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."

Comments

Eyes

[mfh]

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?

Re:Eyes

[Anonymous Coward]

LCDs = higher contrast ratio better refresh = less strain than CRTs. I can work on an LCD screen all day. With CRTs, after a few hours, I develop sties in me eyes.

Re:Eyes

[Dan East]

This is somewhat anecdotal, but an optometrist told me that reflective and transflective screens are best for the eyes, because they reflect light instead of emit it, and reflected light is more 'natural'.

The only devices I know of with those types of displays are Pocket PCs.

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.

Dan East

Re:Eyes

[DigitumDei]

Can you remember what refresh rate these crt's ran at?

5 years ago 75 was considered the norm even with expencive crt's. I personally don't like to use a CRT unless its running at 100.

I'd assume the thin crt's have the same drawbacks as the old ones since they will still refresh in a similar way and thus have the flicker. Of course that is assuming the flicker is what causes the eye strain (AFAIK it is).

Also, I've been sitting in front of CRT monitors for far to many hours a day for the last 14 years and I still have 20/20 vision. At work I moved over to LCD last year, though I have noticed no difference in how my eyes feel at the end of the day, so its really only desk space that I gain.

I guess its one of those things that varies a lot from person to person.

Re:Eyes

[pz]

IAAVN (I am a Visual Neuroscientist). In our lab we have looked at the effects of CRT versus LCD displays on what's known as the early part of the visual system (retina, LGN, primary visual cortex).

If you accurately measure the luminance from one spot on a CRT screen at sufficiently high time resolution, it looks like a regular series of big spikes followed by exponential decay as the electron beam passes by during each vertical sweep. If the beam passes by sufficiently frequently, our visual system temporally smooths this uneven luminance into what we percieve as a solid image through an effect that's called flicker fusion. Most humans have a flicker fusion rate at about 30 Hz, but there's a broad distribution from individual to individual, and the transition between seeing something that flashes and something that's solid isn't abrupt (further, it depends on contrast ratio, which part of the retina, and a host of other things). But, this is why, in general, CRTs tend to appear to flicker when the refresh rate is at 60 Hz, but not so at 85 Hz or above.

When we record the response of individual neurons in the early visual system, the entrainment of activity to the vertical refresh is striking, and has been found even in higher order visual areas (well beyond the primary visual cortex) at refresh rates as high as 135 Hz with CRTs. In my work, I routinely see responses to 90 Hz flicker in the visual thalamus.

If you examine the luminance from an LCD in the same way, instead of big spikes followed by exponential decay, you see staircases as pixels changes from one luminance to the next through the presentation of whatever is on the display. Recording from early visual neurons in the same circumstances shows a vastly different response characteristic than for the same visual presentation made via CRT (as accurately as we can match it).

This physiological result jibes well with my personal experience that a 60 Hz refresh rate on a CRT is just this side of torture, and while 85 Hz appears solid, 100 Hz has a subtle *more* solid and more pleasant aspect to it. And, further, that any current LCD blows away even an ultra-fast CRT (we use 180 Hz at the upper end) in terms of image stability.

Bottom line: the scientific evidence suggests that unless you want your visual system to be pulsing at CRT refresh rates, get an LCD display.

Re:Eyes

[Michael Spencer Jr.]

Excellent post, but it raises a couple of questions.

First, is it *bad* for our visual system to be pulsing at CRT refresh rates? What does that do to the body, both good and bad?

Second, how does the impact of a flickering CRT compare with that of the fluorescent lights already found in many homes and businesses? Will replacing a CRT with an LCD make any significant difference if the room you're in is already lit with fluorescent lighting?

Thanks again for the excellent post, and for looking at these followup questions...

--Michael Spencer

Still pretty heavy

[jmcharry]

44kg is still quite heavy. I guess that will be one of the tradeoffs.

How does this work?

[LiSrt]

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?

Re:How does this work?

[stienman]

The electron beams (RGB) have to be deflected at a very severe angle right out of the gun, then they have to be redeflected to undo the angle so they hit the grille and phospher relatively straight. Chances are good that the grille and phospher coating is also carefully designed for an exact angle of entry for each pixel on the screen since the electrons will not only not be perpendicular to the screen, but the particular angle will be different for each pixel. The signals driving the coils are going to be very complex, but that's taken care of with high speed DSPs.

This is not new technology - they wouldn't be introducing this if it meant they'd have to change the tube manufacturing process more than a little bit. This is the last gasp of the CRT industry in order to use the leftover production capability of plants that have all but gone dark.

-Adam

Power utilization...

[rusty0101]

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.

Viva la Valve, Long libe the Vacuum Tube!

[Sai Babu]

"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 /.ers in the know? There was no tech info on at either referenced site.

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!

As we all know CRTs are much better than TFTs!

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Weighed in the Balance...

[Headw1nd]

This still doesn't beat what, in my opinion, is one of the greatest advantages of other flat displays, weight. I like the concept of a display I can tote myself without fear of a hernia, or more likely, dropping the damn thing. The CRTs mentioned still weigh in at 49 and 44 kg. A slightly larger (37 in) plasma display would weigh in at around 25 kg, and a LCD at less than 20.

Going hand in hand with this, I really like the concept of wall mounting, something even these "thin" CRTs wouldn't be capable of.

Re:picture quality

[Anonymous Coward]

additive color model instead of a subtractive, black isnt true black on a lcd

More expensive otherwise

[tepples]

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.

This seems to be Candescent Technologies flatCRT

[gwizah]

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.

Re:Thank Fuck

[diamondsw]

It's very individual. When I was using a 21" CRT for years, my eyesight was moving out a full diopter per year (now at -8.0). Once I moved to an LCD, my eyesight stabilized, and my headaches went away.

So, some people do much better with CRT's, some with LCD's. Glad to have both!