Originally posted by sammorris:

---

Well that's not strictly true. Granted, the dot pitch of the best CRTs (typically small 19-20" units that support the full 2048x1536 VGA standard) still exceeds that of desktop LCD displays, but from a dot pitch point of view, some LCDs aren't far behind. The 2560x1440 27" displays have a very high dot pitch compared to the rest of the competition, and are the closest you can get to CRT dot pitch on a desktop LCD. Large numbers of high-end notebooks offer 1920x1080 17" displays, which match/exceed CRT dot pitch, the only reason they're not ultimately superior is they're usually TN displays with a poor viewing angle. Considering the high dot pitches on 2560x1440 27 and 2560x1600 30" monitors though, with S-IPS viewing angle and colour palette, honestly, given the downsides of CRTs (even ignoring their weight, bulk and power consumption, refresh rate at max res made them a real pain to use day in, day out) I don't think we're missing anything from the CRT era at all. Using $100 TN displays is going to null your enthusiasm for the LCD, but once you've seen LCDs done properly, you'll brush most of that criticism aside.
It's my hope that eventually high dot-pitch LCD/OLEDs come to the desktop arena - if you've seen the pixel density of modern smartphone displays (800x480 in under 4" space), it can easily be done, it's just, the current pixel density, for the moment at least - "will do"

---

Quote:

---

Russ;
I also think that the Phosphor persistence of a CRT has much to do with the difference it makes as well. I've yet to see anything that beats the color quality and accuracy of a high end CRT. The only thing that is hard to justify, is the price!

---

Originally posted by Mr-Movies:

---

Quote:

---

Russ;
I also think that the Phosphor persistence of a CRT has much to do with the difference it makes as well. I've yet to see anything that beats the color quality and accuracy of a high end CRT. The only thing that is hard to justify, is the price!

---

That is very true CRT's are still better then LCD's or Plasma's but price isn't the only negative Size is probably the biggest downside of a CRT.

Now I suppose we will get into the choice bias like we did with the more secure optical media verses hard drive backups argument, which truly isn't about choice but is just a fact. What one chooses is up to them. Even though I think CRT's are better picture wise I much prefer the smaller footprint of a flat panel so that is what I use I would pay the extra expense otherwise.

---

Originally posted by theonejrs:

---

Originally posted by Mr-Movies:

---

Quote:

---

Russ;
I also think that the Phosphor persistence of a CRT has much to do with the difference it makes as well. I've yet to see anything that beats the color quality and accuracy of a high end CRT. The only thing that is hard to justify, is the price!

---

That is very true CRT's are still better then LCD's or Plasma's but price isn't the only negative Size is probably the biggest downside of a CRT.

Now I suppose we will get into the choice bias like we did with the more secure optical media verses hard drive backups argument, which truly isn't about choice but is just a fact. What one chooses is up to them. Even though I think CRT's are better picture wise I much prefer the smaller footprint of a flat panel so that is what I use I would pay the extra expense otherwise.

---

Mr-Movies,

Generally the really good CRTs these days are only available from China and can be purchased through Canada. The last time I checked an .024 dot pitch 19" Flatscreen 4:3 CRT was right at $1500! It actually costs more than most 24" LCDs. Unless you have the need, or already own one, it's not a very economical buy at all! LOL!!

The Big dell I bought for $50 7 years ago, turned out to be the best monitor bargain of my life. What the label says on the outside is not what it is on the inside. I didn't discover the difference for over two years. According to the label on the back of the monitor it's supposed to be a .026mm Dot Pitch, which is the home version, that's supposed to weigh 42 Lbs. Mine turned out to be the Commercial .024mm Dot Pitch model for a Precision Graphics workstation, according to what is reported in the hardware manager, and weighs in at a few ounces shy of 60Lbs! I have enough parts for it to keep it running for at least another 10 years, including the right CRT, new and still packed in the original box! I won't part with it! I watched the Digitally re-mastered 1956 technicolor movie of 'The King and I' on it and was blown away by the color. Simply awesome! Works great with more modern video cards!

Russ

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

I'm not referring to fluidity of motion, with modern displays that's a relative non-issue which you have to be extremely sensitive to notice, I'm referring to static images. When you look at an LCD displaying a single image you can see it's just that, an image. When using a CRT, even with a very high refresh rate you can tell it's a picture that's updating continuously, and that's much less pleasant, imo.

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

I'm not referring to fluidity of motion, with modern displays that's a relative non-issue which you have to be extremely sensitive to notice, I'm referring to static images. When you look at an LCD displaying a single image you can see it's just that, an image. When using a CRT, even with a very high refresh rate you can tell it's a picture that's updating continuously, and that's much less pleasant, imo.

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

I imagine if you get the refresh rate high enough it stops being an issue. I've seen a few 120Hz CRTs around, presumably those are the displays you guys use. Having not used something that can produce a respectable resolution (read over 1024x768) at over 85Hz, it just isn't enough for me, whereas 60Hz on an LCD is no issue whatsoever.

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

HDTVs are a bit different because there's deinterlacing and upscaling going on, which ruins the responsiveness of the display. 100/120Hz TVs go some way to dealing with this but it's not ideal.

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

I scored 4. Seems alright, one of my friends I linked it to scored 10.

---