sram

CRT vs LCD

55 posts in this topic

As you guys know, CRT monitors still have major advantages in display and color quality when compared to LCD. I just replaced my 19" CRT monitor (18" viewable) with the 19" Acer AL1914 LCD monitor. The reviews for this monitor were ok, however, when I first used it, I was disappointed. The video quality wasn't that great. I feel like my high quality videos ( 10 minuters videos with about 80 MB size) has degraded in quality as if they are only ~35 MB in size. My video card is the good old Geforce3 Ti500. Is my card outdated for this display monitor? In other words, how much video quality(movie playback, color,...etc) can I make up for if I use a newer and faster video card?(One of Nvidia's or ATI's latest)?

Also, this LCD monitor has only analog video input, D-sub that is. Can you enlighten me about the differences between D-sub and DVI, and if i use a video card with DVI port and then use a DVI-to-D-sub connector, what will that really mean?

Please bear with my ignorance, and thanks in advance!

sram

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the lcd had true dvi input and the video card had true dvi output then it would make a slight difference. But seeing how you have d-sub output going to d-sub input it makes no sense to try a dvi video card. Your trusty old video card is just fine, lcd screens are just poor quality compared to crts. There was a recent thread on here dealing with this. The outcome was this, unless you have a direct requirement for one of the benefits of lcd which are space saving and lessened health risk, then get a crt because they are much higher quality as far as picture. I will never switch from crt, unless sed becomes avaliable and its cheap, because I like my good picture, I play games and watch movies, and I dont feel like having the poor refresh make ghosts all over my screen, but thats just me, if you need something that saves space and you dont care about poor quality or poor resolutions, you may find love with a lcd. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That AL1914 apparently features a TN panel. These frequently display only 262144 colors (3x 6 bit) and have to dither the rest. Additionally, colors may seem somewhat overdone, and the viewing angles tend to be only average. It would have been better to buy something with a PVA/MVA panel (e.g. AL1913S or BenQ T904), and preferably DVI input as well. (DVI saves one D/A and A/D conversion, making the mess with phase adjustments and VGA signal quality superfluous. Of course bad implementations also exist on both monitor and graphics card sides, e.g. the Geforce FX series integrated TMDS transmitter. I would, however, consider DVI to be more future-proof.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what you have, I wouldn't bother getting a new card just for DVI. Now, if you have a LCD with DVI and a card with DVI, that's a whole 'nother ball of wax. I hooked up my dad's LCD both via DVI and D-sub to the same video card (not at the same time). It made a significant difference in sharpness of the picture, but this was off a pro-card with (presumably) an excellent DVI implementation.

I built that box for him and now I wish I'd kept it. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought a LCD Acer 1911 and returned it because my CRT Philips 109P4 is way better. Both are 19".

I won't go LCD untill:

1) Zero defect pixel warranty

2) < 8ms

3) > 23" 1920x1280 (or 1920x1080)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) A few dealers already offer that.

2) What's the point of <8ms? Anything below 30ms is impossible for the human eye to see.

3) There are already displays that offer that.

Edited by qasdfdsaq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no 1920x1280 with 8ms screen.

If the human eye can't notice the difference below 30ms, that I guess I'm not human. My Acer LCD is 25ms, and has terrible ghosting.

I really don't know where you get this info. 30ms is about 33 images/second. Do you really think you can't recognize more than 33 img/s?

Also they say you can't notice the difference with CRT over 100Hz. This isn't true either. I do notice difference upto 160Hz.

The human eye can't see more than 16,7 million colors right? Well, I do. And I guess I'm not the only one, because for some reason exist 1 billion color screens.

About the Zero defect pixel warranty. I don't know any dealer that offers this warranty over here. Note that I want this warranty for at least two years (and not just six months, because I will use the screen longer than that).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you really think you can't recognize more than 33 img/s?

207577[/snapback]

You can't. In a controlled double-blind test with an LCD monitor whose true response times for every colour transition was 30ms or less, we'd all be laughing our asses off at you.

Also they say you can't notice the difference with CRT over 100Hz. This isn't true either. I do notice difference upto 160Hz.

207577[/snapback]

Your comparison with CRTs is totally irrelevant to LCDs. Response time on an LCD and refresh time on a CRT are not related in any way that bolsters your assertion that you're magical.

The phosphors on a CRT light up when they're bombarded with electrons. They immediately begin fading rapidly, hence the term "refresh rate." As the electron gun cycles over the screen it only hits one phosphor at a time, leaving all the others fading to black. It has to get back to them quickly or they'll fade completely. In actuality your mind doesn't notice the black if the colour comes back quickly enough. Your mind buffers it. You can't see ghosting on a CRT ever even at a refresh rate of 15Hz, because the original image is gone (of course at 15Hz the flicker will be very noticeable).

A refresh rate of 60Hz is plenty for your brain to automatically convert frames into motion. Increasing the refresh rate above this is only done for two reasons, one, because some people have unconscious, negative reactions to the flicker like headaches or eyestrain, and two, while 30fps motion always looks like motion, some people are more sensitive to the flicker --it's not that the motion on the screen is unbelievable, but that the black slipped inbetween is messing them up. The majority are just fine with 75Hz. Your claim that you need 160Hz to be comfortable is a self-deception. 100Hz is necessary for a tiny minority of people, even 120Hz could be remotely believable, but 160Hz? A double-blind test here would also be rather amusing.

Onto LCDs. They don't fade to black ever, even when you want them to, which is one of their greatest flaws. Light is continually pumped out of them as the crystals shift, changing the colour of the light. They don't need to be recycled at 60Hz or 100Hz to stop flickering and reduce eye strain, because they won't flicker. All they have to do is shift colours fast enough that your mind will convert frames to motion.

The problem is that LCD manufacturers don't test response time in a way that can be easily converted to frames/second in reality. A 30ms panel has response times for many crystal shifts that are far greater than 30ms, which is why I qualified my initial statement regarding you failing a double-blind test. Consequently, depending on the panel, people see differences between panels that are below 30ms, but that's only because the manufacturers are bullshitting us.

8ms panels won't solve this problem. I am willing to guarantee you that so-called 8ms panels will still have high-contrast crystal shifts which are slow enough to be noticeable. The best example of this is mouse ghosting which usually requires a high-contrast shift. A genuine 24ms panel is what you should be waiting for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're saying that it's stupid to buy anything better than a X800XL or 6800GT, because why would you like to have more than 30fps right?

BTW I didn't say that I need a 160Hz CRT. I use mine at 100Hz, and can notice the difference between 120Hz and 160Hz, but not between 160Hz and 200Hz.

Also when I said a 8ms LCD, of course I was talking about the response time the manufacture promotes. I know this isn't the real refresh time, but I doubt that in a near feature there will be any manufacture saying the truth, not even EIZO.

Do you know why some people can't stand DLP projectors? Even with a six speed color wheel there are some people who can see rainbows! I'm not one of these, but I sure won't say it's impossible. But I guess that in a controlled double-blind test, you'ld be laughing your ass off at them, won't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you're saying that it's stupid to buy anything better than a X800XL or 6800GT, because why would you like to have more than 30fps right?

207590[/snapback]

Do you know why some people can't stand DLP projectors? Even with a six speed color wheel there are some people who can see rainbows! I'm not one of these, but I sure won't say it's impossible. But I guess that in a controlled double-blind test, you'ld be laughing your ass off at them, won't you?

207590[/snapback]

Both of these arguments are so disingenuous that I don't think very many readers need a response.

Regarding the former:

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're talking about minimum frame rates, even though most review sites use average frame rates, which present a poor picture of the suitability of a give video card for a given game.

The utility of high frame rates has nothing to do with the clear perception of motion. You could play back a video capture of a game at 30fps and the motion would be quite satisfactory. Instead the usefulness of higher frame rates in FPS games has to do with accuracy of aiming, and smoothness of input response.

Regarding the latter:

The rainbow effect is an artifact of the spinning colour wheel, and its existence is well established. And yes, its effect is observable in controlled tests.

Of course I believe in it. I would even if I didn't see it. What a disingenuous argument. Don't be silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're talking about manufacturer's specifications, you can already get 4ms panels. As far as zero-pixel-defect warranty is concerned, you usually have to pay extra for this over here.

Thanks Gilbo for the confirmation. Anything below a 30ms true response time will be un-noticeable. IIRC the average person's eyes operate at up to 25fps, in good light conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good 12 or 16 ms S-IPS, PVA or MVA panel should outperform most 12 or 16ms TN panels, and without the reduced colour palette. Dell 2001FP was a good example (S-IPS). TN panels are especially misleading in their quoted response times, several other panel types are less so. X-Bit has a great article explaining this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see. It looks like I have made a bad decision buying this Monitor. I was tricked by the reviews. I doubt the shop I bought it from will allow me to return it, but I think I can exchange it with another and pay the price difference or whatever.

How do you guys compare this monitor to the viewsonic VG810b Here:

http://www.viewsonic.com/support/desktopdi...g810b/index.htm ?

because this shop has it for a very good price, and I can see that it is highly priced over the net(don't know why though).

Also, can you elaporate on this TN/PVA/MVA panel thingie? I'm lost here

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see. It looks like I have made a bad decision buying this Monitor. I was tricked by the reviews. I doubt the shop I bought it from will allow me to return it, but I think I can exchange it with another and pay the price difference or whatever.

How do you guys compare this monitor to the viewsonic  VG810b Here:

http://www.viewsonic.com/support/desktopdi...g810b/index.htm  ?

because this shop has it for a very good price, and I can see that it is highly priced over the net(don't know why though).

Also, can you elaporate on this TN/PVA/MVA panel thingie? I'm lost here

Thanks

207629[/snapback]

If you are having quality issues with one lcd why do you think this new lcd will be much better?

Lcds are poor quality pictures, I could never bring myself to watch one all day with its lousy picture, thats why I still use crts.

If you have issues with lcd why not get a crt and be happy, this is of course if you space allows, and the crt would be cheaper and put money in your pocket for other toys, like that new video card?

good luck :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are having quality issues with one lcd why do you think this new lcd will be much better?

Lcds are poor quality pictures, I could never bring myself to watch one all day with its lousy picture, thats why I still use crts.

Aren't you exaggerating here a little? or maybe generalizing a bit ?

Well, I just can't believe some people are switching to lcd's and being happy with their choices with this much loss in picture quality!! It is either my chosen LCD is really bad or i'm being so picky at display quality, which I don't think is really the case, because the difference is so clear.

I can go back to my old 19" crt which is sitting next room, I just wanted lcd to make it easier on my eyes.

Also, I thought ( by getting another lcd with DVI), I can benefit more from buying a future video card with DVI port.

Am I making any sense here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are having quality issues with one lcd why do you think this new lcd will be much better?

Lcds are poor quality pictures, I could never bring myself to watch one all day with its lousy picture, thats why I still use crts.

Aren't you exaggerating here a little? or maybe generalizing a bit ?

Well, I just can't believe some people are switching to lcd's and being happy with their choices with this much loss in picture quality!! It is either my chosen LCD is really bad or i'm being so picky at display quality, which I don't think is really the case, because the difference is so clear.

I can go back to my old 19" crt which is sitting next room, I just wanted lcd to make it easier on my eyes.

Also, I thought ( by getting another lcd with DVI), I can benefit more from buying a future video card with DVI port.

Am I making any sense here?

207653[/snapback]

If the crt is still in the next room and works sounds like you just have money to burn.

Yes if you buy a lcd that uses dvi that makes some sense but remember origionally you got one with dsub only which makes no sense because there really were only negatives other then space saving for going to that screen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are having quality issues with one lcd why do you think this new lcd will be much better?

Lcds are poor quality pictures, I could never bring myself to watch one all day with its lousy picture, thats why I still use crts.

207650[/snapback]

That is a gross over statement. While crts have some good points -- for instance, flexible resolution and generally speaking, much higher resolution -- if you were to compare an lcd and a crt at the same screen-size and resolution, the lcd can be much better.

Lcds don't flicker, they're absolutly flat, and their geometry is much better. On top of that, the lcd takes hardly any deskspace. A three lcd setup is a real luxury. A three crt setup uses up all your desktop and creates a lot of heat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are having quality issues with one lcd why do you think this new lcd will be much better?

Lcds are poor quality pictures, I could never bring myself to watch one all day with its lousy picture, thats why I still use crts.

207650[/snapback]

That is a gross over statement. While crts have some good points -- for instance, flexible resolution and generally speaking, much higher resolution -- if you were to compare an lcd and a crt at the same screen-size and resolution, the lcd can be much better.

Lcds don't flicker, they're absolutly flat, and their geometry is much better. On top of that, the lcd takes hardly any deskspace. A three lcd setup is a real luxury. A three crt setup uses up all your desktop and creates a lot of heat.

207674[/snapback]

If you get a decent (made in the last 10 years) crt it does not flicker, none of mine do. Yes lcds are flat but so are flat crts. I have said in every post that there is space saving positives to lcds. Some lcds are very heat producing as well. As far as a 3 setup on a desk it depends on the size of the desk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume you are using the LCD in it's native resolution of 1280 x 1024?

In my limited experience using 2 different LCD's, there is a significant improvement with the DVI connection over the VGA connection, at least for text. After trying my Nokia 21" 445 PRO side by side with my Samsung 213T LCD, the difference was so vast that I gave the Nokia to a friend and bought a Dell 1703FP for my second monitor. I see a lot of 21" CRT's in my consulting business and have yet to find one that can match either of my LCD's in uniformity and sharpness. I rarely play games on the computer, but I spend many hours staring at AutoCAD and spreadsheets.

With regard to price, it takes a 21" CRT to equal the viewable area of a 19" LCD. Newegg offers a broad selection of 19" LCD's in the $300 range, while 21" CRT's start closer to $400 with shipping. Also, it would be more fun to get a bad LCD than a bad CRT if you had to ship either anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.If the crt is still in the next room and works sounds like you just have money to burn.

Not really. That crt was starting to tire my eyes(it only happens with my crt), and there are also those horizontal lines that started to show occasionally(30% perecent of the time). I don't know what they really are, but these two things combined made me think it is time to replace the monitor.

I value my eyes, just like most people do. That's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, can you elaporate on this TN/PVA/MVA panel thingie? I'm lost here

Thanks

207629[/snapback]

There are 3 types of LCD panels on the market. In the recent past, 99% of 17" LCD's were made with the TN panels. TN panels look good on paper as they boast excellent response times, and that is a spec that most people think they can relate with so panels with small response times sell better. However, there are significant drawbacks with TN panels, such as poor viewing angles and reduced colour space. Also, the real world response time is not as good when compared to IPS panels. This has to do with the way the response time is measured. So, in practice, a 25ms IPS panel performs about the same as a 12ms TN panel. This makes it very confusing, as you can imagine. Also, TN panels are a bit cheaper to manufacture so they are generally cheaper as well.

Up until recently, 99% of 19" panels on the market were either IPS or MVA/PVA panels. However, TN panels have started showing up in many 19" screens, hence the proliferation of low response time 19" panels on the market.

IPS panels are viewed by many as the best all-round type of panel, as they boast excellent viewing angles, excellent colour, and pretty good real-world response times.

The third type of panel is MVA or PVA (M or P depending on who makes it, but otherwise basically the same). These boast excellent viewing angles, excellent contrast ratio, and pretty good colour. Historically they haven't done very well with response time, but some of the latest versions have improved quite a bit in this area.

Read the articles over at xbit labs as they are very informative.

For me, if I had to buy a 19" LCD today, my first choice would be an IPS panel, second would be MVA or PVA, and a distant third would be TN.

Of course, determining exactly what type of panel is inside of a specific model is often hard to do. However, there are a few clues that will generally give it away.

Poor viewing angles most likely means TN.

Very high contrast ratio (700:1 or higher) most likely means MVA/PVA.

Also, be careful with the listed viewing angle. The number you want to see is the viewing angle with a contrast ratio (CR) > 10. Many companies cheat by reporting the viewing angle with CR>5 which artificially inflates the listed viewing angle. For example, a TN panel with a viewing angle of 140 degrees with a CR>10, might actually be advertised with a viewing angle of 160 degrees, but if you read the fine print it is using a CR>5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's from the aperture grille design. I have a Sony Trinitron and I see 2 very thin lines with a complete white background or when I'm thinking about it. But I think it has the sharpest colors.

As for frame rate, it's a common misconception that the human eye can only see 25fps. The human eye can see well above that. You can see movies in 25fps smoothly is because of the dark theater, and the film itself has a sort of motion-blurred effect.

It really depends on what you are looking at. But you can check yourself that you can see more than 25fps by using some software that generates a line and spin it 30 times per second and compare to those 60 times per second. You'll see a difference. You can also see a difference going from 60 times per second to 80 times per second. But going from 80 to 100 is less noticeable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now