# Anyone still use CRT?



## MacME (Mar 15, 2005)

Just curious if anyone in the GFX industry are still using CRT monitors and if so which one?

I've replaced all my CRTs, some of which were 17" Trinitron tubes, with LCDs to free up desk space. I work on a 22" LaCie electron blue II at work. So lately I've been kinda itching to pick up a used 22" Trinitron CRT, which can be had for fairly cheap now a days, for doing GFX work at home. But I'm also torn on saving my money and getting a 20"-24" widescreen LCD, like the ones on sale right now from DELL.

What's ppl's opinion?


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

I think you should make me an offer on my Samsung 
http://www.ehmac.ca/classifieds/showproduct.php?product=6319&sort=1&cat=500&page=1

Does anyone think my colour accuracy will go down if I move to an iMac G5?


----------



## gngan (Apr 6, 2005)

I am also in a similar trade as you do. I still have a 19" LaCie EB III hooked up to my secondary Mac, though my main Mac (G4 QuickSilver) is using a 17" Apple LCD (DVI) to save desktop space. I heard people still resort to CRTs for colour accuracy, and I think the LaCies are among the better ones on the market.

To be honest, most of the time I can get by using the LCD for colour work, as the printer I'm working with is fairly good. So far I have not run into any problems.


----------



## MacME (Mar 15, 2005)

elmer said:


> I think you should make me an offer on my Samsung
> http://www.ehmac.ca/classifieds/showproduct.php?product=6319&sort=1&cat=500&page=1


LOL, i need opinions first before deciding which way i'd ultimately go. plus i was looking for something with a Sony flat Trinitron tube in it. but thanks for your offer though.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacME said:


> Just curious if anyone in the GFX industry are still using CRT monitors and if so which one?


*Only *use CRTs - colour accuracy is not there on LCDs. Our receptionist has the LCD...
I know some graphic designers have switched and more seem to be going that way.
We use Viewsonics PS series mostly because they are readily available and cheap.
The lifespan of these monitors is about 3 years for us.


----------



## lightbulb (Oct 24, 2005)

I prefer my Lacie 22" crt over the numerous LCDs that own when working in Photoshop. AFAIK professional grade CRTs are no longer available so if you're looking at used, you need to be very careful, as CRTs have a definite useful lifespan. I wouldn't consider used unless I could see it in person and bring my calibration device to generate a accurate profile; your own needs maybe less.

The Dell 20" is MUCH better than the 24" if graphics is your main use.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

If you want to go 21" or more, this won't do it, but I have a 19" Trinitron Dell-branded if you're interested.

Yes, it's sale day!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I do - I can have anything I want and I use 2 high end Trinitrons.

We are now sold out of the popular IBM CRTs with Trinitron tubes and down to a couple new 22" Diamondtrons left 

Personally I much prefer CRTs tho some LCDs are at least tolerable now.

Oddly photographers seem to be fine with the LCDs while the graphics crowd less so.

But it is changing - soon however we'll have SED and all will be happy,


----------



## Strimkind (Mar 31, 2005)

I still use CRT however not by choice rather a lack of $. My crt is an Envision and is about 3 years old now. Personally for my, high colour accuracy is unimportant and I would rather have a LCD as it hurts the eyes less. Besides, the colour accuracy of LCDs is growing (I remember there being a few professional quality models with a good accuracy but expensive).


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

ABSOLUTELY

I use a 12" iBook G4 (after I tossed the 12" PB G4 revA.) with a 17" Apple Studio Display CRT (essentially a Sony Trinitron screen) at 1600x1200

I love this display... and very inexpensive (used) when compared to LCD's of a comparable resolution.

I think that the variable resolution capability of a CRT is a decided advantage when compared to LCDs


----------



## PeterBarron (Sep 21, 2004)

We run LaCie Electron 19 Blue IVs and they are awesome. Haven't found an LCD than can touch CRT yet. 
But boy, LCDs are nice on the desk...


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

Strimkind's Signature said:


> If proof requires certainty, then arguably nothing can ever be proven


Hmmm... seems to be right on topic...  Or as Chretien would say, "a proof is a proof is a proof."


----------



## min_max9000 (May 15, 2005)

CRT or go home. I have a 19" and a 17" flat screen CRT set up. I am not a fan of lcd, though I must admit that they have come a long way in recent years. And in my opinion, buying a bigger desk is cheaper than buying an lcd monitor so if you want to save desk space, get a bigger desk.


----------



## Klaatu (Jun 3, 2003)

I was using a 19" lcd for the last 2 years, but I still missed having a 21" monitor. CRTs rock. Better brightness. More reliable colours. And, with the lcd craze, bargains can be found. If you have the room (the only downside) they're still the best. So this was my story...

http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=36707


----------



## Makr (Jul 21, 2005)

i picked up a 17 inch crt for 2 bucks.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

I think they gave you a ride home to see where the guy who overpaid by about $175 lives.

Just kidding, of course...



Klaatu said:


> I was using a 19" lcd for the last 2 years, but I still missed having a 21" monitor. CRTs rock. Better brightness. More reliable colours. And, with the lcd craze, bargains can be found. If you have the room (the only downside) they're still the best. So this was my story...
> 
> http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=36707


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

lcds are finally ready for prime time, imo.

a word of caution though. it is extremely important to generate an accurate (use hardware) colour profile and know how to properly manage colour spaces, or you'll get wildly innacurate results. current gen lcds can be very, very bright compared to crts and have a cooler white point as well.


----------



## lightbulb (Oct 24, 2005)

TroutMaskReplica said:


> lcds are finally ready for prime time, imo.
> 
> a word of caution though. it is extremely important to generate an accurate (use hardware) colour profile and know how to properly manage colour spaces, or you'll get wildly innacurate results. current gen lcds can be very, very bright compared to crts and have a cooler white point as well.


True but you have to stick your neck out (and empty your wallet). This line-up by Eizo is the state of the art: http://www.eizo.com/products/graphics/index.asp. The Lacie 319 & 321 are the next best things. Photographers & pre-press are the typical users. There is 1 other new NEC also ($6000+). Those BB and Staples specials @ $300 are fine for surfing.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

The myth that LCD's are not good for colour work has been dispelled a long time ago. A few people hold onto this notion, but its simply incorrect. 

Both CRT's and LCD's can be used for colour work. The majority of design shops are purchasing LCD's these days. Companies like Lacie have stopped selling CRT's. 

Colour management is all about consistent colour that you can profile, such as creating an ICC profile with a colour management tool from companies like Gretag Macbeth. LCD's are ideal for this. 

Add to it the much, much smaller footprint, less power consumption, and less eye fatigue that many people experience with LCD's over CRT's (Maybe not you, but many people do including myself... I can't stand to look at any CRT for more than a couple hours). 

Use what you like, but I know for a fact, several of the the largest design firms in Canada are using LCD's for color critical work. 

Its been my experience that very few people who say LCD's are not good for colour, really know much about soft proofing colour with displays. Apple has a lot of great resources on their web site with some good information. From time to time, Carbon Computing runs courses on colour management.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You've been singing the same song for what three years now but you don't seem to be listening very well to the people here that have the choice.

The ONLY reason LaCie stopped is because their supplier stopped making Diamondtron screens NOT because LCDs are better or even equivalent tho the 10 bit LaCie's are decent. ( but not cheap )

A number of shops have me chasing $3000 out of production Sony Artisan series tubes for just that reason and 22" LaCies that are tucked here and there - I think somebody in Montreal has a bunch 

Repeating the myth doesn't make it so.
You CAN manage colour with profiling on LCDs but print designers in particular know the difference they can see.

SED will be a real boon and can't come any too soon.
LCDs for colour work have the same flaws they have in HiDef where they are NOT king of the hill by any means. Yes they have gotten better - no they don't equal a high end CRT - for computer OR HiDef.

We just have to wait a bit until SED delivers thin AND accurate electron emission - very soon :clap:

Until then many of us will nurse our Trinnies and Diamondtrons along quite happily.

What will you say when the SEDs arrive and blow the LCDs out of the water??......you knew it all along??


----------



## JeremusCaesar (Feb 15, 2006)

Simply to add to the fray, I run a group of ad design firms and we switched to LCD long ago. Wouldn't dream of going back to CRT for anything, even on our most basic machines. I know that it will receive some harsh criticism on here, but from my experience, I'd buy the cheapest LCD over any CRT competition that's out there, be it Sony or otherwise. While my current desk is adorned by a pair of Apple 23's, the machine I have in my office at the house has two BenQ 17's and they are perfectly good for even the most heavy of graphics work that I do.


----------



## min_max9000 (May 15, 2005)

ehMax said:


> Use what you like, but I know for a fact, several of the the largest design firms in Canada are using LCD's for color critical work.


 Because that's what their purchasing department were sold. Ask the poor bugger who sits in front of it all day. I work with a cad lab on a regular basis who've tried and quickly ditched their LCDs. They equate it (as do I) to working with sleep in their eyes; they blink and they rub but the picture just doesn't look right. But their purchasing department was told it would be a great savings in energy and heat output (a cad lab with 25 stations, dual monitors gets air conditioned year round) and with the smaller footprint, they could cram MORE stations in there, etc... The company that supplies the stations to my lab shipped our last station with an LCD and it now resides in reception. I have worked on some expensive LCDs and some expensive CRT's; both can be great, but CRT's are still better.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So to summarize - you don't know what you're missin' 

I and others on the other hand have them side by side. 

••

Seriously tho it's very mixed set of opinions of course but at the CRT crowd can point to the HD field for support for their contention of better quality.
If you have no choice tho - I guess you better adapt as LaCie had to do. Fortunately many of us still do.

SED is going to bring this entire issue to the front again.

I find it amusing that the same battle is going on in HDTV, CAD and medical imaging fields.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Macdoc... I happen to know what the largest design firms in Canada are using. I happen to know what colour management professionals who put on seminars for these design firms are saying. I happen to know what large colour calibrator vendors are saying. 

I never said that CRT's are bad and can't be used for colour critical work. Whoever uses them and enjoys them and gets the job done with them... *GREAT!* (I hope you did go out and buy the HUGE desk!!!  Many CRT Monitors like the Sony Artisan display an image that are an absolute thing of beauty! (As long as I don't have to stare at it for more than 2 hours) 

I was arguing the fud that LCD's are not good for colour accurate work. That is just complete and utter BS. *THAT* is the myth that keeps getting repeated. They are awesome for colour critical work and many, many large design firms who do work for fortune 500 companies use them daily. I'm not guessing at this, or have a hunch... I know this for a fact. I've emailed several friends to see if its ok if I can mention the company names, and even show some snapshots of their setups. 

Let's look at what the largest publication in the US to the print industry has to say:



> LCD vs. CRT, Part 1
> By Katherine O’Brien, editor
> Mar 1, 2005
> 
> ...


Here's some great quotes at the end of the article with pros giving their preferences for both sides:



> The eyes have it
> Specifications and test results are emerging to support both sides of the CRT vs. LCD match-up, but both sides agree that human perception of color and detail is the true measure of a monitor. Here’s what some color experts had to say.
> 
> "Although a CRT offers the potential of a wider gamut of colors, those colors cannot be reproduced on a press. For hours of prolonged use, I recommend an LCD." —Michael Kleper, publisher, "Kleper Report on Digital Publishing"
> ...


Visit the huge Graphics Canada tradeshow, and you'll see a sea of LCD's. :heybaby:


----------



## draz (Jun 13, 2005)

I used 2 apple LCDs for color critcal proof work, and color test and adjust every 6 months...then fire them off to my Epson 9800 for test prints.



Flawless


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

min_max9000 said:


> Because that's what their purchasing department were sold. Ask the poor bugger who sits in front of it all day. I work with a cad lab on a regular basis who've tried and quickly ditched their LCDs. They equate it (as do I) to working with sleep in their eyes; they blink and they rub but the picture just doesn't look right. But their purchasing department was told it would be a great savings in energy and heat output (a cad lab with 25 stations, dual monitors gets air conditioned year round) and with the smaller footprint, they could cram MORE stations in there, etc... The company that supplies the stations to my lab shipped our last station with an LCD and it now resides in reception. I have worked on some expensive LCDs and some expensive CRT's; both can be great, but CRT's are still better.


Er... no. Its not because the purchasing department bought them.  (If you work for a place that acquires their design equipment this way, I'd suggest you head over to monster.ca) These design firms have massive and very savy IT departments that make purchasing decisions on behalf of their designers. Let me assure you, they have access to ANY equipment they want and have vendors throwing themselves at them with demo equipment and evals. They could snap their fingers and Xerox or Epson or Sony or Apple would have eval product for them to access. 

This really is a silly argument. The issue of whether LCD's are good for colour critical work was over a long time ago. :yawn:


----------



## razz (Sep 21, 2003)

Unfortunately, I'm still stuck with my behemoth of a 19" Viewsonic CRT. I've been having problems with it flickering non stop for the past few months. I will eventually get myself a nice LCD monitor and use a friend's calibrator to get it as accurate as possible 

(Although I'm not too worried about accuracy at the moment...I haven't done too much freelance work as of late).

Oh, and I'm looking at the Samsung 173P. It's gotten really good reviews, and it's quite "Apple-like"  There's a place on College St that has them for cheap.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

ehMax said:


> The myth that LCD's are not good for colour work has been dispelled a long time ago. A few people hold onto this notion, but its simply incorrect.
> 
> Both CRT's and LCD's can be used for colour work. The majority of design shops are purchasing LCD's these days. Companies like Lacie have stopped selling CRT's.
> 
> ...


WOW Ehmac, that has to be the worse advice you have ever offered. It makes you sound like a marketing babble speak shill...

LCD monitors still cannot show the gamut of colours correctly - colour range on CRTs are excellent compared to very good on LCDs. 

Using a calibrator such as the Spyder is a must. Like yourself, I have gone to many sponsored information/seances on colour calibration. Between the marketing speak, you will hear that most graphic artist prefer CRTs. Yes companies are pushing LCDs for various reasons, and some companies are getting discounts for changing over to LCDs. 
I'm not saying that LCDs don't have certain advantages (power consumption, space) but colour accuracy and range is not one. 

Here is a basic comparison of CRTs versus LCDs.
http://www.displaymate.com/crtvslcd.html
Resolution; Advantage CRT
Sharpness: Advantage LCD
Interference: equal
Geometric Distortion: Advantage LCD
Aspect Ratio: Advantage CRT
Black-Level: Advantage CRT
White Saturation: Advantage CRT
Brightness: Advantage LCD
Contrast: Advantage CRT
Gray-Scale: Advantage CRT
Gamma shape of the gray-scale: Advantage CRT
Color and Gray-Scale Accuracy: Advantage CRT
Bad Pixels: equal
Viewing Angle: Advantage CRT
Motion Artifacts: Advantage CRT
Screen Shape: equal
Emissions:Advantage LCD
Cost: Advantage CRT
Physical: Advantage LCD


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

ehMax said:


> I never said that CRT's are bad and can't be used for colour critical work.


You make is sound negative - CRT's are colour accurate and should be used for critical work...



ehMax said:


> Whoever uses them and enjoys them and gets the job done with them... *GREAT!* (I hope you did go out and buy the HUGE desk!!!


So your main argument against them is that they take up desk space? 



ehMax said:


> Many CRT Monitors like the Sony Artisan display an image that are an absolute thing of beauty! (As long as I don't have to stare at it for more than 2 hours)


To many, LCD ghostings drive them nuts.

And please, please don't tell me that Carbon teaches Final Cut colour correction/calibrations on LCD monitors only....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Now for a complete ( well almost ) gear switch 

I typically use Sony 500 series tubes and drop a late model LCD on my desk from time to time to keep a toe in the water or eyeball so to speak. I've never got an LCD to match to the Sony across the board.

I can work with but don't like the Dell or Apple widescreens - they do okay but blacks are weak - 
Happened to pick up a 214T Samsung as I wanted to try a 1600x1200 on a slightly larger format and I like Sammie products.

Well after half hour of tweaking I gotta say I'm impressed with the blacks and side by side and *on axis* it's very hard to see any but minor differences tho I'm sure a long time colour pro would. Still to a practiced eye the images are *the closest to indistinguishable as I've seen for the set up I personally like.*

Image blur on quick movement is gone, 8 ms response and contrast at 900:1 is very high. Hardest thing is to get the glare off and brightness down to realistic levels - it's got 4 button settings each of which can be tweaked individually.

So it's getting there but not cheap. 70% plus premium over a similar size Diamondtron with better colour controls.










Best features for me is size, text ( something Samsung has worked on ) and blacks. 
You can get TWO Diamondtrons for about the same cost as the single 214T .

LCDs might catch up just in time for SEDs to undercut them 

•••• 

BTW - like the green - stick with it


----------



## lightbulb (Oct 24, 2005)

> WOW Ehmac, that has to be the worse advice you have ever offered. It makes you sound like a marketing babble speak shill...
> 
> LCD monitors still cannot show the gamut of colours correctly - colour range on CRTs are excellent compared to very good on LCDs.
> 
> ...


I'll weigh in again. Of the 2 sides presenting arguments for and against, there is some truth to each; i.e. no absolute "winner".

I'll suggest that I may have more of a vested interest in how images, specifically, how photos appear on screen, than most here. I make my living as a photographer. My own experience is that designers (graphic) know a very limited amount about colour management and even fewer have the knowledege and tools to properly evaluate / calibrate a monitor. 

The "Spyder" system while better than eyeballing, falls short of systems put out by Monaco X-rite or Gretag Macbeth. The "colourgeeks" software of choice (argueably) is put out by http://www.colorblind.de/ called Basiccolor, also marketed as Coloreyes. 

I can show conclusively that a black - white gradation produced in Photoshop will be smoother on my Lacie than the Apple, Dell LCDs I also own. I had the 24" Eizo for a couple of weeks before returning it, I'm now awaiting the newer CE240W .http://www.eizo.com/products/graphics/ce240w/index.asp.

Just because many professionals are now using LCDs doesn't make them acceptable. It's unlikely an LCD will show shadow detail compare to a good CRT. 
There are 2 and I think only 2 great LCDs; they both display more than the Adobe 1998 colour space:http://www.eizo.com/products/graphics/cg220/index.asp & http://www.necdisplay.com/products/ProductDetail.cfm?Product=425. They both sell for more tha $6000; more than what most IT people are willing to spec. It was pretty rare the Artisan was specced even when available, as it was more than $3000. The Barco CRTs were in excess of $5000 and were only found in serious pre press settings.

For a true and unbiased lesson on colour management, skip Carbon Computing; spend more and get personal attention from Angus Pady at http://www.colourmanagement.ca.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Very fair and knowledgeable assessment :clap:


----------



## MacME (Mar 15, 2005)

wow, didn't expect that i'd create such a heated debate! :yikes: 

i think i'll fall into the category that although i believe LCDs still don't match CRTs in colour accuracy (easiest to verify is "true" black representation on LCDs), i don't think i'll need that degree of accuracy and don't think i'm willing to go back to a 50+lbs/2-3 sq ft footprint CRT on my desk.

it's sorta like how music has gone from vinyl, to CDs to mp3s. even though the sound quality has gotten worst with technological advances, ppl in general will give that up for convenience—form over function.

think i'll wait and save up some money for the Samsung 214T, or similiar, that MacDoc recommended.

Cheers!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

lightbulb said:


> The "Spyder" system while better than eyeballing, falls short of systems put out by Monaco X-rite or Gretag Macbeth.


I mentioned the Spyder because, as you say, it's better than nothing and cost effective. You have solutions that range from a few hundred dollars to a few thousand....


----------



## kent (Oct 18, 2003)

min_max9000 said:


> Because that's what their purchasing department were sold. Ask the poor bugger who sits in front of it all day. I work with a cad lab on a regular basis who've tried and quickly ditched their LCDs. They equate it (as do I) to working with sleep in their eyes; they blink and they rub but the picture just doesn't look right. But their purchasing department was told it would be a great savings in energy and heat output (a cad lab with 25 stations, dual monitors gets air conditioned year round) and with the smaller footprint, they could cram MORE stations in there, etc... The company that supplies the stations to my lab shipped our last station with an LCD and it now resides in reception. I have worked on some expensive LCDs and some expensive CRT's; both can be great, but CRT's are still better.


I use a 23" ACD for CAD, Photoshop, FormZ, InDesign etc ... and I love it. Used to use a 19" Mitsubishi 900u Diamondtron, which is a sweet CRT [paid $1050 back in 1999 for it ... the same monitor that LaCie used to rebrand as the electron blue 19"] and I can honestly tell you the 23 is far far better and accurate too ... perfect output to my EPSON 2200. Additionally, I was glad to get that 58 lb beast off my desk ... the radiation those things belt out isn't the best either. I would never go back.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

why are all crt users so angry?

(i still use a CRT at work, but will be switching soon)


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Because NEW ...isn't always BETTER.


----------



## gtgt (Jul 19, 2005)

*my Lacie 22" CRT still looks awsome*

see my for sale link here:

http://www.ehmac.ca/classifieds/showproduct.php?product=6359


----------



## migs (Apr 2, 2003)

Adding my 2 cents: I'm a photographer and switched from a Lacie CRT to Apple LCD 2 years ago, and can say that both technologies have their pros and cons. CRT's cons are that they are big, heavy, and consumed a lot of power. They were also unstable and required more frequent (hardware) calibration. Pro's: pleasing colour fidelity and great shadow details. More "realistic" than LCD in terms of comparing printed material to screen.

LCD's cons: shadows not as detailed as CRT's, but only slightly. Sometimes maybe too sharp, which may not be realistic when comapring to printed matter. Pros: small foot print, lighter than CRT's, available in sizes up to 30", which is great for dual screen modes (1 for image, 1 for palettes). They are also more stable and requires less calibrating (once back light intensity stabilizes).


----------



## Klaatu (Jun 3, 2003)

migs said:


> Adding my 2 cents: I'm a photographer and switched from a Lacie CRT to Apple LCD 2 years ago, and can say that both technologies have their pros and cons. CRT's cons are that they are big, heavy, and consumed a lot of power. They were also unstable and required more frequent (hardware) calibration. Pro's: pleasing colour fidelity and great shadow details. More "realistic" than LCD in terms of comparing printed material to screen.
> 
> LCD's cons: shadows not as detailed as CRT's, but only slightly. Sometimes maybe too sharp, which may not be realistic when comapring to printed matter. Pros: small foot print, lighter than CRT's, available in sizes up to 30", which is great for dual screen modes (1 for image, 1 for palettes). They are also more stable and requires less calibrating (once back light intensity stabilizes).


You forgot to mention price

LCD - My Samsung 19" was a bargain at $600
CRT - I recently picked up a 21" CRT Sony Trinitron for $189


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

For those chasing good CRT screens at bargain prices.

Anything in the Sony 500 series up to 4 years old are often drop dead gorgeous.
The 400 series Sonys ( far more common ) are also excellent

Dell and IBM Pro series tended to use the Sony 400 series tubes.
Sun used 500 series.

NEC/Mitsubishi Diamondtron - they made the tubes for LaCie. Late model LaCie and Diamondtrons are good choices.

Viewsonic had a P series SonicTron series that is very good as well.

ALL CRTs require at least 30 minutes to get even close to correct so don't expect to turn it on and have it look great - it will look AWFUL.

I typically start with brightness in the 15% and contrast at 85% and after a hour if it looks good in that range and reasonably crisp it's a keeper.
We typically reject about 1/2 of the screens we source due to issues from physical screen marks to "too far gone".

Once warmed up blacks should be very deep - as the screens age this becomes more difficult to achieve.

Many people run their monitors far too bright - colours wash out or over saturate.

Sometimes the refurbs have brand new tubes in them which is a treat -so don't go by the case. Look at the screen surface - a new tube will look like it and contrast and brightness 15/85 will look sharp and crisp warmed up.

Advanced tubes have incredible controls which often get mucked up badly.

Things like slightly out of convergence are easily adjusted on high end CRTs - any blurriness is not - focus is mostly a "get inside job".

Convergence or geometry that is assymetrical is tricky to correct and may be impossible..... caution if the problem resides on one side of the screen but not the other.
Rotation and "not square" problems are easily fine tuned.

Focus and "can't get it really black" are the warning signs to stay away. When you see a good one warmed up with a decent image you'll know it.

I would NEVER advise ordering a used screen you
a) have not seen yourself
b) that have a no return policy.

IBM is pretty good about swapping their refurbs for a good one if there is a problem.

LaCies have often come from graphics shops so tend to be set up nicely but look for focus and weak blacks.

oh yeah - those little fine lines on all these tubes.....they're supposed to be there.

Happy hunting.

BTW I would not bother with shadow mask CRTs at this point unless new for utility purposes.

Here's the difference



> What is the difference between Trinitron technology and Shadow Mask technology?
> A shadow mask is a metal plate with holes through which electron gun passes beams of electrons to generate the pixels on the screen. This lets less light through and is more subject to distortion than an aperture grille. The Trinitron aperture grille allows a greater number of more precisely aligned electron beams to reach the screen than the older, traditional shadow mask system. The result is a clearer, better focused and far brighter image.
> 
> How is FD Trinitron different from other Trinitron technology?
> ...


Some more info here.

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/monitor8.htm


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Aren't the number of people doing colour-sensitive work a rounding-error when it comes to overall monitor sales?

I mean, it's nice to complain about LCDs and whether or not they're good for colour-sensitive work, but how much of an issue is it for most people?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Most people don't use Macs either - is that not a reason to discuss the pros and cons.

I think what many of us are annoyed with is the propagation of the myth that the LCDs are somehow better than CRTs when they are not by any means across the board.

They are still more expensive and in some cases inferior for certain uses but that's not what people looking to buy are being told.

So people are often spending far more than needed to get a decent screen when CRTs are a very legitimate, more cost effective and often superior solution.

The same situation applies to HDTV where the industry is pushing in a direction that does not necessarily provide benefit to the consumer.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

jfpoole said:


> I mean, it's nice to complain about LCDs and whether or not they're good for colour-sensitive work, but how much of an issue is it for most people?


It's not an issue - except when someone ask "what's the best for colour work". 
For those of us earning a living with accurate colours, it's tiresome to hear we should go to LCDs when our production staff would rather cut off their mouse hand than use LCDs. Video work gets even pickier and the use of CRTs is a must. No wonder JVC reps seem so happy lately...


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> Most people don't use Macs either - is that not a reason to discuss the pros and cons.


There are still people discussing the pros and cons of the Amiga vs the Atari ST. It doesn't make it a particularly relevant discussion.

The two major disadvantages I've heard about LCDs (when compared to CRTs) are price and colour accuracy. All I'm saying is that while colour accuracy is a legitimate concern, it's only a concern for an incredibly limited number of people. Most people, when buying a monitor, just don't care about colour accuracy.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

A person goes in asks what's the best monitor these days and the salesman points to the $400 LCD not the $200 19" CRT.

That's what the bitching is about and it's not irrelevant the LCD superiority myths are misleading....you can bet a number of readers of this thread have come away with a different view of CRTs.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> A person goes in asks what's the best monitor these days and the salesman points to the $400 LCD not the $200 19" CRT.
> 
> That's what the bitching is about and it's not irrelevant the LCD superiority myths are misleading....you can bet a number of readers of this thread have come away with a different view of CRTs.


It's not like the LCD has nothing to offer. It's more expensive, but it also takes up less space, consumes less power, is easier on the eyes, is easier to safely dispose of and becomes less waste when disposed of.


----------



## kent (Oct 18, 2003)

I don't think it's a matter of which is better ... like anything, it's a matter of preference. I prefer LCDs, but I don't think CRTs are bad. As long as people have devised a method of using LCDs or CRTs in an accurate colour workflow then it comes down to preference. There are lots of people using both types of displays in colour critical work ... we can't argue that. Whether one is better than the other is kind of a moot point ... depends on so many factors ... and people find ways to work around the inherent shortcomings of both types.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

PosterBoy said:


> It's not like the LCD has nothing to offer. It's more expensive, but it also takes up less space, consumes less power, is *easier on the eyes*, is easier to safely dispose of and becomes less waste when disposed of.


Easier on the eyes is relative - ghosting is still a problem and the cheap LCDs are much worse than inexpensive CRTs.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Easier on the eyes is relative


Fair enough, but everyone I've talked to who has used both has said that they have a far easier time working for extended amounts of time on LCDs than on CRTs.



ArtistSeries said:


> ghosting is still a problem and the cheap LCDs are much worse than inexpensive CRTs.


I dunno. I think the biggest problem these days isn't that one is better than the other, it's that most people make their buying decisions based on price, so a lot of them end up with cheap crap when they likely could have spent not that much more and purchased something decent.

Cheap is cheap no matter how you slice it, no matter what product it is.


----------



## kent (Oct 18, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> A person goes in asks what's the best monitor these days and the salesman points to the $400 LCD not the $200 19" CRT.
> 
> That's what the bitching is about and it's not irrelevant the LCD superiority myths are misleading....you can bet a number of readers of this thread have come away with a different view of CRTs.


Yes ... but it depends where you go ... if I go to FutureShaz or some other commission-driven giant ... of course they're going to try and sell the more expensive unit as "better" ... if I went to you, it sounds like you'd take my needs into consideration and help me arrive at a good solution ... or one that meets my needs in the best possible way regardless of the technology.


----------



## Klaatu (Jun 3, 2003)

PosterBoy said:


> Fair enough, but everyone I've talked to who has used both has said that they have a far easier time working for extended amounts of time on LCDs than on CRTs.


Well, then, count my vote PosterBoy. I did the research, bought the Samsung 19" LCD, but could never get over the beauty of being able to sit back and watch a big screen. I was always leaning forward, straining to see detail. And no matter what I did, no matter what program I used, I could never get the lcd calibrated properly. Maybe it was the particularly model, or a dud. The Apple displays always looked better when I saw them in the Apple-vendor stores -- but I had no desire to spend $1500-2500 to match that 21" crt Sony Trinitron experience when it could be had for $189. So I went back to a CRT.


----------



## Klaatu (Jun 3, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> The same situation applies to HDTV where the industry is pushing in a direction that does not necessarily provide benefit to the consumer.


So true. I've been researching HDTV since I heard about it in the 90s and I'm still amazed people are being suckered into buying a technology that still offers limited content. Most people have more high-end equipment in their living rooms then do the broadcasters sending them the signal.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

A person replaces the 5 year old CRT that they likely had set at 60 Hz and was small.
They get a LCD that is slow ( so no flicker ) and NEW and they say oh wow it's so much easier on my eyes.

Which is exactly what they would say if they bought a new decent quality CRT with a high refresh rate ......oh wow it's so much easier on my eyes.

I had a designer try taking an Apple Cinema home TWICE within a year thinking she could work on it.......NOPE right back to the CRT.

I go back and forth on both as main monitor and there is no "eye strain" issue difference between them and I work for 18 hours at a stretch....BUT most people have their monitors too far away anyway and don;t look away properly from time to time to rest their eyes.

LCDs have gotten better and cheaper - so have CRTs and the latter don;t get a fair shake in the marketplace not due to inherent quality difference but due to a push by the industry to sell a more expensive and easier to ship technology.

It's been an expensive con game with SOME progress to show for it...but very little savings.

I look at a 3 year old LCD ( which we do looking for utility monitors ) and it's most often dim and dark - look at a 3 year old Diamondtron - most often gorgeous.

Backlights will continue to be an issue. Can't wait for SED.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

This is a funny thread. :lmao: 

CRT vs LCD... mine is bigger than yours type arguments. I know a few people who would laugh at all of you for touting the virtues of soft proofing on any display. 

Where people are dead wrong, is the notion that LCD's are not good for colour critical work. That's simply all I'm saying.

This is not "my advice", its just a matter of fact. As I've stated, I know that some of the largest design firms in Canada are using Apple Cinema displays for colour critical work for huge design projects for fortune 500 companies. 

Quite simply, when you have every major vendor who's involved in making products for colour accurate workflow supporting Apple Cinema displays and other LCD displays you have to realize that those who say that all LCD's are not good for colour work, are pretty much out to lunch. 

In the end, as was touched on in the article I quoted earlier... colour is in the eye of the beholder, and everyone's eye perceives things differently... and there are still people who like CRT's better. I also know lots of designers still using OS 9 who scream OS X sucks and lots of photographers who shoot film who say that digital sucks too.  

Also... one last thing. I laugh too when people tout CRT's as being better for colour work because they have a larger colour gamut. A larger colour gamut is not what you want for design and print, you want the colour to match your print, which is a world with a very small colour gamut. Creating a colour accurate display usually involves dulling down your displays colour to accurately reflect the limited colour spectrum of your colour press or printer. What you want is consistant colour... colour that's not affected that much by ambient light.. colour that you can profile accurately and create an ICC or some other colour profile, and image that is sharp from edge to edge. LCD's are ideal for this.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by MacDoc
> The same situation applies to HDTV where the industry is pushing in a direction that does not necessarily provide benefit to the consumer.
> 
> So true. I've been researching HDTV since I heard about it in the 90s and I'm still amazed people are being suckered into buying a technology that still offers limited content. Most people have more high-end equipment in their living rooms then do the broadcasters sending them the signal.


i don't know if this is so true anymore now that gaming systems like xbox 360 put out an HD signal.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> A person replaces the 5 year old CRT that they likely had set at 60 Hz and was small.
> They get a LCD that is slow ( so no flicker ) and NEW and they say oh wow it's so much easier on my eyes.


Actually, I know people who've gone from new CRTs to new LCDs and neer gone back. It's fairly subjective. 



MacDoc said:


> I look at a 3 year old LCD ( which we do looking for utility monitors ) and it's most often dim and dark - look at a 3 year old Diamondtron - most often gorgeous.
> 
> Backlights will continue to be an issue. Can't wait for SED.


I've seen old LCDs that look great. I've seen new CRTs that look like ass. It's all about the unit and the use. No two cases are exactly the same. LCDs may tend to get crappier faster (in general), but most users don't notice as being dim doesn't really interfere with web browsing or word processing.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

I'm getting into this discussion rather late, but I don't understand why everyone is getting hung up on the colour accuracy of LCD vs CRT.
For the average user, it doesn't make any difference - I would think either one is fine.
My biggest problem with LCD's (and I use both LCD's and Trinitron CRT's) is that they don't scale well. some are much better than others, but if you can't use an LCD at it's native resolution for whatever reason, you will be much happier with a CRT when it comes to text documents.
I spent over a month checking out close to 100 17 and 19 inch LCD's until I found one that scaled to 1024x768 and still gave crisp text.

And the big power saving with LCD's is a bit of a myth. Check the power consumption of large LCD's and compare that to CRT's. The LCD's are a bit less, but not nearly as much as one might think - depends on the particular model.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yep that's right - either one is fine and the CRT is the superior value but that's NOT what's being circulated and the industry is forcing the issue for reasons other than quality and value.

You want to see the kind of games











NEC MultiSync LCD2080UXi-BK - flat panel display - TFT - 20.1"

Product ID

Mfg. Part: LCD2080UXI-BK
UNSPSC: 43211902

Main Features

• BK
• Flat panel display
• TFT
• 20.1"
• 1600 x 1200 / 60 Hz
• 0.255 mm
• DVI
• VGA (HD-15)
• black

Make a smart investment and take your visual experience to the next level of performance with the 20" NEC MultiSync LCD2080UXi, a flat-panel monitor that boasts a multitude of leading-edge capabilities. This model's ultra-thin-frame design, along with its productivity-enhancing technologies, could easily make it the most intelligent visual display solution to date.

Product Pricing	
Price:
$1,439.99

Anyone care to guess what I've bought the last 3 for???
And yes that's a current model and price point.


----------



## Klaatu (Jun 3, 2003)

ehMax said:


> This is a funny thread. :lmao:
> 
> CRT vs LCD... mine is bigger than yours type arguments. I know a few people who would laugh at all of you for touting the virtues of soft proofing on any display.
> 
> Where people are dead wrong, is the notion that LCD's are not good for colour critical work. That's simply all I'm saying.


I'm glad you're amused. Now if you can explain how comparable colour critical work justifies the drastic price difference.


----------



## kent (Oct 18, 2003)

Klaatu said:


> I'm glad you're amused. Now if you can explain how comparable colour critical work justifies the drastic price difference.


CRTs are what ... 1950s technology? Cathode ray tubes that is. That's why. G3s are cheap now too. Anything that weighs as much as a 20" CRT and takes up a good portion of your desk is "old school".

People know why CRTs are sooo freaking heavy right? They use leaded glass to protect our brains and eyes from the electron gun firing heavy radiation at our heads. We'd be cooked otherwise. Too bad for the guy sitting behind your CRT.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So when when SED eliminates the MAGNETIC STRUCTURE which make the CRTs heavy and they're thin what are you going to claim then ....a new round of myths.

So concerned about radiation but I bet you got that cell phone stuck to your ear.

No one seems to care to speculate on the level of profit making the LCDs bring to the companies.
Doesn't it make you wonder about Dell days where a screen that is normally $849 sells at $499 on Dell days.......oh yeah the same screen that Apple sells at $999 and isn't even close to current best tech LCD.

LCDs are not better value, they're not better imaging - much sizzle - very little steak.

If you care to take the time to go through the technology of the various displays this very long article is comprehensive and you'll see WHY CRT technology remains strong.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1734427,00.asp

Yes some of the display technology has improved since the article was written but not to any huge extent given the magnitude of the differences especially in areas like dynamic range.

What those that appreciate the capabilities of CRT over LCD SEE - has a very strong basis in the science and measurable attributes of various display technologies.



> About the Author
> Dr. Raymond Soneira is President of DisplayMate Technologies Corporation of Amherst, New Hampshire. He is a research scientist with a career that spans physics, computer science, and television system design. Dr. Soneira obtained his Ph.D. in Physics from Princeton University, spent 5 years as a Long-Term Member of the world famous Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, another 5 years as a Principal Investigator in the Computer Systems Research Laboratory at AT&T Bell Laboratories, and has also designed, tested, and installed color television broadcast equipment for the CBS Television Network Engineering and Development Department. He has authored over 35 research articles in scientific journals in physics and computer science, including Scientific America


4 part article - very very in depth, very informative.

Enjoy -


----------



## MacME (Mar 15, 2005)

*Pricing of LCDs & CRTs*

Ppl seem to forget that pricing really has nothing to do with the cost, but is determined by what the market can bare. I recall buying my first 19" monitor for $1200, and that was one of the first "low-end" model that Optiquest introduced. Now you can get something similar for a few hundred. at the time of my purchase, all the high-end CRTs that ppl mentioned, like the 19-22" Mitsu/Sony tubes where going for at least 2-3 grand, and before that even more.

Also from what I have observed over the years, pricing doesn't usually drop on products per say, they just get replaced by "BIGGER" and "BETTER" versions/models. while production of older tech get dropped. 15" LCD get replaced by 17", 17" by 19" and so on …

a few months back i picked up a used 15" Samsung 151n LCD for $70. i recall the place i worked at buying these when they first came out 3-4 years ago for $500-600 a piece! Now you'd be hard pressed to being able to even FIND a 15" LCD.


----------



## Klaatu (Jun 3, 2003)

kent said:


> CRTs are what ... 1950s technology? Cathode ray tubes that is. That's why. G3s are cheap now too. Anything that weighs as much as a 20" CRT and takes up a good portion of your desk is "old school".


Mmmm.... some years ago I wrote a girl's phone number on a piece of paper; technology that pre-dates Christ I think. I can still read it. But phone numbers I typed into my $2000 computer yesterday could be gone today, forever, if my $200 hard drive dies -- unless, of course, I'm smart enough to back up on another $200 hard drive.

Technological advances are great and I'll admit, nowadays I do far more writing on the computer than I do on paper, but there are old technologies that will always retain superior elements. We need not be afraid to admit that.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I guess I am one of the lucky ones. My eMac has the CRT and my MacBook Pro has the LCD.

To be honest, one looks as good as the other to me, and I do a fair amount of work on colour photos for publication.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

bang for buck, the CRT still wins hands down
as long as you have room and don't need to be "cool"

I have 2 x DELL 17" Trinitron that I bought used 2 years ago for $80 each
LCDs are easier on the eyes long term, but I don't have the money, nor care to spend it, on a high end LCD that is close to the quality and speed (gotta be able to play games) of a CRT

I just made sure I bought a bigger desk from IKEA - Jerker (best desk in the world)

I did see a Samsung LC at MacDoc's yesterday that was very close to a CRT, but didn't have a hole burning in my pocket


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Aside from the question of what's really better in the graphics/publishing world, personally I can't stand CRT displays anymore simply because I can perceive their flicker, especially in my peripheral vision. Since I started using LCDs (starting with my Flat-Panel iMac in 2003, and a whole-hog switch to LCDs at work at around the same time) I've found it much easier to spend my work days, and home computer time, staring at my computer screen for extended periods. Much, much easier on my eyes. I would never go back to a CRT under any circumstances.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

If you can perceive the flicker, that is definitely a problem. I couldn't live with that either.
But I run the one CRT I still have at 85 Hz and don't notice any flicker - I can even run that CRT at 119.9 Hz if I neede to. That would definitely eliminate any flicker.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

The best one with regards to flicker was the last 17" Optiquest (ViewSonic) that I had at work -- I didn't find it too bad to look at directly. But out of the corner of my eye it still really bugged me when I was working on papers at my desk. Not to mention that it weighed about 45 lbs, was always rather warm, attracted dust like crazy, and had very slight geometry problems. I don't like standard overhead fluorescents either; whether warm or cool the colour is tiring and there's always a very slight flicker to them. I find the newer (very narrow tube) overhead fluorescents are much better though, as are the spiral minis. At work right now I use incandescents in my office exclusively. The new office that I'm moving to at the end of the month will have a full glass-block outer wall + 1 window on an adjoining wall so I guess I'm dumping the incandescents soon. Lucky me. But I digress.


----------



## kent (Oct 18, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> So when when SED eliminates the MAGNETIC STRUCTURE which make the CRTs heavy and they're thin what are you going to claim then ....a new round of myths.
> 
> So concerned about radiation but I bet you got that cell phone stuck to your ear.
> 
> ...


OK ... a couple of things:

1] If you had read my posts above you would know that I have a kick-a$$ CRT [Mitsubishi 900u Diamondtron] right next to my 23" ACD and I prefer the 23" LCD hands down. I'm NOT saying CRTs are bad, just my preference and I look at them both all the time. I use the 23" ACD for colour critical work everyday. I will say again, doesn't matter what you use, just as long as you can achieve a good, accurate colour workflow from your LCD or CRT.

2] It's not just the magnets that make CRTs heavy ... in fact it's the leaded glass that makes them heavy - no myth here. And it's no myth that CRTs are huge and heavy. As for SED technology ... bring it on, but I've read prices will be astronomic ... for now we have two choices - neither perfect.

3] Don't own a cell phone ... never have ... so no I'm not being a hypocrite. Besides, a CRT belts out exponentially more radiation than a cell phone so not a fair comparison.

4] If the shoe fits ... for me the 23" ACD gives me better real-estate on one screen for CAD and 3D work, colour accuracy has not been an issue, I find the screen easier to look at for my common 10-14 hr days, radiation is far far less, and then there are the advantages of size and weight. For me, this works ... more so than a CRT ... despite the ridiculous cost of an Apple 23" LCD. Would I go back to a CRT exclusively ... no way. Did the LCD take some getting used to - absolutely.

5] Profit ... I paid $1050 for my 900u CRT in 1999 ... which even then was old technology, my 23 ACD is far bigger and utilizes more advanced technology and wasn't much more expensive so it's all relative. Within 2 years it was half that price and today I might be able to buy one for $100. Doesn't matter what it is ... DELL, Apple etc ...they'll make lots of profit anyway they can.


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. LCD and CRT, which is better? It's up to the user.

My essay in word format looks the same on either screen.

One thing I am certain is objective in this thread is...


MACSPECTRUM said:


> Jerker (best desk in the world)


----------



## kent (Oct 18, 2003)

DoNotPokeTheScreen said:


> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. LCD and CRT, which is better? It's up to the user.
> 
> My essay in word format looks the same on either screen.
> 
> One thing I am certain is objective in this thread is...


Exactly ... preference baybee ... the stupid CAD file I'm working on looks the same on both displays.


----------



## mpuk (May 24, 2005)

MacME said:


> Just curious if anyone in the GFX industry are still using CRT monitors and if so which one?
> 
> I've replaced all my CRTs, some of which were 17" Trinitron tubes, with LCDs to free up desk space. I work on a 22" LaCie electron blue II at work. So lately I've been kinda itching to pick up a used 22" Trinitron CRT, which can be had for fairly cheap now a days, for doing GFX work at home. But I'm also torn on saving my money and getting a 20"-24" widescreen LCD, like the ones on sale right now from DELL.
> 
> What's ppl's opinion?


I have a G5 and run a Lacie electron blue 22 as well....I have had it for going on 6 years and besides the large amounts of desk space the monitor eats up (along with the massive G5 tower) the monitor runs great and is excellent with color accuracy for all my graphics needs 

If it aint broke, don't fix it.


----------



## mpuk (May 24, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> bang for buck, the CRT still wins hands down
> as long as you have room and don't need to be "cool"
> 
> I have 2 x DELL 17" Trinitron that I bought used 2 years ago for $80 each
> ...


I second that....with a Jerker from IKEA I have more than enough room for a large CRT and all my other crap. Best desk i've seen in a long time....and the price is right too...


----------



## razz (Sep 21, 2003)

Yes, indeed the Jerker desk ROCKS! 

But back on topic...I find it interesting that no one has brought up the fact that Lacie now makes colour accurate LCD monitors...just a thought...


----------



## BitterBug (Aug 1, 2005)

I'm using a Dell 24" widescreen LCD at work. Everyone in the office has one now, and they're being used for game development.

One reason we've switched to LCDs is that they suit the hi-def widescreen layout for working on Xbox360 and PS3 titles.

The clarity on the Dell's is amazing as well. It took about 3 days to adjust so my eyes didn't feel like they were on fire but now I'd never go back. I'm one of those people that notices flicker or phosphor/LCD fade well outside the range of the average person, and I've been quite happy with them overall. We've only sent one back because the shipping packaging showed serious signs of abuse.

And then there is the space issue. You get a lot more desktop real estate back with an LCD. 

At home I have a 21" CRT. It's only 2 years old and works great. But now I've noticed that when I go home what used to look sharp doesn't look nearly as good any more. And the 3 year old 19" inch LG CRT downstairs feels like I'm looking at it with my eyes out of focus.

I'd love to have an LCD at home but can't afford it at the moment.

One thing I've found though, is that even with the clarity you still get some of the visual artifacting caused by fast movement on an LCD. If you're not sensitive to that sort of thing, no problem. But if you like 60 fps in a game like Counter Strike or Quake 3 Rocket Arena, it's going to take some adjusting 

(World of Warcraft, on the other hand, is just gorgeous on an LCD)


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Old and busted

<img src="http://www.flyingmonkeys.org/~jfpoole/livejournal/old_busted.jpg" />

New hotness

<img src="http://www.flyingmonkeys.org/~jfpoole/livejournal/new_hotness.jpg" />


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> One reason we've switched to LCDs is that they suit the hi-def widescreen layout for working on Xbox360 and PS3 titles.


Yep no question wide aspect and especially for native 1080p requires the 23" and for video does an excellent job. The motion artifacting is just about gone on the newer very fast LCDs tho gamers still kvetch.
Both technologies have their uses and places -* it's the con job about quality that annoys many including myself.*

I just had another print client call crying the blues about colour and he bought our last new Mits Diamondtron and a couple used 19" LaCie's and yes he uses an Apple Cinema personally but not for colour work.

SEDs initially are expected to be high priced as they are targetting the purist HD market - with those specs no wonder.
But Moto at OEM expects a 40" screen to cost in the $400 US range once production ramps up so that might put glorious 30" in under $1k on the desktop 18-24 months out. :clap:

Bucky would be proud


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

jfpoole said:


> Old and busted
> 
> <img src="http://www.flyingmonkeys.org/~jfpoole/livejournal/old_busted.jpg" />
> 
> ...


That's the worst argument. Ever....


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> it's the con job about quality that annoys many including myself.


What con job? There are lots of high quality LCDs out there, more than a few are considered as good as CRTs by many.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> That's the worst argument. Ever....


How do you figure?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

PosterBoy said:


> What con job? There are lots of high quality LCDs out there, more than a few are considered as good as CRTs by many.


Which ones?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

jfpoole said:


> How do you figure?


There's no room for the iSight on the LCD....

The only thing gained, by the looks of it is desk area.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The con job is that somehow because LCDs are NEW - they are better quality.
They are NOT.

The con job is that they are pitched over the CRTs because they make the companies more money ........not because they are better value OR better quality...they're not.

I see no one answered my question about the $1689 retail NEC 2080UX and what my costs were for the last few.

If you LIKE being ripped off by the manufacturers by all means continue to spread the myths about quality and value.

Did you actually read the techical article on ExtremeTech.????
Then you'd know WHY CRT has inherent benefits that will taken further with SED.

21" Diamondtron *$569* - 21" Samsung 214T - *$969* - twice the price just to get close.

Con job.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Bloody expensive desk area....and you need to stay on axis.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> There's no room for the iSight on the LCD....


Ha!



ArtistSeries said:


> The only thing gained, by the looks of it is desk area.


Well, I've got more desk space, more desktop space (the LCD has more pixels than the two CRTs combined), and a much better picture. I'd say I gained a lot.


----------



## razz (Sep 21, 2003)

I can't believe this thread has gotten to nine pages of 'mine's bigger than yours'. I'm stunned at how angry people are getting here.

People, it's bloody _computer monitors. _


----------



## razz (Sep 21, 2003)

TRUE STORY:

A long time friend of mine, graphic designer, and Mac Nut, designed an entire book for George Brown College using his 17" Powerbook...AND he calibrated it with a GretagMacbeth calibrator and had perfect results. Perfect.

It goes both ways man.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> The con job is that somehow because LCDs are NEW - they are better quality.
> They are NOT.
> 
> The con job is that they are pitched over the CRTs because they make the companies more money ........not because they are better value OR better quality...they're not.


LCDs aren't new, they've just only gotten cheap in the last few years.

They aren't pitched over CRTs because they make companies more money. In fact, in a real retail environment CRTs generally have better margins. It's a perk of being old tech, it's easy to produce). They are pitched over CRTs because they are are a hot item right now, because having more desk space is useful, and because the average user doesn't care about colour accuracy or the ability to scale resolutions well.



MacDoc said:


> If you LIKE being ripped off by the manufacturers by all means continue to spread the myths about quality and value.


I think the catch here is that you are over-complicating the issue. It's true, CRTs are better at some things, but there are a great many people who don't care about those things and will accept a higher cost and possibly reduced picture quality for the extra desk space, often brighter picture and less radiation thrown in their face.

In short, the benefits aren't necessarily outweighed by the drawbacks and people aren't being ripped off just because you think they are. One mans "ripped off" is another mans "got exactly what he wanted."



razz said:


> I can't believe this thread has gotten to nine pages of 'mine's bigger than yours'. I'm stunned at how angry people are getting here.
> 
> People, it's bloody computer monitors.


You're new to the internet, right?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> They aren't pitched over CRTs because they make companies more money


Yeah right....



> LG profits soar on strong LCD-TV sales
> 
> PROFIT BOOM: The South Korean electronics firm released impressive fourth-quarter figures that were largely due to continued robust sales of handsets and LCD televisions
> 
> ...


http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2006/01/25/2003290692



> Chips, LCDs boost Samsung profits
> *Reported its quarterly profit, which rose 24 percent on explosive demand for flat screens* and chips for digital cameras.
> Friday, January 16, 2004





> MAKING FAT PROFITS IN FLAT SCREENS
> Suppliers of liquid-crystal display materials are cashing in as demand for flat TVs surges
> 
> In its announcement of fiscal third-quarter results earlier this year, JSR Corp. disclosed that it had already exceeded its profit forecast for the full year. The Japanese manufacturer of synthetic rubber and electronic materials explained that the unusual event happened largely because foreign demand for its liquid-crystal display (LCD) materials "rose dramatically."





> Meanwhile, Taiwan's players are building their own Gen5 fabs. This month, Quanta Display Inc., a venture between Sharp and Quanta Computer, starts production at a Gen5 fab that'll turn out 30,000 sheets of glass a month. AU Optronics is working on a $2.3 billion Gen6 plant, due to open in 2005. Samsung is skipping Gen6 and moving straight to Gen7 fabs, which cost $3 billion each and will produce panels that can make screens for a dozen 30-inch TVs, or eight 40-inch sets.
> 
> Despite falling prices -- the lowest-cost 22-inch LCD model now sells for about $1,400, half the price of a year ago -- *profit margins in every aspect of the business remain high*





> "Forbes is reporting that with lower than expected profits, Sony is halting the production of CRT's for televisions at many of its plants. The restructuring move is meant to catch the company up with other manufacturers who moved to LCD displays more quickly


Not hard to read between those lines is it??

It'not quality, it's not better value for the consumer, it's profitability for the manufacturers.

and of course Sony got into the profit game late so the poor schmuck on the other forum looking for a top end CRT from Sony is SOL



> Sony profits bounce back with Bravias
> Posted Jan 26th 2006 8:59AM by Kevin C. Tofel
> Filed under: Financials, News, Sony, LCD
> 
> Maybe Sir Howard has a master plan after all. Sony reversed their 10 billion yen forecasted loss for the year with a new expectation of profits to the tune of 70 billion yen. *The new forecasted profit of $605 million is due in large part by profitability in the Sony Bravia LCD line*


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Are we talking about televisions, or computer displays here? 



MacDoc said:


> The con job is that somehow because LCDs are NEW - they are better quality.
> They are NOT.
> 
> The con job is that they are pitched over the CRTs because they make the companies more money ........not because they are better value OR better quality...they're not.
> ...


I thought you said the 2080UX was $1439? And why would a Mac user want to buy that model over a $999 Apple Cinema Display? 

What's your cost on an Apple Cinema Display? Do you tell your clients that many Mac products you sell are gray market, and that you can't even get a new Apple Cinema Display to sell except through unauthorized channels? I'm not trying to be nasty, I just think there's a bit more than a bias there. 

Value is perceived by the customer and should be given ALL options. Many Mac users value a much physically smaller display that is also very aesthetically pleasing to the eyes. The CON JOB from some people is that these displays are not good because "they are not good for colour", when in fact, these people offering this advice don't know the first thing about colour soft proofing. 

Did you know that when you plug in an Apple Cinema Display to your Mac, a "handshake" takes places via the pure digital DVI connection? Specific colour information for the monitor is sent to the Mac OS, and a Colorsync profile is built automatically. The quality / accuracy of this "default" coloursync profile is amazing. Unless you get into really detailed colour work, with a really specific whitepoint balance, the default is all you'll need. 

There is also value in that many Mac users take advantage and see value in Apple's AppleCare program. This plan covers a Cinema Display as well for the duration of the program. Some Mac users might not see value in this, but its nice they know the choice is there. 

And yes, there's value with less power and heat issues, but I'm sure that's all just Apple marketing bablle. 

Some Mac users may still prefer CRT displays. No one is being conned if they know both pros and cons with accurate information. Make sure you know whether a CRT for sale is new (and sealed) or refurbed. And for warranty, know what you as a customer are responsible for with the warranty... if you have to ship the product etc... Whether the warranty covers the whole display or just the tube. 

And before anyone starts making claims about any dealers HAVING to sell Apple displays, know that that's not true as they would be happy to sell you whatever you prefer.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

And before you buy a LCD ask about the policy with regards to burnt pixels. Remember that you often need more than three - and yes it will always show and you will see them - all the time. 

Colour accurate work is best done of a CRT. End of story. 
The arguments for LCDs such as space saving, less power consumption are valid.
If you want an LCD ask about the native resolution and if you have going to watch action movies (or any other fast moving graphics), be prepared for very annoying ghosting.

As for your whitepoint balance, what are you talking about? Really, most users will have the monitor set to 9300k. So are you telling me that an LCD will automatically adjust for D50, D55 and D65. I don't think so, and those last three are the defaults for most print and video work. BTW, what is "pure" digital? Does digital imply "better"?

If you take AppleCare, make sure you enrol in the last possible week to get the full benefits. 
Don't expect anything close to true black with an LCD - CRTs just dominate over LCDs. As extreme tech wrote "Black-level should be the single most important spec after screen size if you're working in multimedia, imaging, photography, home theater, or in any environment with controlled or subdued lighting.""The CRT wins by a huge factor of about 25".

The CON went from what's the most colour accurate monitor (CRT or LCD) to the advantages of each - change of optics there ehMax. On a equivalent price, CRT is better than LCD.

As for not knowing anything about colour, I wonder if Carbon teaches Final Cut colour correction with LCDs or CRTs - 










Because teaching FCP without proper monitors is just wrong....


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

> If you take AppleCare, make sure you enrol in the last possible week to get the full benefits.


That about sums up your advice. Just plain inaccurate. Whether you enroll on day 1 or day 354, it makes no difference.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


>


Courses taught by aliens! Now what do *they* know about colour correction for humans!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

ehMax said:


> That about sums up your advice. Just plain inaccurate. Whether you enroll on day 1 or day 354, it makes no difference.


I don't see the point of paying for Applecare before you have to. Meaning that I prefer to be on Apple's time until the last moment (within reason). Many things could happen from the time you buy your Apple product and sometimes the cost of the AppleCare is not worth it. Take the case of certain iPod models. 

Twice I have asked if Carbon teaches FCP with LCDs or CRTs - you have skirted the issue. 
Any direct question about colour accuracy, you have skirted the issue....
Direct question about colour temperature, you have avoided the issue....

Your advice has been biased towards LCDs and based not in fact but what looks like marketing babble speak. The CON is that you refuse to give accurate information stating the pros/cons of each.

At least this picture has a CRT








Wonder why that is? Is it an error on your all digital workflow? Or is it the proper way to do things?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It doesn't matter whether HD video, medical imaging, or computer use...... the same issues arise and the same arguments go on.

The manufacturers and sellers all are singing the same song for profit reasons not for quality or value.
Apple's current line is long in the tooth technically yet twice the price of the same screen from Dell and neither are close to current best standards in LCD let alone in absolute terms of quality/value.

They've driven their profitability on the back of a con job. The ONLY saving grace has been a least the costs are down for utility LCDs so the rip off is not quite so blatant. The flat panel LCD move is driven by profits for manufacturers and resellers, not value or quality for the consumer.

They are clearly a boon to all portable devices and in tight situations like a supermarket cash register and it's good they've got better and cheaper over the past 5 years.

I use both, I'v continually tested both, I listen to clients complaints - and look at value.

I have two side by side right now - upper end of both -almost visually indistinguishable ( for the first time ) - one is twice the price of the other. The same scenario applies in HDTV - at least there the buyer has DLP and plasma as alternatives.

and soon SED...can't wait..looking a fluorescent tube all day is a drag.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

Here's my take on the debate:
• LCD is less hard on my eyes and head all day than a CRT
• colour on apple LDCs seems pretty good to me for soft proofing of print design work (it is NOT a substitute for an actual print bureau's colour proof).
• I've had no trouble moving either LCDs or the flat iMacs around the office or from room to room at home, or for transporting when moving. I threw out my back once and ease of transport is an important health concern now.
• LCD saves tonnes of space

The benefit that in my own personal experience for CRTS:
• kids can't lift em, and easier to clean finger prints off the screen, less likely for the screen to get damaged.
• native resolutions: The GF and old folks like less resolution (everything looks bigger) than I do.
• less costly
• no one will steal a CRT


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

> I don't see the point of paying for Applecare before you have to. Meaning that I prefer to be on Apple's time until the last moment (within reason). Many things could happen from the time you buy your Apple product and sometimes the cost of the AppleCare is not worth it. Take the case of certain iPod models.


As I said, some people don't see the value in Applecare. Your argument is one on budget, not on the technical aspects of Applecare on when you enroll. I'm sure the majority of people who say they'll pick it up a week before it runs out will forget. 



> Twice I have asked if Carbon teaches FCP with LCDs or CRTs - you have skirted the issue.


I haven't answered it cause its a dumb question. Carbon Sound and Picture has been supplying video editing equipment to Canada's largest television studios and they are specifically located in the middle of many major motion picture studios for a reason. For the purposes of training someone on how Final Cut works, you don't need to setup an entire suite with CRT reference monitors anymore than you would need an Xserve RAID beside each system. 



> Any direct question about colour accuracy, you have skirted the issue....
> Direct question about colour temperature, you have avoided the issue....





> As for your whitepoint balance, what are you talking about? Really, most users will have the monitor set to 9300k. So are you telling me that an LCD will automatically adjust for D50, D55 and D65. I don't think so, and those last three are the defaults for most print and video work


I mean, when you plug in an Apple Cinema display, and accurate colour profile is automatically created. The native white points for Apple Cinema Displays are 6900k, 6300k, and 6200k for the 20, 23 and 30" displays respectively which is right in the realm of what digital cameras and DVD's are set for. If you need to go to an exact white balance of D55 / 6500k, or D50 than you can use a hardware profiling device from GretagMacbeth, Pantone or X-Rite. However, how many smaller design shops just use the OS/Colorsync and their colour workflow controls in Photoshop / InDesign. Most designers don't even worry about what colour their background walls are or what colour clothes they are wearing that can reflect colour inaccurately, or have control over ambient light from windows etc... An LCD in not as susceptible to these types colour shifts with ambient light etc...



> BTW, what is "pure" digital? Does digital imply "better"?


Pure digital means 100% digital. From the time the signal leaves the video card, the colour information is being represented by exact 0's and 1's. Its not susceptible to any errors from an analogue to digital conversion. There's not an analogue signal that has to travel through a long analogue cable. 



> Your advice has been biased towards LCDs and based not in fact but what looks like marketing babble speak. The CON is that you refuse to give accurate information stating the pros/cons of each.


Here are the cons of LCD:
- More expensive (But hey, so are Macs right)
- Really large displays like 30" wide screen can have colour purity issues (The ability to produce the exact same colour across the entire display) but they still score very well. And considering there's really no competition from CRT in this size. (Forget bigger desk, you'd need a bigger room)
- Have a native resolution and have to interpolate other resolutions that look blurry
- Don't have as good of a black point
- Some cheap LCD's can have ghosting effect. 

Pro's of LCD (Apple Cinema)
- Tremendously smaller in physical size
- Crisp image from edge to edge
- Ghosting has been completely eliminated on current Apple Cinema displays.
- Takes up less power / creates less heat / uses less packaging
- No flicker. Easy on the eyes. Some people are more sensitive to this than others. 
- Wide screen. Great for working with programs with timelines like FinalCut, Logic... also for tool palettes on the side, or double spreads. 
- Apple displays automatically create ICC colour profile that is very accurate.
- Aren't as susceptible to changes in ambient light
- Design / Aesthetics. Most people agree, Apple displays are simply stunning to look at. Extra firewire and USB ports on the back. "Single" cable coming out the back to reduce cable clutter. 
- Digital signal from computer to display. 
- AppleCare. AppleCare on Mac pro desktops and laptops automatically cover Apple Cinema displays. 

CRT Cons:
- Are physically very large
- Can be not as crisp, especially in edges of display where cathro ray tube HAS to fire electrons on an angle
- Some information can be lost in translation from digital to analogue over a long analogue cable
- Can be susceptible to electro-magnetic fields like air-conditioners, power-grids. 
- Use more electricity and generate more heat, use more packaging. Not as big of deal for single user, but for a studio or classroom of 10+, this can be.
- Shipping product back to manufacturer for warranty work can be a hassle
- Despite many attempt to make CRT's look cool, most people agree they are a little fugly. 

CRT Pro's
- They are less expensive
- Many CRT's are very reliable
- Much better at changing resolutions
- Have very wide colour gamut. Colours can look nice and saturated. 
- Have a very good black point. 

Each individual can decide which is better and where they see value. JUST DON'T SPREAD FUD that LCD's are not good for colour work!!!!! I can't tell you how stupid this is, especially when the largest design shops in Canada are using them.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Here's some irony...

I get to work this afternoon... and there's a PO waiting for me for 5 CRT monitors for a design shop.   

Long live the CRT!!!


----------



## razz (Sep 21, 2003)

Max, you have to admit, this thread is getting kind of ridiculous. It's like you guys were debating over religion or something.

I do agree with you that in the end, it's the individuals choice, and both can get the job done. I'm personally looking at either getting a used Apple display (if I can find one when the time comes), or dual Samsung 173p displays. I don't do too much design work at home, but I'm planning on calibrating it.

But JESUS PEOPLE, CALM DOWN.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)




----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

EhMax CRT order :clap: Good for you for saying so too.

•••

BTW LCDs are NOT pure digital - if you read the ExtremeTech article you'll see that.

Your assessment between the two is fair - I just wish that was conveyed to all customers by all suppliers as clearly


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

raz - et al - it's an important thread and the discussion is going on far beyond computer screens. If it bores you - well- there's always other things to do.

I dare say those that have read the ExtremTech article are far better informed ...including me.... both for computers and HD screens.

Also for those in the industry it gives insight into what pros and consumers are considering in their purchasing.

For instance a couple of companies in HD have revisted CRT offerings due to demands.


----------



## razz (Sep 21, 2003)

MacDoc, I never said the thread bored me. Just the fact that many of you are getting so angry is ridiculous and over the top. Maybe it's you guys that need to find something else to do?


----------



## razz (Sep 21, 2003)

The Doug said:


> http://www.nerdie.com/images/funnywords/deargodstop.jpg


:lmao: 

Awesome!


----------



## MacME (Mar 15, 2005)

razz said:


> I can't believe this thread has gotten to nine pages of 'mine's bigger than yours'. I'm stunned at how angry people are getting here.
> 
> People, it's bloody _computer monitors. _


reminds me of Mac vs. PC!


----------



## razz (Sep 21, 2003)

Yeah, and I stopped arguing about that forever ago


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

How about myth versus reality...more like it.


----------



## razz (Sep 21, 2003)

Yeah, and I think EhMax did a damn good job diminishing many myths about LCDs.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> It'not quality, it's not better value for the consumer, it's profitability for the manufacturers.


I never said that LCD profit margins were low, rather that CRT profit margins are higher. It's true that most companies are making more money from LCDs thse days than they were just a few short years ago, but that's not so much because they make more from each LCD sold as it is because they are selling way, way more LCDs every year.



MacDoc said:


> Your assessment between [LCD and CRT] is fair - I just wish that was conveyed to all customers by all suppliers as clearly


I don't know about you, but when discussing with customers I always go over all the points with them.



The Doug said:


> [Please God, Make it stop]


[edit ehMax - Image in poor taste removed]


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

razz said:


> MacDoc, I never said the thread bored me. Just the fact that many of you are getting so angry is ridiculous and over the top. Maybe it's you guys that need to find something else to do?


Some of us work with colour everyday. Ehmac and I most likely have the same suppliers and go to the same tradeshows, supplier events, Apple courses. The disinformation starts there because they have a product to sell. 
I work with many freelancers and every week lose countless hours because of poor colour calibration. Most of the time these designers can't even see the errors/gradiant shifts because they are on a LCD. 
For broadcast work, you need a CRT - using a LCD just won't cut it. 
When it comes to ICC colour profiles, I'd say that most graphic designers have nary a clue about it.

If you go back on this thread, many designers (and these are members that rarely post) said that CRT is still the way to go for *designers*. 

Even ehMac defence of LCDs adds FUD on his side. The choice of words still show a clear bias. Most of the arguments are in favour of size/power consumption - not of colour accuracy - which is the main point of this debate.


----------

