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?

20 of 895 comments (clear)

  1. Are CRTs on the way out? by Colin+Smith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    After f*cking my back lifting a 21" bugger on to my desk. I really do hope they are.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:Are CRTs on the way out? by Timesprout · · Score: 4, Funny

      Indulging in buggery with something 21" long is bound to cause an injury.

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    2. Re:Are CRTs on the way out? by Skye16 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.)

    3. Re:Are CRTs on the way out? by tehcrazybob · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here ya go
      http://www.viewsonic.com/products/desktopdisplays/ lcddisplays/xseries/vx924/
      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.
  2. No by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  3. Re:My CRT by RetroGeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  4. I sure hope so by roman_mir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Environmentally speaking CRTs are much worse than LCDs from points of view of production/disposition/power consumption

  5. Re:Forced by PornMaster · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  6. OMG It's True! by Nytewynd · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    --
    /. ++
  7. Re:Forced by badasscat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.)

  8. Re:Why, oh why why why?? by Soporific · · Score: 5, Funny

    Commas can be placed anywhere, they are pauses. Maybe, he, wanted, to, sound, like, William, Shatner?

    ~S

  9. Are you serious? by kebes · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Are you serious? by tdsotf · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't think he's looking for any old CRT. He probably needs a CRT that'll do 1024x768@120Hz or 1280x1024@120Hz. The CrystalEyes are shutter glasses that alternately shut an eye in sync with the monitor. He's probably rendering a scene for the left eye and one for the right eye. To keep the motion from being jittery and the shuttering from being noticeable, he needs to render each eye at 60Hz. Which means he needs a monitor that can display at 120Hz.

      I've done stereo on a monitor that does 96Hz, but the flickering from the shutter is noticable and hurts your eyes after a while.

  10. LCD? No thanks! by Nik13 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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 />
    1. Re:LCD? No thanks! by Kent+Recal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  11. Re:I hate LCDs. by kannibal_klown · · Score: 5, Informative
    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?


    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.
  12. Re:No, it isn't. by john82 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  13. Re:Forced by rsadelle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  14. Re:Magink by amliebsch · · Score: 4, Funny
    I'd like to know when I can have a paper monitor.

    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.
  15. It's not quite that bad. Depending on the size by unicorn · · Score: 4, Funny

    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