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."
Bugger me with a fish fork! That weighs as much as I do!
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.
18 hours is far too long to be staring at any one thing, regardless of the technology used. LCDs probably have lower glare than CRTs, overall, but that's not the only factor._ 06.shtml
Here are some generalized tips for monitor placement, lighting, and eye health:
http://www.crazycolour.com/os/ergonomics
I never gave LCDs a second look until I got a laptop at work ( which has been moved from my desk maybe twice in three years ). I thought it would sit there unused while I used my other computer equipped with a CRT.
But ya know, I gradually used it more and more, and now I use it exclusively despite it's more cramped keyboard. It is entirely because the LCD screen is so much easier on the eyes.
I still have a CRT at home. It's fine for occasional use. But for 8 hours every day LCD is the way to go.
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.
Just to add to this. While the parent is correct, that a LCD is usually going to be better on your eye's, a good quality crt will also allow just as many hours of use with no eye strain.
I find with a cheaper CRT I get headaches after a couple of hours of work. However I purchased an Iiyama visionmaster pro 455 and I can literally spend days working on it with no noticable eye strain. It is also brighter and clearer than pretty much any LCD I've seen. So in the end, if you pay a decent amount for a monitor it should be fine.
All the same, unless you plan on playing games on the machine, I'd suggest going for an LCD.
East Coast Brewers
the 17" LCD on my desk measures over 9 inches when you count the stand, so another 7 still doesn't come close to the depth of a traditional CRT. I'm in this market.
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote" -- Kosh
Reflective LCD doesn't mean that it reflects everything around you, or that there is any glare, it just bounces ambiant light back through the panel to improve brightness. This also has the effect of making them good outdoors in sunlight.
They are targeting LCD TVs. Samsung evaluated the physical needs of the market, and decided that 30 CM deep was what was needed to fit the average space. Plasma and LCD have much different characteristics than a direct-view CRT set:
Price. Try to find a decent looking (720p or 1080i) plasma for less than $2000. Samsung is targeting a ~$1k pricepoint on these new thin(er) CRT sets. LCD Tvs of comparaple size are even pricier.
Lifespan. If I'm going to drop $1-2K on a TV, I want the damn thing to last 10 years. CRTs have proven lifespans measured in the decades. Plasma screens tend to go tits-up all too frequently at the 3-5 year mark. LCD screens (being solid state) should have fine lifespan. Unless the backlight has problems.
Image quality. Plasma screens are very much on par with the image quality of CRTs. Blacks are black and they are very viewable at many angles. LCDs have problems with portraying a truely convincing black, and the viewing angle can be a problem. Direct-view CRTs have the disadvantage of being an analog technology, depending on a decent DAC implementation for digital inputs. However, they give great brightness and viewing angle, with deep blacks. They do need to be calibrated correctly, so the cost of a technician might be factored in. At the very least, a $30 calibration DVD is in order.
It's all about choices folks. I, for one, am looking forward to the pricing pressure this new CRT tech will exert on the market. I still have a SDTV. I'd love to get a decent HD set.
In LCDs you have the 50/60 Hz flickering of the background light, the next problem is the switching time/color tearing, which only recently has become a sort of neglectable issue, also there are still somewhat problems with color calibration. Ok all this problems will be solved soon, but the LCDs are still not fully there (even my own Sony X-black although better then most of the other LCDs still has somewhat disadvantages over a good CRT)
Refresh rate. :)
Colour reproduction.
Viewable angle.
Brightness
Contrast
Difficulty to knock over
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.
That depends on your definition of "few". I bought a 19" CRT at WorstBuy for $189 4 years ago, and at that point the price was already pretty steady.
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.
The only reason a CRT flickers is because the user is too stupid to correctly set the refresh rate!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
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?
CRTs have better refresh rates than LCDs. CRTs have had refresh rates of 75hz for years while LCDs are only up to 25ms (40hz) and 16ms (62.5hz) and CRTs can still faster. The only thing going for the LCDs is the Power Usage. Pollution has yet to be decided. LCDs may be smaller, but there is much less you can recycle in them. CRTs may have lead glass, but you should be able to recycle that glass. I don't think you can recycle and LCD panel. Another thing going for the CRTs is that they can provide true collor every time while LCDs can only aproximate it. Thats why TV stations us CRTs for everything where you have to see what you are getting.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
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
Well, LCD's still have certain advantages. For example, the pixels on an LCD are always on or always off. Whereas with a CRT they are constantly refreshing. Due to this, supposedly LCD's cause less eye-strain. I've found this mostly to be true, since I find reading e-books on my laptop's LCD screen easier to be easier on the eyes.
That said, I'm personally still waiting before I buy an LCD monitor. Though I think they will still have advantages over any kind of CRT, including these thin CRT's.
Of course, for TV/movies, LCD's still have a disadvantage, because actual pixel changes are still slower. On the LCD TV's I've looked at, I always notice this when there is a lot of motion.
#!/
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!
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
I've always assumed that regular LCDs still were better than CRT because at least you don't have an electron gun deluging your face with radiation.
:)
1) Modern CRT monitors produce a negligible amount of radiation.
2) Almost all of that radiation actually goes away from the back of the monitor in the opposite direction to you.
3) All displays emit a form of electro-magnetic radiation called "light". That's how you see objects on the screen.
Answering mfh's question, it's best to use an expensive LCD display. Test it before, a lot depends on the way your personal eyes work - different people would prefer different monitors. And make 5-minute breaks every hour. You can use these breaks to visit a toilet, eat a serving of fresh fruits or drink a glass of water. All these things (if done regularly) do wonders to your health. And don't forget about carpal tunnel syndrome and haemorrhoids.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Radiation from CRTs used to be a problem in early television sets when the electron guns were too strong and generated soft x-rays. That hasn't been the case for decades.
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 have phenomenal eyesight, I don't know anyone who can see as far or as clearly as I can. If I am subjected to interlaced video I can tell immediately and it will give me a headache shortly thereafter. I don't think it's related to vision problems :)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Because graphics aren't real work, right? Neither is video montage apparently...
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Wrong. It comes down to personal opinion, and mine, in common with that of many others, is that CRT gives far superior picture quality. For prolonged viewing, I couldn't recommend anything else. LCDs are just a recipe for headaches if you use them long enough. I'm sure that in time, flat screen technology will improve to the point where it can rival CRTs. Indeed, it's been getting far better in the last couple of years. But it's not there yet, and probably won't be for at least another 4 or 5 years.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
You answered your own question: Resolution. Most large screen DLP, LCD, Plasma, etc TVs have at most 800 scan lines, usually just enough to do 720p and meet the HD spec (some only meet EDTV). That is why you can see the pixels. They're bigger.
Compare to many HDTV CRTs now which are available with true 1080i capability (1125 scan lines on many). Also compare the cost of a CRT capable of 1600x1200 or 2048x1536 with an LCD capable of those resolutions.
I use a 19-inch LCD from Dell at work and its excellent for static work (not involving color accuracy), but for a TV with high motion, you can't beat a CRT.
I imagine they do. I don't think anyone's found a more cost effective way to make an e-beam than to boil electrons off a needle. Magnetrons, x-ray tubes, and other such devices do it the same way they have since they were invented. I'd imagine you could make a good chunk of change if you could find a way to do it more reliably.
On a side note, the 'short' CRT is interesting in that a thinner tube means that you can get away with a lower acceleration potential, which is probably why they're rated as more energy efficient. I don't know if this also means a lower beam current can be used, but if so then the x-ray emissions should be lower, resulting in less glass and lead required in the tube itself.
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?).
LCD all the way
1) The screen doesn't flash at you. Take quickly exposed picture of your monitor and an LCD to see the effect. CRT's give a lot of people headaches.
2) LCD's aren't blurry at all.
3) LCD's don't use radiation and high voltage.
Other benefits:
45 Watts on my 19 inch. (Doesn't make a lot of heat either)
Doesn't bend my desk over the years.
Wall mountable.
More desk space.
Won't zap you with static electricity.
Perfectly flat.
Non-glare by nature (plastic, not glass).
I could go on probably forever. Best investment I have ever made. I can't wait for OLED, but I tried.
Karma Clown
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.
The refresh rate for an LCD is simply how often it can change a pixel. LCD displays don't blink (well, unless you tell them to).
Using less power probably contributes significantly to pollution reduction.
This should be of huge importance to, oh, less than 1% of the market -- or whatever the percentage is that have color calibratiion devices for their monitor.
If it were an optical illusion, you'd see it in the
other image when you rotate your head. You don't.
In a CRT, there is a grid of holes or slots that
masks the colored phosphors. Each pixel projected
onto the screen will hit a good number of these
holes or slots. It's not even an integer number.
The beam is in no way aligned to the mask, and it
is not even sharply defined. (it's Gaussian)
Suppose we measure pixel size in terms of the
number of holes or slots that the pixel fall on,
and we find that 3 pixels span 10 slots. Let's
assume the beam lines up neatly otherwise, to
keep things simple. With 3 pixels of the test
pattern falling on 10 slots, you can have one of:
a. black,white,black
b. white,black,white
Well, the "white" in one case isn't the same as
the "white" in either of the other two cases.
The beam is hitting non-integer numbers of slots.
One case may be more magenta, and the other case
more green. So you get a repeating pattern of
green and magenta.
Depending on how things line up, you can get the
whole test pattern tinted oddly, vertical lines
of color, or a sort of honeycomb pattern.
While there isn't any evidence I'm aware of that pulsing is bad in the visual system (the classical notion that epilepsy is uncontrolled synchronous firing has been brought into question of late), and one of the prevaling theories is that synchroized activity is used to bind object characteristics (eg, color, position, orientation, identification), we do have substantial evidence that the visual system has been very highly tuned for the real world -- that is, with illumination which does not flicker.
Personally, I find that my eyes spend more time trying to microaccommodate (focus) on CRT screens than on LCDs.
Excellent question on fluorescent lighting. It turns out that fluorescent lighting isn't nearly as aggressive as CRT illumination in terms of being pulsed. There are three reasons for this, first fluorescent bulbs -- and we're talking about the classic long tubes, not the newer compact fluorescents which are completely different -- are driven by a sinusoidal current rather than an impulse like the CRT electron beam, so that the pulsation is of lower magnitude. Second, the phosphor on fluorescent bulbs is much slower than that used for CRTs, to help filter out even more of the pulsation. Third, fluorescent bulbs have an effective refresh rate of 120 Hz (both half cycles of the 60 Hz sinusoid activate the phosphor). However, not all fluorescent phosphors are made equal, and in countries where AC power is 50 Hz, you can often see the flicker.
So, to return to the question at hand, will using an LCD monitor make a difference given that you have fluorescent lighting in your environment? Yes, but not as much as if the lighting were incandescent. Is it still worth doing? I'd say so.
What do I personally do? (Does the dentist actually chew Trident?) I use 5 screens total in my professional and personal life, three are LCDs, and two are CRTs running at 85 Hz (this is discounting the screens used for experimentation). The illumination at work is stock institutional fluorescent bulbs which would be full-spectrum if the physical plant staff didn't automatically change them every N months, and at home there's a mix of full-spectrum compact fluorescent (which don't pulse at anything close to a perceptually relevant frequency) and incandescent. I much prefer the LCDs to the CRTs.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.