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?
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.
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 medical market is already "bloody expensive". Some Dome monitors and their video cards are going to cost you around $10k+ each and we need at least two for every radiological computer that we have a doctor reading images at. The license for the software is comparible. After all that, the actual cost of the computer is trivial (yet hospital admin still decides to skimp).
When you select 32-bit color, you are infact only physically displaying 24-bit. The remaining 8 bits are used for transparency. Your eyes can't distinguish between more than 24-bit colors anyway.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
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
My NEC LCD1970 has beautiful color and 8ms response time. It cost around $500 but it blows away any crt I've ever had. My main game is UT2K4 and it plays with no ghosting or blurring whatsoever. I don't miss my back breaking 21" crt at all.
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
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?
Actually, performing a convergence on a color CRT isn't all that difficult ... hell, I was taught how to do that in my high school electronics class almost thirty years ago. Just stay away from the anode supply and you'll be fine. Best to perform the actual adjustment to the focusing magnets with one hand held behind your back, though, just in case. Converging a tube does take a bar-dot generator (there are a number of PC-based programs that will generate the requisite patterns, or you can buy a handheld model) and a bit of practice but it's not hard. Hardly an art, really pretty procedural, although a good magnifying glass comes in handy at higher resolutions. That and a tube of Loc-Tite to seal the rings back into position when you're done.
A few months ago I picked up a 21" Nokia CRT at a computer show: the color was pretty off but brightness was fine so I figured it just needed a little maintenance. For thirty bucks I decided to chance it. After degaussing and converging it, the display is crystal clear at 1600x1200. No doubt that was why the unit was sold off: nobody knows how to do basic monitor adjustments anymore. It was just cheaper to toss it on a landfill than fix it, even though nothing was really wrong with it.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Oddly enough, the same thing happened to my dad, and it resulted in a life-long, occasionally recurring back injury. In fact, he just recently threw his back out again, AND got a possibly herniated disk this time around to go with it.
-Jay
It's cool that folks like LCDs, but all the bullshit just gets in the way. I've seen people here claim that color reproduction on LCDs is better than that of CRTs (huh?), that LCD monitors are great for gaming (maybe a few but the majority still "streak"), and now an absolute guarantee that LCDs will outlast CRTs (it may be true - I'm certainly not an expert - but where are the data?).
Me, I'd love to get these two CRTs (or at least one) off my desk. LCDs are more compact and use less power. They have the added bonus that I won't get a hernia if I have to change my setup. But, at the moment, I would have to spend a goodly amount of cash to make the switch and get the same satisfaction (the goodly amount of cash being spent to make absolutely certain that my gaming experience isn't going to be adversely affected). In the meantime, I'll keep muddling through with my apparently soon-to-fail, 6+-year-old, no-name 17" monitor.
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....
i played my way through halflife2, on my 17" Hyundai Q17, at 1280x024, with all graphics set to high, on a Radeon 9500Pro, and it was fine. try putting the resolution up and the AA down, see if you can spot any difference - i bet you won't.