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?
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.
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.
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
Yes and no.
If you use a DVI connection and run at the native resolution a half-way decent LCD looks perfectly clear. Add to that antialiased fonts and you're in for a winner on the eyes.
However, at work we have analog connectors for our LCD monitors (actually, the monitors have DVI inputs but our desktops only have analog out). Even after "auto-calibrarting" the monitor like 20 times I get ghosting.
DVI on an LCD can make all the difference in the world. Most people at work don't notice the oddities experienced with teh analog connections, but some of us can. Fortunately my new work machine will have a DVI out on the video card
But if you run analog, or MOST IMPORTANTLY the non-native resolution it can look like utter garbage. DVI is pretty common on video cards now a days, and I believe it's getting more common on LCDs too.
As my sibling stated, it's not the color, it's the ghosting. When you're playing a fast paced action game, and all you see is one long blur, it's pretty obvious that the LCDs aren't up to par (at least not the 21" LCDs, at least relatively cheaply). I have a Dell 1800FP at work that is relatively new. We play old games on that on occasion over lunch. Grand Theft Auto 1 starts streaking in no time. It's really noticeable when you're on a motorcycle and zooming straight ahead.
...
There are LCDs for gaming that don't ghost, but they're EXTREMELY expensive if you want a lot of real estate + low response times. A 21" replacement LCD is already a lot more than a CRT, and when you factor in the lower response rates
(I should also say that the last I looked into this was at Christmas, so things may have changed in the last 6 months. If you find a 21" LCD for 450$ and 8-12ms response rate, let me know. Until then, CRTs are king.)
Here ya go/ lcddisplays/xseries/vx924/
http://www.viewsonic.com/products/desktopdisplays
4ms or (1 second) / (4 millisecond) = 250 htz.
250 htz is much more then your 60/72/75/80/100/120 htz your crt does.
Don't try to convert response time into refresh rate. The response time is how long it takes a pixel to change colors, and the refresh rate is how often the monitor gives instructions to a pixel. The two measurements are not related, and you cannot find one given the other.
Refresh rates in Hz are pretty meaningless for LCDs, actually. The measurements on monitors are response time and refresh rate, and they each have their place.
The response time on an LCD is the amount of time it takes a pixel to change color once it's been instructed to do so. This is a meaningless measurement for a CRT, because a CRT pixel is lit only when the electron beam is on it. For this reason, you never see a CRT advertised with a response time.
The refresh rate of a monitor is the number of times a pixel is redrawn per second. On an LCD, the refresh rate is almost always 60 Hz. That's high enough to present smooth visuals to the viewer. However, because the pixels in an LCD keep their color for several milliseconds after each refresh, they don't need to be refreshed any more often than that. On a CRT, on the other hand, the more often a pixel is refreshed, the smoother the image will appear. This is because the pixel only has color when it is being refreshed. If the refresh rate is too low, the pixel and therefore the whole image will appear to flicker.
LCDs are frequently set at a low refresh rate like 60 Hz, because that's all they need to present consistent visuals. For an LCD, a much more important number is the response time.
CRTs are often set to a much higher refresh rate, because that enables a more consistent image. The response time is irrelevant.
Computers need to explode more often.