# LCD or CRT for better viewing ??



## ramsingh (Feb 12, 2008)

i have a 17 " CRT (Samsung) nd watched a lot of movies on it..(DVDs nd HD Rip).. i hav seen the same movies on LCD.. i somehow feel that LCD was not as good as CRT... can anyone suggest the reason...


----------



## PCWORM (Feb 12, 2008)

1. U cannot switch between resolutions on an LCD,, i.e it will b clear only on
    its native resolution...
2. Image ghosting is prominent in LCD's which makes it unappropriate for
    handling fast motion scenes as seen in movies.


----------



## anand1 (Feb 12, 2008)

Actually LCD is good as we look for the technological advancement. LCD's Power Usage is minimal han the CRT and also it's picture clarity and clearness in far more better than the CRT. This is because CRT uses the electron beanms to display images where as LCD uses special Loquid Crystal to Display it. Moreover it is easy to have the images generated from LCD without much distortion as it happens in CRT with stray electrons which gets diflected due to stray fields(external or internal).


----------



## ico (Feb 12, 2008)

CRTs have higher refresh rates than LCDs. This is the only thing at which they are better. But newer LCDs with *=< 5ms* response times are good. Probably you would have watched movies at LCDs which have more response time. 

Also investing in little expensive LCD is saving much more electricity bill.


----------



## The Conqueror (Feb 12, 2008)

LCD is the best


----------



## Rockstar11 (Feb 12, 2008)

wide screen LCD + low response time + good graphics card + DVI input = LCD rocks


----------



## ramsingh (Feb 12, 2008)

so if two equally  ggod LCD and CRT r placed together ... the LCD should look better... right..


----------



## slugger (Feb 12, 2008)

ramsingh said:


> so if two equally  ggod LCD and CRT r placed together ... the LCD should look better... right..




if both the monitors are *equally good* then how can the LCD look better 
then wudnt it mean that the LCD is better than th CRT

anyway as of now CRTs are only being favoured by _professionals_ who work in graphics, animation, CAD-CAM, Analysis  and other such streams

If you a home user and want2 buy a good performin monitor, then i suggest that you go an LCD having a response time of *< 5ms*

Yuo shall be more than satisifed
look for something from Dell, Viewsonic [DIGIT ZERO1 winner]


----------



## dOm1naTOr (Feb 12, 2008)

But by my experience, a gud dlat CRT has better quality for videos and games. The smokes are lookin cool on CRT but not as gud on LCDs.
And also videos are better on CRT.
But for browsing, and windows explorer nd desktop etc, LCDs feel damn gud. And the overall look of LCD is cool.

But my preference wud be a higher resolution CRT. But due to high power consumption, u wont get much backup on power failures for CRT.
I wud like to get a 19" Flat CRT with 1600*1200@85 Hz CRT when i get a new Gcard, coz my current card cant handle most games at that resolution.


----------



## VexByte (Feb 15, 2008)

*Movies/Graphics -->* CRT
*
Internet/Apps -->* LCD


----------



## goobimama (Feb 15, 2008)

I'd say LCD. However, if you look at the dirt cheap 19" LCDs that are out in the market (Those Acer and Samsung base models for instance), you will definitely choose CRT for image quality. But compare a high quality LCD to a CRT and the difference is obvious, in favour of LCD. 

And you don't need dead low refresh rates for Movies. Only games require low refresh rates. Lower refresh rates means less image accuracy and viewing angles. Take a lot at the professional LCDs (apple displays for instance) and you will see a refresh rate of around 12ms, cause below that it just deteriorates the colour accuracy and such. 

Also contrast ratio has a big part to play. Cheap displays have horrible contrast ratios which makes the video look washed out. Get a monitor with at least 500:1 or better contrast ratio for some good movie watching.


----------



## slugger (Feb 15, 2008)

no doubt that the pic qlty in a CRT is still superior to that of an LCD

but if you compare that *weight and power consumption of a CRT* with that of a LCD i feel that an LCD monitor produces the right balance of price and performance

also LCDs technology is improvin day-by-day whereas that of CRTs have remained pretty much stagnant



goobimama said:


> And you don't need dead low *refresh rates* for Movies. *Only games require low refresh rates*. Lower refresh rates means less image accuracy and viewing angles. Take a lot at the professional LCDs (apple displays for instance) and you will see a refresh rate of around *12ms*, cause below that it just deteriorates the colour accuracy and such.



d00d the first and foremost thing u must no about LCD panels is dat the term *refresh rate Does Not apply to LCD monitors* it is used only with refernce to CRTs

havin said this wat u r *actually *referrin to is the *response time* [the unit ms shud've given u d hint]

and your statement *"Only games require low refresh rates"* is also so overly generalised that it could also be termed *inaccuaret* (the statement is tottally wrong to begin with bcos in CRTs *higher* the refresh rate better is the picture qlty)

and *AFAIK viewing angle has got nothin to do with response time* it depends on the crystals u usin to render the image

if u know better plz feel free to share your source


----------



## goobimama (Feb 15, 2008)

Sorry sorry. I meant to say response time!


----------



## NucleusKore (Feb 15, 2008)

Are 21" CRTs available, tried searching but could not find.

*img217.imageshack.us/img217/9472/pubthefuture2cisopen466cr4.png


----------



## goobimama (Feb 15, 2008)

As for games requiring low response times, I should ask, what other area uses fast response times? Movies? There's no ghosting that appears at response times of 12ms for movies. Even 16ms is fine. So only gaming. 

Now I'm not sure how LCD technology works, but I'm been told by professional digital artists that one should go in for an LCD with too fast a response time due to the problems that I've mentioned. I'm not sure how exactly it works, but that is the outcome. 

Now CRTs are a totally different trip. Higher refresh rates is not the same as low(fast) response times. So higher the refresh rate, better the visual experience.

As for proof, I have none. But if you take a look at Dell's lineup, you will find that the monitor with a lower contrast ratio and higher(slower) response time (8ms) is priced higher than the one with 2000:1 contrast and 2ms response. Most other manufacters also sport this trait. Apple displays, very much liked by professionals, have response times of 16ms. And those have absolutely no problems playing movies (it is, after all a Cinema display). Of course, one should avoid 24ms response times, though I think those are extinct.


----------



## slugger (Feb 15, 2008)

NucleusKore said:


> Are 21" CRTs available, tried searching but could not find.



dealers here will get you 19" CRTs  (not checked with the 21") if you place an order with them



goobimama said:


> As for games requiring low response times, I should ask, what other area uses fast response times? Movies?There's no ghosting that appears at response times of 12ms for movies.



ur ans is based on what you have been viewing in *existin* movies. _which is fine_

but if tommorow a movies contains a scene where the rate at which the images changes on screen matches that in games ,*then what?*

that is why i called ur statement is *"overly generalised"* and not wrong
(the *wrong* in braces was for callin a monitor with lower *refresh rate* better for gamin)
But since u have clarified that u got confused between _response time_ and _refresh rate_ things r clear on that front (i guess)



goobimama said:


> Now I'm not sure how LCD technology works,



*Howstuffworks*

*How to Compare LCD Monitors Based on Specifications*

*www.monolitic.com/esp/Notas/def_angulos_vision.pdf

*Response time: the faster, the better?*

shud get u started 



goobimama said:


> but I'm been told by professional digital artists that *one should go in for an LCD with too low a response time* due to the problems that I've mentioned. I'm not sure how exactly it works, but that is the outcome.



*shud or shud not???*

bcos if they have said *shud* then i am in complete agreement
but if they said *shud not......*



goobimama said:


> Now CRTs are a totally different trip. Higher refresh rates is not the same as low response times. *So higher the refresh rate, better the visual experience.*



*Obviously!!* 

it was _you_ who had said things to the contrary in your previous post

*"Only games require low refresh rates"*


----------



## goobimama (Feb 15, 2008)

Oooh my writing is totally confusing I guess. Anyway, end of story, one should NOT go in for a display with low response time (eg, 2ms) unless one is gaming. The higher response times (eg, 16ms) have better colour output.

And I have no interest in knowing how monitors work.


----------

