I have long considered replacing my clunky Sony CRT monitor with a flat-panel but understand theyre not as good for graphics and games. Is that noticeably so? I make Poser AVIs and run MS Flight Simulator. The Sonys performance is great, but I could do with more desk space and a little style.

For graphics and game play/movies...the CRT is your best bet. The liquid crystal molecules in the LCD panels move relatively slowly from one orientation to another. As a result, video or games played on an LCD can look smeared. The response of the phosphers to the electron beam in a CRT is nearly instantaneous. Although the flat panel monitors have made significant headway since first introduced, they have yet to fix the problems regarding motion and distortion of graphics. Headway is moving rapidly for the flat panels and they will soon be up to par for all types of media.

I never had any problems with video or games on my LCDs. Early LCDs hat problems with that, but if you buy a decent new one, that won't be a problem any more. I would never ever buy a CRT again.

I bought a 17" Flat Panel last fall and I've never noticed any problems while playing games and I do a ton of Paint Shop Pro Stuff as well. The biggest thing I have noticed is I can move it farther away from me (and up and down) and I don't have near the eye strain I had in the past. Mine is a model HP and I really love it.

I can't stand LCD's because I do serious color imaging and color correction work. I haven't seen an LCD yet that matches the needs for serious professional work.

I have two SONY 19" Multiscan G400's (which support four machines- saving desktop space) and they are incredibly excellent for precise color tweaking work. Yet places that I shop, like CompUSA, have virtually discontinued carrying all CRT monitors and have now only LCD's. LCD's will probably "eventually" get to where I would buy one, but definately not yet.

However, the bright side is- if you look around, you can still buy EXCELLENT CRT monitors for next to NOTHING! Since SONY is phasing out all but a very expensive "Artisan" line CRT monitor, I found a website with two SONY 19" G420S
(same specs as the G400, but with a few later model tweaks)
and got them for only $149 each in brand new condition!)
I got them simply to be spares when my other two monitors finally go out (but they are still running great after 3 years of constant daily use.)

I also don't use digital cameras for the same reason. While yes, you can get really nice digital cameras for a fairly expensive price, I can still shoot 35mm with very inexpensive cameras with good optics, pay only $2 for developing and index print in just ONE HOUR, and have them on my EPSON scanner and bulk-scan a roll of 35mm in about 30 minutes to my exact settings i need. The color quality and most importantly the HUGE extra resolution is very important to me as I do a lot of landscape and wild animal shots when I'm out hiking in the boonies.

LCD's and CONSUMER digital cameras are just toys, not professional tools. Maybe in about 2-3 more years they will reach the price-performance level where I would switch, but definately not now with excellent quality, dirt cheap CRT's and 35mm film still out-performing them.

My issure with my LG LCD 17" is that the colors are TOO rich. Every time I upload one of my pieces or try to view it on another machine it is so dark you can barely make anythign out but I cn see it just fine as I am making it. HOWEVER I have noticed upon very close inspection that there a a few vertical lines of bluriness if you look in real close. You can't see em unles you go looking for em but it is an issue. E V S

Every professional artist that has talked about crt vs lcd trashes lcd monitors, for one reason for another. Same with reviews, when they are looking at professional graphics applications. That's enough to make me stick with my 19" syncmaster. I got mine for under $200 as well. But I'll be damned if I'll give up my olympus digital camera! 4,400 pictures my first year.. at even $.16 a print that comes out to $704 in developeing costs! That first camera lasted me 4 years, and the wife now uses it, while I use my New oly. My digital camera is the best damned consumer electronic purchase I've ever made.

I'll stick with my 22" Viewsonic CRT until the thing dies - for a number of reasons. 1. Flatscreens are too 'rich' and have too much contrast - they give a false image, your stuff looks 'dead' on other screens. 2. A SINGLE dead image point of a flatscreen is there forever, and will forever be a nail in your eye. The number of such dead spots will slowly increase as the screen gets older. And there are no guarantees that cover the odd spot, the manufacturers expect it and will NOT replace for less than a fair number. 3. Flatscreens cannot be run satisfactoirly at other resolutions than the recommended. Reason: they have a physically FIXED number of image points, precisely 1280x1024 for instance. This is not the case with CRT. If you need to run the flatscreen at say 1024x768 sometimes (often happens to me when I test interactive presentations I'm working on), the screen can only approximate that resolution by 'smearing' each virtual pixel across the borders of its fixed image points. This means that you lose all sharpness and text looks terrible. There is a new generation of flatscreens out there in development. In fact IBM developed a Super-high res flatscreen already some years ago, used for medical imaging and military and such, where cost is not a factor - only image quality. Then the number of points may be hundreds per inch, allowing very convincing variable resolution. But those screens are not in a normal price range at all. Yet. I have to KNOW that the presentations and videos etc I create will look right on all types of screens, right up to cinema-sized. CRT is the only way to go. So although flatscreens look sexy and take up minimal space and are 'hot' right now, I'll stay away for some time to come. :] Fish

Nearly everything has been said. I would never do any serious colour work on a tft. But I love the tft on my laptop for creating websites, surfing,...even Poser stuff. TFT is good for everything, except things that need quality colour or brightness settings.

Attached Link: http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=vp201b&page=1&cookie%5Ftest=1

I had a viewsonic CRT 21" PB817 Paid tons for it too and they dropped it a year later, Not much later than that it died. cut it on and power light goes red. not green or amber. They gave me a new one as it was still covered. that died same way a year later then they gave me a third one it died about a year later. after that my warrenty was up. The only reason I bought it was because it was the first monitor I saw that supported 2048x1536x60 Hertz. Anyway I have a 21" Sony CRT e540 and love it on one machine. even though I swore I'd never buy viewsonic again I came across this review (See Link) of the 20" VP201B 1600x1200 Native res. and 16ms refresh rates. I have no dead pixels or stuck pixels on my screen and there is no ghosting whatsoever in games or video playback. Also you can rotate the screen and view a whole page on screen at once. anyway the review states $1200 as the price I got mine from newegg.com for $949 I still use my crt for graphics because I need the high 2048x1536 res. but love the LCD...

Echoing most of the above... No graphics professional would consider anything but a CRT. TFT screens have several drawbacks compared to CRTs, namely: Fixed native resolution. If you move away from this you'll get a pixellated or smeared image. A CRT doesn't generally care what res you throw at it, within reason. Lack of bit depth. This may not be apparent to many people but it's critical if you are working on textures or any other graphic which requires accurate colour representation. If your monitor can't display 32 bit colour accurately (and TFTs cannot), you won't ever be able to kill off texture seams or get accurate colour matches. Weird aspect ratio. The accepted standard for displays follows the pattern of 640x480, 1024x768, 1280x960 and so on. Many TFT screens do not follow this rule and therefore, any object on screen will be somewhat distorted. I'd use a TFT if I had to but I wouldn't be at all happy about it.

In case anyone is wondering why anyone would even want an LCD, CRTs make you blind. My eyesight has degenerated appallingly since I became a computer geek. Not all of that is attributable to age, and it's pretty much no longer correctible (my prescription changes every two years). The technology of the CRT causes physical abuse to the eye, which damages it permanently and manifests immediately as headaches. Now that I have an LCD (for about 15 months), I have fewer headaches after 5-10 hours at the screen. Haven't had my biennial eye check. I'm guessing that the LCD will allow me to see--not just the computer, but the world--for a few extra years. When we were kids, people who weren't selling TVs told us that if we sat closer than six feet, we'd be injured. They were right; we did it anyway. Now we sit 18 inches from the "TV", and its flickering image affects our eyes the way running for hours on a vibrating plate would affect our legs. I'm not saying get an LCD. I got mine when the quality made it possible to do most of my work (which is not color graphics headed to print) on it. It sounds like they aren't ready for that market. But when they are, get one. Going blind is no fun. M

mickmca - that may be the case if you have too low a refresh rate (ie that a CRT can damage your eyes) and it is the reason that I use a screen with a high refresh rate - 80 Hz or more is best. I use res 1600x1200 at 85 Hz.

The human eye perceives flicker at anything below 72 Hz on a CRT and 75 is the absolute minimum you should use.
Many people use the default 60 Hz and have no idea how serious it is - it really can cause trouble. Headaches, strain, stress amd possibly damage in the long run.

At 80 Hz and higher your eyes sees the image as a totally still image and cannot be damaged by it.

Of course, high radiation or magnetic field strength can hurt you but that's another matter. A well shielded CRT is a must. Should be at least TCO 99 marked.

Next issue is the contrast - sitting with a bright image and darkness around also strains and should be avoided.

The way you sit (physical ergonomics) is critical as well.
Even if you sit and crane your neck (as I often do) or frown can cause you trouble.

There are a lot of issues to take into account, certainly.

:] Fish

Message edited on: 06/13/2004 08:51

I wasn't aware of the refresh rate threshhold, only the principle that the eye is constantly refocusing if the image flickers. I'll check mine on the graphics machine (a 19inch Sony CRT). I'm guessing it's below 80. For me, the bottom line is, no headaches with the LCD machine I use for writing and 3D. I haven't seen any "dangers" listed for LCDs, except the aesthetic ones. M

the biggest danger with LCDs is the danger to your budget. I can get a 22" CRT for less than a 15" LCD. re: refresh rates. LCDs have a relatively low refresh rate however, because LCD is a significatly diffrent technology the refresh rates do not equate to CRT refresh rates.

Tyger - exactly. Flatscreens have a 'slower picture' - the pixel doesn't go dark before it gets refreshed. So it doesn't flicker in spite of a lower refresh rate than a CRT. But that of course also means a 'smeary' image if there's fast movement for instance. Especially quick pans - like in a movie for instance. But modern flatscreens are getting significantly faster. :] Fish

I have a 22in NEC Multisync CRT and I love it. I run my resolution at 1600x1200x85hz -- higher than that of any equally priced LCDs. CRTs need a lot more setup teaking that LCDs, but the results are definitely worth it.

Wow -- the response is great! On balance I think it's advising me to stay with my CRT. I'm very grateful to everyone for their thoughtful answers.

Wow -- the response is great! On balance I think it's advising me to stay with my CRT. I'm very grateful to everyone for their thoughtful answers.