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
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.
*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
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.
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.
Environmentally speaking CRTs are much worse than LCDs from points of view of production/disposition/power consumption
You can't handle the truth.
CRTs will still be the best monitors out there for a lot of things, especially graphics
Given the other uses for monitors, like babysitting the children and mowing the lawn, I'm glad I can still count on CRTs for graphics.
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
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.
/. ++
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.)
Commas can be placed anywhere, they are pauses. Maybe, he, wanted, to, sound, like, William, Shatner?
~S
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.
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
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.
Just get a laser printer that prints at 3600 ppm.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
You know... there's a reason it looks fine at 800x600 and 1600x1200.
It's called integer ratios.
Try it at 1280x960, see how good it looks then.
(Also, your LCD's color purity sucks compared to a good CRT. Sorry. It does. Anyone who works color-calibrated will tell you this.)
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
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
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