Another question about CRT

[audioguru]

I operate my 19" (can't find a ruler) LCD monitor in 32 bit colours mode at a 70Hz refresh rate and at a resolution of 1152 by 864. The driver is set for 96 dots-per-inch.

 

[ericgibbs]

My primary 19in LCD monitor is set for:
1280*1024
32bit
96dpi
75Hz
.
The secondary 17in LCD monitor is set for:
1024*768
32bit
96dpi
75Hz

They work just fine!.

 

[kchriste]

Likewise, you don't have to run an LCD monitor at it's full resolution, and most look perfectly fine like that - although certainly some laptop screens look absolutely horrible at 640x480 as you install Windows.

When I got my new 20" LCD I first ran it at a lower resolution (Same as my old CRT) It didn't look that clear, especially with black text on a white background. Changing my display resolution to match the monitors native resolution improved the clarity a lot.

As for having to use 60Hz? - a complete load of rubbish - use whichever looks best, and it will probably be higher than 60Hz usuually!.

Perhaps I should rephrase that. Runnning at refresh rates greater than 60Hz does you absolutely no good because a LCD is not scanned / refreshed the same way a CRT is.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

When I got my new 20" LCD I first ran it at a lower resolution (Same as my old CRT) It didn't look that clear, especially with black text on a white background. Changing my display resolution to match the monitors native resolution improved the clarity a lot.

So your suggestion was based on a single observation?.

It obviously depends a greta deal on the quality of the monitor, and how it upscales incoming picturs to match the screen - mine is absolutely perfect at less than the LCD's full resolution (which is too high to use).

Perhaps I should rephrase that. Runnning at refresh rates greater than 60Hz does you absolutely no good because a LCD is not scanned / refreshed the same way a CRT is.

Completely wrong again! - an LCD isn't scanned, but it is refreshed, so refresh rate is just as important as with a CRT.

 

[mvs sarma]

I recently got a Viewsonic VA1912W, and as i installed the drivers as given by the firm, the monitor is really Nice. Except few JPGs on the sites, the text , photos and PDFs are well resolved. I do operate it at 1440/900

 

[crusty]

why waste extra processing on the GPU for 32 bit, when your eyes can't tell the difference between 16 and 32? I've always ran 16 bit in windows and games, i really can not tell any difference at all.

 

[neon]

crt obsolete? i hope not, they finally spent 40+ years getting them in the range of "awesomeness" and now were gonna be stuck with crappy looking lcd's and expensive plasmas. Hope CRT is here to stay for awhile, even though they're hard on the eyes, they look fantastic.

crusty get use to it my LCD got 1280x960 resolution and it is 52" the wieght is my wife can move it. my 32 CRT i cannot move it got xray too and it is not crappy you are malinformed.

 

[Speakerguy]

CRT still has the best image quality out there, though DLP and plasma are close. I have several friends who grudgingly gave up their CRT front projection home theater systems because of their increasing unreliability with age, but we're talking 15+ year old projectors. My best friend finally gave in when it started taking him 30 minutes to let the his Barco Graphics 801 heat up and re-converge it every time he watched a movie. They are/were huge, heavy, clunky, unreliable, and generally a pain in the ass, but a big set of 9" guns on a Sony G90 in a darkened home theater will still give a better image than anything digital you can go to a store and buy.

Plasmas and DLP sets are getting there in terms of image quality, though plasma seems to be a fading technology. I should be able to see the newest LED based DLP rear projection set once a friend gets it ISF calibrated in a few weeks and that will give me an idea of where they are now. I still think LCD's are still crummy, at least the ones I've seen. But far the biggest problem with any of these technologies is the horrible scaling every single set I've seen does, even the supposedly good ones, to non-native resolution signals. The built-in scalers are just flat out bad.

 

[kchriste]

So your suggestion was based on a single observation?.

No a lot of research on and off the net before I bought my monitor. Confirmation when I tested it myself.

It obviously depends a greta deal on the quality of the monitor, and how it upscales incoming picturs to match the screen - mine is absolutely perfect at less than the LCD's full resolution (which is too high to use).

Yes, some monitors will be better than others though it is impossible to completely avoid the moire effect when the video cards resolution is mismatched to the LCDs resolution. Now maybe if the difference is an exact multiple then it'll work right: card = 1024x768 and LCD = 2048x1536. But not with this: card = 1024x768 and LCD = 1536x1152.

60Hz does you absolutely no good because a LCD is not scanned / refreshed the same way a CRT is.
Completely wrong again! - an LCD isn't scanned, but it is refreshed, so refresh rate is just as important as with a CRT.

Maybe you should reread what I posted?

 

[crusty]

crusty get use to it my LCD got 1280x960 resolution and it is 52" the wieght is my wife can move it. my 32 CRT i cannot move it got xray too and it is not crappy you are malinformed.

I still prefer CRT the image quality on a CRT is unsurpassed IMO, not to mention reliability. I can have a CRT last me a good 15 years with no problems.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Plasmas and DLP sets are getting there in terms of image quality, though plasma seems to be a fading technology. I should be able to see the newest LED based DLP rear projection set once a friend gets it ISF calibrated in a few weeks and that will give me an idea of where they are now. I still think LCD's are still crummy, at least the ones I've seen. But far the biggest problem with any of these technologies is the horrible scaling every single set I've seen does, even the supposedly good ones, to non-native resolution signals. The built-in scalers are just flat out bad.

I've installed LOT'S of LCD sets, mostly Sony's - and a decent quality LCD set (like a Sony) generally gives a better picture than the CRT it replaces - even top CRT's like the Sony Trinitrons.

I've always thought projection sets (of any type) give pretty poor pictures, and I certainly wouldn't entertain one - although the latest Sony LCD rear projectors do at least give a decent viewing angle, but they are discontinued in a couple of months worldwide!.

For good results with LCD there are a number of things you have to consider though (as with anything else):

1) Viewing distance - you have to view from a suitable distance, in the UK SD (Standard Definition) should be viewed at a MINIMUM distance of 2.5 times the screen size. The poorer spec 525 line TV in the USA should be further away still.

2) Source quality - don't use analogue RF or composite connections (or a VCR!) - use RGB (Europe) or Component (USA), or HDMI. Using composite or analogue RF makes them look absolutely horrible, as the higher resolution shows up the defects. Internal digital tuners are fine, as they connect internally as RGB (or similar).

3 Quality of set - get a good quality TV, the cheaper ones use really crappy cheap upscalers, and that makes a HUGE difference!.

4) HD pictures - HD is completely different, you need to view considerably closer (or you're getting no benefit), and only high quality connection types are available. Even the cheap sets look good on HD, as the internal upscaler isn't used.

5) Don't get connned by 'upscaling DVD players', they don't produce HD (or anything like it), they just upscale exactly as your TV already does - if you have a really crap TV though, it may be a better upscaler than the one in the TV?.

 

[Speakerguy]

Oppo is the only brand of up-converting DVD players I would get. They do manage to do better than the internal processors of most every TV out there. That's the brand all my home theater friends go by, and the CNet reviews seem to back them. I agree, almost all the others are no better than what's in the TV. Denon is supposed to have a really good upscaling one too, but it's really high priced IIRC.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Oppo is the only brand of up-converting DVD players I would get. They do manage to do better than the internal processors of most every TV out there. That's the brand all my home theater friends go by, and the CNet reviews seem to back them. I agree, almost all the others are no better than what's in the TV. Denon is supposed to have a really good upscaling one too, but it's really high priced IIRC.

Never heard of 'Oppo'?, and from posts I've seen about Denon it's no better than the cheap ones, and no better than a decent TV.

 

[Speakerguy]

http://reviews.cnet.com/4370-9991_7-197-101.html

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

http://reviews.cnet.com/4370-9991_7-197-101.html

I never believe anything reviews have to say, they seem mainly based on which manufacturer paid them the most! - go to a shop and demo them yourself!.

 

[Speakerguy]

<shrug> I read AVS and trust my local HT friends. 75% of the time I'll look at a picture and think it's good until they point out some miniscule flaw I hadn't noticed before. I'd probably be happier with them not doing stuff like that But seriously, the Oppo has demonstrably excellent performance not just to the naked eye on video material but on test patterns and calibration media. Everything I've ever read about it has been glowing regardless the source, and it's hardly pricey at less than $200.

One guy I know is such a videophile I joke that, when he looks at the sky, he must think the whites look crushed

 

[crusty]

I've got a Denon older DVD player, it's built very well, but it doesn't look any better than any other ones i've seen on my sony 27" crt.

 

[neon]

I still prefer CRT the image quality on a CRT is unsurpassed IMO, not to mention reliability. I can have a CRT last me a good 15 years with no problems.

It must be a lot of of people that don't agree with you. How do I determine that simple go to goodwill industry and pick up not 15 years old but 3 years old TV for $10 as given up as scrap for the new and better viewing of LCD and plasma. Unless of course these people are crazy for giving up a superior TV.

 

[mvs sarma]

while I appreciate modernization, it the additional money in hand and the attitude to have something new, that one goes for frequent swapping to new things.Perhaps the cost involved in repairs, if any, prompts a person to throw the old and go for new- and anyhow one has to go for new,he also goes for a a variety.

Personally, I don't thing that it need have a bearing technical flaw in the CRT or any other consumer durable for that purpose.