Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Thin CRTs to Challenge LCDs in 2005

Posted by michael on from the less-lower-back-pain dept.

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."

11 of 472 comments (clear)

  1. Perfect Example..... by hcob$ · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  2. Eyes by mfh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Eyes by Gonzotek · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.
      Here are some generalized tips for monitor placement, lighting, and eye health:
      http://www.crazycolour.com/os/ergonomics_ 06.shtml

    2. Re:Eyes by Clueless+Moron · · Score: 5, Funny
      reflected light is more 'natural'.

      Gosh. Do the photons come with little tags that say "organically grown"?

    3. Re:Eyes by pz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
  3. Not exactly flat by MrPrefect · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  4. thin? by rdc_uk · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.")

  5. "20% reduction" in power consumption = not bad. by mopslik · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  6. /. is Missing the Point by JavaMoose · · Score: 5, Insightful
    You are all missing the point! These are going to have excellent uses in the LIVING ROOM. The Samsung-SDI model is 32in, and they have a 42in and 50in on the way.

    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.

  7. Weighed in the Balance... by Headw1nd · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.

  8. SED - the new 'killer app' in TV and monitors? by bullet_tooth · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.