# LCD vs. CRT Monitors



## ang (Jan 28, 2005)

I want to purchase a new LCD monitor for my computer, but I'm wondering how they compare to the CRT's when depicting pictures for true color printing in photoshop?

Also, for those who have LCD's, how do you go about calibrating your monitor and how often do you do it?


----------



## Digital Matt (Jan 28, 2005)

I've always heard that CRTs are much better for accurate color, density, and sharpness of detail.


----------



## Xmetal (Jan 28, 2005)

LCD's don't give you a headache if you spend long periods of time infront of your PC.


----------



## Digital Matt (Jan 28, 2005)

If I got headaches from long periods infront of my pc, I'd rather get a headache and know my photos look how I want them to.


----------



## skiboarder72 (Jan 29, 2005)

Digital Matt said:
			
		

> I've always heard that CRTs are much better for accurate color, density, and sharpness of detail.



This is why i am staying with my 19in CRT, also alot higher resolutions are possible on CRT's right now too, LCD's still have a long way to go


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jan 29, 2005)

I have a Mac laptop with an LCD. Macs come with a monitor calibration programme which works beautifully so I find it accurate enough - though I don't like the way brightness changes across screen if you move your head away from centre.
To save space I got rid of my 21" CRT for my big computer when it stated having problems and got a 19" LCD - it was a mistake. For high quality graphics LCD just isn't there. Resolution on screen is all down to pitch size and LCD screens don't seem to get down to the same level as a high quality CRT. The image is sharper and you seem to get better contrast too.
As for headaches - a lot has to do with ambient lighting and refresh rate. Try to get a CRT that can synch up to 100Hz - less flicker. And watch the room lighting. You should also take 5 min breaks every 30 min or so - even with a LCD.


----------



## ang (Jan 30, 2005)

OK.  Assuming ALL OTHER THINGS being equal, CRT's are better than LCD?

So if put the same picture on a middle of the road CRT and a middle of the road LCD (resolutions the same on both)--the CRT will deliver a closer rendition to the print?


----------



## aghastpumpkin (Feb 4, 2005)

My AG Neovo E-17 is exceptional. When comapred against a Dell CRT the quality was on occasion a lot better. And although TFTs have a set native resolution, a good TFT can use higher resolutions or lower resolutions with little difference in quality.
The native resolution of 17" TFTs is 1280x1024 anyways, which is a plenty good enough quality for most users. It's usually the highest resolution most graphics cards can support as well.
If you have the room, and are professional, perhaps consider a Triniton or Diamondtron CRT. But if you are just a normal user, stick to TFTs. Anyhow, they are only getting better, CRTs will probably not be on sale much in 2006, which just goes to show manufactueres confidence in TFT technology.
Another thing to note is that TFTs only change the picture on your screen when it neeeds to. For example, if you are on your desktop and you adjust your taskbar, the only part of the screen that will change is the area on the taskbar. The rest of the screen is not altered in anyway, unlike the CRT technology where the whole screen is refreshed - the refresh rate, which is in turn what can cause migraines. I wouldn't ignore the headache effect either, consistent headaches can cause medical problems and affects how well you work.
Check out www.spodesabode.com for a guide to TFT technology and a TFT Display round-up article.
Hope this helps.


----------



## Digital Matt (Feb 4, 2005)

I don't think they'll stop selling CRTs.  They are so much cheaper than LCDs right now.  I just bought a 21" Trinitron CRT for $250 USD.


----------



## SWFLA1 (Feb 4, 2005)

I just (today) received a large print back... it was EXACTLY like it displayed on my laptop (lcd)...I do calibrate monthly, but I was still very happy with the results... yes, i used Adorama....


----------



## Tobiko (Feb 28, 2005)

i heard LCD's have to be calibrated every 2 weeks if you want to make the prints look good.


----------



## Geronimo (Feb 28, 2005)

The thing about the LCD is the contrast ratio, it is really lacking compared to CRTs.


----------



## Fullpower (Mar 1, 2005)

viewsonic VP912b. works pretty well for me. never goin back to a vaccuum tube display.   try a good lcd and you will be spoiled for life.


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Mar 2, 2005)

I have the VP912b as my second monitor with DVI connection. (It's the top model 19 inch viewsonic)

What can I say? It may probably be the best in the world as of now. For office and reading, it is excellent.

For graphics - they have a loooong way to go. There's no way around it. It's an LCD. It has change of color tones depending on the angle of view. It's harder to judge the sharpness of a photo... harder to colour balance it.

Office/reading/typing - LCDs are much better. Pretty much any LCD is better.

For graphics CRTs are better. Have both - used both.

Cheers


----------



## sandra weese (Aug 29, 2006)

I am actually not a photographer, but the one who puts all your fotos on the web 
I have an acer  AL1721 flatscreen and did get quite a few times into trouble with the photographers about stuff that I just could not see on my screen.
Enough to make me think, if I keep doing webs for photographers, I should maybe get a new one.
But I am quite a sucker for the pretty things and having one of those hughe screen monsters on my desk just sounds quite unapealing :er:

Can anybody suggest a good enough flatscreen ( ... since I am at least not going to do any retouching on it) if there is such a thing ?
thanks,
sandra
_________________
www.stylofoam.com


----------



## JDP (Aug 29, 2006)

If you want a very nice, very accurate CRT monitor, take a look for the Lacie Electron Blue 19" with hood. They don't make it anymore, but it's on their site right here. I hit up ebay, and there's one up now for $320, good price for it.


----------



## Unimaxium (Aug 29, 2006)

Good LCDs can be very good. Apple's Cinema displays, for example, are beautiful. Very accurate and has a nice gamut. But the thing is, unless you're willing to spend good money on an LCD you're not likely to get one that's great for photo editing. If you want a good color gamut and contrast ratio for an economical price, I think CRTs are the better bet. But if you're willing to spend on a good LCD, you can get one that's very nice for photo editing. That's my opinion, anyway.

edit: wow, I just realized this is an old thread...


----------



## sandra weese (Aug 30, 2006)

thanx jdp; of course.... didnt think about buying second hand LCDs... 
 but one question; if I buy second had.... with screens, dont they age quite badly, even with proper use ? whats the stuff i need to watch out for?
Or maybe I can prepare myself some kind of test-image?
Any suggestions what kind of quick check-ups I can do to a screen to see if all is as it should?


----------



## markc (Aug 31, 2006)

CRTs fade with age. LCDs don't fade, but they can get dead or stuck pixels.

It used to be an easy decision: CRT

But now manufacturers are dropping CRTs from their line and LCDs have gotten so much better. From what I've seen, it's now a toss-up. The low-buck CRTs are fairly crappy and the new LCDs are pretty decent, which balances out. It still comes down to paying more for a better monitor, no matter which way you go.

Here's my experience: http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=51261


----------



## Azuth (Sep 2, 2006)

The key with colours on an LCD are the number of bits per pixel. A 6 bit panel will claim 16 or 16.2 Million colours, this is not good, it's 16 million with dithering. An 8 bit LCD panel will generally claim 16.7 Million colours, it's a BIG difference. The Apple cinema displays use 8 bit panels, as do many of the larger Dell LCD's and a number of more expensive panels. The cheap fast 17" and 19" panels are mainly 6 bit.


----------



## Torus34 (Sep 2, 2006)

At the low end of the price range, dollar-for-dollar, the CRT rules. For big bucks, both are great.


----------



## tasman (Sep 2, 2006)

When it comes to LCDs you get what you paid for in some models.
Make sure that you get one with a Low Dot Pitch meaning 0.264 s better than 0.29 the pixels are closer together better resolution.  High contrast ratio, and a faster refresh/response time in milliseconds. Also the bigger the monitor the dot pitch changes to generally 0.29 or wider. 
The best thing is when you are in the store looking at different models have some text and a picture displayed on the screen to compare. If it is hard to see the text or it looks fuzzy, dont buy it.


----------



## tasman (Sep 2, 2006)

I lucked out when I bought a Dell, I upgraded to a 19" ultra sharp LCD and and paid an extra $250, but it was well worth it.


----------

