« Comparison Shots of the Beastly Seiko SNDA59 Velatura | Main | Pete Carroll Displaying Worst NFL Coaching I've Ever Seen »

January 13, 2013

Comments

Ulysses

Good replacements for CRTs are available, but you used to have to pay through the nose for them which is something the average consumer is unwilling to do. Thankfully that situation has improved in recent years. In one respect alone CRTs still have a slight edge over LCD and that is contrast. A black screen on an LCD still looks slightly grey.

I held on to my old Mitsubishi/NEC Diamondtron as long as I could before it finally failed. All the research i'd done had led me to realise that the LCDs at the time were mostly crude and gave an awful picture. Consumers had become used to these awful displays due to the increasing popularity of laptops which almost invariably used the cheaper technology (TN-panels). I realised that in order to satisfy my needs as someone who works heavily with graphics and 3D, i'd have to stump up a lot of cash for a professional monitor. I eventually chose the NEC 2690WUXi, which like most pro monitors used the better IPS-based technology. This thing was about $1200 at the time but with a standard 5-year warranty I saw it as an investment. The picture quality was incredible compared to what I was used to with my old Mitsubishi. Six years later it's still going strong. This thing has computer-controls for every imaginable feature and a level of clarity, sharpness and colour accuracy unrivalled by a CRT. Excellent viewing angles too with no colour-shift and certainly none of the dreaded "negative image" effect you still see on most laptops.

As I already mentioned, the only real weakness of LCDs is the poor contrast. This will be banished with the advent of OLED based displays, where each pixel is the source of light rather than a back-light, and can therefore be switched completely off for a true appearance of black.

I remember a few years ago when Apple laptops all featured these lovely IPS-based displays. I guess they wanted to build them cheaper because they totally phased out these high-quality panels and in the last few years have re-introduced them only for their more premium models.

Since the time I purchased mine, the consumer has finally become aware of the fact that displays are not all made equal, and as a result many major manufacturers are using the better technology with varying results (electronics make a difference too) but still vastly superior to the old TN-based models. As a result prices have come down and anyone can own one. The best displays are still produced by the likes of Eizo and NEC but you can have most of the performance for a lot less money now.

Paul

You must be kidding about comparing CRT and LCD displays. If you are talking about cheap LCDs (with TN technology), then I understand. But a higher end IPS technology LCD (such as the Apple 27 inch, or other IPS displays) is fantastic in terms of color reproduction, text intelligibilty, "flatness" and correct reproduction of images, ...

See the link on top "Monoprice Announces 27-Inch 2560 x 1440 Monitor for $390" and the discussion:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5040725

Angelo

Paul: From a technical sense, there might be truth to what you're saying. In the real world----I think Brandon has a point. I remember back in the 80s, the stereo geek/dweeb army would read "High Fidelity" magazine and muse over the latest consumer stereo equipment costing well into the thousands of dollars. I worked in radio at the time---met manufacturers of professional studio equipment. They told me that to human ears, a decent Technics component system/speakers, that one could put together for around five hundred bucks----would perform nearly as well as the super $5000.00 system. They actually showed equipment that could SHOW the difference with lights----but hearing the difference? Trained ears, not "regular" music listeners. And even when "trained ears" could hear a difference----it was hard to quantify the difference as being better or worse. My point is that with something like high def TV, now that the dust has settled----I don't think we got any bang for the buck. It was a huge waste of money for consumers but certainly, the parties selling all of the newly formatted high def televisions made a load of money from it all.

brandon

Paul - I would put the Sony GDM-FW900 24-inch CRT monitor up against any LCD (including IPS models) and bet that in a side-by-side comparison with just the human eye, it would meet or beat them all.

Paul

Up until 2005 I had the same exact Sony Trinitron monitor and I agree, it was a fantastic display. I loved it. I was glad that I didn't have to pay for it (work got it for me), as the price was $2300. It was also 93 lbs in weight, and its power consumption was 170 watts.

The Monoprice display I gave the link to is 27 inches (3 inches more than the Sony), sells for $390, has higher resolution, is totally flat, draws 65 watts and weights 14 lbs. It has a gorgeous IPS display (same one used in Apple Cinema displays). Everything has improved - everything!

Ulysses

I think my long comment went AWOL somewhere.

Ulysses

Oh no, there it is lol.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

My Photo

Advertisements






  • Advertisements

Advertisements






  • Advertisements

Advertisements






  • Advertisements

April 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      
Blog powered by Typepad

Pages

Companion Website: Breakthrough Writer

My Photo

Become a Fan