We're upgrading our monitors to LCD widescreen!

[racofer]

Alright, I will keep my misinformed opinions over your new shit then.

 

[ever]

good =)

as long as you're happy

 

[Armacalypse]

I still have my crappy old CRT, with max 85hz at 1280x1024, and only 75hz if I want a higher resolution.

I've just never known what LCD to get. Everything seems flawed when I read about it. Are those few LED-lit monitors any good? Or maybe I should wait even longer for that "perfect" monitor.

Samsung SyncMaster XL2370

Best monitor out there.

Really? It's got that fancy new technology, and only costs about 360€/530$, which is only about two thirds the price of the other monitors I've considered. I don't want any of that light-gray-instead-of-light-blue crap some LCDs have, just to get a bit higher contrast.

 

[ever]

Try before you buy. Play around with it at the store.

Everyone's eyes are different and just because it is technically the best performer, doesn't mean you'll like it the most.

 

[Xi]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6824005134

$330 LED with 2ms response, 2,000,000:1 contrast ratio. 1920x1080

This thing would make ANY crt look like ass. lol

 

[Oarfish]

CRT get that sharpness problem

It's not so much a problem of CRTs as that LCDs can do sub pixel rendering (not by default in XP - display/effect/enable clear type). So you can get get font rendering at an effective DPI well above that of the actual resolution.

It will be OLED screens soon, there's already a 15" OLED panel out there. Going to be FUCKING expensive for the next 5 years or so though.

 

[Xi]

http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/sto ... ifications

$2500 for a small screen one. 11 5/6 x 9 15/16 x 5 1/2"

I'd take an LCD with LED lighting over an OLED any day. ;P The one I listed above is a steal of a price for an uber picture quality screen. CRTs don't even compare.

 

[hal900x]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824005134

$330 LED with 2ms response, 2,000,000:1 contrast ratio. 1920x1080

This thing would make ANY crt look like ass. lol

When you started to talk about ANSI ratios, for a second I thought you might actually contribute something intelligent. Good thing you revealed your complete cluelessness with this.

In case anyone's wondering what I'm referring to, this guy goes on about a somewhat more objective measure (relative to complete fabrication...all contrast ratings are pretty much BS) called ANSI contrast. He then posts a manufacturer's completely fabricated spec (the 2 mil to 1 "dynamic contrast") on a mass-produced LCD as a example of how ALL LCDz RULEZ LOL. Ignore him, he knows shit about shit.

There are many good things about LCDs, including stability of image, reduced distortion and flicker, more natural viewing aspect and more. But in the areas of color purity, black levels, contrast and similar specifications that you care about for gaming, you can't afford an LCD that is equal to a CRT in performance. Digital flat panels that equal CRTs in these areas are only just on the bleeding edge and are very expensive...you generally won't find them on Newegg.

On top of all that there are additional advantages for old school games due to the reasons I mentioned earlier: lower resolutions, fixed aspect ratios and the simple fact that the graphics were designed for CRTs specifically.

Digital flatpanel technology will catch up with and outpace CRTs in the next few years. Has not happened yet.

 

[Xi]

You're right, Contrast ratio is meaningless. Finding a good CRT within that price range that offers a superior picture would be impossible to do though. Of course, you can also buy super expensive LEDs with increased color, response, contrast, etc. So the point becomes moot really. CRT is pretty much dead with 2009 tech(maybe 2007 and 2008 it still competed) You can cling to your old tech though, I don't mind. Just saying.

Edit: In fact, I cannot find a new CRT to compare. Pretty sure CRT is officially dead.

 

[Country_Gravy]

Viewsonic Optiquest Q115 22" CRT. Had it since 2000 and it works like new and looks great. Who needs LCD?

 

[hal900x]

You're right, Contrast ratio is meaningless. Finding a good CRT within that price range that offers a superior picture would be impossible to do though. Of course, you can also buy super expensive LEDs with increased color, response, contrast, etc. So the point becomes moot really. CRT is pretty much dead with 2009 tech(maybe 2007 and 2008 it still competed) You can cling to your old tech though, I don't mind. Just saying.

Edit: In fact, I cannot find a new CRT to compare. Pretty sure CRT is officially dead.

So you're saying because it's no longer produced in the mainstream, that proves it's inferior tech? Brilliant. It wasn't discontinued because of it's inferior picture, it was discontinued because of bulk, weight, aspect ratio, production costs/ease of production and good old human trendiness. Your average consumer doesn't give a shit about playing old games, they just want a neato inch-thick futuristic lookin' monitor on their desktop that is inexpensive, doesn't take up the whole damn desk and all their friends think looks modern. Which isn't an entirely bad thing, because as my original post says, my awesome CRT was free.

See, that was kind of my whole point. Superior tech (for old games) at a superior price (free). Get it?

By the way, I have an awesome flat screen too. It's hooked up to my HTPC. It's fucking great for 1080p movies and modern games that support 1080p natively. I never fell into a general argument for or against either. Each have their suitable application, and for retro gaming(that thing the codex is always talking about), CRT is by far the superior choice.

 

[Xi]

The LED backlight makes LCD a superior tech in almost every aspect(Even in Contrast! IMHO). Of course, nothing beats the "free" option. ;P

Edit:

http://www.sharpusa.com/ForHome/HomeEnt ... E77UN.aspx

10bit panel, 4ms, 120Hz it's a nice looking television. ;P Note that even Sharp doesn't list the actual contrast(not even dynamic). It simply doesn't measure anything these days.

Modern LCD TVs are even more impressive than monitors.

 

[Xi]

Roffle. OK.

I'm done here.

You provided no counter argument other than a personal subjective stance on it. I'm saying LCD is superior in numerous ways, one of which is picture quality. Cry about contrast all you want, but its a moot point when color is far more vibrant on LCD(especially LED) than any CRT could ever hope to achieve.

Again, you can have your old CRTs. I don't care.

Edit: Not to mention, the netbook im posting on has an LED screen. It has superb picture quality for being such a tiny screen. ;P

 

[hal900x]

Roffle. OK.

I'm done here.

You provided no counter argument ...

Which is why I deleted it. There are numerous and simple counters to your argument, because you are getting further and further from the apples-to-apples comparison this started with.

But like I said, I'm done here.

 

[Xi]

Roffle. OK.

I'm done here.

You provided no counter argument ...

Which is why I deleted it. There are numerous and simple counters to your argument, because you are getting further and further from the apples-to-apples comparison this started with.

But like I said, I'm done here.

I was just pointing out that the CRT > LCD argument is moot. With lots of personal experience, I've always thought a good LCD looks better than any CRT. Hands down. If you're going to argue better black levels as the one winning factor that makes CRT better, than maybe I should be done here. You said nothing beyond that, and honestly thats a pretty weak claim that has not even been proven against the new LEDs. But whatever

 

[Zakhal]

Only poor people think CRT is better than LCD. Thats because they can afford only the cheapest of LCDs.

 

[hal900x]

<JoshtheRipper> Brad do you have any issues with " burn in " on your plasma?
<KnaveBrad> nope
<JoshtheRipper> kool
<JoshtheRipper> How well does it handle blacks
<KnaveBrad> I have it bolted to the wall, so they can't really take it without some serious work.

 

[Melcar]