Is CRT better than LCD, and Plasma ?

[SingSing]

I was in the process of replacing CRT monitor with LCD monitor at home. I was told that the 10 years old CRT look better than a brand new LCD. I take a look, and have to agreed on that. I further look at various laptop I had. Except IBM laptop, most of the laptop display looked gloomy with various degrading of their lamps.

The same technologies are behind large screen TVs. So does back projection TVs is better in long run vs LCD/Plasma ? Especially your living room can accomodate a large TV.

The alternative is front projection with the cost on those $200 lamp.

What about DLP ?

[Marvingj]

LCD & Plasma have higher resolution but CRT will last longer no doubt. I prefer DLP, it doesn't have clarity of plasma but it will last longer. LCD never work for me it always had dead pixels.

[BJ_M]

CRT actually has higher resolution ...

if you compare it using pixels (the same calculation can be made)

1,080 scan lines x 1,920 pixels/line = 2,073,600 pixels for CRT

With plasma screens, you must consider their "native" or "addressable" resolution. This is the maximum number of built-in pixels which they can display. With the Sony KZ-42TS1, its maximum native resolution is 1,024 lines by 1,024 pixels. Let's do the math again:

1,024 lines x 1,024 pixels = 1,048,576 pixels

Strictly speaking, only half of an interlaced image is displayed by
the TV at any one moment. Using our current HDTV example of 2 million
pixels, the TV only offers 1 million pixels at a time.

Disregarding our persistence of vision (the phosfers are acutually "on" for more than one scan line) , one could argue that only half of the available pixels are shown, and thus claim that the CRT TV only delivers half of the potential resolution. But in truth - it is not true.

The highest progressive scan resolution from an HDTV set is 780 lines. (disregarding 1080p - which is not so common yet) ...
With 1,920 pixels per line, this gives us an approximate total of 1.5
million pixels. So, for a moment -- look *real* fast -- a progressive scan display could theoretically offer more resolution than an interlaced display.

2k DLP 1 chip and 3 chip projectors offer the highest resolution for HOME use - there are of course 4k projectors , but at a cost of well over 100,000$ , not for the average home ....

True HD is also in the sony XBR line , and i'll leave up to you to do the math - though the contrast levels still dont match DLP or CRT (CRT contrast levels are better than 15,000:1 and higher ...)

[satviewer2000]

In fact, isn't the "next generation" of large screen TV going to be based on something called "FED" (Field Emission Display) which is essentially a flat CRT.

I'm still using a Panasonic 53" CRT projection TV and at 1080i, it still looks great to me.

[BJ_M]

it is called SED

Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Display (SED) is a flat panel display technology that uses surface conduction electron emitters for every individual display pixel. The surface conduction electron emitter emits electrons that excite a phosphor coating on the display panel, the same basic concept found in traditional cathode ray tube (CRT) televisions. This means that SEDs can combine the slim form factor of LCDs with the high contrast ratios, refresh rates and overall better picture quality of CRTs. Canon also claims that SED consumes less power than LCD displays.

The surface conduction electron emitter apparatus consists of a thin slit across which electrons tunnel when excited by moderate voltages (tens of volts). When the electrons cross electric poles across the thin slit, some are scattered at the receiving pole and are accelerated toward the display surface by a large voltage gradient (tens of kV) between the display panel and the surface conduction electron emitter apparatus.

Toshiba and Canon announced a joint development agreement originally targeting commercial production of an SED display by the end of 2005, but commercial products are now likely to first be available in 2006. During the 2006 Consumer Electronics Show, Toshiba showed working prototypes of SED displays to attendees, and indicated expected availability in mid-to-late 2006.[1] Toshiba and Canon have since pushed their plan to sell the television sets to the fourth quarter of 2007. For this to happen they plan to start mass production in July 2007, coming to full speed in halfway 2008.

Analysts think all the delays will give LCD screens a chance to further drop in price, thus becoming harder to compete with. Toshiba cited pricing pressure as a reason for the delay, making the circle complete.

[ROF]

LCD is much better. Images look better brighter and more colorful. Energy costs are reduced tremendously. Size and weight of an LCD monitor are a big plus. Eye strain on LCD is zero due to no screen flicker. LCD contain no magnetic fields and zero toxic chemicals. But best of all LCDs do not inject you with doses of radiation. Even if some people claim the radiation is low or tolerable it can't be a good thing.

There are many reasons why LCDs are better than CRTs. For a few extra dollars spent on a equivalent LCD today within one year you will save 6-16 times this amount on your energy consumption bills and that's just in the first year.

[MOVIEGEEK]

CRT pros:
1.Clearer picture
2.Better contrast
3.Cheaper
4.Last longer
LCD pros:
1.No scan lines
2.Thinner and lighter chassis
3.Less power consumption
4.Very little heat produced
Plasma pros:
None:too expensive and prone to burn-in.

[neomaine]

I hope this won't be considered a thread-jack since its related to the OP question on which type TV is better.

So, in following up ROFs note on the differences in power consumption, I too believe that one of the benefits of LCD is the power savings. I'm looking at replacing a 35" Sony behemoth with an LCD later this year. With a home electric bill that usaully tops $200US we trying to elimate as much as we can. Our number one eater is our furnace with televisions right behind. Computers and lights (going florescent soon) are a distant third.

I've been trying to find something on 'the net' that can show me what the actual numbers are in power savings to help justify/defray the cost.

Any help in showing what these actual numbers to these power saving claims are would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

[jagabo]

TV power consumption:

http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/4520-6475_16-6400401-2.html

http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/4520-6475_16-6400401-3.html

[lenti_75]

LCD and PLASMA is BETTER for your eyes....that's it, don't matter the energy and all that bullshit.
thta's why I stopped using crt monitor 4 yrs ago, I don't care about resolution and lamps, BUT I DO CARE about my eyes, that is something that I can't replace.

just get what is better for your health....finally i'll get it too

[energy80s]

CRT still gives the best image from a standard def source. LCD's are crap unless you are feeding a high def image into them as they have a native resolution above 1280 and standard def pictures are upsampled to fit. Also colours on an LCD are quite poor (reds for example). We have some small LCDs in work but the cameramen won't use them for colour balancing because they are of poor image quality (even though they cost over £1000 each) and still insist on a CRT monitor. The latest generation of LCDs are really starting to look good (we are currently on the 8th generation of LCDs) you know the ones with the shiny black screens, and I think once hi-def hits the mainstream they will be the screens of choice for many people. Plasmas offer better large screen image quality than CRTs but they are very delicate (seen quite a few wrecked just by accidently hitting your elbow against the case), they have a tendency to run hot and they suffer from screen burn. These new SED sets sound interesting, but it will take a few years for them to become mainstream.

In the meantime, I would go for a standard CRT and wait for the dust to settle on the new technology.

[jagabo]

CRT actually has higher resolution ...

if you compare it using pixels (the same calculation can be made)

1,080 scan lines x 1,920 pixels/line = 2,073,600 pixels for CRT

Many CRTs, especially smaller ones, don't have a small enough dot pitch to display full HDTV resolution.

[neomaine]

jagabo,

Much appreciated. Never picked those up on multiple googles.

Thanks,

[Nelson37]

If you want maximum power savings, turn it off.

Unless these factors are outrageous, power consumption, weight, even radiation are secondary considerations.

The TV is intended to be looked at. The best one, IMO, would be the one that looks best.

Extensive viewing tests showed me that - Some LCD and Plasma can equal CRT with Some input sources. ALL, except CRT, had certain source resolutions or types that simply did not look very good. Particularly SD feed on the large screens,the SD feed being most of what is available to me.

Pricing was a consideration which significantly affected screens under consideration, as did desire for widescreen and Hi-definition for the future.

Ultimately, best display came down to a 42" EDTV for $1400, and a 32" CRT 4:3 for $900. Wandered across last years CRT model for $595 and snatched it.

In one to two years, with hi-quality LCD much less expensive, and HD feed much more common, I will probably make a different purchasing choice. For now, the new technologies just aren't ready yet.

Note - last "shopping trip" I saw my first two displays capable of 1080P. Not sure what the source was, displays were 60" Hitachi. Looked good, but as do many HD displays I looked at the degree of ghosting on movement was totally unacceptable.

[SingSing]

SIZE does matter. Once you own a 50" or larger, you basically get used to have your vision totally covered by the TV ( Ha, just like a theater ).

Most of the kids grow up associate TV program and movie with large screen TV, and playstations and Xboxes game plays on CRT TV.

[andybno1]

after using LCD tv I would prefer a CRT tv, I have read a couple of articles about CRT HDReady tvs are in the pipelines and work out much cheaper than lcd or plasma so I cant wait

[DereX888]

I hope this won't be considered a thread-jack since its related to the OP question on which type TV is better.

So, in following up ROFs note on the differences in power consumption, I too believe that one of the benefits of LCD is the power savings. I'm looking at replacing a 35" Sony behemoth with an LCD later this year. With a home electric bill that usaully tops $200US we trying to elimate as much as we can. Our number one eater is our furnace with televisions right behind. Computers and lights (going florescent soon) are a distant third.

I've been trying to find something on 'the net' that can show me what the actual numbers are in power savings to help justify/defray the cost.

Any help in showing what these actual numbers to these power saving claims are would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

OT to your OT:
why do you care about power saving?!
Nuclear powerplants can solve our power needs anytime and forever basically. And they are most efficient, cleanest and safest source of energy possible at the moment (if built and operated properly).
Don't let be brainwashed by big businesses and their prepaid government people, or by the useful idiots from any green/red movements.
Less than 30 new modern nuclear power plants would solve all of the current Earth's power problems.
The only real problem are people owning and profiting from current inefficient ways of electricity production and distribution.


Back to the subject: I prefer plasma tvs. Picture simply looks the best.
Never been fan of LCDs, theyre still too slow, and there is more cons than pros in general.
CRTs were OK up to about 20-25'' coz the bigger they are the more further you gotta sit from them to not see the grid, so whats the point of having large CRT screen (if you sit 3ft from a 21'' or 30ft from a 50' CRT you basically see the same small picture )

[guns1inger]

I still own a CRT because I have yet to see a plasma or LCD that has an image quality to match it, much less one that is worth the money they charge.

I have yet to see a plasma that I would like to own. All of them suffer some degree of edge fringing, even with HD sources, poor colour blending, especially in blues and flesh tones (improved in newer models, but still not good enough for me), and just a generally ugly picture quality.

LCD is slowly getting closer to what I want out of a TV, and some of the newer engines have better colour repro and can almost do black justice, but resolutions are still too low, and prices too high.

I suspect it will still be 12 - 24 months before the technology is good enough to tempt me away from my trusty Loewe.

[SingSing]

after using LCD tv I would prefer a CRT tv

I watched a couple of hour of video on a "Best in class" Sony XBR 60"+ widescreen LCD TV, and I have to agreed. The Sony also has Macro block like artifact on cable program, that is really odd.

[draganong]

My main computer has a composite screen created by 4 displays: 21" LCD, 2x14" LCDs and a 24" CRT.

The LCD is the main screen for regular work and is by far the easiest on the eyes. The CRT is best for 3D games w/ LCD shutter glasses due that no LCD I have can do 120Hz refresh rate.

/dragan

[MOVIEGEEK]

after using LCD tv I would prefer a CRT tv, I have read a couple of articles about CRT HDReady tvs are in the pipelines and work out much cheaper than lcd or plasma so I cant wait

Ah...CRT HDTV is already here...at least here in the states.One drawback is 36" is the biggest there is.

[SingSing]

Don't dispair, back projection TVs are CRT based.

[Conquest10]

Don't dispair, back projection TVs are CRT based.

What about lcd projection tvs?

[guns1inger]

And DLP rear pro ?

[lordsmurf]

CRT pros:
1.Clearer picture
2.Better contrast
3.Cheaper

Disagree.
Disagree.
Disagree.

At least when discussing COMPUTER MONITORS.

1. As they age, CRT get fuzzy. LCD does not.
2. As they age, CRT get problems in color/contrast. LCD does not, assuming the LCD was good to start with. The problem here is many are no good to start.
3. The larger you go, the less this is true.

[SingSing]

CRTs takes a long, long time to aged. Many 10~15 years old Sony still look great. LCD lamp typically aged and fade in 3~5 years.

[MOVIEGEEK]

CRTs takes a long, long time to aged. Many 10~15 years old Sony still look great. LCD lamp typically aged and fade in 3~5 years.

AGREE,I'm using a Proview CRT monitor I bought in 2000 and the color/picture/contrast is still perfect.
BTW...show me a 19" LCD monitor for the same price as a 19" CRT monitor and I will buy it.

[SingSing]

Most of folks on this site, are early adapters for technologies. We jump on DVD burner, ripping, DVD authoring, wireless lan, video servers....ba ba..

But our eyes tell us, the extreme competitive TV market have left us with those wonderful low cost, high impact Trinitron tubes, that are still the best in reproducing the toughest color -- true black.

We will give them up eventually, but we will miss them. sigh....

Thank you. Mr. Susumu Yoshida

[davideck]

I do miss my Trinitron Computer Monitor. I had to replace it last year when the deflection circuits started getting nervous.

I tried an LCD, but my setup is such that the monitor is slightly above eye level. At that angle, any time I shifted my head I noticed a change in brightness, hue, etc. It was unacceptable. I have recently noticed some 178/178 viewing angle LCDs that look much better, but they are also more expensive.

In the meantime, I settled for a Samsung 997 DF 19" CRT. It's pretty nice, but it's no Trinitron.

[lordsmurf]

I find most computer CRT's poop out after around 5 years, in terms of the quality staying put. The units themselves often last 15-20 years, but the quality sucks by then.