# What is better, LCD or CRT TV?



## rohitshakti2 (Oct 10, 2008)

Pls give your views on whether it is better to buy a 26" LCD or 29" CRT TV for normal viewing in Home. 

My budget is Rs.25000/- and the TVs i liked are: 

26" LCD - Philips Flat TV 26" LCD HD Ready 26PFL3403/94 (Rs.25000/-) 

29" LG TV Model : 29FG2RVE with USB Plus 
OR 
Sony KV-SZ-292M88 (Rs.19000) 
OR 
Panasonic Tau FX 29FX20CDS3 or Tau FX 29FX20CDS4 (Rs.14000) 

*Q.1. Pls tell what is contrast ratio in LCD as the above Philips TV is with 33000 contrast ratio. 

Q.2. What is buying better, LCD or CRT and Why? 

Q.3. Give your suggestions on buying TV with model no.? *

Rohitshakti_sehgal@yahoo.com
INDIA


----------



## comp@ddict (Oct 10, 2008)

U'll hav to find contrast ratio form dealer(itna toh kar hi sakta hai na)

1. CRT consumes 4 times power as LCD
2. CRT electromagnetic rays r harmful for eyes
3. LCD can never match the quality of CRT
4. LCD has HDMI wich is pretty much enough to counter CRT quality(but off by a long shot)


----------



## dennisntstar (Oct 13, 2008)

LCD is better for the eyes,and consumes less power.However CRT excels in picture quality,To 
match with it u have to buy a full HD tv like that of sony which is very expensive but offers a great resoulution.Remember full HD,not HD,OR high HD ,Even the 19" costs as much as 20,000.
Contrast ratio is the pixel ratio.Full HD contrast ratio is 50000:1.


----------



## parthbarot (Oct 14, 2008)

i think... go for Toshiba or Samsung LCDs..but take FULL HD man...so get higher resolutions..better quality...

regards.


----------



## ashu888ashu888 (Oct 14, 2008)

CRTs are (first and foremost reason) 

1.) takes a lot of space,
2.) generates alot of heat coz of the CRT (cathode ray tube inside the TV which works well only wen heated, coz thats the only way to propel electrons and charges onto the screen)
3.) its bulks in size
4.) has lesser resolutions to offer (as compared either to LCDs or Plasma)
5.) The style factor is not available.
---------------------------

To tell u really frankly, if u really understand the technicality of the terms like contrast ratio, resolutions, etc etc..  u can really ask the dealer.

but, the best option is (i wud hv taken this option too) to personally view the same type of video on all the TVs (CRT, LCD or PLASMA, well these wud never come in the budget u hv specified) and then judge whic ones got the best color, crispness and clarity 
----------------
But yes try to go in for a HD (high definition) tv  as it will really make a lot of difference in viewing pleasure 
----------------

Cheers n e-peace.....


----------



## Zangetsu (Oct 14, 2008)

LCD are far more better than CRTs in terms of quality,feature etc..though expensive when compared 2 CRT....

But LCDs are the way 2 go...just look for Full HD & not HDReady coz the former offers full 1080p resolution which the latter lacks...


----------



## IronManForever (Oct 14, 2008)

rohitshakti2 said:
			
		

> 29" LG TV Model : 29FG2RVE with USB Plus


Can you give details about this one? What is *USB* doing here?


			
				comp@ddict said:
			
		

> 2. CRT electromagnetic rays r harmful for eyes


A myth. As harmful as looking towards a landscape; keeping your eyes open in daytime; watching your dog play; etc, etc.


			
				dennisntstar said:
			
		

> Contrast ratio is the pixel ratio.Full HD contrast ratio is 50000:1.


You'0ve got it all mixed up dude. Contrast ratio is pixel ratio?  Full HD has 50000:1 Contrast Ratio? 
Okay, there two types of contrast ratios; *Static* and *Dynamic*.
Manufacturers tend to play with the term and give us the Dynamic CR which is measured under varied conditions as selected by the manufacturer itself. What we should look at is Static CR. Static CR of 2000:1 is very good for TV viewing and anything above 500:1 is fair enough for desktops. DCR is better not taken as a parameter at all.

And you are right that one has to look for the term HD. Manufacturers tend to play with that too. A res of 800x480 is also HD. Acvtual resolution is what matters. Since HD content is almost absent form the Indian TV transmission; one may not need Full HD. If one wishes to view Blu-Ray media in it/game on it using next-gen consoles/ Use it on a PC; THEN Full HD maybe important. Though at that budget and for that kinda use; I doubt the Full HD potential will be used. I think 720p/1080i will be enough.

Also, there is a difference between HD Capable and Truly HD TVs. So one has to be very skeptic about the specifications.



			
				ashu888ashu888 said:
			
		

> 5.) The style factor is not available.


Subjective.  I like looks of some CRTs more. 

@Original Poster
CRT is passe. Go for that Philips LCD. Less power consumption; choice of the generation.


----------



## ashu888ashu888 (Oct 15, 2008)

^^ nice point written abt Dynamic and Static CRs.. 

also, come on yaar (stop pulling my leg..lol..  ) whice CRT tv's look u like apart from the SLIM LCDs ?? haan !!  lol..


----------



## IronManForever (Oct 17, 2008)

^^ I like the looks of my LG 29" (Dunno Model right now) more than many LCDs like the LG Scarlet or the Samsung Bordeaux or Sony Bravia. I swear I do.


----------



## comp@ddict (Oct 18, 2008)

parthbarot said:


> i think... go for Toshiba or Samsung LCDs..but take FULL HD man...so get higher resolutions..better quality...
> 
> regards.



  Luk for  1. FULL HD 2. Contrast Ratio, at least 33000:1 3. 178 degree viewing angle 4. 10-bit panel


----------



## ashu888ashu888 (Oct 18, 2008)

> ^^ I like the looks of my LG 29" (Dunno Model right now) more than many LCDs like the LG Scarlet or the Samsung Bordeaux or Sony Bravia. I swear I do.



I believe u..


----------



## Cool Buddy (Oct 19, 2008)

LCDs are the way ahead, save power and space and something to show off (yes, subjective). Full HD won't be available within 25K, hd ready means a resolution of 1366x768 (generally). In layman's language you can say that the better the contrast ratio, the better will be the visibility in day light or sunlight. If you are not aware of its meaning the measure of CR is also useless. so you just look for a fairly high CR. look for good connectivity options, HDMI is standard these days, look for USB or memory card slot. USB is available in LG. in case you don't realise the importance now, here is what you can connect through USB:
pen drive, portable HDD, portable music players, mobile phones (not all), digital camera etc. convenience at its extreme!


----------



## ashu888ashu888 (Oct 19, 2008)

YEs, better to look for the USB option, as its becoming a common feature wich is ignored by many of us..but later regret it and get 3rd party connectivity solutions/devices.....


Even i purchased my SONY TRINITRON 25" tv with a view(3 yrs back)tat i had PS2 and a Sony Cybershot digicam, so for their connectivity, i got a sony tv.. (i knw these simple and basic options are available in many tvs ..then as well as now..) but jus to make it uniform,i got all sony stuff..


----------



## comp@ddict (Oct 19, 2008)

U noe, u can consider PLASMA TV.

I don't understand y ppl dun want PLASMA> I mean, it's actually cheaper.
But the wuality surpasses LCD in soo many ways u'll run outta fingers


----------



## IronManForever (Oct 19, 2008)

^^ LCDs for smaller size till around 42", above it and its all Plasma... Plasma is VFM at larger sizes; almost half/1-3rd the price of similar size LCDa at sizes of around 50+

Large size LCDs are overwhelmingly expensive and difficult to manufacture and AFAIK small size Plasmas are also difficult to manufacture(we dont have options for say 22" plasma isnt it?).. I hope I'm clear.


----------



## ashu888ashu888 (Oct 20, 2008)

^^ u are dead right on this bro,,, the same reason was told in the NDTV GOOD TIMES channel and on the show Tech guru (sumthing like tat) by Rajeev Masand..


----------



## Zangetsu (Oct 20, 2008)

Putting rest features of LCD,Plasma aside....

1 of my frnd told me the reason he bought DLP TV coz the life of both LCD & Plasma is short...(depending upon the daily viewing hours) after dat the bulb inside the
TV gets fused...& u have no chance but just 2 throw the piece in garbage....was he ryt ?


----------



## thewisecrab (Oct 20, 2008)

ashu888ashu888 said:


> ^^ u are dead right on this bro,,, the same reason was told in the NDTV GOOD TIMES channel and on the show Tech guru (sumthing like tat) by *Rajeev Masand*..


Rajeev Masand- Movie Reviewer from CNN IBN 
Rajeev Makhni- Host of gadget guru and the next big thing on NDTV 
Get your facts straight 
@thread starter
LCD TVs all the way


----------



## IronManForever (Oct 20, 2008)

KaranTh5 said:
			
		

> 1 of my frnd told me the reason he bought DLP TV coz the life of both LCD & Plasma is short...(depending upon the daily viewing hours) after dat the bulb inside the
> TV gets fused...& u have no chance but just 2 throw the piece in garbage....was he ryt ?


I think he messed up. Its the DLP which has the shortest life in general. The whole TV set does not go kaput but the bulb which you are saying only exists in DLP among the 3. LCDs as the name suggests has Liquid Crystals and LED backlighting. PLasmas have excitable phosphors similar to the age-old CRTs but do not use the electron gun like the CRT. Its the DLP which uses the bulb tp project. 
We dont wee too many DLPs around also, isnt it?


----------



## comp@ddict (Oct 20, 2008)

No, Nowadays, even the 40" Plasma costs less than the 42" LCD FULL HD's, leave alone the high ends like SOny X-series(cut through our pockets u noe), and the standby power usage of PLASMA is 0.1Watts AFAIK.

And the quality of a 40" plasma @ 60k(an example) surpasses the Best FULL HD LCD @ 1lakh + 42" so u see y i'm saying Plasma, Ppl still rn't aware of it's power tht's y


----------



## Zangetsu (Oct 20, 2008)

comp@ddict said:


> No, Nowadays, even the 40" Plasma costs less than the 42" LCD FULL HD's, leave alone the high ends like SOny X-series(cut through our pockets u noe), and the standby power usage of PLASMA is 0.1Watts AFAIK.
> 
> And the quality of a 40" plasma @ 60k(an example) surpasses the Best FULL HD LCD @ 1lakh + 42" so u see y i'm saying Plasma, Ppl still rn't aware of it's power tht's y


 
But quality wise LCD > Plasma


----------



## comp@ddict (Oct 20, 2008)

U din read anything I wrote

PLASMA QUALITY > LCD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## IronManForever (Oct 20, 2008)

comp@addict said:
			
		

> No, Nowadays, even the 40" Plasma costs less than the 42" LCD FULL HD's, leave alone the high ends like SOny X-series(cut through our pockets u noe), and the standby power usage of PLASMA is 0.1Watts AFAIK.
> 
> And the quality of a 40" plasma @ 60k(an example) surpasses the Best FULL HD LCD @ 1lakh + 42" so u see y i'm saying Plasma, Ppl still rn't aware of it's power tht's y


What kinda quality are you talking about? Yes, contrast and colour reproduction of good quality(stress on GOOD) is better than a good quality LCD. Thats because it uses the same phosphors that are used in conventional CRTs.

Whats the maximum resolution the plasma you are saying can display? Not close to the LCD of similar size I believe.

The power usage while viewing a movie at a resolution is Plasma is much more than viewing the same movie in LCD at the same resolution, isnt it? (I know about the standby power of plasma being less).

What I said holds true. For comparitively low budget(20K as of the OP), there are virtually no options for Plasma. Hence I wonder why you gave Plasma as an option in the first place itself. 

Also GOOD Plasmas have lower average life than an Average LCD. THough both have enough lifespans for a casual user.



			
				comp@ddict said:
			
		

> *Good* PLASMA QUALITY > *Good* LCD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Modified it a bit.


----------



## ashu888ashu888 (Oct 20, 2008)

thewisecrab said:


> Rajeev Masand- Movie Reviewer from CNN IBN
> Rajeev Makhni- Host of gadget guru and the next big thing on NDTV
> Get your facts straight
> @thread starter
> LCD TVs all the way



ohh, yaa sorry messed up abit in the surname dept..  thanx for the confirmation, 

btw, i meant tat Rajeev (of the tech channel) only..


----------



## comp@ddict (Oct 21, 2008)

IronManForever said:


> What kinda quality are you talking about? Yes, contrast and colour reproduction of good quality(stress on GOOD) is better than a good quality LCD. Thats because it uses the same phosphors that are used in conventional CRTs.
> 
> Whats the maximum resolution the plasma you are saying can display? Not close to the LCD of similar size I believe.
> 
> ...



Well the quality of a low budget LCD sucks to the core, better in not getting it.

And the resolution, well the AD said FULL HD?


----------

