December 2, 2004 3:56 AM PST

Flat-panel TVs can't topple tubes--just yet

Consumers scrambling for sexy new flat-panel televisions may want to tune in to this less-publicized feature of the trendy boxes: They don't deliver pictures as clearly as traditional tube TVs do.

News.context

What's new:
Flat-panel monitors are topping many wish lists this holiday season, but old-fashioned tube TVs still produce better pictures.

Bottom line:
It looks like chunky CRTs will hold the attention of many viewers for years to come.

More stories on CRTs

Retailers expect flat-screen televisions to be highly popular this season--and recent price drops are only expected to boost sales.

But for all the hype around next-generation televisions, flat panels have a way to go before they rival their cheaper CRT (cathode ray tube) counterparts in performance--or cost.

"Consumers think they're buying the best in technology (with flat-panel televisions), but it's more of an emotional purchase," said Bob O'Donnell, an analyst with researcher IDC. "It's part status and part wanting to be on the cutting edge."

The technologies behind flat-panel televisions--plasma and liquid crystal display--let manufacturers create larger, thinner and lighter sets. Flat panels are getting as big as 60 inches but weigh only a fraction of the largest CRT sets, the consumer versions of which are limited to about 42 inches. The comparatively petite cases of flat screens also allow them to be hung from walls, although this is rarely done because it makes sets difficult to move or adjust. Still, neither plasma nor LCD technology quite measures up to CRT when it comes to picture quality.

LCDs are great as desktop PC monitors because they don't have to refresh pictures rapidly--more LCD desktop monitors were shipped in 2004 than those using CRT technology, according to researcher iSuppli--but they don't work as well when used as televisions. Plasmas tend to lose brightness over time and don't offer images as sharp as those served up by CRTs. Manufacturers are working to improve these shortcomings.

However, from the manufacturers' point of view, the CRT business has run its course, with profits being wrung out after some 50 years of significantly boosting companies' bottom line. Though CRTs make up about 90 percent of the global television market, growth rates have been stable for some time. Shipments for flat televisions, meanwhile, are up modestly, accounting for 5 percent of the market. But their hefty profit margins are driving manufacturer interest.

Prices will continue to decline in coming years as the market consolidates, growth flattens and manufacturers are forced to compete more aggressively on price, according to Siegfried Trinker, director of corporate strategy at LG.Philips Displays International. So far, the average price of CRT televisions in 2004 is $304, according to iSuppli. Trinker sees a budget television market made up mostly of CRTs that open with average prices of $250. With such low price tags, many consumers will find it hard to justify any other television technology.

"What they want is one thing, and what they buy is another," Trinker said.

Analysts seem to agree. iSuppli forecasts that the CRT market will still account for about 70 percent of the television market by 2008.

"CRTs are still the most cost-effective technology on the market," said Jim Sanduski, marketing vice president of displays at Samsung Electronics of America.

Where there's a dominating market share, there's an opportunity,

CONTINUED:
Page 1 | 2

52 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
DLP and LCD Projection
Your interesting article doesn't mention how DLP or LCD Projection TVs stack up to traditional CRTs. When discussing emerging television technologies I always appreciate these HDTV options being addressed. I personally would never buy a plasma because of "burn in" problems that might result from hooking up a computer to my TV. Nor would I consider a traditional projection TV as they never seem to look very good, but I've been considering DLP or LCD Projection as they seem to have a higher quality picture, are lighter, and cost less than plasma or lcds - where do these technologies fit into the digital HDTV future?
Posted by (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Inferior But Big
Projectors throw a big picture, and that is their primary objective. LCD projectors suffer the same problems as LCD panels, and because the image is enlarged on a dramatic scale, those flaws are even more obvious. Same goes for DLP, although many DLP projectors are significantly superior in image quality to LCD. Neither touch the quality of the CRT, but then, no CRT offers such a large picture. I'd have to disagree with your comment about CRT projectors, however. I have found that, *properly calibrated*, a CRT projector looks far superior to an LCD projector. Unfortunately, they are usually very big and noisy.
Posted by David Arbogast (1709 comments )
Link Flag
DLP and LCD Projection
Your interesting article doesn't mention how DLP or LCD Projection TVs stack up to traditional CRTs. When discussing emerging television technologies I always appreciate these HDTV options being addressed. I personally would never buy a plasma because of "burn in" problems that might result from hooking up a computer to my TV. Nor would I consider a traditional projection TV as they never seem to look very good, but I've been considering DLP or LCD Projection as they seem to have a higher quality picture, are lighter, and cost less than plasma or lcds - where do these technologies fit into the digital HDTV future?
Posted by (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Inferior But Big
Projectors throw a big picture, and that is their primary objective. LCD projectors suffer the same problems as LCD panels, and because the image is enlarged on a dramatic scale, those flaws are even more obvious. Same goes for DLP, although many DLP projectors are significantly superior in image quality to LCD. Neither touch the quality of the CRT, but then, no CRT offers such a large picture. I'd have to disagree with your comment about CRT projectors, however. I have found that, *properly calibrated*, a CRT projector looks far superior to an LCD projector. Unfortunately, they are usually very big and noisy.
Posted by David Arbogast (1709 comments )
Link Flag
Price is everything...
I ask you this: I have a Sony WEGA 36" tube set. Its almost 5
years old. Its a replacement to anotehr WEGA that failed after
taking delivery. Sony has the shortest warranty on these WEGA
models and yet, charges +$2000US...for a tube. It weighs in
over 260lbs. It contains more heavy metals that 10 LCD TVs its
same screen size. And now, its picture quality is degrading (red
overscan, left-right fade...all issues Sony knows of and out of
warranty...+$700 to repair+$200 pickup/delivery fees...). Why
should I keep it? and how do I dispose of it?

So why buy another tube? They are heavy, generate more heat,
dangerous (this WEGA has a strap on the back or it might fall
and crush your 2 yr old...!!!) it might be cheaper but
still...it consumes more power, and what about disposal? Atleast
with LCD, you just replace the backlight. With DLP, you replace
the bulb and its like new!

Once the media starts delivering more HDTV content, and the
motherglass pricing drops, everyone will own atleast one form of
LCD flatscreen (PC, TV or media center..).
Posted by Below Meigh (249 comments )
Reply Link Flag
CRT's are greater than I thought . . .!
Now I can get my computer to show movies on a CRT and I am not compromising on the quality of the reception, is major news.
The heavy metal thing, is a bummer though. I would figure if I treated the CRT as I would a flourescent tube and trade it in at the vender for a newer tube, life would be much simpler and I wouldn't have to worry aboout all those free radicals beings released into the environment. I might even think I could do it myself.
And Two year olds arent supposed to be that close to the TV.
Although, we do have the same concerns when it comes to high energy outputs associated with the larger plasma and LCD screens. What ever happend to that low power-comsuming touch screen display. Is the active-matrix screen dead?
Posted by (2 comments )
Link Flag
Price is everything...
I ask you this: I have a Sony WEGA 36" tube set. Its almost 5
years old. Its a replacement to anotehr WEGA that failed after
taking delivery. Sony has the shortest warranty on these WEGA
models and yet, charges +$2000US...for a tube. It weighs in
over 260lbs. It contains more heavy metals that 10 LCD TVs its
same screen size. And now, its picture quality is degrading (red
overscan, left-right fade...all issues Sony knows of and out of
warranty...+$700 to repair+$200 pickup/delivery fees...). Why
should I keep it? and how do I dispose of it?

So why buy another tube? They are heavy, generate more heat,
dangerous (this WEGA has a strap on the back or it might fall
and crush your 2 yr old...!!!) it might be cheaper but
still...it consumes more power, and what about disposal? Atleast
with LCD, you just replace the backlight. With DLP, you replace
the bulb and its like new!

Once the media starts delivering more HDTV content, and the
motherglass pricing drops, everyone will own atleast one form of
LCD flatscreen (PC, TV or media center..).
Posted by Below Meigh (249 comments )
Reply Link Flag
CRT's are greater than I thought . . .!
Now I can get my computer to show movies on a CRT and I am not compromising on the quality of the reception, is major news.
The heavy metal thing, is a bummer though. I would figure if I treated the CRT as I would a flourescent tube and trade it in at the vender for a newer tube, life would be much simpler and I wouldn't have to worry aboout all those free radicals beings released into the environment. I might even think I could do it myself.
And Two year olds arent supposed to be that close to the TV.
Although, we do have the same concerns when it comes to high energy outputs associated with the larger plasma and LCD screens. What ever happend to that low power-comsuming touch screen display. Is the active-matrix screen dead?
Posted by (2 comments )
Link Flag
CRT's better than Flat Panels? Think again!
I am curious if the person writting this article just went to a store and looked CRTs vs Flat panels and arrived at his/her assesment. And without offering any data or objective assesment, the whole article seems to be fuzzy and entangled in a fuzzy and deceptive title. Someone please explain to me how a 400 to 500 line CRT TV has a clearer picture than a Plasma runing at 720 lines or an LCD TV with 1080 lines with 1080x720 resolution? Of course if you put junk signal into the TV, junk is going to be displayed.

Of course if the article focused on price v.s. quality, there would be some substance there since many people can not afford an LCD TV or Plasma Flat panel tv at more than 1000 dollar a piece. A 300 dollar CRT is much more attractive. But the subtitle clearly states that CRTs have a clearer picture? That is fuzzy to me and not supported by the body any objective measurement, assesment or reviews.
Posted by lavacentral (61 comments )
Reply Link Flag
CRT's better than Flat Panels? Think again your think again!
This is a reply to A Sallam. It's common knowledge that CRT's offer better refresh rates and black-color than that of flat-panel displays. This is what the author I feel was trying to convey. Of course, if you compare a normal NTSC CRT against a hi-def LCD, the LCD will offer a much better picture. But, the author was attempting to compare hidef CRT picture tubes against hidef flat-panel displays. Any other comparision would be worthless in the context of this story.

Try playing a fast-paced game like Halo on a CRT, then on a plasma set. You'll definitely notice the slower refresh rates on the plasma versus the CRT.
Posted by (2 comments )
Link Flag
CRT has a better picture then LCD or Plasma
This is common knowledge. If you disagree with that comment, do some research. CRT has a 32-bit color depth. LCD* has 16-bits. CRT can display multiple resolutions all with great quality. LCD* can only display one resolution with good quality. With a CRT, you will never have to worry about response times (and ghosting). Even the best LCD's* have the some issues with ghosting.

Also in the article, I don't think it once mentions that a standard definition CRT has better picture quality than a high definition LCD or plasma monitor. Where did you read that?

* I mention LCD and CRT because that is what I know most about. From what I have read, plasma monitors have the same weaknesses.
Posted by colonna (24 comments )
Link Flag
Actually they are
Whoever wrote that previous comment was talking about an HD CRT Telovision. Which has many advantages over a plasma telovision. The number one thing being price. The second is life-span. The third is response time.
Posted by compu4 (8 comments )
Link Flag
CRT's better than Flat Panels? Think again!
I am curious if the person writting this article just went to a store and looked CRTs vs Flat panels and arrived at his/her assesment. And without offering any data or objective assesment, the whole article seems to be fuzzy and entangled in a fuzzy and deceptive title. Someone please explain to me how a 400 to 500 line CRT TV has a clearer picture than a Plasma runing at 720 lines or an LCD TV with 1080 lines with 1080x720 resolution? Of course if you put junk signal into the TV, junk is going to be displayed.

Of course if the article focused on price v.s. quality, there would be some substance there since many people can not afford an LCD TV or Plasma Flat panel tv at more than 1000 dollar a piece. A 300 dollar CRT is much more attractive. But the subtitle clearly states that CRTs have a clearer picture? That is fuzzy to me and not supported by the body any objective measurement, assesment or reviews.
Posted by lavacentral (61 comments )
Reply Link Flag
CRT's better than Flat Panels? Think again your think again!
This is a reply to A Sallam. It's common knowledge that CRT's offer better refresh rates and black-color than that of flat-panel displays. This is what the author I feel was trying to convey. Of course, if you compare a normal NTSC CRT against a hi-def LCD, the LCD will offer a much better picture. But, the author was attempting to compare hidef CRT picture tubes against hidef flat-panel displays. Any other comparision would be worthless in the context of this story.

Try playing a fast-paced game like Halo on a CRT, then on a plasma set. You'll definitely notice the slower refresh rates on the plasma versus the CRT.
Posted by (2 comments )
Link Flag
CRT has a better picture then LCD or Plasma
This is common knowledge. If you disagree with that comment, do some research. CRT has a 32-bit color depth. LCD* has 16-bits. CRT can display multiple resolutions all with great quality. LCD* can only display one resolution with good quality. With a CRT, you will never have to worry about response times (and ghosting). Even the best LCD's* have the some issues with ghosting.

Also in the article, I don't think it once mentions that a standard definition CRT has better picture quality than a high definition LCD or plasma monitor. Where did you read that?

* I mention LCD and CRT because that is what I know most about. From what I have read, plasma monitors have the same weaknesses.
Posted by colonna (24 comments )
Link Flag
Actually they are
Whoever wrote that previous comment was talking about an HD CRT Telovision. Which has many advantages over a plasma telovision. The number one thing being price. The second is life-span. The third is response time.
Posted by compu4 (8 comments )
Link Flag
Marketing Fluff
The monitor comparison photo is obviously coming from Samsung Electronics' CRT marketing group. It's ridiculous to include the stand as part of the depth measurement. Gee, I wonder why they don't list the weight and power consumption of the different monitors? It's true that CRTs currently offer a better overall picture and cost advantage. Gee, I hope so since they've been around a lot longer than flat panel displays. As with any new technology, the flat panel prices will continue to drop and the picture quality will improve. The bottom line is that the CRT TV will be going the way of the CRT computer monitor regardless of what any CRT manufacturer marketing guy tells you.
Posted by (7 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Eventually
Eventually, is the modifier I would use on your statement. CRT's will fade eventually. Even in the PC world, CRT's are not ancient history. I, for one, have 3 CRT monitors on my primary workstation, and given the electricity they consume and the heat they put out, I'd love to replace them with LCD panels. Unfortunately, LCD panels capable of anywhere near the resolution I run cost well over $1000 each. The benefits of LCD do not outweigh the high resolution and cost of my CRTs. $1000 for (3) CRT monitors that can handle 1600x1200 resolution vs. > $3000 for the same thing in flat panel. Nope. Not worth 300%+ the price.
Posted by David Arbogast (1709 comments )
Link Flag
Marketing Fluff
The monitor comparison photo is obviously coming from Samsung Electronics' CRT marketing group. It's ridiculous to include the stand as part of the depth measurement. Gee, I wonder why they don't list the weight and power consumption of the different monitors? It's true that CRTs currently offer a better overall picture and cost advantage. Gee, I hope so since they've been around a lot longer than flat panel displays. As with any new technology, the flat panel prices will continue to drop and the picture quality will improve. The bottom line is that the CRT TV will be going the way of the CRT computer monitor regardless of what any CRT manufacturer marketing guy tells you.
Posted by (7 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Eventually
Eventually, is the modifier I would use on your statement. CRT's will fade eventually. Even in the PC world, CRT's are not ancient history. I, for one, have 3 CRT monitors on my primary workstation, and given the electricity they consume and the heat they put out, I'd love to replace them with LCD panels. Unfortunately, LCD panels capable of anywhere near the resolution I run cost well over $1000 each. The benefits of LCD do not outweigh the high resolution and cost of my CRTs. $1000 for (3) CRT monitors that can handle 1600x1200 resolution vs. > $3000 for the same thing in flat panel. Nope. Not worth 300%+ the price.
Posted by David Arbogast (1709 comments )
Link Flag
Article is wrong
"LCDs are great as desktop PC monitors because they don't have to refresh pictures rapidly."

This isn't even remotely true. My aging LCD's here on my computer refresh at 72Hz. Even the highest quality HDTV format refreshes at only 60Hz.
Posted by Jeff Putz (302 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Article is wrong
"LCDs are great as desktop PC monitors because they don't have to refresh pictures rapidly."

This isn't even remotely true. My aging LCD's here on my computer refresh at 72Hz. Even the highest quality HDTV format refreshes at only 60Hz.
Posted by Jeff Putz (302 comments )
Reply Link Flag
LCD vs crt review
A few of my own words regarding this article: When it was published, it talks about 160 angle view where as many of the good lcd's now offer 175 degrees which match CRTs. Response times are also 12ms or lower for most good LCDs. Check out Syntaxgroups.com for syntax brands. 27" and 30" offer 12ms. 32 and 37" brands offer 8ms response time. Contrast ratios are in the 800:1 or higher for good lcd's.

Although the article was published months ago, thats along time when it comes to emerging technology like LCD's.

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.pcreview.co.uk/article-4500.php" target="_newWindow">http://www.pcreview.co.uk/article-4500.php</a>




Aesthetics: LCD monitors are aesthetically very pleasing to the eye being slim and stylish. There is no comparison with the CRT here. The current breed of LCD monitors has excellent colour combinations, and neat looking control panels. The weight of the LCD monitors is roughly 6-8 lbs for 15 inch models and slightly more for the 17 inch ones. Since it is very light it can be handled very comfortably even by a lady. Some manufacturers have come up with an outboard power supply thus reducing the thickness of the panel which now can be had at less than an inch!

Angle of view: Although the CRT monitors lead the way in this department, the viewing angle on LCD monitors is getting wider and wider and current models offer over 160 degrees. For all practical purposes that is more than sufficient for any user. Therefore the angle of view is not a major concern anymore as it used to be when LCD monitors initially emerged in the marketplace.

Colour Purity: This is where the CRT monitors take a clear advantage. However the best LCD monitors are very good and for an average user the difference is hardly noticeable in side by side comparison. The difference can vary from slight to significant depending on the quality of the LCD monitor used in comparison.

Contrast: Traditionally the CRT monitors always had better contrast and LCD monitors were lagging behind. Recently some of the best LCD monitors have come very close and according to some they match what the CRT is capable of in terms of contrast. This aspect of the monitor helps in correct tonal characteristics in low light situations. A high contrast monitor is likely to produce black as black rather than dark grey. High contrast is most important for gaming and movie playback.

Dead Pixels: What are Dead Pixels? Dead Pixels are simply pixels on the LCD monitors that do not function. Dead Pixels are not repairable hence they stay there for good. Dead Pixels can easily be identified in programs with white background; you can spot them in the same place every time you switch on your system. In the early days the issue of dead pixels on LCD monitors was a big one confronting most of the manufacturers, however, the manufacturing practices have greatly improved over time and dead pixel issue is very much controlled based on the experience gained. Still many manufacturers themselves are confused as to the Warranty Policies they need to enact for replacement of those monitors with dead pixels. The top manufacturers have no problem replacing the monitor within the warranty period. So when shopping for an LCD monitor check the dead pixel policy indicated in the warranty. Also check for dead pixels once you install it in your system. If you spot a dead pixel within the warranty period get a replacement.

Energy Requirements: LCD monitors are extremely economical when it comes to power consumption. Their consumption is in the region of 25 -50 watts compared to CRT which consume like 60-80 watts for a 15 inch model to almost 70 to 150 for 17 and 19 inch models.

Image Brightness: LCD Monitors win hands down in this department. They offer almost twice the brightness compared to the CRT monitor. If you use the system in a brightly lit room or with plenty of sunshine coming through the window LCD is the best choice.

Magnetic Interference: Again the CRT looses out in this department too. LCD monitors are not affected by the magnetic interference at all. Many of the LCD monitors come with stereo speakers built-in and need not be shielded for magnetic interference. Shielding the speakers makes them very costly, thus the savings can be either passed on to the consumer or spent by manufacturer elsewhere in a more effective way.

Response Time: As mentioned in the beginning of this article the response time of the LCD monitor is crucial for the gamers and movie buffs. Response time refers to updating of the pixel colours. Ghosting or trailing effects start to become evident when the response time slows down to 20 ms. One should definitely look for monitors offering 16ms or even 12 ms response time. We may even see monitors in near future with response times in single digits!

Screen Flicker: One of the most annoying things on the CRT monitor which we all had to suffer was the flickering effect, in other words the low refresh rates. This contributed towards headaches which users experienced on a daily basis. This aspect was also responsible for lower productivity. CRT does not have an advantage when it comes to the flickering effect. By default windows always sets the refresh rate at 60 Hz, until you install your monitor and it detects the configuration file and sets the refresh rate based on factory setting of the monitor in question. The VESA standard states that the minimum refresh rate to avoid eye strain is 72 Hz. Some of the good CRT monitors can go much higher. Ideally a refresh rate of 85 Hz should be OK for most people using 17 inch monitors. Due to difference in technology the LCD Monitors are clear winners as refresh rate is not an issue with them. Normally you get a choice of two different refresh rates on the LCD monitor but it is best to go with the recommendations of the manufacturer.


Conclusion
The final word...


A quality LCD monitor nowadays is very much affordable, you certainly get your moneys worth, unlike a couple of years back when the prices were still on the higher side and the quality was nothing to write home about.

The CRT was king in all the departments. Maybe Not anymore!
Posted by lavacentral (61 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Not a techie, just a Consumer in the market
and Now I am really confused.

First, I am replacing a 1988 circa 27'JVC, and until a few minutes ago, thought I would replace it with an LCD, mostly due to the burn-in problem.

I wanted to go to around 40" screen, but the manufacturer I chose only offers it on 37"(really 42"), which looks squashed, or 43"(really 49.5") which is monstrous for the location I need to put it, and the special stand it takes is out of the question.

The salespeople I have spoken with indicate that niether the LCD OR Plasma have more than 3 years life in them, due to bulbs going out... and hence the attractiveness and value of their "extended warranty".

The tv is intended to be out primary tv, and since I am medically retired, stays on 16+ hours per day.

Will I truly see the difference in sharpness while I am watching the History Channel, if I am no "fuzzies" afficianado? Will I truly see a problem with the refresh rate if I decide to play "Battlefield Vietnam" on my PC using it?

And why is there no intermediate size among LCD screens between 37" and 43", with the smaller one costing MORE?
Posted by Dwenger (2 comments )
Link Flag
LCD vs crt review
A few of my own words regarding this article: When it was published, it talks about 160 angle view where as many of the good lcd's now offer 175 degrees which match CRTs. Response times are also 12ms or lower for most good LCDs. Check out Syntaxgroups.com for syntax brands. 27" and 30" offer 12ms. 32 and 37" brands offer 8ms response time. Contrast ratios are in the 800:1 or higher for good lcd's.

Although the article was published months ago, thats along time when it comes to emerging technology like LCD's.

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.pcreview.co.uk/article-4500.php" target="_newWindow">http://www.pcreview.co.uk/article-4500.php</a>




Aesthetics: LCD monitors are aesthetically very pleasing to the eye being slim and stylish. There is no comparison with the CRT here. The current breed of LCD monitors has excellent colour combinations, and neat looking control panels. The weight of the LCD monitors is roughly 6-8 lbs for 15 inch models and slightly more for the 17 inch ones. Since it is very light it can be handled very comfortably even by a lady. Some manufacturers have come up with an outboard power supply thus reducing the thickness of the panel which now can be had at less than an inch!

Angle of view: Although the CRT monitors lead the way in this department, the viewing angle on LCD monitors is getting wider and wider and current models offer over 160 degrees. For all practical purposes that is more than sufficient for any user. Therefore the angle of view is not a major concern anymore as it used to be when LCD monitors initially emerged in the marketplace.

Colour Purity: This is where the CRT monitors take a clear advantage. However the best LCD monitors are very good and for an average user the difference is hardly noticeable in side by side comparison. The difference can vary from slight to significant depending on the quality of the LCD monitor used in comparison.

Contrast: Traditionally the CRT monitors always had better contrast and LCD monitors were lagging behind. Recently some of the best LCD monitors have come very close and according to some they match what the CRT is capable of in terms of contrast. This aspect of the monitor helps in correct tonal characteristics in low light situations. A high contrast monitor is likely to produce black as black rather than dark grey. High contrast is most important for gaming and movie playback.

Dead Pixels: What are Dead Pixels? Dead Pixels are simply pixels on the LCD monitors that do not function. Dead Pixels are not repairable hence they stay there for good. Dead Pixels can easily be identified in programs with white background; you can spot them in the same place every time you switch on your system. In the early days the issue of dead pixels on LCD monitors was a big one confronting most of the manufacturers, however, the manufacturing practices have greatly improved over time and dead pixel issue is very much controlled based on the experience gained. Still many manufacturers themselves are confused as to the Warranty Policies they need to enact for replacement of those monitors with dead pixels. The top manufacturers have no problem replacing the monitor within the warranty period. So when shopping for an LCD monitor check the dead pixel policy indicated in the warranty. Also check for dead pixels once you install it in your system. If you spot a dead pixel within the warranty period get a replacement.

Energy Requirements: LCD monitors are extremely economical when it comes to power consumption. Their consumption is in the region of 25 -50 watts compared to CRT which consume like 60-80 watts for a 15 inch model to almost 70 to 150 for 17 and 19 inch models.

Image Brightness: LCD Monitors win hands down in this department. They offer almost twice the brightness compared to the CRT monitor. If you use the system in a brightly lit room or with plenty of sunshine coming through the window LCD is the best choice.

Magnetic Interference: Again the CRT looses out in this department too. LCD monitors are not affected by the magnetic interference at all. Many of the LCD monitors come with stereo speakers built-in and need not be shielded for magnetic interference. Shielding the speakers makes them very costly, thus the savings can be either passed on to the consumer or spent by manufacturer elsewhere in a more effective way.

Response Time: As mentioned in the beginning of this article the response time of the LCD monitor is crucial for the gamers and movie buffs. Response time refers to updating of the pixel colours. Ghosting or trailing effects start to become evident when the response time slows down to 20 ms. One should definitely look for monitors offering 16ms or even 12 ms response time. We may even see monitors in near future with response times in single digits!

Screen Flicker: One of the most annoying things on the CRT monitor which we all had to suffer was the flickering effect, in other words the low refresh rates. This contributed towards headaches which users experienced on a daily basis. This aspect was also responsible for lower productivity. CRT does not have an advantage when it comes to the flickering effect. By default windows always sets the refresh rate at 60 Hz, until you install your monitor and it detects the configuration file and sets the refresh rate based on factory setting of the monitor in question. The VESA standard states that the minimum refresh rate to avoid eye strain is 72 Hz. Some of the good CRT monitors can go much higher. Ideally a refresh rate of 85 Hz should be OK for most people using 17 inch monitors. Due to difference in technology the LCD Monitors are clear winners as refresh rate is not an issue with them. Normally you get a choice of two different refresh rates on the LCD monitor but it is best to go with the recommendations of the manufacturer.


Conclusion
The final word...


A quality LCD monitor nowadays is very much affordable, you certainly get your moneys worth, unlike a couple of years back when the prices were still on the higher side and the quality was nothing to write home about.

The CRT was king in all the departments. Maybe Not anymore!
Posted by lavacentral (61 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Not a techie, just a Consumer in the market
and Now I am really confused.

First, I am replacing a 1988 circa 27'JVC, and until a few minutes ago, thought I would replace it with an LCD, mostly due to the burn-in problem.

I wanted to go to around 40" screen, but the manufacturer I chose only offers it on 37"(really 42"), which looks squashed, or 43"(really 49.5") which is monstrous for the location I need to put it, and the special stand it takes is out of the question.

The salespeople I have spoken with indicate that niether the LCD OR Plasma have more than 3 years life in them, due to bulbs going out... and hence the attractiveness and value of their "extended warranty".

The tv is intended to be out primary tv, and since I am medically retired, stays on 16+ hours per day.

Will I truly see the difference in sharpness while I am watching the History Channel, if I am no "fuzzies" afficianado? Will I truly see a problem with the refresh rate if I decide to play "Battlefield Vietnam" on my PC using it?

And why is there no intermediate size among LCD screens between 37" and 43", with the smaller one costing MORE?
Posted by Dwenger (2 comments )
Link Flag
You failed to mention that the CRT wins in the response time department
You say 12ms is a good response time. Please, think again. During gaming and movie playback 12ms produces significant ghosting. And when compared with the response time of a CRT which is instant(because the whole screen is redrawn 60-80 times a second) that makes 12ms downright suck.
Posted by compu4 (8 comments )
Reply Link Flag
You failed to mention that the CRT wins in the response time department
You say 12ms is a good response time. Please, think again. During gaming and movie playback 12ms produces significant ghosting. And when compared with the response time of a CRT which is instant(because the whole screen is redrawn 60-80 times a second) that makes 12ms downright suck.
Posted by compu4 (8 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I can't believe you flat screen people...
Come on, this is truly unbelievable. Here we are - in the FUTURE - we have awesome knowledge of the universe and technology, and there are people that actually believe a plasma or LCD has as good or better picture than a CRT. You must be kidding!!
I have studied the pictures of hundreds of CRT/LCD/Plasma TVs and monitors. CRT is hands down the king of motion picture quality. The only thing that can beat it is well produced chemical based film.
Reasons:
1. CRT has far more accurate color reproduction and natural color and gray scales than LCD or Pasma which 'stratify' or show obvious digital seperations in a smooth color band.
2. CRT reproduces motion better than any other technology. This is a big one for me.
3. CRT softens pixelation while retaining clarity.

I find Plasmas and especially LCDs to be unwatchable. I mock my friends that buy them!
Posted by 139_IQ (3 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I can't believe you flat screen people...
Come on, this is truly unbelievable. Here we are - in the FUTURE - we have awesome knowledge of the universe and technology, and there are people that actually believe a plasma or LCD has as good or better picture than a CRT. You must be kidding!!
I have studied the pictures of hundreds of CRT/LCD/Plasma TVs and monitors. CRT is hands down the king of motion picture quality. The only thing that can beat it is well produced chemical based film.
Reasons:
1. CRT has far more accurate color reproduction and natural color and gray scales than LCD or Pasma which 'stratify' or show obvious digital seperations in a smooth color band.
2. CRT reproduces motion better than any other technology. This is a big one for me.
3. CRT softens pixelation while retaining clarity.

I find Plasmas and especially LCDs to be unwatchable. I mock my friends that buy them!
Posted by 139_IQ (3 comments )
Reply Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.