Slashdot Mirror
Thin CRTs to Challenge LCDs in 2005
bigtangringo writes "First Samsung and now LG.Phillips have worked out a way to create thin CRT displays. Thin CRTs offer the best of both worlds -- superior picture quality with a slim size. Thin CRTs are expected to be more expensive than current CRTs, however they are also expected to drop in price rapidly. Both companies plan on releasing Thin CRTs in late 2005."
Of why people like me (and most of slashdot) HATE to rush out and buy new equipment. I just spent a little over 400 on a 19" LCD Pannel, and DAMNIT they come out with this nifty little thingy(that's the technical term ya know).
At this rate of technological development, I'm just wondering when Moore's law will be replaced by Murphy's.
Cliff Claven
K.E.G. Party Chairman
Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
I'm coding on my system all the time. Recently I was looking at getting a new system (for games and stuff), but I couldn't find any information on the effects of different monitors on my eyes. Does anyone know which type of monitor (LCD, CRT...etc) is safer for prolonged use? I'm talking about 18 hour days... thin or not, what are the effects on my inevitable glaucoma?
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
The best of both worlds, but also the worst of the CRT World.
E.g Refresh Rate issues, Pollution, Power Usage.
Still.. a smaller 24" widescreen would be nice, since this Compaq weights around 44 pounds.
// instant - "I for one welcome our new Decaff Coffee-Flavoured-Coffee Overlords"
says they are around 16 inches for the LG and 20 or so for the samsung, not excatly the same, but still might be worth it if they are a bit cheaper then the LCD's
44kg is still quite heavy. I guess that will be one of the tradeoffs.
Bugger me with a fish fork! That weighs as much as I do!
I assume it just means the electron beams are deflected at a greater angle and you have to be a bit more careful aligning the grille. Is that essentially it?
If they can get me a wide screen format CRT Monitor for my computer then I'll pick one up. Otherwise I'm waiting for prices to come down more on LCD screens.
An optimist believes we live in the best world possible; a pessimist fears this is true.
I don't know about you lot, but to me, while its less-huge than current CRTs, 16-inches is not "thin".
YMMV, obviously.
(from TFA: "A 30-inch-tube television from Samsung Electronics will be about 16 inches thick, deeper than a flat panel set but about the same size as the typical stand on a flat-panel television, a Samsung executive said.")
Britain's Clive Sinclair made a TV with a flat CRT back in the early 1980s. Here is a picture: http://www.nvg.ntnu.no/sinclair/images/tv80.jpg
Thin CRTs offer the best of both worlds -- superior picture quality with a slim size.
Of course, one of the other bonuses of LCD screens is their low power consumption. Good for the electricity bill, and for Mother Nature.
At a 20% reduction, that comes out to between 80-90W, compared to 30-40W for LCDs.
Unless the people working on getting these crt's flat are also improving their power draw so that they draw less than an LCD, I personally am not interested.
You never know...
Looks like their 30 CRT will be 16 inches or so thick, which is still several times thicker than the 4-5 inches depth of the LCD and Plasma screens.
Doubt very much this is a challege to the LCD screen on your desk. Even if they used this technology for computer screens you'd still have greater weight and great power usage, and in the end it wouldn't be that much thinner.
Peace, or Not?
perfect to kill our eyes :-(
I rather prefer LCD screens.
" Thin CRTs offer the best of both worlds -- superior picture quality with a slim size. " I wouldnt call a 20% reduction, from 51 to 41cm deep , a "slim" CRT, nor worthy of Slashdot coverage. And they're probably compromising on something-- I'd guess they're going to lose a bit of convergence near the edges.
Now I can have a flat screen, and still keep my radiation tan!
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
Wow. I've never been so glad that I still have my old TV from 1997. 25" tube with stereo sound may not be much, but it works well enough. Should be interesting to see these drop in price but I have to admit that it'd also be nice to have some stability in television technology for a little while.
Regards, Ian
"CRTs are not going away anytime soon," said Riddhi Patel, an analyst with researcher iSuppli. "They will account for 70 percent of the market in 2008."
I wonder if these employ thermionic emmission, electrons hopping off sharp points, or ???
Any
I am curious because there may be life left in the CRT rebuilding industry.
I worked in CRT rebuilding plant one winter while in High School. Excepting myself, a high school friend, and an old half blind splotchy looking guy (he ran the hydroflouric acid etching machine) we were the only people who didn't run for the warehouse and hide in boxes whenever the INS appeared.
Dangerous work. Closest I've ever come to immolation. Thank you to whoever invented the dry chemical fire extinguisher!
Now I'm the grandest Tiger in the Jungle!
Hello!
My university has recently started replacing its CRT monitors across the various labs and offices, with nice TFT's. This is a process that takes long and as a result not every researcher has a new fancy TFT. Actually, for the moment being only the new researchers get it! The older researchers still use the CRT ones. As a result, some people started complaining about it. (You know, "my eyes hurt" etc. Pretty stupid excuses, if you ask me, but still the point is that the feel it is not fair).
The matter was raised in one of the departmental meetings. Here is the reply from a professor, well established within the department. Enjoy (try to approach it with a humorous view, altough it pissed me off)!
If they're having a fault, for example blur, then they should report that as a fault. They won't have TFTs because it is cheaper this way.
Now when it comes to my own personal preference: I prefer CRTs because they have a faster refresh rate, so they are much better for my eyes and
head! The only advantages a TFT has is that it is smaller and lighter.
Apart from that, LCDs are crap! Another con is for fast moving objects on the monitor, like the mouse pointer, an LCD would leave shadow trails
because they don't handle motion very well.
They're cool on laptops though because of their portability. For desktop machines, I don't see
why the portability is that important, especially for one that you can't take home because it is the University's property. Of course, TFTs are more expensive and look more posh. For this reason, a big plasma monitor wouldn't be so bad, except I'd need to sit a few feet far away from my computer. Then I'd need posh enough input devices and office space to deal with that.
The CRTs they have are good quality ones as well, and not budget ones. At 1024x768, they have a a refresh rate of 85Hz, which is much better than
the crap 60Hz you get on most TFTs. CRTs also have a lot more dots per inch, which is also better for the eyes and the head. People might experience a headache if their monitors are not configured properly eg. configured @60Hz instead of 85Hz.
-----
nice, eh?
Honestly I prefer the LCD on my Powerbook to any CRT I have ever used in terms of picture quality. It's bright, crisp, and I can game on it without any problem (haven't felt like it was refreshing too slow), but maybe other people are more sensitive than me to that.
Smoke more weed, I've heard from reputable scienticians that it's good against Glaucoma.
Money saved on reduced cost CRT's $20. Money spent on replacing eyes from radiation...priceless
The 32in is estimated to be $1000 retail and is ACTUALLY 1080i, not like the 'take 1080 and make 720" game that Plasma monitors play.
Sure, as COMPUTER monitors it ain't all that great, but these have signifigant advantges over Plasma and LCD in the living room.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Going hand in hand with this, I really like the concept of wall mounting, something even these "thin" CRTs wouldn't be capable of.
It's marketing speak. 417 mm = 16.4 in
So it's "super-slim" compared to a current huge, "fat" CRT but is a real porker compared to an LCD or Plasma screen.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
"superior picture quality"? Excuse me? An LCD reliably displays the rectangualar picture as a rectangle. An LCD consistently displays the image in the same place, without losing pixels off the edge. An LCD makes it possible to actually see the individual pixels. An LCD image doesn't flicker. In what way can a CRT image be considered superior?
WTF are you talking about? CRTs use elctron beams, not EM waves, so antennas have nothing to do with it.
they exist; they're called "tanning booths"
If that's what some /.ers get up to, no wonder they can't get laid.
Anyone know whats happening with that?
Electrons hoping off sharp points = Field Emmission Displays.
Paper from 99 on carbon nanotube FED
Additional FED links:
http://www.physorg.com/news86.html
An important factor in commercialization is the price of raw materials. A number of Japanese companies including Mitsui, Toray Industries and Mitsubishi Chemical have well advanced plans to mass-produce CNTs and bring prices down to ¥10 000 (85)/kg.
And a mess more interesting stuff on the carbon nanotube field emmission display via google search.
Now I'm the grandest Tiger in the Jungle!
At work, I have 5 LCD's on my desk comprising 3 computers; with 1 keyboard/mouse... If it weren't for LCD, I'd be wearing shorts and a tank top to work every day....
Comment removed based on user account deletion
OP is perfectly reasonable: for "grille" he means the shadowmask behind the screen glass, not some antenna - i don't know *where* you got that from.
By the best of both worlds, did you mean they also consume less power like an LCD does and don't cause a piercing electronic hum like a CRT does, or did you not exactly mean the best of both worlds?
Let all reclaim the lost inches of desk space!
I have always pulled my desks out from the wall to help occomodate the large footprint of my monitors. Perhaps in two years I can upgrade to a nice 21" slim CRT and actually have my desks against the wall.
Does anyone know of actual footprint sizes yet?
SED (Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Display) panels. These are a new flat panel developed by Toshiba and Canon which are as thin as a plasma/LCD but allegedly produce picture quality on par with a CRT. read here:- http://www.physorg.com/news1295.html and http://www.engadget.com/entry/5732841184005838/ (picture and article illustrate that these TVs are already in production). I believe these are slated for a release in 2H 2005.
Did anyone look at the stats on the Samsung site before claiming this?
a roughly 20% reduction in depth, and a 10% reduction in weight. (mass, weight, whatever, I didn't do so well in Physics).
100mm is less than 4 inches. It's still 417mm deep -- that's over 16 inches... and 44kg? That's almost 100lbs.
So, the great break through is that you won't have to punch out the back of whatever cabinet you're trying to put the TV into. You'll still need help moving it so you don't throw your back out, and still need some sort of cabinet to put it in, as it's not light enough to be directly wall mounted without some reinforcing first.
I'm not saying this isn't a improvement, but it's not any real breakthrough -- things have been getting smaller for years. They'll continue to get smaller.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
I recently bought a 19" 16ms LCD monitor to replace my failing 22" NEC fe1250. It's wonderful, except the black. Absolute black (#000000)actually seems a bit lighter than the shades that are a bit lighter (say, #050505). The other benifits make up for it, but there's no way I'd pay $1000+ for an LCD TV if that's normal for LCDs.
You only use 2% of your DNA
Some have the complete opposite view of you, though.. like me. LCDs hurt my eyes because of the motion blur and other intangible qualities (meaning I don't know why, it just does) making my eyes hurt after looking at an LCD for even a few minutes. CRTs are much better for me, though of course the refresh rate has to be sufficiently high.
I'm quite happy to hear this news, though. I feared that one day I would not be able to buy a CRT.
This is a sig. Deal with it.
Better picture quality? How did they make it better picture quality than regular CRTs? Because better picture quality was the reason I replaced my CRT with an LCD. No more flickering.
Then you haven't used a good CRT.
CRTs will still use more power and emit radiation. Your health is better with LCD, faster technology is coming too, much faster ns not ms refresh.
Get a "professional"/"business" CRT monitor.
1280x1024x32 @ 100Hz
The best system for eyestrain is one that incorporates the entire room lighting environment. You don't say how long you want to code, but looking at high contrast imagery requires subdued background lighting that matches your monitor.
CRTs generally deliver the Lmin (lowest brightness level) and an almost good enough Lmax (Colour CRTs don't hit the high range, unfortunately).
Basically no numbers because I'm not sure what's proprietary, but I'd tell you to choose CRTs hands down.
The LCD model that pretyt much every cheap LCD follows is innapropriate for large hours in front of the screen. The impulse that describes how the light appears to your eyes isn't the way your brain is designed to view things- the image doesn't 'decay'.
So if you light the wall behind your computer evenly with about, say, 2x15 watt bulbs from about 10 feet off, that should be sufficient illumination (note the rest of the room is dark) to keep your eyes in a 'relaxed' state. Your monitor should be out of cutoff (deep blacks) so that your eyes stay adjusted to the whole range. The bezel itself could be painted grey, but that isn't critical.
Help any?
I just bought an LCD monitor, the second that I have ever owned.
VERY easy on the eyes (CRTs be damned); 16ms response time; 35w power-consumption; excellent colour; 4 year manufacturer's warranty.
I don't know how life is where you are, but I find that electricity is becoming quite expensive. And I don't want a CRT firing at my face from less than 0.5m away.
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
Yep, this will be really nice. I've contemplated picking up an LCD monitor for a secondary display. The way my desk is set up though, a second CRT would be like 2 inches from my face, so this should be nice. I'm in the graphic design business, so while LCDs are nice for browsing the web and anything non-graphic intensive, they still just don't come close to a good CRT monitor for my needs.
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
I've never noticed bad pixels on a CRT. SOmething I'm endlessly getting with LCD displays especially the larger ones. Personally I prefer LCD but CRTs do win on certain issues.
That's what I've used. I'm talking about high-end CRTs here. Can't stand 'em. I guess it doesn't hurt that I have 20/15 vision, so the blurry pixels make my eyes strain. Even the LCD I'm using that's (temporarily) hooked up to a VGA connector rather than DVI is too blurry for my taste, although it's still better than a CRT.
Really, this guy is the first to spot that it is only a 10cm reduction in half a metre. Plus, may I add, only a 5Kg reducttion in 49Kg.
So how would you spot this "ULTRA slim" in a shop, especially next to a nice LCD?
Because 1080i is basically THE HD mode that 90% of the sets out there offer. Most simply do not support 720P and never will. I have to be honest, though, when i'm watching a 1080i broadcast, it still looks better than ESPNs 720P broadcasts despite what that article says.
Smoke more weed, I've heard from reputable scienticians that it's good against Glaucoma.
This man knows what he's talking about. I've been smoking weed since forever, and I'm glaucoma-free!
I think you're weeded enough already!
Love all, Trust few, Follow one.
I'm suprised that it took them so long to recognize that the size of large crts is a problem. But I'm not sure 32" @ 16" is a big enough improvement. I have a sony crt hdtv, while it's 34" diagonaly, it's also 22" deep. True, it's 6" different, but I would think that the slim-down would be more significant.
Speaking about fuzzy pixels, try to run a LCD at a non-native resolution, which is quite common required for gaming, and even the damn cheapest CRT will look like a beatifull masterpiece in comparism to the blurred scaled up image a LCD will give.
That said, yes, LCDs might be better for some uses, but they have so many disadvantages that I still wouldn't exchange them against my good old CRT.
I always wonder about the mechanical details and just what the mechanical considerations are that have enabled them to make these bigger, flatter, slimmer vacuum tubes strong
It looks as if that 30-inch tube has a flat screen and a 16:9 aspect ratio. That would make it about 26x15 inches = a bit shy of 400 square inches, at 15 pounds per square inch = 6000 pounds. Can you imagine a 26x15 inch flat sheet of glass supporting the weight of a small SUV, even if it is well supported all around its edge?
Is that some special kind of glass? How thick is it? Is the pressure and weight actually taken by some kind of laminated plastic? Or what?
It's been decades since I saw slow-motio movies of a CRT imploding...
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
17" specs here. Apparently the "Show 17" monitors" option on LGs site doesn't strip "featured" 19" monitors.
what else would you use a monitor for? Can you use things that are not attached to a computer??
For one thing, you can use cheap proprietary computers that play only games signed by the computer maker. For instance, the "GameCube" computer has some innovative titles with gameplay that PC developers wouldn't dream of touching. You can also subscribe to a hundred or more streaming video feeds for $50/mo or even pluck about four or six feeds from the air for free (unless you live in the UK, where TV-less households take a tax deduction).
when i'm watching a 1080i broadcast, it still looks better than ESPNs 720P broadcasts
True, interlaced will look better for slow-moving shows such as NBC Nightly News and Law & Order, but progressive will look better for fast-moving sports such as those shown on Walt Disney's ESPN, as you won't get artifacts where the boundary lines seem to break up when moving at the same speed as the interlace.
Is it true that flat panel is less harmful to eyes than CRT monitors (which uses electron beams)? For people use computer all the time, this is also a big concern.
I'm really looking forward to getting and LCD for one reason and one reason alone. I won't have to try to get the screen square with all of the different geometry adjustments. I've never been able to get the sides of the screen straight on my CRT screens. I won't have to, heck I can't, mess with that on a LCD. (right?) If these new "thin CRTs" still require fiddling with the trapezoid and rhombus settings, count me out.
So you've tried a well set up professional monitor (like my SGI monitor which is basically a Sony G500) on a good video card (not on older Nvidia rubbish like TNT2 and Geforce 2) at 1600 x 1200 x 85 Hz and still find it irritating?
With your keen eyesight it probably won't be perfect on careful inspection, but it should at least be pleasing to view.
It really shits me that most people's misconceptions about CRT fuzziness are due to cheap CRTs connected to crappy gaming video cards.
My TNT2 was absolutely ridiculous. It was fuzzy at 1024x768 at 75 Hz. It's better now that I've crushed the low pass filter capacitors on the output.
There are still more lines of resolution using 1080i than 720p. Fact: you can not get as clear an image on a 720p set as you can on a 1080i set. If you want to argue that programming with lots of fast motion looks better on a 720p set then that's up for debate, but stating 1080i is equivalent to 540p is just wrong.
If you are interested in thin CRT technology,
= PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-bool.ht ml&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=carpinelli&FIELD1=&co1=AND&T ERM2=&FIELD2=&d=ptxt
just go look in the www.uspto.gov patent database
for details. For example:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1
High deflection angle and other tricks are used to make a much shallower tube. Glass weight is a pain, it is true. But a factor of 10 lower cost, high color quality, and high brightness are not to be sneezed at!
OK, granted, it's cleaner than lead-acid, but are you implying a claim that the Ni-MH battery manufacturing process has significantly less detriment to the environment than the petrol that a hybrid car saves? What about the cheaper non-environmentally-friendly products that the buyer must substitute in other areas of his or her life in order to afford a hybrid in the first 20 years that hybrids are on the market? Compare $19,800 for a Honda Civic Hybrid to $13,160 for the conventional sedan, and remember how expensive VGA LCDs were when they first came out.
A CRT Firing what? Electrons? The electrons hit the phosphors, and do not continue through the thick glass on the front of your CRT.
I have no idea what you are worried about. Touch the front glass of your CRT. Go ahead, you can wipe off the fingerprints later. What do you feel? It's not even warm, is it? You get more radiation from a 25Watt incandescent light bulb.
I agree that LCD displays do have some advantages: light power consumption, and portability, and the 'cool factor'. Price is not one of them however. The major advantage of CRT's is phosphor persistence is lower than the response time of your LCD pixels.
I think LCDs are pretty neat, but your health concerns are unfounded. You are not going to get a reverse image of the SLASHDOT logo burned into your forehead.
This reminds me of a story posted some time ago (which I can't find) outlining the fact that wile the rest of the world had given up on CRT development, the Russians had not and the last team working on the project had brought the fruits of their labour to the west with designs for the thin CRT.
I wonder if the models due out in 2005 are based off this design......
https://comerford.net
According to Samsung's press release they give an example of a 32 inch screen. The numbers they give show only a 10% reduction in weight and a 20% reduction in depth, not bad but not enough to justify dumping your current CRT if it is running well.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
A company named Candescent Technologies tried this a few years ago. They had backing from HP and Sony IIRC. I saw one of their demo screens. The color saturation was fantastic, there was no fading as you moved off to the side, and there were none of the ghost artifacts you get from LCDs when stuff on the screen is moving rapidly. Unfortunately, Candescent was poorly managed and is now in Chapter 11.
FreeSpeech.org
The Refresh is what's fucking with your vision, not the blurry pixels. I have the same issues with CRT's and I came to realize most of it was due to the refresh I was driving the monitor at.
LCD's function differently (as well as the materials difference for the viewing surface) so i don't get those problems. I can negate my eye issues with CRT's as well, but I'd have to buy a 21 inch monitor that my vidcard could drive at an acceptible refresh.
And, as others have said, LCD's are still iffy for gaming. Desktop and production work they're fine, but anything high frame rate, non-native res and TnL madness is going to hurt it...badly..
Thin CRTs offer the best of both worlds -- superior picture quality with a slim size.
What planet are you living on. Maybe for watching porn CRT's are better because the color is more, um, vibrant. For real work, coding, hacking, chatting, or anything where you have to look at words on the screen, LCD's blow CRT's away. CRT's are fuzzy. Every pixel that is on bleeds into the surrounding ones. Staring at them for any length of time causes eye strain as you are constantly trying to refocus on the blurred out text. LCD's are sharp. So sharp that some people coming from CRT's had problems with the text, so text Anti-aliasing was born.
I bought the cheapest 19 inch LCD out there 2 years ago at compusa for $299. Compared to other LCD's it is crap. Compared to CRT's it totally rocks. Unless your watching fast action video, but then that's what the dual head graphics card is for...
My experience comparing cheap LCD's to mid range CRT's is that it is much easier on the eyes to work for extended periods on an LCD.
It appears that Candescent Technologies ThinCRT technology is behind this. They filed for bankruptcy earlier this year and sold all their IP to Canon. If you read this article You'll notice that the first name that comes up is Canon. Canon is using the acquisition to get into the display market from the looks of things. I had been wondering what had happened to ThinCRT since reading about it here on Slashdot.
There is no spork.
The website for the Iiyama looks like something the Festrunk brothers would find in their hometown of Bratislava Czechoslovakia.
If you have something relevant to say, (like you did, your story was on-topic and somewhat informative) try not to post it under AC (Anonymous Coward). The /. crowd is not very keen on modding up AC and this way fewer people get to read your story, even if it is a worthy read.
Not that I regret it, it is a fine monitor and does its job very well. I recently saw a Fujitus-Siemens LCD 15" for 200€. :-(
I could be weeping...
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
test your monitor now to see just how awful analog video really is
You can hear that sound too? Not everyone I know can... I can tell when there's a TV on in adjacent rooms, or even when I walk past a house/building with one near the front. Annoying. I used to share a house with some people, and when they'd use my projector, they'd leave the TV on, but without the composite cable in the back. Of course, the sound from the TV drove me crazy, but my housemates would sit there for hours before I came home and turned it off :-P strange...
Without a doubt, LCDs are much safer than CRTs. CRTs emit generous quantities of EMFs (Electromagnetic Fields) across the spectrum, including X-rays. You dont want to be sitting for more than a brief time anywhere within 5 feet or more of a CRT. For people who who work on computers all day, I recommend LCDs. LCDs have much lower EMF emissions, unlike a CRT its solid state, low voltage technology and doesnt use thousand volt cables, electron guns, huge transformers, or other such nasty things.
Incandescent light bulbs don't create X-rays.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
You can test your monitor now.
I like pancakes
LCDs are not always best.
This is targeted at video, but the test results are interesting from any perspective. I think there are more articles in the series now.
The phrase "everyone likes sex" can be reinterpreted to the workplace in a similar form, "everyone likes desk space". When you have lots, it's great. When you don't have lots, it's still better than nothing.
But while that's the case, having desk space isn't nearly as valuable to me as not having my eyes flayed by an LCD scratching them for 9 hours a day, thus, I stick with CRTs. I value my space -- but not that much. I value my eyes more.
I was hoping that the industry wouldn't give up on the tube and figure out a way to get the best of both worlds, and hopefully this is it. I assume we're not losing other things, such as dot pitch and refresh rate, with this invention, so it should be a win-win situation.
I dunno. I assume there are people out there using an LCD panel for long hours of staring and don't feel the same effects. That being said, I know people who don't think monitors running at 60Hz flicker (esp. when coupled with floro lights). I suppose it's all in the eye of the beholder (yuk,yuk).
Blog,Twitter
Why can't we just let vacuum tubes die?
- analog signal based on 50 year old protocol
- D/A conversion adds expense and subtracts performance from video cards
- poor refresh rates cause eye strain
- potpurri of radiation in your face
- heavier
- more fragile
- recycling is expensive and dangerous
- bulkier, no matter how thin they claim to be
- far less energy efficient
- less reliable (look in an University IT dustbin sometime)
Yes, panel technology still needs work, but even now the advantages are vast.
It is so nice of you to compare apples to oranges for us. As far as I can tell, $400 for a 19" LCD monitor is a very reasonable price.
The Fat Man Walks Alone
But...
The X-rays generated by a CRT do not come hurtling towards your face. They are emitted on the same plane as the surface of the display area. They don't get too far, because there is shielding inside the monitor's enclosure. If you disassemble your monitor, and look at the SIDE of the CRT (in a way that you would not be able to actually VIEW the contents of the display) for long periods of time, you might actually get some x-rays.
So, don't do that.
I bought a Viewsonic P95f+, and the geometry works really well. I'm also pretty sure the native resolution is 1280x1024, which I like, because I'm a nerd (I guess that goes without saying if I'm posting here).
Really, it's the best CRT I've seen in forever. I'm working on getting an LCD because my second monitor is a Shitty Trinitron 19" that eats my poop.
(Shitty is not the brand, btw)
Please stop stalking me, bro.
Boy is my face red :)
The Fat Man Walks Alone
I would guess that the problem with making wide deflection tubes, say 135 degrees instead of 110, is that the non-linearities inherent with magnetic deflection will become obvious. {They aren't going to start making electrostatically-deflected CRTs anytime soon either.} This is especially likely to be a problem with widescreen TV sets. Also, the curvature of the glass -- it's necessarily a portion of a sphere [or a cylinder, in the case of a Trinitron], because the distance from the electron gun to the screen needs to be constant} will be noticeable.
.....
.....
But it should be possible to compensate electronically for the deflection aberration, and also adjust the focal length as the beam traverses the screen so the picture stays in focus. It ought even to be possible to build an ultra-wide, twin-necked CRT with a central region into which both electron guns could fire without losing focus. You would have to switch from one to the other at random points on each line of each frame, otherwise there would be a very noticeable step change in picture quality. Although, with this type of set there may well be too many adjustments for someone who just wants to watch films and soap operas
My home monitor is a Dell-branded, 40cm. Trinitron, 1280 x 1024 x 75Hz {from memory}. It's the first one I actually paid for as opposed to finding in a skip. It also seems to accept any scan rate and sync polarity without question. I probably will replace it with an LCD when it eventually fails, though. {It's too nice to relegate to a server. And too big.}
My work monitor is a 43cm. LCD, 1280 x 1024. Quite nice; but most other people's in the building are 38cm., 1024x768 LCDs. As I soon found out, this is something you have to be aware of when you write http-driven applications that depend on the size of an iframe
My laptop {two years old and quite probably the last one ever made with an audio line-in jack} is a lowly 35cm. 1024 x 768.
One thing I have noticed about the cheaper LCDs is that they are quite fussy about scan rates. I've seen some that go through endless auto-adjustments trying to lock onto the boot-up messages. When plugged via a KVM switch into a stack of servers, this can be annoying. Modern tube monitors, on the other hand, seem far more forgiving.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Even though in some sense the LCD may subtract,
it uses an additive color model. The LCD does not
use cyan, magenta, and yellow filters over each
pixel.
Some LCD screens designed for portable devices
are purposely incorrect about colors, to reduce
power consumption. Well, that beats having a
laptop computer with a CRT. Desktop LCDs don't
have this problem.
Eh, maybe you just use crappy LCDs. I've found
the Apple Cinema Display to be extremely black,
far more so than a CRT. Every CRT I've ever seen
is grey instead of black.
I think it's both, really. I drove my good CRT at something like 85Hz, and it still drove me nuts. Now I have an LCD on a crappy analog card and it's not so great either, because the pixels aren't sharp and my eyes try to make them such.
My LCDs now are of the 12ms refresh variety, so they don't seem to have motion issues, but I also don't play games much, so I can't really speak to that. Probably 80% of what I do is text-editing or reading text, with the rest being filled by photo proofing and miscellaneous junk.
Anyone remember cold CRT's? They used lower voltages and hence were smaller and used less electricity. Haven't heard anything in the last 10yrs tho...
'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
What happend to OLED? it was supposed to be far superior to both of these
Here are a few links, thou varlet! ;o)
Safety. LCDs are safer to use because they have no electromagnetic radiation.
The only potential emission from any of them that we know may be hazardous is x radiation from CRT-type monitors. It is fair to say that flat-panel LCD monitors will not emit x radiation under any operating condition whereas CRT monitors have the potential for emitting x radiation if the high voltage is raised higher than the CRT is designed to operate at. One might be able to cause a CRT monitor to emit some x radiation by failing a circuit or component, such as the hold-down safety circuit, and misadjusting user and service controls to raise the high voltage.
What's more, LCD panels draw 40 percent less power than similarly sized CRT monitors, produce less heat, and do not emit electromagnetic interference or X-rays (which CRTs do), making them somewhat safer and cheaper to use in the long run.
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
My Dad's company bought a bunch of Sony Watchman monitors for use with luggable video cameras in the 80's. It was quite useful for in-vehicle use (as opposed to sitting with a Panasonic 9" B/W monitor on your lap.)
The electron gun pokes out the side instead of out the back, and there's a parabolic-ish deflector inside the tube to turn the electrons 90 degrees to hit the phosphors. I suspect the technology doesn't scale well. Scan compensation must've been difficult, as each scan line is a different distance from the emitter.
It's Philips, not Phillips. Philips is the Dutch electronics giant, while Phillips is only known for having a screwdriver named after them. For some reason Americans can never seem to get this right.
... for the future of CRT projectors? Will we finally be able to have the quality of CRT for home theater without having a behemoth like this hanging from the ceiling?
You're comparing CRTs (obsolete) with really bad
old LCDs (also obsolete).
Consider the Apple Cinema Display. I have the
old 22" one, which still lays waste to CRTs.
Now you can get a 30" 2560x1600 one.
If you're looking at $19.95 no-name LCDs, well,
you get what you pay for.
The size of LCDs is nice, but I prefer them for their pure digital interface, lack of scanning, lower power consumption, and overall crisper pixels. This tech will be good for televisions, but I don't think the LCD will fall to thin CRTS. Now, OLEDs...
This reminds me of the "Nuvistor" - when the transistor came out, the vacuum tube manufacturers came out with a "super vacuum tube" to fight the new technology. http://digilander.libero.it/paeng/what_the_nuvisto r.htm
http://www.thevalvepage.com/valvetek/Nuvistor/nuvi stor.htm
CRT display images wiggle, usually at the same
frequency as your power lines. This is caused by
magnetic fields.
Pay attention when a large motor turns on or off,
especially if it shares the circuit with your CRT.
(refrigerator, air conditioner, dishwasher,
clothes waster, clothes dryer, power tools...)
http://www.cjmag.co.jp/magazine/issues/1997/oct97/ 1097indeye.html
s _n2128_v42/ai_18595794
t
Candescent did make some small models, but they never got into big production. I think the largest I saw was a 7 inch, and it was about as thick as a picture frame.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EKF/i
http://www.phys.ksu.edu/~jingli/nano%20emitter.pp
Stop signs are only Suggestions
This should post as user "r00t".
After preview, Slashdow even shows
my username. I doubt this'll work
though; it didn't work last time.
When I try to log in the normal way,
nothing happens. No error or success.
WTF?
It's like cookies are getting eaten.
The thin CRTs linked are a little thinner than traditional CRTs - but nowhere near LCD thinness.
Notime soon will you be carrying a thin-CRT based laptop.
In smaller modern houses thin LCD or plasma TVs are popular and use less space than ever if fitted into the wall. You just couldn't do that with a CRT, even a 'thin' one.
Didn't read about the actual screen size in relation to the depth. My deepest, sincerest, and humblest apologies.
One big problem with LCD, DLP, and Plasma TV sets is that the resolution is fixed at either 720 or 1080 vertical. This means that only one format is supported well - 1080 doesn't look great on 720 sets and 720 doesn't look good on 1080 sets because they aren't even multiples.
Assuming the new CRTs are HD, they should be able to show 1080, 720, and even plain old NTSC all at native resolutions without non-integral pixel scaling of any sort.
They should be brighter than LCDs or DLPs, have much better angled viewing than either, don't require replacement bulbs, and won't suffer burn-in like Plasma.
Other than their size & weight, seems like they win in almost every category.
I'm still waiting for my stinkin affordable widescreen monitors. It makes no sense that almost all the new laptops coming out are widescreen, but the widescreen LCD monitor is almost non-existent. Poo.
Copying from, e.g., the NEC/Mitsubishi site on color calibration:
"All CRT and LCD monitors require calibration for accurate color-critical work, but some are easier to calibrate than others. Based on the current core technologies, CRT monitors are able to display a wider color space than LCD monitors and deliver more consistent brightness uniformity throughout the screen. For these reasons, CRT monitors can more easily be calibrated. LCD monitors also exhibit limitations in making adjustments in brightness, backlight color temperature, contrast and black level. Nevertheless, advances are quickly being made, utilizing different backlight designs to improve the calibration capabilities of LCD displays."
Ever wonder why all pro monitors for graphics work (meaning, those that come with an integrated colorimeter) are still CRTs?
Color accuracy aside, I find most LCDs too tiring (even with brightness/contrast turned almost all the way down). I've only recently seen LCDs I'd swap my CRT with, but these are stil quite $$$$. In any case, this is a matter of personal preference (maybe I have too sensitive eyes?).
Yes, these are thinner, but they're still running almost half of a meter for a 30" screen.
If you have an existing CRT, unless you're going to a larger screen or remodeling, you've already made allowance for the depth of the unit, so yeah, you don't need to get rid of your current television or monitor.
I don't read AC A human right
One thing that I really like about my twin LCD's is they got ride of a tremendous amount of heat in the room. Of course this just allowed me to add more disk drives to stay warm in the winter :)
These things still sound like monstrosities.
For the metricly challenged, that's 90+lbs and a foot and a half deep.
Can you hear the last gasp of enormous vacuum chamber tv?
So you can't watch TV for any length of time?
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
Black is black, color is accurate, pixels are sharp, and video bandwidth is not a problem.
Your CRT has massive problems displaying fine vertical lines. Try test to see just how bad your CRT is.
OK 1/2 meter isn't thin compared to plasma or lcd but it IS thin compared to conventional crt monitors and equal to or better than most rear projection sets. CRT's have better contrast ratios than almost all other technologies, low burn-in (eat that plasma!) and very good brightness levels. They can't reach the screen sizes of the other technologies, the largest crt ever to reach consumers was 40" in 4:3 and 34" in 16:9. The thinner tubes will enclose less vacuum and therefore can use somewhat thinner glass, so maybe we might even see 16:9 screen sizes of 42" in these (but they won't be light weight!)
I love my mitsubishi 40" tube, I would love a 42" 16:9 version of it even more. Maybe this new technology will make that possible.
I found that 1280x1024x72 Hz was less blurry, and brighter, than 75 Hz on my Intergraph 21" monitor. Vertical lines in particular had better definition. Of course, the refresh flash might be more noticeable, but you can mitigate that:
- Use incandescent light in the room
- Plug your computer and monitor into the same outlet
- Eliminate sources of interference such as fans, appliances with cheap motors (vaccuums, microwaves, mixers, etc.) and other monitors
Hands in my pocket
These "ultra-thin" CRT's are not THAT ultra. And they're not the bleeding edge technology that Samsung has been working on.
According to Technology Review (pdf; Google HTML Version here), Samsung plans to start distributing nanotech (yes, you heard it right, nanotech) based displays by the end of 2006.
Replacing the bulky CRT with an array of millions of carbon nanotubes, these displays will require much less energy to work, and will be as thin as LCD-based displays - and hopefully will be much more eye-friendly than their CRT counterparts.
Now *THAT* is Samsung's secret weapon. Don't be impressed by a substancial, but still incremental improvement such as adjusting a CRT to be thinner.
My opinion is that this advancement in thin CRT's is just a preparation for what's coming.
The release says that the reduction for 32"
is from 50cm down to 40cm. Really nothing worthy
mentioning - LCD are below 10cm!!!
Remember the early handheld TV sets from the early 80's or so? They were sortof flat CRT's, fit in a package about the same size as the color LCD handheld TVs nowadays, and had similar screen size too. Of course it's probably easier to do with black-and-white than color, but still. There is just no excuse for typical computer monitors that are deeper than they are wide.
But what we really need is a high-res display that doesn't wear out. Maybe e-ink will be it, or maybe some kind of DLP projector with a better lamp, or LED displays with longer lifetimes. Phosphors get dim over time and LCD backlights wear out too. Displays have such a long way to go, and this idea is probably only good for a few years until something better comes along.
... the ultra-slim CRT developed by Samsung SDI has a depth of 417mm and weighs 44kg,
417 mm = 16.4". Somehow nearly a foot and a half doesn't seem "thin" to me.
44 kg = 97 lb. Ninety Seven Pounds!?
I think I'll wait a bit.
= = = = =
What I'd like to know is what happened to field emission displays. Yes, they'd be heavy, too. But they'd be really thin, (like LCDs) distortioin free, and (like CRTs) bright.
If it's erosion of the field-emission cathode by ions I have already thought of a possible fix for that (which wouldn't have been as effective when they first tried it due to lack of modern materials.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
This thread is useless without pictures.
Speak truth to power.
I bet one or both of these systems use multiple electron guns in order to reduce depth.
For a given screen size, as one attempts to reduce the thickness of the CRT, one is faced with a number of problems.
The biggest problem is that image brightness falls off with the cosine of the angle between the electron beam and the screen. As you shrink the thickness of the CRT, you effectively increase the bream/screen angle, and decrease the brightness near the periphery of the screen. Thus thickness, to a first approximation, is proportional to screen size.
Imagine instead that you divide the screen into four equal-sized quadrants. If you use four separate beams to illuminate the four quadrants, each beam requires half the original deflection, and can thus (to a first approximation) can be made half as thick.
This would be rather like the "wall of monitors" that is often used to create a larger apparent screen, only without the gap between the screens.
In reality, the coils to control the beams, etc., would add extra depth, so the actual decrease would be less than a factor of 2.
And, of course, twice the beams means more parts, and more things to break...
"Weeeee kawl hur Flip-her, Flip-her... fahstur dann lihght-neng...."
hehehe
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
that said, I don't care if they sell it at 1 USD, I will stick with LCDs...
517mm for a 32" display is not all that thin, I am betting a 19" display would be about 307mm or 12" deep, its not going to compete with lcd. At best they will kill off the last remaining rear projector tvs (dlp and micro resolution standard), they wont effect plasma and lcd displays much.
The P95f+ is a CRT, and I was butchering the terminology a bit. I mean the shape of the screen isn't strict 4:3, so I have a bit more room without making everything look fat (a problem when watching pr0n, mind you).
Please stop stalking me, bro.
So it's true that people prefer slim. I should start dieting then...
I was kinda looking forward to get away from all the electron guns pointing at me!!!
I have always disliked LCD screens, the image quality is just poor. I would never own an LCD TV or monitor. I have several laptops but I hook them up to 22" CRT's. Yeah, I know they are big, heavy, hot and suck juice but they please my eyes. (I use 22" Iiyama's and 21" Trinitron's CRT's only)
Watching video on an LCD is a horrible experience, just as watching mpeg video on digitial satellite or digital cable sucks.
I prefer analog anyday. Compressed video looks like crap and compressed video on LCD is unbearable. It looks like kids on acid drew it with crayons and graph paper.
I will always stick with CRT's.. NO LCD screen can compare to the performance level and image quality of a CRT..
I'll agree that LCD monitors are easier on the eyes, but not because of superior contrast. Look at the specs, and you'll see that the average CRT has a higher contrast ratio than the average LCD.
LCDs reduce eyestrain because the image is sharper and flicker-free.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Check out the last two times Consumer Reports magazine reviewed HDTVs. Both times, CRT models scored higher on picture quality than LCD or plasma.
You might find this surprising, because LCD computer monitors have sharper images than CRT computer monitors. But HD televisions are a different animal. For now, CRTs are still better at rendering a natural-looking image from standard or HD television signals.
So I'm not racing to be the first person on the block with an LCD or plasma TV. I'd rather save a thousand or more bucks, and stick with the superior images of CRT.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
According to this article, the protos are looking very good.
http://www.guidetohometheater.com/news/101804ceate c/
Admittedly there is a big difference between making a proto and making something in volume.
More info below. Its in Japanese but the pictures on the slides are pretty informative especially the one showing their production schedule.
http://www.itmedia.co.jp/lifestyle/articles/0409/1 4/news057.html
It ain't just the form factor.
jim frost
jimf@frostbytes.com
Your video card (especially if not a Matrox card)
and cable do not have enough bandwidth for vertical
lines at high resolution. Well, really you need
infinite bandwidth, because vertical lines are a
square wave on the video cable. You won't get that.
The higher the refresh rate or resolution, the more
bandwidth you need. Your human need for high refresh
rate can be reduced if you reduce the lighting, both
on screen and in the room. The eye has an adjustable
time constant over which it averages pulses.
Vertical lines appear dark, because your display
has a gamma of about 2.2 instead of 1. When the
electron beam puts out 50% power due to the
black and white pixels getting blurred together,
you'll see something much darker than 50%.
You don't want a flat CRT for your laptop.
Very bad for battery life.
This article was overhyped. These CRTs are only marginally slimmer than regular, and have nothing on flat panels.
Just another example of market propaganda. Upon first reading the article and seeing "thin" i imagined 6 or 7 inches, but 16in. cmon thats not thin at all thats huge!
Tektronix once had an unusual color screen on some of their higher end color oscilloscopes. One of them made its way to the scope bench at the calibration lab I work for. We called Tek looking for repair and calibration info, and they said that model of scope (don't remember the model no.) was obsolete. I think it dated from the early to mid 90's. Anyway, I thought it was an ordinary color CRT tube until we took the case off... It was some sort of flat panel vacuum display. It was very crisp, high contrast, could be viewed from almost any angle and closer inspection revealed that there were no visible RGB clusters like on plasma or lcd screens, it looked as smooth as an analog scope screen- except in full color. And the way it made color was to scan the whole screen one color at a time very fast, R,G, and I swore I could see two shades of blue. How it accomplished this, I don't know. (Nowadays, all Tek scopes have LCD panels.) Anybody else seen a display like this?
Hi all. Did you see the mirrored image of the CRT on the desktop on the bottom of the picture they show on their site? In my oppinion it does not reflect the CRT correctly or the product is not as thin as it looks like by the first sight... ;-) Is a small marketing manipulation taking place here?
elixon
Well, I've got to get back to work. When I stop rowing, the slave ship just goes in circles.
Although I'm not disputing the wider color range on CRT displays, I have found LCDs preferable for working on graphics that have subtle background noise artifacts that I'm trying to remove. Simply tilting the display changes the percieved polarization angle of the LCD, and suddenly two similar colors are displayed with sharp constrast.
Divide by zero hurts my brain.
Never mind that the grandparent was talking about CRT vs LCD technology for televisions, not workstation monitors. Why are we bringing up these ultra-high resolutions when HDTV is 1920x1080 and 1280x720? We should be talking about 1920x1080 LCDs like Sharp's LC-45GX6U AQUOS or direct-view HDTV CRTs like Sony's KD-36XS955.
Then we can argue about dark scene detail, sharpness, color range/accuracy, fast-motion scenes, etc.
TO START
PRESS ANY KEY
Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...
U have iiyama vision master pro 411. What levels do you use for brightness and constrast?
I keep brightness as 0 and contrast at ~90%, is that good? Or should contranst be lower and brightness higher?
Thanks!
HoshiToshi -- thanks for the links. I hadn't seen these, and I can't say that I have anything more informative than what I've included in the previous articles.
The flat-out-rave from guidetohometheater.com is extremely encouraging. The reduced power consumption with respect to plasma screens and even LCD screens is also quite exciting. I'm moving from cautiously optimistic to panting with anticipation.
Thad Beier
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
I guess there's just a difference between what you see as 720p and what I see as 720p. Does your "720p" refer to 720p at 30fps or 720p at 60fps?
Based on a napkin calculation of pixels per second, I'm guessing that 1920x1080p at 24fps, telecine'd by the set to refresh at 72 Hz, could fit roughly the same rate/distortion profile as 1280x720p at 60fps, right?
...but then I won't be able to spend 16 hours a day on my screen anymore. LCD's a great for that.
-P
There are two companies that begin with LG.Philips... 1. LG.Philips LCD : A public company that manufactures LCDs. 2. LG.Philips Displays : A private company that manufactures CRTs. I think the /. article was refering to #2. LG.Philips Displays. Just wanted to make sure no one was confused. :)