Monitor question

[eccs19]

Would one expect to have a better quality picture on an older tube monitor vs a LCD monitor? I've a number of times posted a picture that I think looks nice and sharp on my tube screen (19"), and gone over to my Dads place, and show him the picture, and I find it doesn't look as sharp on his computer. I would have thought the picture should be sharper on a newer technology screen.

[wlachan]

The LCD was probably not running at its native resolution.

[lithos]

I actually prefer CRT, but buggered if you can find one. Why? Yes, LCDs, even at native resolution, there's still that gap between the pixels you can see, although they're getting better. And for some reason, they like showing noise much more than CRT. On some LCDs, I panicked when I viewed shots taken at ISO 400 on a K100D. They look noisy as hell. Then when I printed them, or view them on my CRT, none of it was visible.

Dreamworks, I think, were still using CRTs ages after decent LCDs came out. In fact, HP pumped a lot of R&D and tech into making an LCD that would please Dreamworks in terms of giving the same image as a CRT.

[Jodokast96]

It really depends on the screen. The one I'm on now is just pathetic for anything photo related. Viewing angles are bad (yeah, you can see the screen from damn near any angle, but any more than 15 degrees from center looks horrible) and contrast ratio sucks (colors don't blend well and end up banding). Put the same image on my TV and it's just beautiful.

[raymeedc]

Originally Posted by lithos

I actually prefer CRT, but buggered if you can find one.

Here in the states, you find them lined up for next to nothing at the local Salvation Army or thrift store. Others are practically given away on CraigsList. It's actually a great time to get hold of a large, high quality CRT, as people scramble for the latest LCD monitors.

[lithos]

I should've clarified with "new," ray. My fault. See, if you get an old one, it might have the same colour balance controls as my current one (operated by jiggling the cable.)

But yes. I wonder if there's a list of some of the best old CRT monitors, so we can find out which ones are worth keeping, and which ones are suitable for chucking off a balcony, rockstar-style.

I was reading some high-end entertainment article a few years back - 2004, 2005 maybe - and it had recommendations on what TV to get that year. This was for optimum picture quality, as the first big LCD and plasma panels were coming onto the market.

There recommendation, for maximum quality? CRT. See, some might've thought of CRT as old technology. But another way of thinking about it is that it's got all the kinks worked out, that it's reached the fabled "ain't broke, don't fix" stage. Ok, that was five years ago, but the point remains only slightly less valid.

CRT was what we were used to, so the manufacturers had more or less hit the reset button in terms of image quality, to start almost from scratch (yes, LCDs and plasmas weren't absolutely terrible, so it's not like it was totaly Year Zero - maybe Year Fifteen for LCDs and Year Three for plasmas) to catch up.

What sucked is that they stopped manufacturing CRT before, in my opinion, LCDs had caught up. This was no doubt due to marketing pressure - new technology is better! Both smaller and bigger where it counts! Hang it on your wall! The novelty! All these, unfortunately, and as a testament to both modern marketing and consumerism, didn't help the main purpose of a freakin' TV or monitor: having a really good picture.

Dunno about any other country, but here, back in about 2006-2007, every single place that sold plasma and LCD TVs had, ninety-nine times out of a hundred, three movies playing as a demonstration on their panels:

* Shrek
* Toy Story
* Finding Nemo

The canny reader may notice a common thread with these three movies: they're all pure CGI. Why use 'em? Well, they're family friendly, so good for a public store. They all recent, and CGI screams hi-tech, which is what you want to promote in an electrical store.

And finally...there're no complex gradients. Early LCD and Plasma panels suffered really, really, really, really, really badly from colour banding, where the panel doesn't have the bit depth to handle the gradients real life has the temerity to be made from: the shadows and highlight over the contours of a person's face, sunsets, a flickering flame. CGI contains a lot less of those (since they'd take a shedload more rendering time to do, and cartoons don't need 'em - there's a metaphor) I'll bet that was the norm in electrical stores all over the world (I'm keen to find out.) To be fair, you don't really notice it when you're sitting eight feet away from the panel, as you do with large-screen TVs, but bugger me if you can find eight empty feet in a shop these days. CRTs didn't have that problem then.

I also don't like LCDs because the pixel size is permanently fixed.

So, in short, I think they jumped the gun on dumping CRTs. Similar to how you'd have been better off with a film camera in the late nineties instead of buying one of those Canon/Kodak digital models. I wish they were still making CRTs, just how I wish Pentax were still making film cameras. In fact, it would be be awesome if they never phased either of those examples out, and kept them in production, side-by-side...

Of course, if you want my advice for a decent LCD panel, check out the Dell 2209W. IPS and everything, for only $400.