolution: They are unique from other displays in that they actually have a physical, set amount of pixels built in. This is what allows LCD monitors to look so sharp on their native resolution. CRT monitors have equal quality on any resolution because the "pixels" you're seeing are not inherent to the monitor (and aren't truly there - but rather are just being displayed, just like on paper).

If you still don't understand, and I'm sure you don't, here's some further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube

But I'm sure you'll just skim over it and say "Nuh uh! I can see them," won't you? "Ask anyone"? Please. Don't be so ignorant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top