Slashdot Mirror
Are CRTs History?
DreamWheezer asks: "I work on a medical imaging program that uses CrystalEyes for high resolution true color stereoscopy. This program requires high resolution high frequency true color CRTs. Very recently, a vendor trend has developed: almost all are dropping out of the CRT market in favor of LCDs. Unfortunately, LCDs cannot render high resolution page sequential stereoscopy. The vendors have said that autostereo LCDs are on the way in 12 to 18 months, but what can I do in the meantime? Furthermore, does this mean the end is near for CRTs?" While there does still seem to be a market for CRTs, it seems to be dwindling to a narrow niche. Are LCDs ready to take over as the primary computer display or is the retirement of CRTs, premature?
Wait, what happened to the Pirate's Bay story?
There was nothing for you to see there...
After f*cking my back lifting a 21" bugger on to my desk. I really do hope they are.
Deleted
Can you please learn to use commas correctly? Thanks.
Does new technologies will replace old ones in the long run?
YES
Wait, what happened to the Pirate's Bay story?
Exactly what I'd like to know.
(P.S. I'm posting as AC because I don't feel like getting modded down for being offtopic.)
I have three words for you: Cold Dead Hands!
Are you saying you have no way to get high res CRTs anymore? I somehow don't believe that. The medical market is pretty big and profitable, I hardly think vendors would completely drop CRTs if there is no replacement available yet.
God I hope so.
I've been using CRTs for years. Sure, they're big and bulky. Yes, they take a lot of power.
But:
They run very high resolutions and have very little latency (essential for gaming).
They're also very cheap compared with LCDs.
Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
*The vendors have said that autostereo LCDs are on the way in 12 to 18 months, but what can I do in the meantime?*
Find another vendor that wants to trade your money for their CRT monitors.
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
Honestly I hate LCDs. Their color reproduction on all but the most expensive monitors sucks. The push really seems to be a industry one and totally profit related. But until certain new technologys mature, CRTs will still be the best monitors out there for a lot of things, especially graphics.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
You're worried that you have to wait 18 months for a suitable LCD?
CRT screens won't disappear from the market for YEARS yet. What are you
whining about?
Maybe it's just me. But I can't stand LCDs for general computer use. They're harsher and grittier on the eyes, and they still-- even after all these years of development-- tend to suffer from ghosting.
Am I the only one?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
For those of us who can put up with CRT, there are some great bargains to be had on eBay. My 17" CRT monitor recently died, so I was in the market for a replacement. I managed to get a nearly new 17" Dell monitor off eBay for £4! I had to collect it though, but it wasn't too far away.
So far you were LUCKY you got your specialized equipement for cheap because there happened to be a large demand for it.
Now that the demand ONLY comes from your specialized application, you're going to pay the real price.
If everyone goes to LCDs, interoffice efficiency will surely decline since there's no space on an LCD for Post-Its!
LCDs are certianly more popular these days but CRTs are hardly dead. NEC has a massive lineup of CRTs from low end consumer models to $1000+ professional models. Viewsonic likewise has a huge lineup, though theirs don't go to quite the same level as NEC. I personally just purchased a LaCie 22" CRT (NEC makes their monitors for them).
CRTs are certianly falling in popularity, but they are by no means dead. LCDs still have flaws that are not acceptable for some appilcations. I imagine there'll still be major production of CRTs for another 5 years at least, and you'll still be able to get pro models for years and years to come.
Alpha ray sterilization.
R(k)
http://linuxreviews.org/news/2005/0...irate_bay_jo ke/
LCD's command higher profit margins and are cheaper to ship; so they are being pushed by the channel onto gullible consumers.
I thought LCDs could achieve a higher resolution. There is a 22" 200ppi LCD that is something like 4000x2500 resolution, sold by IBM and Viewsonic.
Granted, I don't know what sort of specialized use this is, if it uses uncommon technologies.
Yes they are on their way out but it's going to be quite some time so don't hold your breath. LCD, plasma, DLP technology has all made leaps and bounds over the past couple years. It's just a matter of time.
- Toby
Most LCDs still bother my eyes if I use them for more than 90-120 minutes, and I'm still a poor student who can't afford a high-quality LCD. Oh, and could this be... First Post?
Remember Magink? I'd like to know when I can have a paper monitor. I haven't heard about Magink since that proposed billboard. Their site has lots of billboards, but I think credit card form factor clients and paper monitors would be "neato".
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
you just don't see them advertized, because its not whats 'new'
No way they are going away, unless you can get no motion-blur on LCD's, gamers and people who can't stand blur (me) will still want CRT's
By reading this, you have given me brief control of your mind.
Imagine how I greased my gusset when a headcrab leapt out at me for the first time. It was two years before I could bring myself to continue playing the game, and then on easy level.
Black & White was amazing with the glasses. But they gave me really bad headaches, and got ditched when I upgraded my graphics card.
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
My kingdom for decent reflective displays.
t ml
Neurology professor and neuropsychiatrist Richard Restak, M.D. theorizes that "expressing one's opinion on a computer screen engages a different part of the brain than when writing or typing the same sentiment on a piece of paper."
Details: http://www.cheesebikini.com/208/archives/001000.h
I've read twice that it was a joke and they were just upgrading their servers.
I take a look around the office and don't see a single CRT. The LCD has given us back that much needed desk space in order to fit more of our useless crap. Good riddance CRT.
They're MUCH heavier, use more power, generate more heat, take up more space, and will probably be more expensive than LCDs as the market realigns itself around flat panels. However, I suspect there will always be companies out there willing to produce CRTs for special applications at some usurous price point.
I've got 18 21" CRT's I've gotta surplus in half an hour and I'd just as soon not move them.
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
Until an LCD can display true black, no. Until an LCD can color calibrate as well as a nice CRT, no. Until LCDs are as reasonably priced and capable of similar resolutions as CRTS, no.
So, in answer to the question, no.
Hey, I can get a 19" monitor for about $100 bucks, and the LCD version is still about twice that. You'd better believe CRT's aren't going anywhere.
IGB: More fun than eating oatmeal!
Professional, high-end CRTs. Not the ones you go and buy at Best Buy.
Try another vendor...
if i was going to chose between a 22" LCD and a 22" CRT, i'd take the CRT and upgrade my RAM or buy a big mofo of a hard drive with the spare money.
but i guess it depends on how much space you have.
sudo killall humans
Environmentally speaking CRTs are much worse than LCDs from points of view of production/disposition/power consumption
You can't handle the truth.
I may be weird, but I really like my CRT. I spend all day working on LCD screens and coming home to my trusty Dell P780 is so nice. I haven't found an LCD that I really like that's affordable enough to replace my CRT.
I for one would gladly sacrifice desk space for the refresh speeds of a CRT monitor.
As nice as flat panel monitors are, compared to the CRT, the (pixel) refresh rate (don't jump to the conclusion I'm referring to the vertical/horizontal refresh rates which are meaningless on flat panels) is pretty bad and for movies and games, the last time I checked, there were artifacts and blurring due to the pixel recharge times (or whatever the technical term is).
A CRT is still cheaper and people do want cheaper.
No, I'd say that for probably the next 5 or even 10 years, CRTs will very likely remain as viable monitors of choice for many.
As far as gaming goes, CRTs are still king. I have gamed on an LCD monitor for about 3 years now, and am the first to admit that CRTs are much crisper due to their pixel response speed than LCDs. Its funny, because I picture a world where LCDs were invented first, and then comes about the invention of the CRT. I can imagine purchasing a CRT because it gives an advantage in gaming, despite its enormous size and greater power consumption. After all, I jump at almost any other advantage I can get through superior hardware.
Heh....that explains the text on their page:
Translated into English (courtesy of SYSTRAN), the page reads:
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
- Reduced shipping costs - if you get a new Dell with an LCD - they ship it in the same box as the computer. Goes a long ways in offsetting some of the cost premium
- Significantly sharper image
- Substantially smaller footprint - this is a big deal for those trapped in cubicles
- Less heat output - air conditioning can be a big hidden cost for office environments
- Reduced power consumption
- Increased longevity - try comparing a 5yr old laptop screen to a 5yr old desktop screen
Hehe. The pirate bay has NOT been taken down. It's a prank.
They're just introducing their new site.
Stay tuned.
My guess is that CRTs will eventually become sort of like dot matrix printers are now. They haven't disappeared, but they're only used in very specialized applications.
In the short term, as long as CRTs are significantly cheaper than LCDs, they won't go away. Until then, there will continue to be a budget market for them.
Plus, if 3.5 inch floppy drives are any indication, CRTs will be around for a long, long time.
I've been watching the advances on displays, like nanotube based (these will be the direct replacements for CRT based, they use the same technology except for the electron emission), or OLED a.k.a. e-paper (will replace LCD's).
But I give them 10 years to appear in the market. OK, OK 5 years maybe. But you know, it'll take another 3 or 4 additional years before the people can afford them.
Go buy a dozen of the best CRTs you can get your hands on. Get extended service contracts on the CRTs that are on your desk and when those are over and your CRT breaks, pull one out of storage. They should last you at least a few years each.
HDTV. The market for these will eventually produce something high-enough quality for your needs, whether it be LCD or CRT.
Have you read my blog lately?
To be fair, The Pirate Bay did have a notice up on thier front page all morning saying they were shutting down and had been raided by the authorities. Of course, this was just them fucking around while they upgraded thier servers. But the story didn't come from some blogger's asshole.
Thier current page still has the "Permanently Shut Down" banner in the title, although it seems to be a bit messed up right now.
"P.S. I'm posting as AC because I don't 2feel like getting modded down for being offtopic."
FFS! Slashdot karma is a piece of made up bullshit. You'd be a real help when something truly important was on the line, wouldn't you.
Deleted
I've been trying to find a good quality CRT monitor in case my trustworthy CTX 19" (Trinitron tube) dies. but so far I haven't find any good replacement in 17"-19" range, ever since Sony stop producing Trinitron tube :(
but there are still a few 21"+ that uses good tube, except they might be too big for my personal use.
IMHO although CRT has the disadvantege of big size and huge power consumption, it still beats staring at the LCD (YMMV of course). the quality of the image is still unbeatable *yet*
More seriously, yes. CRTs will become a niche market as better displays are made more cheaply available. This is not shocking; it's not even really news. It's been predicted for a long, long time. There are a lot of drawbacks to CRTs, and for most uses current LCD technology is more than adequate and in some important regards better. Mainly, they use less power, take up less space, and produce a sharp, no-tuning-required picture.
As refresh rates, color accuracy and price all improve, CRT markets will continue to dwindle. The manufacturers know this, and are adjusting their production appropriately to compete.
In fact, repackaging used equipment is not too uncommon.
I know of a small company that sells a $1 million device to a very niche market. A certain component of this device is only manufactured by a few companies world-wide and requires huge technical know-how and manufacturing capabilities. None of the big boys will sell the component individually for various reasons including the fact that they don't offer this niche capability of the small company's product and are probably trying to develop it themselves.
So what does this small company do? They purchased used equipment on the Latin American market, strip the specialized part, and repackage it in their $1 million product.
(Yes, I am being quite vague on purpose to hide the details)
I don't recall where I read it (if someone could reply with a link to an article on it it would be nice), but their was development being done on CRTs that offered the advantages of current CRTs, but were only an inch or two thicker then LCDs. Not sure what ever happened to them, but I know I'd buy one if they were available. LCDs are light and sleek, but I much prefer the smooth look of a decent CRT screen for my daily viewing then the pixelated look of an LCD screen.
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
I am guessing that it will take at least that amount of time for factories to ramp up, TVs to convert and come down in price, etc.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Ya know, on the 17" LCD I have at work, I don't want to run at Native res... 1280x1024... I like 1024x768. I guess I don't need that high of resolution, things look just right to me. Plus the D600 I have only has an XGA LCD on it, and I hate my icons, and trillian windows not being in the exact same spot.
-- Liberalism is a mental disorder.
I just went to Comp USA and they smashed all of their CRTs with baseball bats. There was a sign on the door that said, "From now on, only LCD monitors will be sold".
To make things worse, on the way home the Public Emergency Broadcast System sounded, and the recording mentioned that if we didn't all buy LCD monitors, they would send signals through our power grids to fry our CRTs.
/. ++
I'm sticking with CRT for the time being because they're less expensive, allow for higher refresh rates, and can display in many resolutions without having to stretch/shrink/distort an image. When LCDs can match CRTs in those respects, I'll gladly convert.
CRT's are not going to just disappear.
And LCD's are 18 months away. What are you worrying about? Its not like your going to be buying CRT's every month.
And my 24inch dell lcd might be able to do 100hz at 1024x768 if it does 60hz at 1920x1200
When Sony stops making Trinitron's, then we can discuss the end of the CRT monitor.
I know what you're thinking. Did I forward 65,535 packets or 65,536 packets?
Since when are we giving "insightful" mods to people spamming stories that their story submission wasn't accepted?
In many segments of the market, CRTs are still the standard, and as long as these markets demand CRTs, there will be a supply. For example, most critical prepress, photography, and design work is still best done on CRTs, LCDs don't have sufficient gamut, color accuracy, or consistency across the entire screen compared to CRTs. So manufacturers like LaCie are producing CRTs with advanced color calibration features that are unmatched by any LCD on the market.
I'll stick with CRTs for now. I'm still using a Sony Multiscan 300sf that I bought for big money sometime around 1994, it's still in perfect shape. I don't expect any LCDs to hold up for 10 years. I first used this screen on a Mac IIcx, then on a Mac 8100/110, and now on my dual 1Ghz G4. I expect to use it when I buy a new dual G5 Mac in a few months. Hell, I expect it might still be in perfect shape when I buy a G6. Sony Trinitrons last forever. Best money I ever spent.
Yes, the medical market is probably big enough to ensure that one or two players keep making CRTs. They will become specialty items, however.
(Is there any reason that the medical market can't switch? Is there any reason that the medical market can't use CRTs?)
... in 8", 9" and even 12". Where's the problem?
Oh, yes the price, size and weight. VDC makes cheaper devices, and if it has to be cheaper still, get a second hand one from ebay and install new tubes (make sure you get a 'fast' green one. Smaller? Get a rear projection box with one of the above devices inside (or two. or three... those were called "reality center") . Smaller still? Get one of the "classic" 24" Sony direct view crts.
Everything you could dream of in CRT-land is still beeing built, and is cheaper than ever second hand.
I hate LCD's!
I cannot stand the burned out pixels, and don't say that "new" lcd's don't burn out. My laptop is only 6 months old and has about 4 on the screen - they drive me nuts, but are "within manufacturer specs".
That and the resolution, with a little fiddling, linux works amazing at the highest resolution my 21" monitor will go(windows sucks) but LCD don't come near that resolution for the same bucks. I was just quoted a 21" flat screen CRT to replace my lightning killed one, and it's only $480CDN, I could get a mid range, 17" LCD for that money, but not the resolution...
CRT's will die when high res LCDs with insanely low pixel failure rates and low cost hit the market. While this sounds insane now, it will happen, just like an LCD on every desktop sounded insane a few years ago.
JC
On Arrakis: early worm gets the bird. Magister mundi sum!
Isn't it obvious? Rent a storage shed and load it up with current models. They can only increase in value while no other alternative is available.
Oh, and start planning your retirement. You leave the day the last box leaves your hands.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I've always likened the difference in picture quality for CRT vs. LCD monitors to what I've heard about vaccum tube based radios (Never used vaccum tube based audio, but I've read about it). Transistors and LCDs are smaller and more precise, but just as vaccum tubes can soften the sound of some music, CRTs often offer a softer image. For that, I hope they don't fade away.
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
What can you do until LCDs catch up?
a utostereo.htm
A quick google and I came up with this already
http://www.inition.co.uk/inition/guide_stereovis_
If you are going to stockpile the CRTs, why on earth are you going to buy the warranty on them? And I wouldn't do it just now, give it three more years, so you can get them for 50p each! Remember, the price just keeps dropping.
If I knew then what I knew now, would I still feel this old?
There will always be people who hold on to their love for CRTs, just like there will always be those chubby chasers who have a fetish for fat people.
Stock up on CRTs at closeout prices?
The main problem I have with CRTs is getting them to die so I can replace them with an LCD. By the time they die, maybe OLED will be out. I'd love to have an OLED laptop display that doesn't wash out in even indirect sunlight.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
I don't understand this article. Is it hard to buy a high-quality CRT these days? No. Just surf over to Viewsonic or NEC. Seems like many companies are still manufacturing CRTs right now, which means they will be available from the manufacturer for at least 4 years, and could still be purchased second-hand for (I'm guessing) another 15 years. If in 15 years LCDs still don't meet your needs, I imagine it won't matter, since your particular application will have long since been replaced with something different.
Sorry, but this seems like a non-issue to me.
CRTs still give much better resolution per $ than LCDs. You have to be able to afford the desk space, but if that's not an issue, CRTs are still better bargain at this point. There is some modification of the "Good/Fast/Cheap choose 2" at work here, something like "Resolution/Cheap/Small choose 2". As other posters have mentioned, there are plenty of other reasons to still prefer CRTs. (Slightly off topic) I just got 2 x 21" Viewsonic G810-4s at a used property auction for $25 a piece, and am running them dual. (I can afford the desk space). To get 2 LCDs that support 1600 X 1200 even used would be many many times my $50 investment.
Honestly, I wish that there was more funding being put into getting off of the desktop altogether via visors, retinal painting technology, implant-based tech, or something else. Implants are likely quite a way off into future-tech, but for many of the things I do from day to day I'd rather ditch the screen altogether.
http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000180020920/
http://www.gizmodo.com/archives/samsung-develops-t hin-crt-television-024892.php
$85 for a 22" Sun CRT with VGA adapter at a local computer trade show. Crystal fucking clear and fast to boot.
Stick that in your fragile overpriced dead-pixel-having need-a-special-cloth-to-clean-it LCD asspipe and smoke it.
Bitch.
WTF is an "autostereo LCD" ?
There are still buttloads of CRTs for sale. Its not like they are going to run out. They have stockpiles of these things.
Read my short stories - You won't regret it.
What kind of CRT monitors are you buying/using that you're worried they won't last 12-18 months? My sony g400 has been running solid for almost 6 years now. Granted, it's definitely gone downhill in the last year or so, for the first 3-4 it was fine.
here's a thought, if you're worried about not having CRT's for the next 12-18 months, why don't you just buy like 100 from suppliers now, and store them till you need them?
As long as there is still consumer demand for CRT monitors, someone will make and sell them.
:)
Personally, I prefer CRT monitors. Although I seem to be in the minority with everyone I know. There is something about LCD monitors that just doesn't sit well with me. But I'm also the same person who can't stand flat screen CRT's as well.
Give me a "bubble" CRT and I'm happy.
"why don't you just slip into something more comfortable...like a coma!"
The thing that is holding LCD back from filling the 3d stereoscopic role is the refresh rate. OLED screens inherently have a much higher refresh rate and manufacturers are just starting to come out with products.
This Company is coming out with a 3d stereoscopic visor (HMD) for just the type of application that the poster mentions.
The OLEDs will certainly be higher end to start like every other new technology, including LCD. But I think we should see OLEDs being the best of both worlds with fast refresh rates and very high resolution.
CRTs still deliver a few perks that LCDs cannot: Price, as the single most important; Response time without blurring (your panel may say 12ms, but that means time to turn a pixel on, not black to white and back to fully black again, which usually takes 5-10x as long); decent sync from an analog signal (getting MUCH better, but only if you turn off ClearType or the like first); Behavior of a "dead" pixel; washability (go ahead, try to thoroughly clean an LCD screen... Windex destroys them, water doesn't work and the wiping action itself will harm them, and the specialty LCD cleaning solutions that cost a fortune work marginally well but nothing like Windex-on-glass).
For now, CRTs enjoy popularity mostly for price and for the highest quality images. LCDs will catch up in both those areas over time, but if you only worry about the 18 month timescale, I'd say you have no need to fear. Looking at 5 years out, I'd worry a LOT more, but not yet.
I'm a gamer, and a game developer in training. Personally, I have found very few LCDs that I can tolerate.
My primary gripe is the depth of black - on an LCD, a pure black looks more like a dark grey, where on a CRT a black looks, well, black. Go play DooM 3 on a CRT and then on an average LCD and you'll see exactly what I mean.
Furthermore, most LCDs tend to wash colors out a bit. Taking the game Morrowind as an example, on my six year old Samsung 19" CRT, the colors are deep, saturated, and the world looks full of life. Moving to either of the two LCD displays I have (both on laptops - one Dell, one Toshiba), the game world looks like someone sprayed Chlorox on everything.
And this is without going into the blur that occurs during high end action games. It's gotten a lot better over the years (remember "dual scan" LCDs?), but it's still noticable compared to a CRT.
The only LCD's I've seen that have been acceptable to me have been some of the ones on Sharp laptops. Those give me some hope that LCDs can eventually make it to a point where I wouldn't mind using them, but for now, I'll covet my Samsung CRT. If anyone knows of any good LCDs that solve these problems though, I'd love to find out I'm wrong =)
-Amich
I am working on a CRT right now, and while I would love to trade it in for an LCD here is the hard truth. My 21" CRT cost about the same as a 19" LCD. The 19" LCD will not support the 1600 x 1200 resolution that I like to work at. When I can get my company to get me an LCD with the same specs as a comparably price CRT I will gladly switch over. Until then I will take the CRT that gives me more bang for the buck.
Set up a network of them round the house and have your house server update them with something new every so often.
Deleted
The two types of monitors have vastly different strengths and weaknesses.
CRT
-------------------
1.)Highly sensitive to EMF
2.)Very high vertical refresh frequency
3.)Much higher color depth and quality
4.)Take up too much room on a desk
5.)Heavy
6.)The better the quality, the more lead in the glass, the more lead in the glass the more toxic it is to recycle.
7.)The only way to go for stereoscopic viewing using glasses, the LCD monitors are definitely not prime time yet wrt autostereoscopic display, and the quality of the LC shutter glasses is way above that of the autostereoscopic displays that I saw at SIGGRAPH last year.
--------------------
LCD
--------------------
1.)Thin and light
2.)Not influenced at all by EMF
3.)Easy on the eyes for text reading
4.)Much nicer on the environment
5.)Take far less power consumption
6.)Require less real estate
I certainly think given the different strengths and weeknesses, we'll see both stick around for quite a while. Last time I checked, you could still purchase an old fashioned CRT projector ;-/
If you can get a 22" LCD for a reasonable cost that'll actually do a decent spectrum of resolutions, and at a decent DPI too, then yes, fair enough, CRT's are good to die.
But that's not now.
Between usable real-estate for windows usage, the odd resolution-switch for an especially demanding game, and the occasional need to edit an obscenely high-resolution image, my CRT's cannot be beat. To hell with the weight and power consumption. As I'm assuming has been said before: cold, dead hands...
CRTs are most certainly being phased out. And to add to the pain, they are starting to get expensive! It's a supply/demand thing along with volume sales.
Personally, I hate LCDs for gaming when it comes to First Person Shooters. The slightest ghosting or blur will drive me nuts (some would say I'm aready nuts, but I digress). Unless Plasma monitors come down in price, I will never part with CRT technology.
Life is not for the lazy.
It's not just that they have higher resolution...
-They don't have a FIXED and lower resolution (and anything running at not-native res looks FUGLY, even with like ClearType and what not)
-CRTs have a LOT more contrast
-CRTs don't have/get dead/stuck pixels
-CRTs have a good angle of view
-CRTs don't have slow response delays (and LCD manufacturers that claim super low delays are using tricks to be able to claim those numbers)
-CRTs aren't limited to 18 (eek) or 24bit color, tend to have better color accuracy, wider gamut...
-Good CRTs have a long lifespan, not sure about LCDs
Dtiching my perfectly find 21" CRTs for 21" LCDs would cost me an arm and a leg, would also require me to buy a newer and more expensive spectrometer too.
As far as I'm concerned, that's a lot of money wasted to get inferior technology.
Oh, and for those people that only talk about electricity savings, well, why not get rid of your SUV and buy a scooter instead? You'll save a LOT of gas and money (a lot more than swtiching monitors could ever make you save)! Oh, what's that you say? It's not quite the same? Exactly. LCD isn't nearly as good as CRT either.
Unless you think your (reclaimed) desk space is worth 1000$/sq ft, or that you think LCD is better in a interior-designer standpoint, in which case I'll grant you it's a better buy for you.
///<sig
The Mad Poster was complaining about the substandard effort by the Slashdot when it comes to checking out the stories and he's damn right. If they would spend less time harassing us posters with crap like that new authentication shit and more time on the stories, Slashdot would be much, much better.
LCDs can display true black. It is the plasma that has no true black but uses instead low shades of gray.
About resolution: I am typing this on my 15.4" widescreen Latitude D810 with 1900x1200 resolution set on it. It is way better than what I used to have on my old CRT.
Color calibration? Only for graphics work and I don't do that.
Will CRTs be gone in a year? No. Will they be mostly gone in 10 years from normal consumer market? For sure.
You can't handle the truth.
It sounds to me like your vendor is playing a little loosely with facts. There are plenty of purchase points for CRTs. I like http://www.newegg.com/ for hardware purchasing, but also check out http://www.buy.com/ and http://www.cdw.com/. Those are the major vendors, but there are tons of others out there that will sell you the high quality CRTs that you need, and won't BS you about CRTs going away. As many of the other articles are saying LCDs may be popular, but CRTs are still the better, and more cost effective, solution. My recommendation is to get a new vendor.
I'm a happy pessimist. I expect and prepare for the worst, when it doesn't happen I am pleasantly surprised.
The CRT technology is still much better than anything else. They will soon realize it and you will eventually be able to buy a laptop with a 22"CRT or even or a tablet PC with a 17"CRT screen. At least in the states ... before they import that in europe.
I work in the VFX film industry, and I can say without a doubt that CRT's are common place in all the effects houses I have worked at. All the big studios (Sony, Disney, ILM) have and need scores of CRT's for final colour manipulation. Nothing has been able to replace CRT's as of yet, so unless the studios want less quality on the colour output of films, CRT's will always be around.
Just like the floppy still hasn't died completely, I don't see CRTs being completely replaced...even in the next 10 years. The number of manufacturers may drop and we may get to a point where CRTs become more expensive that their equivalent LCDs brothers, but there are enough projects/programs/industries around that require CRT displays I find it hard to believe that there will no CRT manufacturers--probably just high priced/specialized ones.
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
I think they have already. My last two monitors at home were LCD, as well as my work PC. The only reason CRTs are around in the consumer world is that some people haven't bought new computers in the last few years - or they wanted a really cheap system.
But that doesn't mean CRTs are dead. If your profession needs CRTs, someone will make them for you. You might have to pay a little more than you do now, but not more than when CRTs were really popular 5 years ago. Chances are as CRTs get more niche, you might even see an increase in the quality, as only pros would need them, rather than the stingy new-PC buyers, who will be getting crappy 15" LCDs soon.
some of those IBM monitors (both 1990's and
the ones that came with PS/2 systems) have a
nice little screen, but a fucking heavy and
*bulky* chasis. I have such a monitor rotting
away in my mom's storage because I didn't
feel like lugging the thing all the way to
Los Angeles. The stupid thing is only 15", but
the case of the damn thing is huge, with the front
beizel being larger (in terms of square inches)
than the fucking face of the CRT!
Whoever thought of those designs needs a swift
and hard smack upside their head with a clue-by-
four. (I've had to lug plenty of IBM monitors).
what does this post have to do with its parent? NOTHING.
I'm sure there is at least a one year supply of old CRTs getting recycled out as people replace them with LCDs. I don't think you need worry about not being able to find any before the LCD displays that support your needs come out.
And if you need really high-quality CRT displays, those are still going to be around because graphic people need them. I know you can still order them from Viewsonic.
uh... he's talking about 12-18 months. CRT's are not going all the way out by then....
I'm mostly dealing with image and video processing, graphics and film restoration r&d on a daily basis. I also had extended studies regarding a wide range of aspects of color reproduction theory and application. Ain't no way LCD/TFTs could knock out good old well-calibrated giant high frequency CRTs in the color reproduction arena anytime soon. Still, this story [i.e. LCDs rule CRTs suck] raise from time to time since years now. I don't say there won't be a time when flat panel monitors will rule, I just argue they won't be the LCD/TFT panels we know today.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
I have used crystal Eyes in the Past for 3D imaging work I did for Wolfram Research, however you have to either give up half your horizontal resolution or half your refresh rate to use a single monitor.
I just saw Aliens of the Deep in IMAX 3D at Navy Pier in Chicago and it was glorious. Perhaps you should abandoned direct view and go to Front or Rear projection with 2 projectors. Each with Polarization filters at 90 degrees to one another like this \ /
Then view with glass with polarization filters set to \ / also
The advantage of \ / vs. | -- is that you can't get the glasses backwards if they are the thin paper kind. This is also a much cheaper solution than CrystalEyes. The only downside to the polarization-based approach is that you have to keep your head vertical at all times. Some LCD shutter glasses detect head position and feed it back the render engine to maintain the 3D effect even if you tilt your head. This is very important for virtual games.
In any event with polarized projection it won't matter if it is a tri-beam CRT or a LCD bulb driven affair.
But I would plan on making the transition. CrystalEyes will always rely on VERY expensive high scan rate monitors for the same resolution as other current generation monitors.
Letter To Iran
1) because they are dirt cheap with image quality far better than inexpensivve LCDs, or
2) because the image quality is FAR surpassing that of any other technology.
Thin panel CRTs have been promised for some time now, at about 5" thick with very high resolutons, and if they can do them cheap, expect CRTs to stick around for a while.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
The effects of aging CRT monitors on the eyes are dire to say the least...
:)
About a year ago, I bought a new Samsung LCD which unfortunately broke the following month. Customer service said it'd take 10 days for a replacement. Rather than go without computing and get some sunshine I plugged in my previous monitor...an old CRT.
The monitor itself was discoloured and washed out, clicked like crazy every time the resolution changed, and the brightness was terrific. To make firefox even remotely viewable I had to stick the brightness at about 10 or so. However, it was giving me bad eye pain within hours despite the reduced brightness, so I unplugged it and stuck it in the trash.
I don't think that the CRT's death is premature in the least, its been a long time coming, but LCD prices have been dropping and likewise performance rising in the past few years making them viable as an alternative. Also, they use a lot less power and space, so their more economical in more ways than one.
So good riddance to the CRT, long live the LCD.
LCDs are still too costly to *replace* the CRT market.
Once you can get them dirt cheap, then we can talk.
Until then, its just hot air.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Right here on /. there was an article about Motorola demonstrating a carbon nanotube emissive display that uses CRT phosphors and has all the advantages of the CRT combined with the light weight, slim low power LCDs. Maybe that technolgy will replace LCDs someday.
All theory is gray
I just replaced an aging but beautiful high-end CRT, and when I started looking, I found high-quality straight-digital (i.e. DVI) LCD screens, 1280x1024 at 19" in size, sporting pixel switch rates of 8ms... For about $350.
All of the reasons to avoid LCDs are evaporating: price, smearing/update speeds, resolution...
End-to-end digital video is startlingly noticeable if you are used to CRTs, even good ones.
Really excellent LCDs are now well within the price range of what I used to pay for premium CRTs.
I don't see myself buying another CRT, pretty much ever.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
there are litterally thousands of them sitting around, you should have no problem finding CRT's for awhile, and they should be cheap as no one really wants them anymore.
As for this retirement coming early... idk, my LCD gives me fantastic color, turns on and off in 1 second flat, has brightness controls and uses a hell of a lot less energy... that and its a fraction of the weight of my old 21 inch CRT. So LCD's definately have some advantages, however i should point out i have a high end LCD (an Apple cinema 20). This still shows the great promise that is lcd technology.
Mike
I heart the RIAA & MPAA, im sure its mutual...
Are LCDs ready to take over as the primary computer display?
Yes.
Is the retirement of CRTs, premature?
Yes.
Wow that was an easy Ask Slashdot!
I have like 5 of them in my closet. I'll sell you mine. Also, if you walk up and down any street where I live (NY City) on garbage day, you can pick up a couple extra ones for free. They work about 50% of the time.
... am I the only one? Crappy viewing angles, limited resolution options. About the only advantage they seem to have is reduced size and power requirements. Sorry, but if you want my CRT, you'll have to pry it from my cold, dead, irradiated fingers!
I've tried to really love em but I just can't They make me feel ill when I looked at them too long or they are so sharp they make my eyes hurt. There is something soft about a crt,, assuming your refresh rate is set high enough.. why on earth is 60hz or so the default on so many systems! God that's total vomit inducing misery.
Anything that can somehow display 1280*720 and 1920*1080 (progressive and interlaced, though at 60Hz) in 17 inches (my Dell e770s--disregard its girlie Windows driver) is teh cool. It's a cubish CRT, but it's...shall I say...wondrous.
Compare to a typical 1024*768 resolution monitor (my bro's laptop) that *shudder* interpolates across as many pixels in lower settings, and doesn't even allow settings above said 1024*768. I too shall stick with the bulky CRT, thank you.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
High Dynamic Range displays! These are pretty spectacular, combining LCD and LED.
What I care about is high resolution. I've gotten used to tiled windows now that I run at 1600x1200, and I don't want to go down from here. I can get a CRT that does this for $100. Can I get an LCD? I haven't checked in a bit but I'm pretty sure the answer is no.
I'd also make the switch to dual monitors if it were an option, but I think that dual 1024x768 LCDs would also suck, price-wise.
Any advice, anyone?
xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
Swing still doesn't have subpixel rendering (developer build B39 slated for release this week) until next year.
But over at Javalobby one of the Java2d developers was proclaiming that subpixel rendering hasn't hurt Swing and then goes on to cite numbers of CRT sales vs LCD sales.
Response time without blurring (your panel may say 12ms, but that means time to turn a pixel on, not black to white and back to fully black again, which usually takes 5-10x as long) Its shocking to me how wrong that statement is.
1. Pixels are always "on" since you can't actually turn a pixel on or off (if we could LCD's wouldn't have black level problems). The only thing you can turn on or off is the backlight, which affects the whole screen.
2. The sliver of truth in your statement was that the 12ms stat can be misleading, but not for the the reason you gave. The 12ms is typically black to white response time, but what can (some LCD's have overcome this) take 5-10x longer is switching a pixel from white to off-white, or from gray to a slightly different shade of gray.
Just out of curiousity, won't windex also destroy most anti glare coatings found on CRTs? I ask because my last monitor, a KDS had a big warning on it never to use glass cleansers.
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
Crystallography requires the same sort of modelling. Will does not need but it is more helpful. Most crystallographers run Linux x86 with Nvidia Quadro cards , or Wildcats and do a lot of there modelling using a program called O. The stereo is great for seeing the electron density of a molecule. A friend of mine works at a robotics lab and the use stereo vision to control the robot from some sort of input device at a control station and they use LCD glasses but he says his eyes hurt because LCD does not refresh as fast as CRT. I think the best one is Cross Eyed stereo where you cross your eyes and relax them till you get stereo. Because it is cheap and it works and you use it when you want to. What do you guys think of 3-D porn, I wanted to open up a company that sold stereoscopic porn ? I mean the technology exists, it was popular in the movies back in the 60's or something? Once the porn catches on we can do stereoscopic gamming of our favorite shooters ( that would be just great). What does the Slashdogs think?
Try this tiny little eBay search...9 0w_W0QQsof 2 8Q 22gdmQ20fwm 90w*Q29QQsac atZ-1QQsarZ 200QQfposZ74 135QQfsopZ
... 60 frames per second... not fields.)
http://search.ebay.com/gdm-fw9-gdmfw9-gdm-90w-gdm
ocusZbsQQsbrftogZ1QQsojsZ1QQfromZR10QQsatitleZQ
9*Q22Q2CQ22gdmfw9*Q22Q2Cgdm-90w*Q2Cgd
gnZ-1QQsaslcZ2QQftrtZ1QQftrvZ1QQsadis
1QQfsooZ1
The Sony 24" Widescreen CRTs were some of the best ever made. They weigh a ton. But they'll do 2048x1280 @ 70fps. (To you HDTV types, that's 1920p60
Get 'em while they're cheap, and you still can. The only downside is that they have VGA inputs, so they won't work will your audio/video equipment and make a nice HDTV without a scan converter. But they will hook into your VGA card and look just great.
- Increased longevity - try comparing a 5yr old laptop screen to a 5yr old desktop screen
Done and done. The result? The 5 year old laptop screen is washed out and has dead pixels all over the place. Another older laptop has a completely dead screen. I just replaced an LCD with a giant blackish blob from being bumped while moving. My CRTs? Well, I have had one for 10 years working like a champ, one that looked perfect for 7 years before a cap popped and it wouldn't turn on (probably could easily be fixed), and one that is currently in use after 3 years with no degradation... I'll update this post in 2 years for you.
One of the major reasons people replace laptops are because of bad LCD screens, so how can you say that they have better longevity? Hell, go look at those 40 year old TVs at the houses of a million midwesterners; they look just as good as they did back then (not great, but no degradation).
And, yes, the LCD does have a significantly sharper image... until it's not in its native resolution, then it isn't as sharp.
IANAL, but I play one on
I check mine about 15 times a day. and what about net porn? I would wager that most people check that considerably more than 5 times a day.
What on god's green earth would make you possibly think CRT's will all of the sudden vanish? There is no history of anything like that happening ever in our earth's past. Heck, I can still go out and buy myself a horse drawn carriage and a good horse trained specifically to draw it. I can buy blacksmith tools, an anvil and a bellows driven furnace if I want to. I can buy a non-powered push lawn mower, an egg beater you don't plug in but crank by hand, etc, etc, etc.
I find even the suggestion that something like the CRT will suddenly vanish from the landscape and leave you stranded a ridiculuous statement at best. The market is driven by demand, not by someone else's pipedream for the future (even if it does turn out to be a great dream). If there is demand, even miniscule, it will be served. Fear not you intellectually challenged, the world will not end tomorrow because someone invented the LCD display!
The commissions on lower-price goods arent as attractive to salesmen.
The proper thing to clean an LCD is:
a) micro fiber cloth
b) solution of rubbing alcohol and water
Supposedly, the higher the proof (more pure?) the alcohol the better and half water and half alcohol was mentioned. I have no links for you but just start googling "clean lcd" or similar.
What are you talking about with the Windex and "you can't rub an LCD!" nonsense? I have a 23" Apple Cinema HD display at home that I have cleaned with Windex and paper towels dozens of times and it hasn't marred the surface one bit. I have a 19" Planar LCD at work, and I clean it the same way, no problems. It doesn't scratch the screen to use paper towels, and Windex does not harm the surface. Maybe you're thinking of those ultra-soft LCDs from five years ago, the kind where you could drag your finger across it and watch a color trail behind it? Yeah, they don't make those anymore unless you're buying some chinese slave labor brand from Wal-Mart.
Too many application are far better off with them, gaming being one, medical imagery, AV and media production are few example of those.
in the course of my comment, lCD means flat panels, I know that the reader knows of all the variant in existence, no need to point your genius, I know too.
If my computer isn't powerfull enough to play a game I lower the resolution, on an LCD it means destroying your image in a sea of faux-blur about as bearable to look at as a naked Martha Stewart. Medical imagery need resolution AND small picture (relatively) a 15'x45' screen surface isn't good to a doctor, a 19" screen is, and that screen needs a resolution of at least 1600x1200 to be usefull, 2048x1536 being even more used in our days, LCDs displaying such resolutions are way too expensive and have far more problem, as far as viewing angle and color discrepancies goes, than CRTs. LCDs deform over time, their color don't age at the same pace and the contrast lower itself rather rapidly, any media production professionnal will tell you so, where I work this is one of the major pain we have with flat panels, CRTs are systematicaly more consistent than LCDs.
Bottom line, yes, CRTs will be a niche, some flat panel variant will one day replace them in the form we know (we all have heard of Motorola nano crt technology, but it's not a CRT as we know it), but this day isn't even near, if only for price/performance reasons.
PCMall here in Memphis (Where I got my dad his 21" Trinitron CRT) really screwd up. Some idiot driving the forklift bumped a shelf, and from 30 feet in the air, RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX fell the same monitor I purchased. Landed front bezel (glass first) onto the hard concrete from 30 feet up. You wanna talk about durable? Not a scratch on the glass, and only the bezel plate was cracked in the lower right corner. I didn't even have to do a re-alignment (that's what those two "lines" on the screen are for, for those not in the know) and the monitor works perfectly.
Let's see an LCD fall right out of the box, and land on hard concrete from 30 feet up, and survive.
Yea, that's what I thought, too. Ain't gonna happen. LCD screens are TOO DELICATE.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
About 2 years ago I was suffering from major migrains that put me out of work for 3 days sometimes. Add that on top of my eyes burning nonstop and my programming career was quickly going down the drain.
Ever since I replaced all the CRTs with LCDs I'm back in business. CRTs might be great if you look at them for a couple of minutes at a time, but if you stare at them for hours like me, IT WILL CAUSE PHYSICAL DAMAGE!
CRTs waste far too much energy and as such should either have an added energy tax or just be phased out.
I wouldn't be able to play duck hunt (or use my superscope) anymore!
Clones are people two.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Have you seen these guys?. You don't need stereo glasses.
I don't work for them, own them, or stock in them. Wish I did.
http://news.com.com/Slimmer+tube+TVs+to+challenge+ flat+panels/2100-1041_3-5458670.html
"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."
Introduction to Major Flat Panel Display Technologies
An article that's been taken out of context seems to suggest that X will be dead within . Will Y completely supplant X?
Attention deficit disorder is a complicated issue, spanning several major... HEY LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!
I'm 46 and I can't read the LCD's I've tried. But the CRT's are fine. Other folks my age have told me similar things. The LCD's have a lot to recommend them but if you can't read some of the text (especially lighter colors in syntax-highlighted Python, for me) then that negates the advantages.
I work as a colorist in the film- video-animation industry. For my job color performance is key, altho it is probably even more important for medical use.
I was extremely surprised to see that Sony, which used to make the reference CRTs ($1200 for a 21 inch crt, with calibration tools) simply discontinued all their CRT line. I was able to hunt a reconditionned model at G&H, wich smartly bough all the remaining stock from Sony (probably all gone now). In the end we purchased a high end viewsonic that will do 2k rez (I think around $800), Lacie still has one model as well, but we would have much prefered the Sony which was industry standard (perfect match for video monitors, etc).
From my research and experience, no LCD currently on the market is currently good enough for high end use (not speaking gaming here). I am personally hoping that the carbon nanotube/diamond dust oleds hit the market very soon, because all the high end crt makers have dropped the ball and left the high end color users drowning. I find that quite shocking.
The current solution is to hunt down refurbished units, while they last, or go with lesser crts such as the viewsonic high end.
If you have a 2 year old, you really are better off with a CRT that you can clean easily.
...not the end of why you are seeing manufacturers move so heavily from CRT to LCD. The reason is largely profit margin. Manufacturing costs on CRT products are pretty much as low as they are ever going to go. LCD's on the other hand are just getting to the point where dramatic decreases in the cost of manufacture are being seen. Now market prices don't react as fast as the drops in cost of materials and manufacturing do. This means that for the sales channel they are in a period of high margin sales on a popular product. They are able to use LCD panels that don't cut it as HDTV's for low end loss leader computer screens, and low end laptops. (where people aren't as "picky")
So tell me. Which would you do? Sell 7 CRT's with a 10% gross margin or 5 LCD's with a 25% gross margin? Your call.
I'm sorry, I'm to tired to be witty at the moment so this message will have to do.
I've been buying 21" trinitron displays for around $100.00 each.
I usually get about 4 out of 5 good ones and the local company I buy from has a 30 day no questions asked 100% return policy. I can't imagine what shipping would be as these things are beasts.
Probably not good enough for medical displays since they're used.
No cost savings on power that you'd get from an LCD either. Make great room heaters in the winter time though.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
Pixels are always "on" since you can't actually turn a pixel on or off (if we could LCD's wouldn't have black level problems). The only thing you can turn on or off is the backlight, which affects the whole screen.
Then, please tell how you would describe the transition of a pixel from black to white, if not in some way turning it "on"? Would you prefer "activating" it? "Toggling" it?
You act as though I've said something horribly shocking, and then go on to say the same thing in different words - Pixel response times only measure the black-to-white transition, not the reverse.
Disingenuous, at best. "Wrong, NOT a dozen, but twelve!".
I think its great that everyones shifting over to LCDs, that way I can keep buying 21 inch CRTs for 35 bucks. Nothing like a 6 monitor array for Unreal tournement 04. With this many CRTs it lowers my heating bill in the winter and gets those infared equiped growlight detecting helicopters hovering overhead in the summer.
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
Depends on what you're doing. As long as I just write code, run loooong computations, look at results (simple graphs of numbers), or do office jobs, LCDs are great - clear picture, easy on the eyes, lots of desk space for papers... But for graphics, games and such - I'd take my trusty 19" over any LCD, even new ones.
The push is coming from the industry and the shops, of course. Simple reason? SPACE! Not desk space, but storage space. It's costly, you know. Plus, well packed LCD are less likely to get heavily damaged by careless handling, plus transport is easier and cheaper (more LCDs fit in a truck) and carrying LCDs to the shelves is less likely to cause any harm to the workers...
Put simply, LCDs are easier and cheaper to store and sell.
Maybe, maybe not, but that comma certainly is.
Vs lbh pna ernq guvf, ybt bss abj. Tb bhgfvqr. Syl n xvgr.
Traditional big-tube CRT's truly are nearing the end of their lives. That's OK, though. There are a couple of new display technologies that will have the speed of CRT's, so that field-sequential stereo should be possible.
These are SED and OLED displays. Both of these displays are getting closer, after being available Real Soon Now for years.
Toshiba and Canon have built a small factory in Japan for building SED TV's, and they claim to be shipping them this year. Yesterday, they announced a new plant for building these in quantity. SED's actually are CRT's, and share their brightness, wide field-of-view, and color purity -- but they differ from CRT's in that they have a seperate semiconductor electron gun at every pixel.
Samsung just announced a 40-inch OLED a couple of days ago. There are still problems to be worked out -- especially with the lifetime of the blue OLED material -- but there is tremendous activity in the field.
Both of these technologies can switch pixels on and off in at most a couple of milliseconds, so field sequential stereo should be possible.
Thad Beier
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
Simple. Because I have one. LCD is nice and all. But I'm not going out to drop $300 on a decent LCD when I don't need to.
If my CRT dies, well, that's a whole different scenario. But until then I see absolutely no reason to replace a perfectly good CRT monitor.
Those six square inches or desktop real estate just aren't that valuable.
I got 2 21" EiZO monitors and a 19" LCD and the LCD is just crap compared to these two babies.
Some people detect motion and flicker better than others, and I find the 60Hz update rate of LCD apalling when scrolling text, and on just about every LCD monitor I've seen it gets quite blurry too. My 1600*1200 babies at 100HZ is a lot smoother.
A lot of people will spout stuff like "4ms omfg lcd is teh ownz" and similar. This is a mean measurement for the time it takes to get within 95% of the target value going from white to black or from some shade of grey. What's a lot more interesting is the worst case scenario, and that is a LOT more than 4ms.
For now CRTs still rule flat screen displayes when it comes to image quality, especially if you happen to use more than one resoltion, like I do. I really think LCD will be the first in a line of many different flat panel solutions and will as time passes be seen as a fad, replaced with much better quality displays technologies. Oled springs to mind. Seing how a lot of my friends praising LCD sat with 60Hz on their monitors, even if it could do 85, and didn't notice, I don't put a lot of faith in their praise of LCD.
Rest in peace Malin "looxn" Kristiansen. We miss you...
I have switched from CRT to TFT (LCD) and I am very happy, but I hate the native resolution constraints of LCDs. I can see nice graphics only on 1280x1024 which means I have to use large fonts in order to read documents etc. Everything lower than that produces awful graphics. The same is true for my laptop too and for other people's LCDs. CRTs are history unless you want to run lower resolutions. You should also be aware that there are two kinds of LCDs, the 6-bit ones and the 8-bit models, and this affects the colour quality. Always prefer 8-bit LCDs.
I think you missed what I was getting at. On/off or toggling implies that pixels have only two states. They do not.
Black-to-white vs white-to-black is inconsequential. What I was getting at is that 12ms describes that full spectrum transition. Those numbers are "typically" accurate. Again, its the gray-to-gray transition that unintuitively takes longer. I say unintuitively since it is only a slight change in the pixel versus the full black-to-white (or white-to-black) transition.
If I acted horribly shocked its because you speak like you know how LCD panels work when you clearly don't.
http://www.planar.com/Advantages/Innovation/docs/d s-planar-stereo-mirror.pdf
That's the basic link to the page with information. They only describe the 1M pixel version, but they have 9 megapixel versions they've tested and may be available. I know 3 and 5 Megapixel medical grade versions were created as well.
Especially the one at home with the DVI input.
I don't have to adjust anything anymore. I don't notice any color difference. There are less things to fail - or at least less things in a LCD to fail in an annoying manner. Have you ever have a CRT's horizontal control fail in such a way that the sides pop in and out intermittently? I have.
It reproduce text wonderfully. I'm a Computing Science undergrad and naturally I stare at a lot of text.
LCD have no refresh rates. Don't have to worry about a CRT monitor that you sit down that that still runs at 60Hz. Or like me, who just started a tech support job in a 80+ company, and constantly finding CRTs that are running at 60Hz and wondering how they would cope with the eye strain. LCD also don't have the typical text warp at the edges, unlike low end CRTs that many consumers buy.
Sure consumer LCDs are usually not fast enough to render fast action in a FPS. But that's not really my main concern anyways. Likewise, the medical computing community have concerns that currently make LCDs unsuitable. As long as there are interest in CRT I don't see them going away. I just won't miss them much.
...because they last damn near forever.
LCDs, however, are good, because they are a lot more fragile and must be replaced a lot more often.
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
I have 6 PCs at my house, all for different tasks, (2 just for playing Doom II, heh heh) I just picked up 3 free 17" CRTs from a friend of mine whose firm was replacing all of theirs with LCDs. I have a 19" LCD on my living room computer but that is for a special purpose and location. CRTs aren't dead yet especially when I can get them free.
Have you tried reading glasses (also sometimes called computer glasses)? They DO make a difference when working with a computer.
Why on earth is 1080i or any other interlaced format part of the HD spec? Isn't interlacing an artifact of CRT technology that died in the 90's in computer monitors?
What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
http://houndwire.com
to LCDs. All the photo editors and their assistants are running Macs with Apple flat panel monitors. (friend of mine is a coordinator in the photo dept. of The Magazine)
Most the complaints about LCDs are indeed long solved (at the high end of the market at least), including color gamut. About the only thing that LCDs still lose out on to CRTs is the ability to smoothly support non-native resolutions. But not many people run more than one resolution.
Your existing CRT's will last until the lcd's come out. I have a 21" trinitron monitor that I still use everyday, with 1993 stamped as the born-on date. It has very little degradation.
It sits next to a new trinitron on my desk, and the only difference is the old monitor is darker.
My advice to you, is don't spill coffee into your monitor and you'll be fine. Don't put anything on top of the cooling vents in the back, and dust it out once per year.
Don't pile books on it because it will overheat. That shortens the lifespan of it. Keep magnetic metal objects more than 3 feet away if color balance is important.
This includes "monitor safe" computer speakers, and flourescent lights, especially the ones building designers like to mount underneath office cabinets which hang over your desk. They will destroy your color balance very quickly.
There is no such thing as a magnetic device which is monitor safe. Headphones shouldn't do much damage if they are more than 1ft away. The phone should also be kept more than 1ft away. I have a new office phone and now have a slightly darker 1/4 circle in the corner of my office monitor, near the phone. The reciever has a magnet for the speaker.
Follow this advice and your monitors should last longer than most pets unless there is some untoward event such as a coffee spill, or cracked tube.
l8,
AC
... a nec/mitsubishi 2070sb-bk, and honestly can't find anything that compares to it at all. It really is a superior monitor compared to any and all lcds.
For gaming, graphics design, etc... lcd's just can't compare to high end crts. When they can I'll gladly upgrade, I enjoy working on them for text applications and webbrowsing... refresh is to slow for gaming (even on the best ones at about 8-10ms) and for graphics work, unless you've sat them side by side with a crt, you really have no authority to compare. lcds arent in the same world, yet.
Shadus
dear slashdot,
can i still buy CRT monitors?
dear idiot,
YES
----------------
dear slashdot,
will they still be available for the next few years?
dear idiot,
YES
... from people comparing good CRTs to crappy LCDs.
Use my Samsung 213T for five minutes and you will feel compelled to take your CRT out to the lake on your next bass-fishing trip. Two will go out on the boat, but only one will come back.
the 8ms LCDs I've seen have dropped color depth in order to get the speed boost. Not important if all you do is play Doom 3 with its palette of gloom, but maybe not a good choice if you also want to do things with Photoshop, video, watch movies, etc.
CRTs are ancient. Not just by virtue of being around since 1897. Even the name harks back to an earlier era of science. They work by virtue of a mysterious thing called "cathode rays". A better term would be "electron beams", but electrons hadn't been discovered when cathode rays were first observed!
is only 8 bits per color channel, or 256 shades.
Your eyes are capable of detecting thousands of shades of a single color.
24 bit color is not enough for serious graphics or photographic work, which is why many professionals work in 16 bit per channel. Most digital cameras today capture at 12 bit or higher.
Also that LCDs cannot display as many colors as CRT's is simply false. There are LCDs available today capable of displaying most of the Adobe RGB gamut, something which very few (and expensive) CRT's can do also.
-
I've seen all the screens w/ present technology. It's all really, really bad. Don't believe the hype, it's all atrocious.
Only thing non-CRT that I've seen be impressive are aligned polarized projectors. They're beautiful, better even than CRT.
I want to go with an LCD, although it looks like I will only need to move once in the next 2 years, which is a nice change. They weigh so much less, and take up a lot less space -- very good.
That said, I have a 19" flat CRT that does 1920x1440@75hz and 1600x1200@85hz. Almost perfect geometry (the lower right corner bends a couple pixels which never get used). Great contrast, color, everything. When this dies I hope that LCDs have caught up. Then again it was $450 wholesale 4 years ago.
Seriously, with four cats, stability is a necessity, and wall-mounting (without major modifications) is out. I'm worried a cat would knock an LCD over. My 19" CRT has no such worries. This is the same reason my new HDTV is a 51" RPT. It's wide enough for a cat to sit on top. (Then we get what we like to call high-definition tailivision.)
Supposedly, the higher the proof (more pure?) the alcohol the better and half water and half alcohol was mentioned
When the bottle says '50% by volume', it means 'half water, half Alcohol'. Mixing your own is a recipe for spotting -- unless you keep distilled water on hand.
Mixes I recall seeing at the drug store are 30%, 50% and 70%
The imminent death of the last CRT must be due to global warming and the ozone hole...
Oh well, what the hell...
take it to a crt specialist to get adjusted. not only do you *not* want to mess with the high voltage inside monitors, adjusting them is an art. good technical display people will have special equipment for tweaking the million or so things inside a monitor.
several years ago IBM decided that they were tired of having warranty monitors sent back them to be fixed so they made the 8518 (i think) model a field repairable monitor. there were only two parts on the inside, the 'electronics' (smarts) and the 'tube' (the glass display). besides the very serious issue of high voltage (it was considered acceptable to do this on customer site), most of the adjustments were to be made to 'eyeball quality', meaning that your white balance was whatever the tech thought white was that day. yuck.
eric
In terms of brightness, clarity, quality and depth of field, nothing (yet) beats a CRT, a high-quality CRT that is, not "your Dell monitor".
Its the difference between real film and digital photography. If you want the absolute best quality picture, you use real film. If you want "vacation snapshots" that are "good enough", you use digital.
I have a 21" Hitachi CRT monitor here, the biggest baddest one they make (cost me several thousand dollars new). I also have a very high-end LCD (top of the line a year or two ago). The CRT is several orders of magnitude better than the LCD, and they're roughly the same age (the CRT may be a year older than the LCD, not exactly sure).
I wouldn't give up my CRT for digital any day, and I spend most of my time on a $4,000 notebook with the biggest baddest LCD screen that IBM makes.
I run 17" CRTs at 1440x1080, 19" at 1600x1200, and my 21" is at 1920x1440. (It will do 2048x1536, but I find it a trifle fuzzy there.)
I still can't get that kind of resolution in an LCD.
(And my CRT has no bad pixels.)
I must say that desktop LCDs I've seen recently do not have major viewing-angle problems. That's because they have the backlights actually behind the LCD. Laptops look funny at angles because they have the backlight at the edge of the screen to make it thinner.
I know a little something about displays ;)
-They don't have a FIXED and lower resolution (and anything running at not-native res looks FUGLY, even with like ClearType and what not)
LCDs with decent electronics dont have much of a problem with this. I suppose if you buy no-name brand, it might.
-CRTs have a LOT more contrast
Not really. The contrast ratios for good LCDs are beyond what anyone needs. Black is black, white is white.
-CRTs don't have/get dead/stuck pixels
Neither do most LCDs these days... even my laptop with its rather average display has no dead pixels. This has stopped being an issue.
-CRTs have a good angle of view
As do most decent LCDs. Lower priced CRT's still have a slight edge in this regard vs. comparable lcd classes.
-CRTs don't have slow response delays (and LCD manufacturers that claim super low delays are using tricks to be able to claim those numbers)
I've been using LCDs for the better part of 8 years now and have *never* seen this.
-CRTs aren't limited to 18 (eek) or 24bit color, tend to have better color accuracy, wider gamut...
18 bit? What LCD doesnt display 24 bit? Further, there are LCD displays that can display the Adobe RGB gamut (Eizo makes a model of it now, more are to follow). Adobe RGB CRT's are very rare and expensive. CRT phosphors age and shift color frequently enough that you need to recalibrate every week or so. LCDs don't shift as much as the only thing they have that ages is a fairly stable backlight (I recalibrate monthly)
-Good CRTs have a long lifespan, not sure about LCDs
The backlight on an LCD is typically rated in the several 10s of thousands of hours. And while CRT's slowly degrade by flickering and blurring, LCDs do not.
I switched to LCDs several years ago. The color performance is more stable and images are much sharper.
The complaints I read about LCDs on here might've been valid 8-10 years ago. Today they are not.
-
(go ahead, try to thoroughly clean an LCD screen
LCD screens are glass. To my knowledge *ALL* LCD screens (for PC and laptop applications) are still glass.
Not nearly as thick as on a CRT, esp. in the case of laptops, but still glass.
Most monitors, CRT and LCD alike, have an anti glare coating. This is what you destroy when you wash *any* monitor with a harsh cleaner. Then you have to use some supa-cleaner glass-stripper type cleaner to get the glare coating completely off, or you will forever have that nappy 'unclean' look to your monitor.
I don't recommend using glass-stripper on anything. It can take paint off of cars. Blame me not if you destroy your monitor by doing this. I will say it worked great on my parents' 3 year SyncMaster CRT -- but I would never use it anything I wasn't willing to part with should it be destroyed.
Most crt specs lie (not in the same way as LCD specs) but they aren't exactly truthful either.
As for how long CRT monitors are available, just take a hard look at the projector market. Yes digital displays are everywhere (DLP/LCD/LCOS - well okay LCOS isn't everywhere) but there are still manufacturers building CRT projectors. The prices on high-end CRT projectors are about the same place they were 10-12 years ago. There's even a market now in rebuilding CRT projector tubes (I doubt that ever flys with crt monitors though because of the shadow mask or aperture grille.)
Yes the high end CRT projector market is a niche market, but so is the ultra high end CRT monitor market. Most people don't buy $1200+ crt's. In the meantime the middle ground of the CRT market will continue to erode and the bottom end of the CRT market is already dead.
So I would expect the really high end CRT's to not disappear from the market anytime in the next 8-12 years (barring something really nuts like OLED sheets costing 10 bux.) That said, I seriously doubt anyone will be building 15-17" 1024x768/60hz max CRT monitors ever again.
Mord
I have a Panasonic DVD player almost a decade old now, it was one of the first to have 10 bit DACs. and yes, the picture quality IS noticeable better than most, this is only part of the reason it was (at the time) nearly $1000 DVD player.
Many graphics cards now have ten bit D/A convertors. With the proper driver this means 30 bits of color resolution and yes, it does make a difference.
Unless you think your (reclaimed) desk space is worth 1000$/sq ft, or that you think LCD is better in a interior-designer standpoint, in which case I'll grant you it's a better buy for you.
People put a high value on their desk space. Now that flat panels are available, I can't give a 17" CRT away. It kills me to throw away a perfectly good CRT monitor, but nobody wants them.
its because 8 bits isnt enough to accurately capture a scene. Yes, working with 16 bits gives you more latitude to process with, but the reason for using it is wider gamut.
The human eye is especially sensitive to green, and gamuts chopped off at 8 bits tend to be noticably lacking when compared to an image that isnt.
Of course, if your display technology is poor, it wont matter. But for professional prints (and even average displays), the difference can be seen.
-
Thats right, we aren't in Kansas anymore.
I recently purchased a 20" Apple Cinema Display for my Mac. I loved the way images looked on it but reading text on it gave me headaches. I tried all of Mac OS X's aliasing options but to no avail.
Has this happened to anyone else?
A CRT is a big static dust magnet. So you have to hose it down regularly or it will build up an absud coat of crud.
LCD's don't function the same way, and I haven't experienced nearly the dust collection issues with mine.
I say good riddance to CRT's.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
Had a friend of mine the other day ask me about a good LCD monitor becuse he wanted more desk space - he was looking in the 500-600$ range.. i pointed him to a link of my desk for 400$ which houses 2 21" crt's and has more work space than his desk would have if he didn't have anything at all on it.. i didn't get a reply from him..
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
http://dti3d.com/
At least this company (originally russian) has been making high-quality autostereoscopic 3d LCD displays since forever; we had an old black-and-white LCD hooked up to a 286 luggable in my old lab (we helped to develop the 3d rendering software). I'm under the impression that the new color screens are quite nice and have a fairly wide viewing angle. Note that the DTI's use an "interlaced" LCD system so that no glasses are required -- you just line up an "L" and "R" character on the screen (at least with our old screen), like looking at one of those stupid magic-eye pictures, and voila! 3d.
What can kill standard CRTs may be the Motorola's nano-emissive flat screen. But not LCD. Why?
LCD generates beautiful colors. Unfortunately beautiful!=realistic. A pro graphician will choose a pro CRT monitor over an LCD any day, for the simple reason that it may look good on LCD and like shit on anything else, including print. Same wherever color accuracy is important - how am I to tell if the liver of the patient is healthy if it's "artificially enhanced"?
So, prices aside, what ARE the problems of CRT that LCD solves?
-Refresh rate/blinking.
-Big, heavy, thick
-Higher power usage.
In mostly all others, CRTs rule.
Now replacing the ray tube with array of nanotubes right behind the phosphor layer removes all the problems:
- One cathode for one pixel - sustained ray, no refresh.
- Thin layer - flat panel.
- One cathode for one pixel - no need to deflect the ray, no high (5000V) voltages needed, lower power requirements.
All the advantages of CRT (including price!) are retained.
LCDs will still live on. As a niche product - expensive screens that make picture prettier than it really looks, the "instant 3D" screens etc. But I'd see the major shift in the market towards the "new CRT".
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
face it, my 22" CRT monitor puts your measily 17" lcd to shame, for around the same price even. f00z!
the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
So lets skip ahead a year or two...why not make a DLP system that sits on the desktop, and uses the same technology as the cinema DLP system, which can produce Trillions of colors... Clear, crisp, perfect... I believe it will only be a matter of time until the CRT is gone forever, and LCD, Plasma, DLP will be the choice... But for me, give me the good DLP system...the new ones come out this year...they will be following the cinematic DLP systems, with 3 DLP chips... FANTASTIC!
--E--
Until LCDs are at the point that they can replace my twin, soon to be triplet, Sony 21" CRTs, I'm not interested. I like 2048x1536 monsters. If you look for that in an LCD, you're looking at multiple thousands of dollars each. I got one brand new Sony 21" for $389, and another one from an employer of mine who was liquidating for $250. Even new I could have spent around $600 each, now I can't even get them on Sony's site.
Does no one care about high high resolution with a fast refresh anymore?
I like music
There's nothing wrong with a sturdy screen, in fact I like my screens big. Those anorexic LCDs! Hah! Just skin and bones.. er. oops.
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
Isn't interlacing an artifact of CRT technology that died in the 90's in computer monitors?
The concept of interlacing is useful in the digital HD world for the same reason it is in the analog world - it saves bandwidth.
LCDs are still too expensive for some people's tastes. So long as there are CRTs which have similar capability for hundreds less, people will continue to buy them.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Your post missed by a couple of threads...
A Brit in Tallahassee.
I think half of what the poster claims is true.
On one hand, it's true that CRTs are rapidly going the way of the VCR, but medical imaging is one field where they are going to stay for a while.
For many applications, there are strict FDA requirements in healthcare requiring the use of high resolutions and very low dot pitch measurements in displays. This is especially true in the Radiology world, and mammography has long been an area which is highly scrutinized for image quality.
The poster is probably running into many problems finding vendors through consumer avenues who still sell the CRT models they want. However, this is usually done to avoid the riduculous markup of the exact same product that medical vendors add on.
Any display that is used for diagnostics or patient care (besides medical records, etc) has to be FDA approved. This stamp of approval is generally pursued by the vendor of the healthcare product, not the manufacturer of the display. For example, GE may sell a unit which contains an NEC display, but the display will be rebranded with GE badges and they will sell it to you for about 10 times what you could buy the exact same thing for on the consumer/prosumer market.
Many of the newer applications can utilize newer displays such as 5MP LCD's, 3MP LCD's for some things, etc. However in many areas of healthcare there are devices which are running fairly old code which utilizes the analog scanning nature of CRTs. Why? Because it still works damn good and because image quality is very damn good on those CRTs.
I'm not condoning the practice of the vendors - it largely contributes to rising health care and insurance for all of us. However, the poster needs to open his eyes if he cannot find CRTs to fit his needs, as he may not find them on the consumer market, but there are plenty of medical imaging companies more than happy to charge you $3000 for a Sony Trinitron CRT!
THE MAGIC WORDS ARE SQUEAMISH OSSIFRAGE
Until I can get a 17", minimum 1280x1024, LCD display for $100.
$100 is what my brand new student-budget CRT cost me.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
I guess I see your point but it would seem much simpler to just go with one resolution and make certain streams more lossy like MP3s. Or why didn't they just make two standards; 720p and 720i or 1080p and 1080i making the construction of HDTVs much simpler?
What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
http://houndwire.com
This was bound to happen. The "average computer user" is running email, web, maybe some office automation apps, etc. and therefore can't tell the difference. He/she is going to go with whatever can be manufactured (and therefore purchased) cheaply. With the cost of disposal of old CRT's rising, and with the manufacturing cost of LCD's dropping, and with the power consumption difference significant... that means Joe Sixpak will be using LCD's for the foreseeable future.
A good quality CRT still beats an LCD, though. For example, you have to look at an LCD at just the right angle, otherwise the gamma is all screwed up -- not exactly something a graphics designer or video editor wants to contend with.
And finally, the big one: LCD is end-to-end digital, CRT is not. Which do you think the DRM-happy MPAA/RIAA/Microsoft people are going to prefer, and therefore push hard?
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
More competition for LCD's the better.
If no other sources of compatible displays are available, Stereographics, the company that brings you CrystalEyes, makes
compatible displays.
why computer stores are very eager to sell LCDs instead: less wasted storage space per unit. I remember when I worked in a computer stock house; half the space was used for monitors alone. Think about how much extra space that amounts to; you can have twice as many monitors in the same space (better bulk rates) or use half the space for something else (more product diversity).
Sad thing is, the only thing that kept me from getting spaghetti arms back then was that I was working my arse of with those buggers. Now I have nothing...
Or why didn't they just make two standards; 720p and 720i or 1080p and 1080i making the construction of HDTVs much simpler?
Most people feel that the 720i/p modes are just transitional until 1080i/p costs get down to consumer levels. In a few years DVD's, cable and all new sets will be 1080.
Soon to be untrue. Viewsonic already released an 8ms monitor (15 ms max, in any situation). It's an 8-bit panel and does the full 16.7 million colors. See http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20050526/ index.html
You have to remember that the market is controlled by the masses. The masses are the same people who buy things such as windows and cpus based solely on speed and appeal. To the average consumer a LCD looks sexier is lighter and all the ads for them claim that they are better and that you need one. For the average consumer though a LCD is perfect because it can be gotten reasonably cheap and most people aren't into gaming at high resolutions or even know what the refresh rate or anything else about there computer is. Because of all this the majority of people may buy LCD screens and thus CRT sales go down. The CRT will never die because of the market base it has is firm yet small relatively speaking. Companies like dell combo in a cheap computer with and LCD these days so it's all about advertising, ignorance and gullibility.
I think while LCD's aren't perfect yet (though they're getting close if you're willing to pay the price for higher-end models), one big advantage of LCD's over CRT's is the fact that power consumption of an LCD is small fraction of that of a CRT monitor. That adds up quickly in power savings if you have an office with a lot of computer workstations.
Anyone who thinks that LCDs are better than or even close to CRT's please try and find yourself a Sony Atrisan g520k CRT monitor to take a look at. This is a color refrence system and also the standard for graphics professionals. Unfortunatly Sony stopped making CRT's back in March and you can no longer purchase these monitors. They originaly retailed for $1799 and I got in a bidding war over a USED two or three year old Artisan and lost when I was outbid at $3200. Instead I have jsut picked up a LaCie 22" Professional series... however dissapointed I Was.
I also use stereo on SGI's Sony GDM CRT monitors and Viewsonic PF221 CRT monitors using Nuvision 3D's technology. They are about 1/3 of the price of CrystalEyes solutions and Nuvision3D glasses work with CrystalEyes stereo emitters too. The glasses are lighter too.
The problem with all these fancy schmancy LCD stereo displays is that they're made just for stereo (i.e. they look like shit if you try to use them for regular viewing, see this article). So why not get a nice CRT monitor (for no more than $600) with a larger viewable area that does regular viewing and stereo rather than an LCD that does stereo for probably more than triple the price?
Go to this LaCIE website. They still make High Res CRT with high color accuracy. As far as I know, CRT are still prefer in print production, pro video, and gaming.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
Not necessarily.
CRTs have several technological, environmental and other drawbacks which are inherent in CRT technology.
I went from a $1000 21" Nokia CRT to a $2600 23" widescreen Sony LCD. (Prices were a few years ago).
The CRT looked wonderful when it was brand new. The images were sharp, circles were round, squares were square, good contrast, accurate colors.
Over the last year I used it (of four), the image slowly went out of focus - sharp lines became slightly blurred, and the geometry started to drift. There is so much math being done in the analog electronics of the vertical and horizontal deflection circuits of a CRT monitor, and the voltages provided to the tube have to be kept "just right" to make a good picture that they just can't help but go out of calibration.
Incidentally, the 21" Nokia replaced a pair of 15" CRT monitors that had both gone fuzzy over three years.
I have never seen an old CRT monitor that looked as good as a brand new one, yet the picture quality of an LCD monitor stays about the same until it dies or gets thrown away. The resistors, capacitors and other parts in all of that high power analog circuitry cooking under the hot picture tube slowly drift out of calibration. Sure, there are some adjustments you can have done if you're willing to pay for it, and you can always replace failed parts, but this just doesn't happen with LCD monitors.
CRT monitors are also susceptible to interference from magnetic fields. In one location, my sheilded CRT monitor's picture wiggled violently when run at any refresh rate other than 60Hz, due to a magnetic field from electrical equipment in a neighboring alley. No such problems with LCD monitors.
Many CRT monitors are sensitive to power quality and voltage, although you see less of this these days, but in areas with brownouts or poor power quality it's a consideration.
CRT tubes are made of lead glass. They're considered undesirable waste because of the high lead content, and in many places you have to pay to get rid of them.
A CRT monitor pumping out heat also costs in terms of air conditioning. During the air conditioning season, a basic rule of thumb I was told is that for every watt of power that goes into a space another watt of air conditioning power is required to cool the space down. So the extra power consumption of a CRT over an LCD costs double in an air conditioned office.
Of the over twenty LCD panels in my office (including laptops and monitors), one has a dead pixel on it. I can live with that. The LCD panel I'm looking at right now is at least ten years old, but it's still working fine, although I expect the backlight will fail eventually. I've never seen a CRT monitor last that long without degrading in some way.
Putting moderation advice in your
I've been getting good results with Anaglyphic (Red/Blue) 3D, specificly on digital LCD's lately... There are some obvious drawbacks in that very high contrast and saturated reds and blues don't work so well... But when you can show a whole room full of people for less then the cost of 2 people watching a stereographics setup. Coupled with the fact that most of the lenticular prisim baised LCD solutions while not requireing glasses do require you to render 8X the number of frames or more....
Anyway... Just a thought...
The vendors have said that autostereo LCDs are on the way in 12 to 18 months, but what can I do in the meantime?
Autostereo LCDs are already here if you have the cash. They are just expensive and those dealers choose not to sell them.
I have several sets of shutter glasses myself (including a Revelator) and love them for gaming. The only problem is that I can only use them for 30 minutes or so before I have to rest or I will get a very severe headache. This can get tiresome for gaming. But images sticking out of (or into) your monitor are pretty addictive and it's hard to stop. So I end up with headaches. I presume you don't have this problem.
I recommend looking into a genuine HMD. I just checked and Christoph Bungert still has his siteup after all these years. It used to be the best site for news and information on stereo displays, especially shutter glasses. I don't know if it still is.
Furthermore, does this mean the end is near for CRTs? While there does still seem to be a market for CRTs, it seems to be dwindling to a narrow niche. Are LCDs ready to take over as the primary computer display or is the retirement of CRTs, premature?
I think it really is the beginning of the end for them as a mainstream consumer product. For that reason it is an especially good time to buy the best one we can afford to hold us over until new stereo display tech is introduced or HMDs drop in price and improve enough in quality to be a viable alternative.
There seem to still be quite a few suitable 21" CRT monitors for sale here for around half of what they cost when I last bought one in the 90s. And some of them have some very high refresh rates at 2048x1536. Hopefully that means 1280x1024 sequential stereo refresh rates will be high enough (60+). I don't know who your vendors are, but I would advise dumping them and just buying from Newegg.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
www.sony.com/luma
nice new professional monitors might be worth a look
One thing is for sure. As long as I can buy a used 21" CRT for 40 at my second-hand shop around the corner, I'll stick to CRTs over LCDs any time. That's certainly the most environmentally friendly option and also has the greatest bang for my buck.
But let's just shift the geeky arguments aside for a moment. The main reason why LCDs took off, is that you can buy them at the mall and easily take them home right away, even in urban european areas where many don't even have cars and use public transportation. This is why CRTs virtually disappeared from store shelves about two years ago, even though at the time mass-produced CRTs cost a fraction and were way superior on technical grounds and LCDs were nothing but an insult to human eyesight.
"Indulging in buggery with something 21" long is bound to cause an injury."
I feel sorry for whomever's dating Pinocchio.
My cats need warm places to sleep. If I got rid of my CRT's, I know at least one of would murder me in my sleep.
Some will keep on making 21" and 22" pro CRTs for photography and other imaging work for a while. LCDs just aren't there yet for that sort of work IMO.
I do agree that it's frustrating to have to buy a gigantic and expensive CRT when you don't really need one, just because decent quality smaller ones ones are out of production and you can't use an LCD for your application.
Up to a 15" screen, it'll give you a good wallop. But as long as you don't have some condition that predisposes you to death by electrocution (pacemaker, etc). A 17" will at the very least get you to stand up straight, and pay attention. Above that, you're toast, most likely.
When I worked at CompUSA we were an apple shop for everything, including monitors. Anything less than 15" Riff would discharge into himself, rather than going to the hassle of getting out the Static Discharge tool to drain it. The one time he did a 17" screen, apparently he stood in the corner, eyes totally blank, licking his hand for almost 5min. Totally tuned out from everything. After that he did start using the discharge more often. But not all the time.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
According to Intel Fellow Scott Thompson, he says the next display technology will be carbon nanotube displays.
The consume less power, produce better lights and have much clearer displays because you have groups of CNTs together to produce one pixel.
Motorola released a Carbon nanotube display recently. Not sure how quickly the rest of the markey will follow.
Radiation from the CRT?
I once bought a 15" CRT and didn't use it very long before I noticed something on the screen so I took it back, the second one had a similar problem, the third one which I had them open and hook up in the store was fine. I could only describe it as the CRT equivalent of the LCD dead pixel only it a black spot in the screen instead of a LCD pixel which had one or more colors all the way on.
What was it? I don't know. It looked to me like a solder ball or part of the pigment was missing. All I saw was a dark spot that I couldn't stand once I spotted it.
I found this easy explanation of horizontal refresh rate. For shutter glass use it is probably the most important spec. I am currently using a Philips 201B (which I don't recommend) I bought in the 90s. It has a 115khz maximum horizontal refresh rate (scanning frequency). I see that as the absolute minimum for sequential stereo display. You should really be looking for 120khz and higher
The Samsung 1100DF has a 121khz horizontal refresh rate and is only $449+$35 shipping at newegg. I'd recommend that one. According to the tomshardware article 121,000/1024*0.95 = 112 hz for a refresh rate (at 1280x1024) or 56 hz in sequential stereo mode. Ouch. That doesn't quite make it, does it? Anyone know of a currently manufactured monitor with a higher horizontal refresh rate?
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
I may be a wimp but I call that insane. Maybe 14" is less dangerous than 17" and the devices you dealt with have probably not been connected to a power-line for a couple days but I'm willing to bet that even a 14" that was recently plugged in can kill you - if only on a bad day.
LCDs keep getting better as their prices continue to plummet. The original poster needs a CRT for high-end medical stereoscopic imaging - as long as there is a demand for that type of thing it will remain available, but as the niche grows smaller the cost will of course rise.
Apple still has that gorgeous 30" Cinema HD display which to me is the ultimate monitor. I can't afford one of course, so the two 21" Sun CRT's on my desktop will suffice quite nicely until something goes wrong with them!
Continuing on the pro-LCD side of things, remember that a pixel is a pixel. I'm not going to continue to flog the "native resolution" issue that has been brought up time and time again in this discussion, I think that any self-respecting geek ought to know why running an LCD at anything other than its native resolution will look like ass. So putting that behind us, remember that CRT's have a "dot pitch" specification which does not apply to LCD's. It's very relevant with CRT's however, because on an analog CRT a pixel is not really a tangible thing. It's just where the electron beams happen to repeatedly go. As a result CRT's even have a (very) fine "native resolution" which is many times finer than that of any LCD. Still, it is there, and no matter what a CRT can NEVER be a sharp as any digitally-connect LCD, where each pixel is actually a separate group of three phototransistors, which do not blur even slightly into the next pixel.
For this reason I believe LCD's tend to offer a far sharper view that is generally less stressful on the eyes.
By the way, if you haven't seen it for a while watch "Total Recall" (the Arnold Shwartznnegger flick) - it's hilarious how it dates itself... this movie was made in around 1990 I think, and is set in around the year 2020 or so. There are video screens everywere in this movie, for advertisements and home computing applications, and they're all these ricidulous big bulky CRT's. Why is that interesting? Well, because when I watched it a few months ago it was the first time I ever thought that CRT's look obsolete. They are clearly not the future of video display devices. It could be anything else, but the prominent CRT's alone make Total Recall look archaic.
Dude... this sounds like a problem that goes well beyond static discharge. Do they not have drug testing at your place of employment?
"He who throws mud, loses ground." - proverb
i won't believe it until they have confirmed it
...but their market share will slip.
While LCDs do a number of things well like use less electricity, take up less space, are in general terms easier on the eyes (radiation) and generally provide acceptable images, CRTs do a better job for high res, rapid display changes, etc.
I expect that the CRT will, as a previous poster suggest, evolve into a niche market. Something akin to, for example, BETAMAX. BETAMAX didn't completely go away even though most people didn't see that format tape any longer when VHS won "the war". It was still used for a longtime in broadcast (and in Japan) and videophiles paid a lot for highend BETAMAX tape decks and tapes that continued to be produced. BETA cost more but provided higher quality vido output than VHS while VHS was less expensive (and non-proprietary).
Many places have used 27 inch CRT's for years. Airports have thousands of them. No one is making industrial 27 inch monitors anymore. The price for a 27 inch LCD's are a joke. Many "video walls" have been made with 27 inch CRT's also
is the sky fucking blue?
The vendors have said that autostereo LCDs are on the way in 12 to 18 months, but what can I do in the meantime?
plenty of monitors to be had on ebay.
LCD technology is ridiculously primitive in certain respects. Only the default resolution gives perfect clarity so you have the situation where ordinary users are looking at fuzzy screens because they've set the resolution to something non-standard and don't know the difference. Worse still, I've seen rows of LCDs in computer showrooms set to non-default resolutions to enlarge the size of text/images. If only the default resolution is meant to be used on an LCD the manufacturers should damned well produce them with only 1 option - the default. The current situation is utter madness. CRTs still offer multiple resolutions with equal clarity. Add to this the superior colour quality on top-end CRTs and I can't understand the fuss about LCDs. I have a Formac Gallery 19" LCD and a 21" Mitsubishi CRT both running on the same G5 and well calibrated. If I produce a graphic on one the colours can be totally different when viewed on the other. It's madness.
You must be American. Back in Europe and East (Not counting Japan who defected to 110v a loooong time ago) we are still to poor to afford 19" LCD's for homes compared to CRT prices.
Where's my free iPod!? Until then, I'll settle for a kiss...
I'd post an opinion on the subject, but I only have anecdotal evidence based on the six or seven monitors I've owned in my geek lifetime. That's not enough to compete with these people that have looked at two or three random LCDs and declared the entire technology inferior.
No LCD will ever be able to compete for color reproduction with the Green on Black monochrome of my first Apple monitor.
Nope, CRTs will be around as long as there are old, passed-around computers.
I recently snagged a free box offered up in exchange for some tech support--including keyboard, mouse, and monitor. It came with a 17-inch monitor, CRT, of course.
If it had been an LCD with the computer, you can bet the guy would have kept it with himself. But, as a CRT, to him it was virutally useless. To me, it's the way I interact with my new/old Linux box.
As long as people are giving away old, "useless" computers for free, or as long as people are taking ancient computers and putting them to *some* use but can't justify the cost of an LCD, CRTs will stick around.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
No, I'm not dead wrong on color accuracy. Go to Tom's Harware and look at the test results of the latest LCDs they reviewed yourself.
(a) There are still people who read Tom's Hardware?
(b) Okay, I did. Now, where is the comparison to CRTs? I see two LCDs being compared against each other -- apparently they are similar. What should I be deriving from this about CRT's versus LCDs?
I have new twin 20" LCDs at work and a new 19" CRT at home (none of which are high-end products), and I can easily say that:
* The CRT can produce much more intense colors.
* The CRT can produce deeper blacks and brighter whites.
* The CRT has faster response time (even CRTs don't update instantly, but it's hard to see trails caused by a light object on a dark area on it, and not hard on the LCD).
Now, both monitors are much better than their predecessors from a few years ago. The CRT is as flat as the LCD, doesn't show any brightness variation over the surface, and has faster response time than my previous, six-year-old CRT. The LCD doesn't show color banding, has no dead pixels, and the trails are no longer bad enough to be distracting. But if I have to choose just one, I'd take the CRT, for the above reasons, and because:
* CRTs can do multiple resolutions without looking horrendous.
* CRTs cost less.
* CRTs have better refresh rates (not just response times).
* The main advantage of desktop LCDs from my standpoint is the space savings -- and at work, all that means is that there's a big, empty, unused gap behind my monitors instead of a gap containing the rear end of a monitor.
Oh, and CRT's DO fade. It's the nature of phospher technology. Contrast and brightness setting can effect the longevity of your CRT but it's design necessitates fading. There's a huge difference between a 5yr old monitor and a brand new one. Put them side by side and look for yourself. I have.
Sure, but all that means is that you turn up the brightness once a year to compensate for the very slow decrease in brightness. You aren't going to be running the thing at 100% brightness at the beginning, so you have many years of brightness decrease in the thing. I had my previous monitor for six years, and never had brightness or contrast above 75%, even at the end.
However, the vast majority of CRTs out there are crap that costs less than half that amount and you know it.
Let's be fair. You're complaining about him discussing a premium $450 CRT, while you were advocating the technical benefits of LCDs using a rather more expensive premium LCD to do so. How about the obvious counterargument -- that the majority of LCDs out there are not comparable to the LCD that you are using as an example?
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
I've personally verified 4 cases of stuck pixels on CRTs. In this case there is missing phosphor from a tiny area of the screen (you know there are millions of individual phosphor dots, right?) and without the phosphor you miss out on either the red, green or blue component from that area.
Of course if you are running the screen in low res you'll probably won't notice, since a single pixel will cover many phosphors. But if you run high res then it may be 1 to 1 with a pixel and you will see it.
My current screen has one (developed YEARS after purchase) and since I LOATH LCD screens with a passion that is indescribable, I'll be searching the dwindling stocks of decent CRTs in the hopes of getting something that is only fairly sucky.
Just think of how good CRTs would be now if manufacturers had not WASTED their time on suckhole LCDs! Grr!
>This is a meaningless measurement for a CRT, because a CRT pixel is lit only when the electron beam is on it.
False.
The phosphors in a CRT continue to glow after being hit with the electron beam. Take a photo of a monitor with a fast camera (1/1000 second or faster), and you will see a band of brightness instead of just one really bright pixel.
>Refresh rates in Hz are pretty meaningless for LCDs, actually.
False.
Some people can notice flicker much above the 30 frames per second that is generally though as smooth animation. Even the interaction of the LCD with fluorescent lights, which flicker at 60 or 120hz can have an effect. Until video cards supports cheap motion-blur, there will also be a need for high refresh rates on wuickly moving animations.
One reason LCDs appear more stable is because they update pixels one row at time, and the screen stays 'set' while updating rows.
Some gamers strive for high refresh rates, and LCDs will be somewhat unfulfilling to them.
Who was the sick up their ass who moded that as troll? The parent is funny! It made me laugh out loud.
San Francisco Photographers
I run a really high end imaging company in New York, and spend a fair amount of time reviewing displays for my retouchers. We do big ticket jobs for fashion and cosmetic companies, and I'd say we do the initial retouching/prepress on most of the better magazines from Conde Nast and Hearst that hit the newstands these days. We all spend all day long looking at color, on and off screen, and I think with the exception of certain medical and scientific applications, we've collectively got as discriminating eyeballs as are on the planet. We've spent years following LCD development, and we are just beginning to see flat panel displays that can handle the sort of color that we do. Eizo makes one, the CG220, and I think it lists at $6500. I have one sitting in the shop right now, on review from the manufacturer, and I can't make anyone use it. Everyone agrees that the monitor is sharper and the color better, and matches our contract proofer better than any crt. Its the only good flat panel we've ever seen except an IBM t210 (which does not have as good a color, and even greater resolution issues). At issue are the resolution and response time. The resolution is so high (1900 something) that we can't see the images at 1:1 without enlarging well past 100 and 200% (and then images begin to fall apart). And the response time is abysimal. Retouching corrections appear seconds after they've been made, and the eyeballs have moved on to the next thing to be fixed. Barco made a good flat panel a year ago, but they've pulled it from the market. Too difficult to manufacture to color critical tolerances, I heard. Barco still makes its reference calibrator lines of CRTs...they're expensive (around 5K a unit) but very consistent color for the life of the monitor. They're also one of the only monitors that has its own, internal LUT so that you can calibrate multiple displays in multiple locations off a multi head video card and get them to line up. I know windows and linux folks can buy multi LUT video cards and get around this to some extent, but the cards are pricy, calibration requires external software, and there are some other issues. NEC just released a new version of their CRT displays, and I have always found them quite good. I think they run around $800/unit. I'd check them out. We've used the NEC displays for some years, and they've been quite good and reasonably priced.
Order it yourself and cut out the middle man and probably avoid sales tax. A vendor. Are you stupid?
and you will see something interresting. They are selling computer packages from HP and Compaq (yeah same shit, different name) that look real similar to packages sold by CompUSA and Office Depot, EXCEPT that the LCD monitor was replaced by a CRT. Why? To get the price point down (hey, that's Wal*Mart's middle name). CRT's ain't dead, they are becoming low end. Still the contrast ratio on the worst CRT is at least double that of a good LCD, and the refresh rate is higher. Not to mention off axis it still looks good. LCD's have a way to go. Before they get there, OLEDS will drop in price and THAT will be the technology to watch.
I can't speak for LCD's because I haven't had enough experience with them (too poor at the moment). However, a good CRT with an anti-glare coating is most definately going to be adversely affected by the use of windex. Windex has Ammonia in it, which can strip off that anti-glare coating, leaving you with a nasty inconsistency in the finish of your monitor.
...besides, I like my festering eye cancer just fine the way it's developing, thank you very much.
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
As I understood it, most people use projectors for this stuff now.K /mirageS14KOverview.asp
Christie makes a DLP stereoscopic projector with a 150Hz vertical refresh rate:
http://www.christiedigital.com/products/mirageS14
Barco also makes a bunch: http://www.barco.com/
Video post production is suffering from a similar problem. Companies which used to produce quality, calibrated and calibratable displays for video are pulling out and going LCD. Which is fine if you're one dude at home editing weddings.
But if you're putting together a great post production facility with the ability to color correct high definition content for broadcast, LCD's are entirely inappropriate until you get to the highest cost lines -- I'm talking about spending $30,000 and up for an LCD monitor that does the same job that a $5000 or $10,000 CRT used to do.
What we've been told is that CRT's are being ended because of the high cost of toxic materials manufacturing as well as because of the mythical, low-cost high-contrast calibratable LCD displays which are on their way in "12 to 18 months" -- which I'm simply not buying.
I'll take my CRT video display over a flat panel for high def video production any day.
When there is a panel that can do 24bit color at 1600x1200 on a 17" screen without ghosting, then I will ditch my CRT. To be honest with your LCD's will never hit that (at least not in my lifetime). SED or FED may have a better chance of replacing my display then LCD in the next 5-10 years.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
...walk into any small computer store, you'll see them stacked 6 high...no shortage of these trade-ins...
absolutely hilarious!
Ah, CompUSA. A buddy of mine had his back to me as he was working on an iMac at his bench. He pulled the shield and one of the guys was telling him to ground the thing so he wouldn't get shocked. He somehow managed to get his hand on the metal part of the screwdriver we used for this function, which wouldn't have been a big deal as he wasn't a path to ground, but the ops manager had his arm around my buddy's shoulder, chatting it up, while holding onto the work bench frame with the other arm. They both went home for the day.
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
I've been a hardcore proponent of CRT's for a while now. The only consistent fan of LCD's I've seen are females, they can't stop gushing about how cute they are, and this is of course with the power off and nothing on the screeen. Unless you are hard up for the space, CRT's are still way cheaper, and generally look better. I'm not sure on the power consumption difference though, that could make a huge difference as energy costs continue to rise, although after spending some time with a 17" I purchased for my sister, I did begin to fall in love with it and it was nearly as big as my 19 inch. As far as viewing though, my 19" viewsonic pf95+ owns any LCD within $200 of it's price, and I have plenty of room, so why would I want a LCD??? If you are hurting any part of your body moving any monitor under 25" you to grow some testicles, or make a friend.
I've got a bottle of 91% isopropyl alcohol that I use for cleaning, so you can definitely get more pure than 70%.
Sigs are like bumper stickers.
If you're saying there's no such thing as dead pixels, then what the fsck are the tiny black dots in my screen?
Most 8ms LCD screens will actually only show you 6-bit colour depth, maybe 8-bit.
That's their way around innovation, but capitalize off most people taking colour depth for granted.
A buddy of mine had a BenQ and had to return it, due to piss poor colour. So be very careful, It seems absurd to be gaming a directx9 gfx card through an LCD.
If you need a good refresh rate, and like to see more than 64 or so colours; stay very far away from LCD.
You're 100% correct. And look at how your post got modded: troll, redundant, offtopic.
Slashdot still hasn't changed from the day it started -- it still has the feeling of a couple of hacks in their college dorm room running the site when they should be studying.
C'mon Slashdot editors -- grow up and get with the program.
You are horribly misinformed about color bit depths. They are rated per pixel, not per pixel color element. You seem to think that 32bit color is 32bits for red, 32bits for green and 32 bits for blue. It's actually 32 bits total for all 3 colors combined.
6 bit color = 64 colors.
8 bit color = 256 colors.
16 bit color = 65,536 colors.
24 bit = 16,777,216 colors.
32 bit = 4,294,967,296 colors.
24 bit color is roughly the limit that the human eye can see. Bit depths above that are used for high contrast image manipulation. i.e. Photographing an ocean sunset and preserving full detail in both the water and sky simultaneously so you can later create an image that shows both clearly, or properly rendering dark scenes with bright windows.
My company builds medical ultrasound platforms. We have the best quality ultrasound platforms on the market, and for this reason are preferred by medical researchers. Until now we've been using 14 and 15 inch CRTs.
Anyway, our competitors (except for the bottom end market) have moved to LCDs. So our CEO said we have to have an LCD as well. So we've been spending the last six months getting an LCD up and running on a system. This may seem like a long time, but remember that this isn't a PC and Fry's isn't our supplier. Anyway, we made a new video display board, ultra quality scaling filters, hardware evaluation, long term purchasing agreements, custom bezels, LCD firmware, etc, etc.
Unfortunately we had to make some tradeoffs, because an LCD does NOT have the same image quality as a CRT, no matter what the yahoos here at Slashdot say. You just don't have the temporal response, contrast resolution and ghosting needed for rapidly moving high contrast grayscale images. We're aren't using a cheapass consumer grade LCD bought at a Memorial Day Weekend sale, we're using a very high end LCD from a top manufacturer. But it's still not the same as a CRT.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
My big CRTs have cats permanently draped over them, and I know Scott Adams says the same thing about his. If I "upgrade" to LCDs then what? Old Sam will never forgive me. I think the manufacturers need to address this problem. PS: If you think CRTs are heavy today then you obviously never tried lifting one of those old SGI monitors. They weighed over 100lbs (each).
No sig today...
I think it's extremely dependent on exact model of LCD you choose. Current mid-range LCD displays seem to have none of the problems you mention except price. In particular, the one my work got me is an NEC LCD1760, which has excellent contrast, no blurring at all, and syncs perfectly (and yes, I'm still using sub-pixel rendering for fonts).
The analogue syncing was my greatest concern (because early LCDs were so incredibly crappy when running off a standard analogue video signal), and the reason I didn't switch to LCD earlier, but they seem to have it sussed. One pixel lines are one pixel exactly on the display, no fringes at all.
Except for those on a tight budget, I think there's little reason for most computer users to choose a CRT these days.
We live, as we dream -- alone....
First of all, it's probably windex on MgF or some other antireflection coating (which may or may not be windex reactive) So you should be using water on your CRT. Second of all, what are you getting on your LCD that requires more than warm water to remove?
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Oh yeah, forgot about that one :~)
Probably 99 too.
Alot of third world countries either import or recieve as aid "outdated" hardware (and software). I think it'll be a long time until the CRTs completely disappear from the personal computer setup in counries like, say, Sudan.
One example of organizations shipping to third world countries, is the Norwegian FAIR: FAIR (en)
Defining Statistics and Social Research
They got it wrong. Autostereo LCDs have been around for years.
Try Sharp's 3D products web site, they have a 15" XGA monitor or laptops that have been available for a while now. Other companies have been selling autostereo LCDs for much longer.
Contrary to popular belief, the medical market is not all that big. When you look at the number of companies involved and the number of people in each company, medical falls quite a way down the list. Auto and aerospace are bigger and have lots more pull in other industries. I was at a meeting a couple of years ago related to the FDA's Part 11 reg. In attendance were several large pharmaceutical and medical device companies. One of the presenters was Johnson Controls (used a lot in pharma production plants). When the audience asked Johnson to make changes to their devices to better meet Part 11 requirements, Johnson indicated that the medical industry was less than 5% of their buisiness and there was no way they'd mod their code for that small of a market share.
Medical gets a lot of attention, but plumbing fixtures is bigger.
Doug
Mate,
I use to work for a large Radiology company in Australia. We use to use products like Radworks and then Agfa DS3000 for digital image review.
Although CT and MRI pictures are not a huge problem for MRI/CT images due to their lower requirements for displaying the images, Digital X-Rays are a completely different story.
In most companies space is usually an issue. So sitting a 21 Inch CRT on a desk is definately not something the DRs wanna see. So we started to investigate the LCD options for the company. After reviewing the American Radiology and Australian Radiology guidelines for Contrast/Luminesence and then checking specs on a number of different models of LCDs we ended up buying a heap of 19 Inch Samsung LCDs...
I realize that this doesnt help your issue with the requirement for a monitor that can handle a high number of FPS in True Colour, but always remember to check the Contrast and Luminesence while you are at it...
Would an 19 Inch 8ms LCD with High Luminesence and Contrast not meet your requirements ?
CRTs have superior color reproduction, superior color response, superior reliability, and superior cost. The only ways in which LCDs are better are size, weight, and power consumption.
You raise a good point with video games. Not in refresh (the newest screens are good at that), but in the problem of native resolution being the only one that looks good. However, the two things that LCDs aren't good at (gaming and high-end graphic design for print) are niche markets.
In the workplace, LCDs are undeniably superior. Working with any sort of text for hours on end, an LCD screen is much easier on the eyes. It also sucks less power. This is the reason why CRTs are going to die out. Even gamers are slowly giving in, which leaves only one stronghold for the CRT in computing - not enough for more than a few players.
I'm sorry to hear that you have never used a high quality CRT. An equivalent LCD with a low response time costs $700+.
One thing to consider is people who have crappy vision, like me. I run a 21" monitor at 1152 if the video card will do it, otherwise 1024. Some of my friends with better vision would do no less than 1280 at that size, and one guy does 1600.
And you know that LCDs have only one native resolution. Anything other than that and you are scaling, which looks fuzzy. So even if I go down to a 19" LCD where you can get 1024 or 1280 native, that's going to be pushing it for me. 21"'s don't go lower than 1280 (I think?).
If CRTs went away, I would not be a happy camper. Or sniper.
(It's not visually challenged, it's crappy vision.)
The CRT is too cheap and robust, and performs too well to be eliminated completely. CRT will find its way into applications that due to price, longevity, or reliability require more than an LCD or plasma display.
Like the LP, the CRT will hang around as a niche product, used by those that require its unique properties.
Read a preview of my novel CYBERCHILD at www.smartalix.com/cyberchild
Yeah, I noticed the temporal dithering on a screen in a computer shop yesterday.
A friend couldn't see it until I showed him how to look, but to me it was visible from a couple of metres away.
With temporal dithering, if you sweep your eyes across the screen at a rate of 1 pixel per frame (i.e. 60 pixels/second or so), then the temporal dithering pattern is visible as spatial dithering - i.e. a fine checkerboard pattern becomes visible when you move your eyes at the right speed.
That's easier to do if you move the mouse pointer and follow it with your eyes - then the dithering pattern is visible in the image behind the pointer. But just sweeping your centre of vision across the screen is enough.
I find it somewhat disconcerting, as the image shimmers between smooth colours and high-resolution dithering pattern according to how I'm moving my attention around the screen. But it's obvious enough that I can easily avoid buying such a screen. (I haven't seen an LCD good enough that I can afford yet, though).
It's more visible with some screens than others - presumably it's worse with screens that have better response times.
-- Jamie
That's absolutely correct.
In theory, something like Cleartype with appropriate scaling parameters could improve the image when scaled too (a little bit), but I doubt it's ever done.
Also in theory, since the monitor communicates it's specification to the computer these days, you'd have thought that Cleartype would switch off automatically when rendering to an LCD with scaling... or to a CRT. Same with Gnome/KDE sub-pixel anti-aliasing. Alas, such things are not yet automated.
-- Jamie
ITS NOT HEAVY, ITS AWKWARD!
I have a Sony CPD-G500 21" CRT flatscreen. It looks incredible. Its MSRP when it came out was something absurd like $2100. I paid $300 for it from a supplier when I owned an off-lease store. It still looks amazing.
HOWEVER, based on its size and weight, I would buy a 19" LCD if I had the money to replace it. I do mostly coding, almost no gaming, and the lugging around part isn't the part of my 21" that bugs me. It's the sheer SIZE of the damn thing, and its power draw. If I had a nice 19" LCD, it'd give me a lot more space on my desk to work with.
My new 20 inch CRT is 66 pounds, Terrestrial. Apparently you're a Martian, or even Lunarian..
If you can't lift 66 pounds, hit the gym.
Hey buddy pls tell me where you get a 17" LCD monitor for $225 !! looks like good price!
The only reason I havent got a LCD screen is coz of the high price...So @ low price i would luv to get a LCD !
Why does yahoo do this
For getting a LCD really clean get 'Novus #1' plastic polish. They sell it for cleaning helmet shields and oddly enough for cleaning pinball machines.
Few squirts and wipes and your screen will look like the day you purchased it.
Found this out cause I gave up on a screen and decided to do a 'why not' and clean it with the Novus. I am glad I tried it cause WOW! Have used it on my LCD and on my notebook screen exclusively now and it is great. Also seems to keep the LCD from attracting dust for several weeks after application.
Telcos have alot of dark fibre in the States. Most people assume that's optical fibre...but it's actually moral fibre.
Replacing the florescent tube that blows in a lcd is more than a new one and more than a CRT. My CRTs run for a LONG darn time. The one I use most of the time at home is over a decade old (21" screen). Still works fine though I have a feeling it too will blow soon.
Black dots would be rare. Typically "dead pixels" are sub-pixels (one of the three primary colors) that are stuck set to maximum intensity. A black dot would be three sub-pixels (after all it takes three pixels to make up one full color dot) with their intensity set to zero. It sounds like the problem is more likely in the controller hardware. Of course, why I bothered to answer an AC troll is another good question.
lcd displays suck. here in argentina theyre worth up to three times the price of crt monitors. plus the resolution and refresh rate can not match my good old samsung 19" flat screen crt monitor.
How you got modded up is beyond me. Everything you've typed is incorrect on such a level. Color representation, especially for the DELL LCD you mentioned is so far gone from its Apple counterpart it isn't funny. And even compared to a Lacie professional CRT it looks even worse. Stick them all side by side and it is night and day. No one in their right mind uses LCDs for photographic and design work. They simply do not work "as well or better" in any way, shape, or form. I dont think you've even dipped your toe into the media and design industry.
A local shop sells refurb 21" CRTs for $79.
LCDs of that size are too new to be available as refurbs. The cheapest 20" LCD here
http://shop4.outpost.com/catreq/3376
is $794 (+ shipping). (It happens to be the Apple Cinema Display.)
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Well said. People who complain about the bulkiness of CRTs have rarely actually done the math.
Me: "How much per square foot is your desk space worth to you?" :-(
Chrissy: "Oh, I dunno, $20?"
Me: "Well then you shouldn't upgrade to LCD until you can find one at a garage sale for under $60."
Chrissy:
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
blows any lcd i've ever seen out of the water. i can't understand how any hardcore gamer would ever use an LCD. I've got one at work and its fine for programming etc, but for gaming? no way.
And don't even think about touching the power supply until you've discharged it as well or waited for it to drain off. That capacitor WILL kill you.
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
The only way that I can see the LCDs ever taking over the market share from CRTs is if the price for them drops significally and their refresh rates increase that much as well. As of right now, they are slowly getting better, but it's still going to take a lot of work. I know that LCDs take up less room, but personally, I'd rather have a bulky 19" CRT with a faster refresh rate than have a small 5 pound, slow LCD monitor anyday.
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
For a month or so, I was living in the local CompUSA flophouse. We had 8 people living in a 2 BR apartment. It made rent affordable for sure. Of the 5 CompUSA employees living there, I was the *only* one that didn't use anything harder than alcohol. The other 4 used just about anything that was available. Including my perscription Vicadin when I had my wisdom teeth pulled.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
my ibm p202 blows every lcd ive ever seen out of the water - atleast for image quality
its really nice in games having an analouge zoom feature, just by leaning forward..
Can anyone recommend a good therapist for me.. er.. my schizophrenic network card?
Not all CRTs are created equal. You may have had a nice/expensive one, but since you say it went out of focus, then it probably used a shadow-mask rather than an aperture grille. The shadow-mask variety have a tendency to de-focus over time (due to bending of the mask from expanding and contracting,) but the aperture grille types don't. The downside to them, though, is that they usually have slightly visible horizonal lines (two or three most of the time) where the grill is supported.
I just switched from a NEC FP2141SB 22" CRT to a Dell 2405FPW 24" WideSreen LCD and all I can say is thank you LCD engineers. I was running the CRT at 1280x1024 because anything above that would look blury and even more so at higher refresh rates (100MHz+). I bought the 2405FPW (with it's native resolution of 1920x1200) thinking I would have to lower the resolution to something more readable BUT NO!! IT WAS AMAZINGLY CLEAR!! YES! I couldn't have/be more exited. The picutre is unbelievable. Response times are not an issue in the only game I play (Half-Life 2) and it supports 1920x1200!! PLUS the LCD rotates to portrait and I can view an entire webpage without scrolling.