Are CRTs History? 895
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 CRTs on the way out? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Are CRTs on the way out? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Are CRTs on the way out? (Score:2)
With that said, however, I'd rather have to deal with a mountainous behemoth that looked good in games than one that was light and looked like
Re:Are CRTs on the way out? (Score:3, Insightful)
you guys know you're just strengthening the "geeks are wimps" stereotype, right?
Modern 21" monitors weigh less than 70 lbs and 19" less than 50 lbs (link [epinions.com] link [pcmall.com] link [epinions.com] link [epinions.com]), so you guys breaking your backs over 50 lbs are not exactly hitting the gym too often are ya?
Re:Are CRTs on the way out? (Score:5, Informative)
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.)
Re:Are CRTs on the way out? (Score:3, Interesting)
There are LCDs for gaming that d
Re:Are CRTs on the way out? (Score:3, Informative)
"With that said, however, I'd rather have to deal with a mountainous behemoth that looked good in games than one that was light and looked like shit."
This led me to believe you had a problem with the colors (which older LCDs definitely had a problem with). As for speed, check these out:
http://www7.graphics.tomshardware.com/display/200 5 0526/index.html [tomshardware.com]
They are suitable for gaming (even FPS type games). They can be had for under $450. You might say $450 is a lot for a monitor these days w
Re:Are CRTs on the way out? (Score:3, Informative)
Watch http://www.dealmein.net/ [dealmein.net] every day for a month or so, and you'll find a similar deal.
I like mine... I noticed ghosting problems when I ran those LCD tests that are designed to show such problems, but don't usually notice a problem when actually gaming...
Re:Are CRTs on the way out? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.viewsonic.com/products/desktopdisplays
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.
Re:Are CRTs on the way out? (Score:3, Informative)
Even worse, the response time is the best-case for the smallest transition for the fastest subpixel element. The actual response time varies for the red, green and blue subpixels. It also varies depending on whether the subpixel s
Re:Are CRTs on the way out? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Are CRTs on the way out? (Score:2)
Click here. [leeds.ac.uk]
It took me a little while before I realized that the fact it's computer equipment didn't exempt us nerds from the laws of biology and physics.
Re:Are CRTs on the way out? (Score:3, Interesting)
-Jay
My CRT (Score:2)
Here are three more: (Score:3, Funny)
Alpha ray sterilization.
Re:My CRT (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:My CRT (Score:3, Informative)
It's not a "sweet spot," it's the dimensions of the physical pixels on the display, also known as a native resolution.
With that said, computer labs full of 1024x768 native res flat panel displays all set at 800x600 is one of the worst tech atrocities in the world.
Re:My CRT (Score:4, Informative)
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.)
Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)
No, it isn't. (Score:2)
Yes, the medical market is probably big enough to ensure that one or two players keep making CRTs. They will become specialty items, however.
(Is there any reason that the medical market can't switch? Is there any reason that the medical market can't use CRTs?)
Re:No, it isn't. (Score:5, Insightful)
Translation: They will become bloody expensive.
Re:No, it isn't. (Score:3, Interesting)
Geez... I hope not. (Score:2)
But:
They run very high resolutions and have very little latency (essential for gaming).
They're also very cheap compared with LCDs.
LCD? No thanks! (Score:5, Informative)
-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.
Re:LCD? No thanks! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:LCD? No thanks! (Score:3, Informative)
As for your points:
-CRT's have a lot more contrast, but the contrast of LCD's has improved dramatically and will continue to do so. Honestly I find the contrast on my LCD's to be far superior to any monitor I've owned.
-CRT's do get dead or stuck pixels in manufacturing. Some manufacturers have begun to warranty against even one dead pixel. Once it's done and on your desktop you aren't going to lose additi
I'm a pro photographer (Score:3, Informative)
-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)
LCDs with decent electronics dont have much of a problem with this. I suppose if you buy no-name brand, it might.
-CRTs have a LOT more contrast
Not really. The contrast ratios for good LCDs are beyond what anyone needs. Black is black, white is white.
-CRTs don't have/get dead/stuck pixels
Neither do most LCDs these days..
24 bit color (Score:3, Informative)
Your eyes are capable of detecting thousands of shades of a single color.
24 bit color is not enough for serious graphics or photographic work, which is why many professionals work in 16 bit per channel. Most digital cameras today capture at 12 bit or higher.
Also that LCDs cannot display as many colors as CRT's is simply false. There are LCDs available today capable of displaying most of the Adobe RGB gamut, something which very few (and expensive) CRT's c
Errr...no (Score:3, Informative)
Many graphics cards now have ten bit D/A convertors. With the proper driver this means 30 bits of color resolution and yes, it does make a difference.
Re:LCD? No thanks! (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [216.234.181.197] before messing around with high voltage equipment.
It's not quite that bad. Depending on the size (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:It's not quite that bad. Depending on the size (Score:3, Funny)
Re:even better advice: (Score:3, Interesting)
They don't want your business. (Score:4, Insightful)
Find another vendor that wants to trade your money for their CRT monitors.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:LCDs suck for gaming (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, when the refresh time on LCDs was 25ms or more the ghosting in games made them a less than desireable choice. Finding an LCD with a refresh time greater than 16ms these days is becoming increasingly rare, though.
I have a Dell 2005FPW widescreen LCD. It has a native resolution of 1680x1050 and a refresh time of 12ms. There is absolutely no ghosting on it whatsoever. Doom3, Far
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Forced (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Forced (Score:5, Insightful)
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.)
Re:Forced (Score:3, Insightful)
DK
Re:Forced (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Forced (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:Forced (Score:3, Insightful)
DVDs pack more data than a CD into the same physical space. Thus, a laser pointed at a particular amount of surface area on a DVD is going to "see" more data than the same surface area on a CD. As long as the data "seen" can be processed (within the drive, then through the interface to the motherboard), DVDs will give more data
Re:Forced (Score:2)
maybe you haven't looked at one in...oh....10 years.
Re:Forced (Score:2)
I haven't found an LCD yet (including the otherwise beautiful Apple 30") with anything like the color gamut of even a mid-range CRT. This may not matter to most people, but if someone's doing color correction and wants to be able to see find gradations of color (especially in dark areas), there simply is no substitute.
My favorite monitors right now are the high-end Sony and NEC 22" displays. The price doesn't matter to me
Re:Forced (Score:2)
I hate LCDs. (Score:2)
Am I the only one?
Re:I hate LCDs. (Score:2)
I will only buy glass. Better resolution. Adjustable resolution. Better lighting in all situations. Easier to view from wide angles/side angles. Faster refresh. Cheaper.
CONS: Heavy, power hungry, take up more space. Someone above was complaining about color. It may not be perfect, but compared to LCD? Gimmi a break. Show me an LCD that has better color than the equivelant glass.
Once it's in place, most of those size problems are gone. Picture quality is something you have to loo
Re:I hate LCDs. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
eBay (Score:2)
No (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Huh? (Score:2)
Granted, I don't know what sort of specialized use this is, if it uses uncommon technologies.
Yes (Score:2)
Stereoscopic glasses + Half Life = Brown Trousers (Score:2)
Imagine how I greased my gusset when a headcrab leapt out at me for the first time. It was two years before I could bring myself to continue playing the game, and then on easy level.
Black & White was amazing with the glasses. But they gave me really bad headaches, and got ditched when I upgraded my graphics card.
Re:[OT] Your sig is offensive. (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdot: Where racism againt Slashdotters is OK.
There's an amazing amount of users here who spout that /. are all MS bashers and unwashed anti-capitalist, pinko commie liberal, rhetoric, but still hang around and comment on every other thread.
Can they hurry up? (Score:2)
Of course not... (Score:2)
Bah... (Score:2)
CRTs are the awesome (Score:2, Insightful)
but i guess it depends on how much space you have.
I sure hope so (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably not for a while. (Score:2)
As nice as flat panel monitors are, compared to the CRT, the (pixel) refresh rate (don't jump to the conclusion I'm referring to the vertical/horizontal refresh rates which are meaningless on flat panels) is pretty bad and for movies and games, the last time I checked, there were artifacts and blurring due to the pixel recharge times (or whatever the technical term is).
A CRT is still cheaper and people do want cheaper.
No,
Long term? Yes. Short term: No. (Score:2)
But I give them 10 years to appear in the market. OK, OK 5 years maybe. But you know, it'll take another 3 or 4 additional years before the people can afford them.
One word (well, acronym, actually) (Score:2)
I for one... (Score:2)
More seriously, yes. CRTs will become a niche market as better displays are made more cheaply available. This is not shocking; it's not even really news. It's been predicted for a long, long time. There are a lot of drawbacks to CRTs, and for most uses current LCD technology is more than adequate and in some important regards better. Mainly, they use less power, take up less space, and produce a sharp, no-tuning-required picture.
As refresh rates, color accuracy and pri
Buy up used equipment (Score:2)
I know of a small company that sells a $1 million device to a very niche market. A certain component of this device is only manufactured by a few companies world-wide and requires huge technical know-how and manufacturing capabilities. None of the big boys will sell the component individually for various reasons including the fact that they don't offer this niche capability of the small company's product and are probably trying to develop it themsel
CRTs will not disappear, but expensive in ~5 years (Score:2)
OMG It's True! (Score:5, Funny)
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.
LCDs are still inferior to CRTs (Score:2)
I'm sticking with CRT for the time being because they're less expensive, allow for higher refresh rates, and can display in many resolutions without having to stretch/shrink/distort an image. When LCDs can match CRTs in those respects, I'll gladly convert.
CRTs still rule some markets (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll stick with CRTs for now. I'm still using a Sony Multiscan 300sf that I bought for big money sometime around 1994, it's still in perfect shape. I don't expect any LCDs to hold up for 10 years. I first used this screen on a Mac IIcx, then on a Mac 8100/110, and now on my dual 1Ghz G4. I expect to use it when I buy a new dual G5 Mac in a few months. Hell, I expect it might still be in perfect shape when I buy a G6. Sony Trinitrons last forever. Best money I ever spent.
Re:CRTs still rule some markets (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Ahhhh.... (Score:2)
I cannot stand the burned out pixels, and don't say that "new" lcd's don't burn out. My laptop is only 6 months old and has about 4 on the screen - they drive me nuts, but are "within manufacturer specs".
That and the resolution, with a little fiddling, linux works amazing at the highest resolution my 21" monitor will go(windows sucks) but LCD don't come near that resolution for the same bucks. I was just quoted a 21" flat screen CRT to replace my lightning killed one, and it's only $480CDN, I
Isn't it obvious? (Score:2)
Isn't it obvious? Rent a storage shed and load it up with current models. They can only increase in value while no other alternative is available.
Oh, and start planning your retirement. You leave the day the last box leaves your hands.
CRT fetish (Score:2)
What to do? (Score:2)
Stock up on CRTs at closeout prices?
The main problem I have with CRTs is getting them to die so I can replace them with an LCD. By the time they die, maybe OLED will be out. I'd love to have an OLED laptop display that doesn't wash out in even indirect sunlight.
Are you serious? (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry, but this seems like a non-issue to me.
Re:Are you serious? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
as long as there is demand (Score:2)
Personally, I prefer CRT monitors. Although I seem to be in the minority with everyone I know. There is something about LCD monitors that just doesn't sit well with me. But I'm also the same person who can't stand flat screen CRT's as well.
Give me a "bubble" CRT and I'm happy.
OLED is flat, fast and fine (Score:2)
This Company [emagin.com] is coming out with a 3d stereoscopic visor (HMD) for just the type of application that the poster mentions.
The OLEDs will certainly be higher end to start like every other new technology, including LCD. But I think we should see OLEDs being the best of both worlds with fast refresh
In a word - "Yes". In two, "Not Yet". (Score:3, Insightful)
For now, CRTs enjoy popularity mostly for price and for the highest quality images. LCDs will catch up in both those areas over time, but if you only worry about the 18 month timescale, I'd say you have no need to fear. Looking at 5 years out, I'd worry a LOT more, but not yet.
Re:In a word - "Yes". In two, "Not Yet". (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Preference for CRT (Score:2, Insightful)
My primary gripe is the depth of black - on an LCD, a pure black looks more like a dark grey, where on a CRT a black looks, well, black. Go play DooM 3 on a CRT and then on an average LCD and you'll see exactly what I mean.
Furthermore, most LCDs tend to wash colors out a bit. Taking the game Morrowind as an example, on my six year old Samsung 19" CRT, the colors are deep, saturated, and the
Reality check (Score:2, Interesting)
So this means no CRTs with embeddd floppy? (Score:2)
Already replaced 'em (Score:2)
I think they have already. My last two monitors at home were LCD, as well as my work PC. The only reason CRTs are around in the consumer world is that some people haven't bought new computers in the last few years - or they wanted a really cheap system.
But that doesn't mean CRTs are dead. If your profession needs CRTs, someone will make them for you. You might have to pay a little more than you do now, but not more than when CRTs were reall
My experience replacing CRT with LCD (Score:3, Informative)
All of the reasons to avoid LCDs are evaporating: price, smearing/update speeds, resolution...
End-to-end digital video is startlingly noticeable if you are used to CRTs, even good ones.
Really excellent LCDs are now well within the price range of what I used to pay for premium CRTs.
I don't see myself buying another CRT, pretty much ever.
Why CRT's and not LCD's for stereo and regular dis (Score:3, Interesting)
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 [tomshardware.com]). 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?
Re:Post-Its? (Score:2)
I'm holding out for OLED
Re:Ahem. (Score:2)
"P.S. I'm posting as AC because I don't 2feel like getting modded down for being offtopic."
FFS! Slashdot karma is a piece of made up bullshit. You'd be a real help when something truly important was on the line, wouldn't you.
Re:Dead (Score:2)
Re:Dead (Score:2)
- Shipping costs from Dell don't matter - it's usually free to ship from them regardless.
- Longevity - CRT's already last as long or longer than PC's in their primary line of duty.
Having said that, any machine's I'm rotating out at work are getting LCD's. The price premium on 19" LCD's is about where a 17" CRT was 7 or 8 years ago.
Re:still here... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:still here... (Score:2)
Re:Why, oh why why why?? (Score:5, Funny)
~S
Re:Why, oh why why why?? (Score:2)
So no, you can't just stick them anywhere. They're not just generic symbols.
Re:He's talking about professonal stuff (Score:2)
Re:Rephrase: (Score:2)
Perfect for wall art (Score:2)
Re:Magink (Score:5, Funny)
Just get a laser printer that prints at 3600 ppm.
You don't know what you are talking about (Score:2)
About resolution: I am typing this on my 15.4" widescreen Latitude D810 with 1900x1200 resolution set on it. It is way better than what I used to have on my old CRT.
Color calibration? Only for graphics work and I don't do that.
Will CRTs be gone in a year? No. Will they be mostly gone in 10 years from normal consumer market? For sure.
Re:Are CRTs History? (Score:2)
Now a couple years back when I had to haul around a pair of 24" Sun monitor, I'd have killed for a pair of large LCDs.