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."
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
I'm just gonna guess here and say that LCDs are "better" for your eyes, since a nice LCD will have very good contrast (to reduce eyestrain when trying to discern small details) and no "refresh rate" in the same sense that CRTs do (LCDs just refresh pixels that have changed, not the entire screen).
" 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.
well CRTs dry your eyes and flicker. Both are bad for them. CRTs also put some some serious electromagnetic fields, which is bad for more than just your eyes unless you're sitting a full three feet away from your computer. LCDs kind of win by default.
you only spent $400 on a 19" LCD and that's rushing?! that's where 19" CRTs were a few years ago.
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
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?
but if they reflect light, youre eyes have to work harder to decide what to pay attention to; the reflection or the stuff on the screen.
Um, a paper reflects light. Thats how you see it. So does mostly everything else in your surroundings, except for the minority of objects which emit light. Lamps and screens, mostly.
By your logic, a paper should be harder to read than a screen. Is it?
.: Max Romantschuk
BTW: they're televisions, not monitors people.
Actually the loss in depth is from the CRT part. The electronics associated with it will determine the use of the thing (computer monitor, HDTV, regular TV, paper weight)
. there used to be a sig here.....
By your logic, a paper should be harder to read than a screen. Is it?
Depends. Is there any light source in the room? If not, then a screen will be easier to read. If the room is brightly lit, a paper should be easier to read. Of course, trying to decide whether a screen is better than paper is like trying to decide if technical whitepapers are better than novels. It totally depends on your environment, needs, and other variables. I don't think there's much point to the whole 'paper v. screens' debate.
http://xkcd.com/386/
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?
There is also the problem of hitting the glass at the right angle to make sure that the phosphorus excites and emits light. The steeper the angle, the harder that is to do. You also have to shape the glass differently on the inside since you are playing around with the focal length. Finally the em fields that aim the electrons have to be able to change their direction to a stepper angle (not sure if that is the grille or not). So it's not just the gun and the grille. Its other stuff too.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
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.
Exactly. I've had an astigmatism in my eyes since I was very young, but an 85 Hz 19" CRT is fine for me. I've used it very regularly for 3 years or so without ill effects. On the other hand, for a small portion of that time the monitor reset to 60 Hz and I didn't realise. I began getting very severe headaches. Eventually I discovered it and changed it back, and my eyes became fine again.
:/
Some people like yourself prefer 100+, some are fine with 60 Hz. It varies completely.
On the other hand, my new 17" TFT runs at 60 Hz and hasn't caused any problems because they don't flicker. I suggest them for games too, since the newer ones have very good response times and no visible ghosting (although, again, it depends who you are as some people notice it more than others). My only advice: don't dual screen a CRT and a TFT with different refresh rates, it seems to mess your eyes up if you focus on both
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.
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
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.
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...
I used to think the same thing, being very happy with my LCD. I saw the comments from "graphics professionals", and wrote them off as typically overly-futzy artist-types.
Then I bought a digital SLR.
Snapshots, ok fine. But trying to work with low-contrast images or to try to prepare anything for printing, it became a frustrating guessing-game with a low success rate.
I love my LCD, but it is far from ideal for working on photos.
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
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
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