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?
After f*cking my back lifting a 21" bugger on to my desk. I really do hope they are.
Deleted
*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
LCD's command higher profit margins and are cheaper to ship; so they are being pushed by the channel onto gullible consumers.
Amen to that.
I specifically got a CRT for development work. I can switch resolutions for testing, and still get high picture quality.
Flat panel displays have a "sweet-spot" resulution. Anything outside that looks terrible.
- - - - - - - - - - -
I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
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.
Honestly I hate LCDs. Their color reproduction on all but the most expensive monitors sucks.
Basically any MVA, IPS or Super IPS panel will render colors at least as well as any high-end CRT, and better than most mid-range CRT's (i.e. the ones most people use in their homes and offices). These panels are used in screens such as the Dell 2005FPW, which is a 20" widescreen LCD monitor that can be had for under $400 (with coupons applied).
I just get tired of hearing these same criticisms of LCD's that we've heard for the last 10 years - "their colors suck", "they're not fast enough", "their black level is bad", "they're expensive". I mean, do you go around criticizing DVD-ROM drives because they cost more than CD-ROM drives and only read at 1X? This is 2005, man. We're past all that and have been for years.
(Note that CRT's are still perfectly fine for many things, and in fact I just bought one as an HDTV. But as generalized computer monitors - and in that I'm including common applications such as design or photographic work - LCD's work as well or better than CRT's and good ones don't cost much more, if any.)
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.
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
Yes, the medical market is probably big enough to ensure that one or two players keep making CRTs. They will become specialty items, however.
Translation: They will become bloody expensive.
Although I agree with everything that you said regarding LCD's, I must point out the one negative that you missed. When comparing a good flat panel (you indicated a Dell 2005FPW) to a high-end CRT, what you fail to mention is upper end of resolution display and the ability for the CRT to look good through out the entire range of resolution that it can display. The LCD falls painfully short here.
DK
How much do you value you eyesight?
"Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
You missed thing I hate most about LCDs and color: The color is different depending on the angle you're viewing it at. This drives me bonkers. When I'm looking at a computer screen, I want to be able to see the same things in the same colors no matter where my head is in relation to the screen.
I mean, do you go around criticizing DVD-ROM drives because they cost more than CD-ROM drives and only read at 1X?
Go to newegg.com and search for a 20" lcd monitor and then for a 21" crt monitor. I searched and the cheapest lcd was $550 and the cheapest crt was $350. Now do the same search for a dvdrom drive and a cdrom drive. The cheapest dvdrom is $21 and the cheapest cdrom is $21. Big difference . . .
Where I've been, that's been progressing along smoothly. I picked up a $2 17" and a free 15" from garage sales around here, and have probably overlooked about 7 or 8 more just this spring.
My neighbor rescued a well-working 19" CRT from the trash.
Yes, folks, 2005 is The Year of the Used CRT.
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
Slashdot: Where racism againt Slashdotters is OK.
There's an amazing amount of users here who spout that /. are all MS bashers and unwashed anti-capitalist, pinko commie liberal, rhetoric, but still hang around and comment on every other thread.
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...
Dude, when giving such advice ("insert a long screwdriver directly into the potentiometer through vent hole") you should really fucking stress "CAREFULLY" a bit more. "Lethal demons" sounds cute but is IMHO a very poor methaphor for 35.000 volts.
Touching a wrong part inside a CRT is not like touching a wrong part while screwing in a lightbulb.
You will likely survive a lightbulb-accident.
You will not survive a CRT-"accident".
Read this before messing around with high voltage equipment.
I'm including common applications such as design or photographic work - LCD's work as well or better than CRT's and good ones don't cost much more, if any.
I just bought a new CRT (Samsung 997DF) for $179 that runs razor sharp at 1920x1440. The cheapest LCD I'm familiar with that gets close costs $1499 from Apple (for the 23 inch model). I consider 8X to be much more. Froogle lists your Dell LCD starting at $500 for 1680x1050; nearly three times the price for two thirds the pixels.
What was that you were saying?
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
DVDs pack more data than a CD into the same physical space. Thus, a laser pointed at a particular amount of surface area on a DVD is going to "see" more data than the same surface area on a CD. As long as the data "seen" can be processed (within the drive, then through the interface to the motherboard), DVDs will give more data per rotation than a CD.
Short version: Anyone who avoids DVD-ROM because "16x is slower than 52x" is making a concerted effort to fit on the short bus.