CRT vs LCD monitor

[redbaron_snoopy]

Besides the apparent size difference between a LCD & CRT monitor,
is there any difference in their radiation output ?
I think LCD is lower in radiation but what about a low radiation CRT monitor ?
Is it comparable. Does anyone put a radiation screen over their LCD monitor ?

Any other key differences ? The price difference between them is still very significant and I wonder other than looks and space (which may not necessary be useful space saved) is there any other compelling reasons to blow big bucks on it. (A PIII with LCD costs almost the same as a P4 with CRT monitor)

[RJ]

There is a big difference in radiation. Due to the technology there is no radiation with a TFT monitor because the things that cause this in a CRT (electron cannon etc.) are not existent in the TFT.

Apart from radiation a TFT uses much less energy (about 30 to 40W, comparing to over 100W on a CRT), so it hardly produces heat.

To the screen itself: A TFT provides a much sharper picture when operating at is max. resolution (std for 14"/15": 1024x768, std for 17"/18": 1280x1024), but on the other hand if you want to display a lower resolution it's not so sharp anymore.
TFT monitors have no problems with convergence and picture adjustments etc., it's really easy to set up a TFT, and they don't flicker at all, so refresh rate isn't an issue here. 60Hz is enough, most can operate at 72 Hz, too.
They also provide a brighter picture, but CRTs have a better contrast.

My own reasons for the TFT were the radiation issue, the pic quality, also portability (I use to carry my PC a lot). When I bought it it cost $1100 and I don't regret it at all, but I would do it again.
You can have a 15" Samsung TFT (with VGA only) for about $310, so I say it is really worth it to buy a TFT.

RJ

[glc]

I believe that a LCD is essentially zero radiation. They use less electricity than a CRT, emit a lot less heat, and especially with a DVI video card and DVI input, will give you a sharper and more linear display than any CRT I have ever seen. They also weigh a lot less (comes in handy when you have to pay shipping).

The prices are WAY down from where they were - I have seen 15" LCD's (analog only, though) for $339, and remember a 15" LCD gives you almost the same viewable screen as a 17" CRT.

Disadvantages? The only one I consider (other than cost) is that the display of a LCD is not as clear and sharp as a CRT when you run it at other than native resolution, because of the pixel interpolation.

[redbaron_snoopy]

Many thanks RJ. I wish the prices will go down faster.

[Toaster]

Hello folks!
Another spec not often stated with LCDs are "update speed".
This is how "fast" the LCD will allow the images to change.
On lower end equipment, the speed can be slow and thus the images blur as images change rapidly. This is often no the case with CRT based monitors but does occur.
A simple test when considering an LCD is using a fast paced game or other app where the image changes rapidly.
Some LCD monitors exhibit a phoenomenon known as "artifacting". This is where the last recent image is still seen fading in the background of the primary (current) image. This could also include color shifts and other "not good" behavior.
If you buy an LCD with your wallet instead of your head, chances are you will not be impressed. On a good note, LCD technology is maturing at a dizzying pace.
DO familiarize yourself with the EXACT model BEFORE you commit the greenbacks and call it yours.

NOTE:
There are a few folks selling "re-fitted" LCDs. These are older displays adapted to the PC. Some are exquisite, some are real loosers. Use before you buy or you might get used when you buy. AKA: screwed

[RJ]

You're right, Toaster, the response time is very important especially if the TFT will be used for gaming and viewing DVDs.
However nearly all today's TFTs provide a low reponse time. The Samsung TFT I mentioned has a response time of 50ms, which means 20 changes in the worst case (complete black to complete white and vice versa). I's the same time my TFT has (50ms), and it's good for gaming and DVDs. Some friends who did not know about the response time and played on the TFT didn't say anything and after I asked them about it I was told that they didn't see a difference.

The natcomp screenX14 has 67ms, and that's too much. It's the only one I know with this high response time, therefore I didn't mention it. Anyway, the lower the better

And redbaron_snoopy, the prices will fall down more. IBM discovered a new technique in order to align the LC without physical contact (you know, the actual alignment procedure isn't very reliable, therefore many panels got sorted out, and therefore the high price), providing a reliable alignment procedure, so few panels will be sorted out and therefore the prices will drop.
IBM informed that they would make a new product line with TFTs produced with Atomic Beam Alignment, expected to release the first ones in early 2002.
For some month I've been waiting for this early 2002. . . I'm really curious how all will work out.

RJ

[Toaster]

Howdy RJ,
About the "fastest" LCD I've seen is 33ms. One I toyed with was an astonishing 22ms. This was an expensive beast offered by SGI.
Typical response times are near the 50ms range. The better the LCD, the lower this number will be. A typical CRT has an update rate of about 16ms if I'm not mistaken.

[jeresimo]

Try viewing LCD in a side view and see the big difference
why you will choose CRT.

[RJ]

Hey Toaster,

I've heard of "about 20ms", so 16ms sounds realistic to me. Never found any other numbers. I assume it's not important anymore since the days where CRTs faded out slowly are long long ago (remember the green monochrome CRTs. . ). The fastest TFT that I've seen (on the net, never had the opportunity to use it ) had 15ms (!) response time. But it wasn't a standalone, it was a special PC "slim line" or somethink like that, where they got rid of the tower and made a thicker TFT with all the PC components behind it.
I imagine it be very expensive, but it's a good improvement for the TFT technology, since that's important for gaming where CRTs always lead.

Most response times I see are 40 and 45, some 50, and just single models lower (35, 25 and 15).

RJ

[RJ]

Try viewing LCD in a side view and see the big difference why you will choose CRT.

. . yeah, because viewing the screen from the side is the normal way to look onto a monitor and therefore the most important thing and THE reason to choose CRT. . .

C'mon, good TFTs provide a viewing angle of 160° horizontally. CRTs do 180°, but if it's not a flat screen then you won't be able to overview the screen completely due to the curve. I already tested it. My TFT has a viewing angle of 150° and I really have to look from the side (160/170°) to see that the TFT can't show me the picture anymore. Even in CRTs you can't really view a picture from 80 to 90° from the side, can you ?
And is viewing from the last 20° really so important to you ?

RJ