Getting a new monitor: LCD or CRT, still undecided. Help?

[Chris J...]

I've been browsing LCD threads on this NG for the past several hours,
and have learned a LOT about LCD monitors, including the whole "native
resolution" issue of which I was previously unaware. (many thanks to
all the posters!)

I'm presently using a 19" Sylvania CRT, which is unfortunately dying.
So, I would like to get a new Monitor, preferably larger than 19".

So far, I've seen several negative opinions on LCD's; mainly color
quality issues, and the native resolution problem.

I use my present monitor for a variety of tasks, including graphics
design, photo and video editing, creating building blueprints, and
word processing. Depending on what I am doing, I needed different
screen resolutions. For Blueprints and photo work, I much prefer very
high res (2048X1536) for web browsing I like 1280X1024, and for other
things I like 1024X768, all true color (32 bit). I need to be able to
change on the fly, and often.

Given the native resolution problem, am I correct in assuming that I'd
be limited as to what resolutions I could choose and still have high
quality on an LCD? Also, are they still inferior for color quality
(accuracy) and depth?

Given these factors, and the fact that they cost a lot more
(especially for large sizes) I'm leaning away from LCD's (I have a
corner unit desk, so monitor size is not a problem).

Are there any advantages to LCD that might be worth considering?
And have I blundered in my fact-gathering in any way?

Thanks, and any advice will be deeply appreciated.
Chris

 

[Bob Niland]

If you truly need 2048 x 1536, ...

A 4:3, aka 1.33:1 aspect ratio.

... then you're going to have to find an LCD which
has that as its native pixel format.

Do any exist? All the LCDs I've seen above 1600 are
16:10 or 16:9 wide aspect.

Further, if a 2048x1536 does exist, it will require
a dual-link card to drive it via DVI, and those are
both uncommon and expensive. The limit for single-
link is pretty much 1920x1200, and LCDs at that res
are relatively easy to find.

In other news, Samsung announced an 82-inch LCD TV
this week. I can hardly wait for a monitor in that
size

 

[Bob Myers]

I use my present monitor for a variety of tasks, including graphics
design, photo and video editing, creating building blueprints, and
word processing. Depending on what I am doing, I needed different
screen resolutions. For Blueprints and photo work, I much prefer very
high res (2048X1536) for web browsing I like 1280X1024, and for other
things I like 1024X768, all true color (32 bit). I need to be able to
change on the fly, and often.

Given the native resolution problem...

If you truly need 2048 x 1536, then you're going to have to
find an LCD which has that as its native pixel format. The
next-lower standard format is 1600 x 1200, and I suspect
that you would not be entirely satisfied with the appearance
of a 2048 x 1536 image on that screen. However, a
2048 x 1536 panel will work just fine for 1024 x 768, since
the higher format is an exact multiple of the lower. A 1024
x 768 image on such a panel WILL very likely look somewhat
different than what you're used to on a similar-sized CRT
running the same timing, since the pixels will all be effectively
in very sharp focus (i.e., they WILL be well-defined little
rectangles, unlike the softer appearance of details on a
CRT).

1280 x 1024 will not fit any panel but a 1280 x 1024 one
exactly, at least if you're insisting on a full-screen image, since
it is a 5:4 aspect ratio and the other standard panels are all
4:3.

Bob M.

 

[Bob Myers]

(Re 2k x 1.5k monitors) -

Do any exist? All the LCDs I've seen above 1600 are
16:10 or 16:9 wide aspect.

Yes, 2048 x 1536 is out there, but to date these have been very
specialized, niche-market products. IBM's T210, for
one example. Expensive, and hard to find, but such products
do exist.

Further, if a 2048x1536 does exist, it will require
a dual-link card to drive it via DVI, and those are
both uncommon and expensive. The limit for single-
link is pretty much 1920x1200, and LCDs at that res
are relatively easy to find.

Correct. Although dual-link cards, while they ARE
both uncommon (at least as far as not being mainstream)
and expensive, are not at all otherwise hard to obtain.
A number of quite well-known graphics card companies
would be more than happy to sell you one.

In other news, Samsung announced an 82-inch LCD TV
this week. I can hardly wait for a monitor in that
size

I'm not holding my breath to see the TV, even, at the
local Best Buy...

Bob M.

 

[DaveW]

If you use a non-Native resolution on an LCD, you will be apalled at the
poor quality of the image. If you MUST use different resolutions, then you
MUST buy a CRT.

 

[Chris J...]

If you use a non-Native resolution on an LCD, you will be apalled at the
poor quality of the image.

That was what I was worried about...

If you MUST use different resolutions, then you
MUST buy a CRT.

I could use just one res, but I really don't want to, it would be a
major inconvenience for some things I do.

So, it looks like I'm going CRT, which I'm actually rather happy
about, considering the price difference.

Thanks!

 

[Chris J...]

If you truly need 2048 x 1536, then you're going to have to
find an LCD which has that as its native pixel format.

I didn't explain too well;
I don't need any exact res, but I do need to be able to switch on the
fly from high res (say, 2048X1536) to a few of the mid-range res to
low res.

If I'm reading this right, I'd only be able to use multiples of the
native res and get high quality on a LCD? If so, that's a restriction
I'd prefer to avoid.

From the look of things, and a few price comparisons, I thinking that
CRT would better suit both my purposes and my budget, especially as
desktop space is not an issue with me (I have a L-shaped desk in the
corner of the room, so monitor depth is no problem).

Thanks!

 

[chrisv]

That was what I was worried about...


I could use just one res, but I really don't want to, it would be a
major inconvenience for some things I do.

So, it looks like I'm going CRT, which I'm actually rather happy
about, considering the price difference.

So what's the cool 21/22" CRT to get, these days?

 

[Bob Myers]

I didn't explain too well;
I don't need any exact res, but I do need to be able to switch on the
fly from high res (say, 2048X1536) to a few of the mid-range res to
low res.

If I'm reading this right, I'd only be able to use multiples of the
native res and get high quality on a LCD? If so, that's a restriction
I'd prefer to avoid.

You should try this out with a few of the LCDs you're
interested in; the quality of the up- or down-scaling these
monitors perform (in order to match the image to the native
format of the panel) varies somewhat in terms of the quality
of the result. But yes, it still remains true that the optimum
quality will result from running the panel in its native move
(unlike the CRT, which doesn't really HAVE a "native mode"
as such).

From the look of things, and a few price comparisons, I thinking that
CRT would better suit both my purposes and my budget, especially as
desktop space is not an issue with me (I have a L-shaped desk in the
corner of the room, so monitor depth is no problem).

As long as you can find one that you like, that's always
an option. Just be aware that high-end CRT makers are
starting to leave the market; there are still some good options
out there, but it IS a diminishing selection and that trend will
continue.

Bob M.

 

[Bob Myers]

If you use a non-Native resolution on an LCD, you will be apalled at the
poor quality of the image. If you MUST use different resolutions, then you
MUST buy a CRT.

That, I think, is a bit harsh; I've seen quite a number of
scalers which did an acceptable job, certainly not something
I would call "appalling." Whether or not the end result meets
the levels of quality you need/expect is a matter of personal
choice, but the end result really is most often quite acceptable.

Bob M.

 

[Mxsmanic]

If I'm reading this right, I'd only be able to use multiples of the
native res and get high quality on a LCD?

That depends on the model. Some of the better LCDs do onboard
interpolation for resolutions that are not multiples or integer
fractions of the native resolution. On these LCDs, you can get a pretty
good image--they smooth things out quite well. However, you still get
the best results with native resolution.

From the look of things, and a few price comparisons, I thinking that
CRT would better suit both my purposes and my budget, especially as
desktop space is not an issue with me (I have a L-shaped desk in the
corner of the room, so monitor depth is no problem).

You can get superb image quality in a CRT at a very low price. If
weight, size, and the gradual deterioration of a CRT are not significant
issues, and absolute stability of geometry and convergence are not
required, you're probably better off with a CRT.

 

[Mxsmanic]

So what's the cool 21/22" CRT to get, these days?

A Sony Artisan, if you can find one.

 

[chrisv]

A Sony Artisan, if you can find one.

Still not as good as the old Sony F500/F520 series, with the .22mm
strip-pitch. I hope mine lasts forever. 8)

A quick look on pricewatch, and it seems that Mitsubishi and Viewsonic
(probably using a Mits tube) seem to be dominating the 21" CRT
market...

 

[Chris J...]

You should try this out with a few of the LCDs you're
interested in; the quality of the up- or down-scaling these
monitors perform (in order to match the image to the native
format of the panel) varies somewhat in terms of the quality
of the result.

I found a few in a local store and had a look at different
resolutions. Frankly, the LCD's were better than I expected, but still
I found a slight difference with a CRT regarding image and color.

So, at this point I slightly prefer a CRT, and due to the fact that
the price of the CRT is a lot less, I'll definitely be going that way
at this point.

But yes, it still remains true that the optimum
quality will result from running the panel in its native move
(unlike the CRT, which doesn't really HAVE a "native mode"
as such).

That was a big deciding point for me; I didn't like the non-native
mode quality very much, and there is no way I'm going to spend more
$$$ just to have a reduction in abilities.

As long as you can find one that you like, that's always
an option. Just be aware that high-end CRT makers are
starting to leave the market; there are still some good options
out there, but it IS a diminishing selection and that trend will
continue.

Ugh.... I hope there are still some for a while.
Thanks!

 

[Chris J...]

That depends on the model. Some of the better LCDs do onboard
interpolation for resolutions that are not multiples or integer
fractions of the native resolution. On these LCDs, you can get a pretty
good image--they smooth things out quite well. However, you still get
the best results with native resolution.

I saw a few, and one did quite well; Almost as good as a good CRT.
But, why pay a lot more for "almost"?

Actually, I'm delighted. For the first time I can remember, the best
choice for me is by far the cheaper one.

You can get superb image quality in a CRT at a very low price. If
weight, size, and the gradual deterioration of a CRT are not significant
issues, and absolute stability of geometry and convergence are not
required, you're probably better off with a CRT.

Size and weight are no problem due to my desk location and
configuration. As for gradual deterioration, I've heard that LCD's can
have trouble in a few years, too?

 

[Chris J...]

If you use a non-Native resolution on an LCD, you will be apalled at the
poor quality of the image. If you MUST use different resolutions, then you
MUST buy a CRT.

Not quite appalled, because a couple of the high-end LCD's did better
than I was expecting, but you are right. They were not quite as good
(in my opinion) as the CRT's. So, as I definitely don't want to pay
more to get less, I'm going CRT.

 

[Mxsmanic]

I saw a few, and one did quite well; Almost as good as a good CRT.
But, why pay a lot more for "almost"?

There's no reason to. LCDs have both advantages and disadvantages;
there are by no means unconditionally superior to CRTs. Right now it's
pretty much a toss-up, and depends on your exact requirements.

When my very nice Sony CRT failed recently, I finally went to a
flat-panel LCD. However, that doesn't mean that others should or should
not do the same. CRTs still have better image quality in a couple of
respects, but in the end, since I use the monitor for more than just
photo editing (CRTs win for photo editing), I went with a LCD. It was
more expensive than a CRT, but it weighs less (the old CRT was 30 kg,
very difficult to wrestle onto a desk), it uses less power, it doesn't
deteriorate in the same continuous way that CRTs do, it never requires
geometry or convergence adjustments, and so on. Hopefully it will last
at least as long as its predecessor (eight years), so that I get my
money's worth. Of course, the next one will almost certainly be a flat
panel, as I expect CRTs will be nearly extinct by 2013.

Actually, I'm delighted. For the first time I can remember, the best
choice for me is by far the cheaper one.

Yes, with CRTs you pay far less, and the image quality is actually
better in many respects. If you are doing critical photo work, or other
work that requires very precise calibration and broad gamut, a CRT is
still the way to go. And if you can find a Sony Artisan, you should be
very happy indeed.

Size and weight are no problem due to my desk location and
configuration. As for gradual deterioration, I've heard that LCD's can
have trouble in a few years, too?

The backlight on LCDs is a flat-panel fluorescent lamp, which gradually
deteriorates like any fluorescent lamp (the same technology used in
office ceiling lighting). However, fluorescent lamps tend to be a bit
more stable over their lifetimes, and then they fail rather quickly at
the end. CRTs use a vacuum tube, which is mechanically very much like a
simple light bulb, and so they deteriorate in a gradual but continuous
way over their entire lifetimes, often so gradually that you don't
notice how bad they've become until you replace them (when I replaced my
CRT, I was practically blinded by the brightness of the LCD--the CRT had
gotten so dim by the end that I was turning down lights in the room in
order to clearly see it).

 

[ELVIS2000]

Given the native resolution problem

How is this a problem? If you use a DVI monitor and a nVidia video
card, you can change resolutions and stay "native" (with black bars).
Certainly *not* a problem.

 

[Mxsmanic]

How is this a problem? If you use a DVI monitor and a nVidia video
card, you can change resolutions and stay "native" (with black bars).
Certainly *not* a problem.

For some people, black bars are a big problem. Why pay for a part of
the screen that you can't use?