Slashdot Mirror
Monitor Basics - LCD vs. CRT
Herbal V wrote in with a little article discussing the differences between LCD and CRT. Briefly summarizes all the major issues (Price, Refresh Rate etc). More of a beginner level piece, but as LCD prices are dropping like rocks, it's good to be aware.
Reasons I haven't switched to using LCD displays:
* Price: A 19" High Quality CRT w/ 18" viewable area, is hundreds of dollars cheaper than a high quality 17" LCD (with the ultra low response time, excellent colour, etc.)
* Sucky low resolution support: I maintain a Linux port of an adventure game system that runs at resolutions including: 320x200, 320x240, 640x400, 640x480, 800x600. Every LCD i've ever seen has one of two sucky ways of dealing with low resolutions: Stretch the image to fit, blurring the heck out of it, or displaying it at near postage stamp size.
Show me an LCD that solves both problems and I'll run to buy it in the very near future.
The article barely touches on the response time inadequecies of LCDs. It even goes so far as saying that LCDs have a better picture than CRTs, when anyone who uses their computer for visual design knows the color problems with LCDs.
Come on here, just because you get a nice radiation bath with CRTs is no reason to hate on them and deny the areas that they excel over LCDs: color, darks/lights, any moving picture, etc...And this will be borne out by the legions of gamers, graphic designers and cg programmers who use CRTs because they are superior in these areas. I estimate I'll be able to buy a LCD in about 10 years that won't have these problems. Till then, it's always CRT for visually intensive work, maybe LCD for web surfing and office apps.
(\(\
(^.^) INFECTED
(")")
The price isn't dropping, that I can detect.
More importantly, the higher resolution monitors are still not available. As I type this on my 1920x1440 screen, I wonder why I would be motivated to pay a high premium for no more than 1280x1024 resolution. I do have one LCD panel that I like, it's only 1024x768, but it's mounted on my keyboard rack, and serves a specific purpose where low resolution is not a problem.
But everywhere else, virtual desktop real estate is much more important than physical desktop space, particularly with regard to the volume of the monitor. If anything, a flat panel is a net loss, because I lose the shelf that the display provides.
The other thing that stops me from buying an LCD is the ridiculous policy that "10 or less missing pixels" is not a problem. It would be a serious problem for me, to have missing pixels anywhere except *maybe* within a pixel or two of the edge.
Just maybe. I'd still be upset. But anywhere else, and I'd be sick about it.
Because of that, I don't buy an LCD panel. Maybe if I were to buy one from a brick/mortar store where I could test it before buying.
For what these things cost, I think I should be able to ask the merchant to test it, and know before sending the damned thing that it has 8 missing pixels.
I have a big problem with that policy. It tells me the manufacturer doesn't understand the process well enough to have sufficient quality control.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Actually, these beginner guides and technology simplified articles are handy for us geeks to have.
Presenting facts and information to the layman can be a difficult task, and its good for us to see how its done.
Instead of us all saying something like "let me try try to explain it" to a family member or friend, you can direct them to an article written with them in mind, and with enough information to answer most of their queries.
liqbase
5 months later, I found myself having trouble shaking off common colds, and my appetite went down hill. People should be aware of the health issues, not just specs.
I'm not trying to troll here, but maybe... just maybe.... those health issues aren't from sitting around in front of 5 CRTs necessarily, but maybe years of just sitting around, period.
Exercise improves your health and your appetite.
Around 10+ years ago it was widely held that grayscale two-page displays were a better choice for people who needed text readability over vibrant colors such as authors like myself. With all this talk nowadays about using LCD subpixels to make text more readable I wonder, why not make each of those subpixels a grayscale pixel, thereby tripling resolution and eliminating color banding which occurs with Microsoft's Cleartype and other subpixel renderers?
This question is important to me because I tend to get severe headaches after gazing into my CRT monitor for hours on end and I know many other people out there share this problem.
Buy and use a calibration sensor and calibration software. It can really help. (Note, I code this stuff for a living these days.)
Ironically, the falsification of monitor sizes is something that only happens for CRTs. LCD monitors are always labeled according to their true viewable image size.
So, a 17" CRT means that the glass rectangle included with the CRT is 17" (but your viewable image is smaller), whereas a 17" LCD really means that the pixel matrix on the LCD is 17" across.
So, if you're looking for truth in advertised display size, LCD wins, hands down.