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...
LCD or CRT for better viewing ??
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.
its native resolution...
2. Image ghosting is prominent in LCD's which makes it unappropriate for
handling fast motion scenes as seen in movies.
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).
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.
Also investing in little expensive LCD is saving much more electricity bill.
T
LCD is the best
wide screen LCD + low response time + good graphics card + DVI input = LCD rocks
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]
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.
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.
V
Movies/Graphics --> CRT
Internet/Apps --> LCD
Internet/Apps --> LCD
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
Sorry sorry. I meant to say response time!
Are 21" CRTs available, tried searching but could not find.
*img217.imageshack.us/img217/9472/pubthefuture2cisopen466cr4.png
*img217.imageshack.us/img217/9472/pubthefuture2cisopen466cr4.png
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.
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.
dealers here will get you 19" CRTs (not checked with the 21") if you place an order with them
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)
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
shud or shud not???
bcos if they have said shud then i am in complete agreement
but if they said shud not......
Obviously!!
it was you who had said things to the contrary in your previous post
"Only games require low refresh rates"
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.
And I have no interest in knowing how monitors work.