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