Hey...My funky old monitor is startin' to crap out like the Beastie Boys at White Castle!!! SOOO... was wonderin' what everyone uses around here? Yeah, yeah I could read reviews, but hearin' personal experiences for you peeps is a bit more valueable to me! So let me have it! (Pro & cons) gimme the whole shabang why don't ya! Thx in advance! Joe

I use an LCD Pro's are they take up less room, Con's they cost more than the equivalent quality CRT.

Im using my lappy...so i would think thats TFT. And for my desktop i have a 19" LCD-screen....Samsung i think it is. They both work fine for me even though everyone keeps saying CRTs the way to go. Good luck on deciding what to get. #:O)

LCD...19inch on maain...and wide screen laptop...thinking on getting the Apple 20 inch lcd for main PC

Worth getting a good pro LCD. I have 2 Sony's surrounding an NEC CRT and the strain to see things properly on the CRT is quite hard.

Guess we all have diff ideals about LCDs...crd's etc etc...cost, size, resolution, dpi, screen refresh rate...all took into consideration imo

I used to be a staunch CRT supporter, but then I got the Apple 23" LCD at work. Wow, it is beautiful and easy on the eyes. The flicker of my previous CRTs are probably what forced me to get glasses, lol. Still, for fine detail and color gradation, CRTs are hard to beat. Still, it is worth paying a little more and getting a good LCD these days. If you don't want to pay Apple prices, the Samsung Synmaster 213T is also a great LCD. Narrow down your choices, read the reviews, and go test some out if you can. You'll be starting at it for many, many hours so it is something to invest wisely in.

I have a TFT as main PC screen that I use for most things and web images, and a flat screen CRT that I use to produce print images, CRT colours are IMO more accurate. IMO TFT less space, less power usage, easy on the eyes, not 100% (but still very good) colour rendition. CRT Excellent colour rendition, hard on the eyes, big heavy and power hungry. That said TFT are getting much better now at colour rendition. Both calibrated with Spyder 2 pro

CRT all the way. If you see your CRT flicker, then you just don't have it set up properly (i.e. you set it at 60Hz). That is the main reason people find them 'hard on the eyes'. I've yet to see a TFT that can beat a good quality CRT in colour reproduction.

The main problem with refresh rates/screen flicker is that either the monitor and or graphics card arent capable of a high enough refresh rate at higher resolutions. Less of a problem these days as you can get a high spec CRT now for the price of a moderate TFT

Joe, I just recently upgraded my monitor(2 weeks ago). I bought a Samsung Syncmaster 204T. Decided on the LCD for my first purchase (will be getting a CRT soon). I read tons of reviews and the Samsung is the best bang for the buck. Ordered it on Buy.com , arrived in 2 days. My present video card is an ATI radeon 9600 with DVI(digital) & CRT(analog). Much sharper in DVI. Samsung 204T LCD My buying a new PC thread Lots of good Info & feedback on Monitors too, Check out the "Spyder" that AgentSmith & Lostpatrol mentions. Good Luck Joe Cyn: Thanks for that Info, was considering the Viewsonic 19". ICM

okay so this is where the A+ training kicks in. Best screen - high def 30" - way pricey and really really big! next best 21" LCD TFT 1280 x 768 resolution, clarity so good you eyes get sucked in. LCD is way better than plasma - the dot ptich is a brilliance compared to excellent. CRT's are bad for your eyes and dangerous, they create X-Rays and can store electric charges for up to 80 years. They are much bigger heavier and have a much lower resale value. LCD can support TV plug-in cards much better. LCD's also come with more user adjustable controls and software. Personally LG Flatron is the way for me... End result - get and LCD TFT (the TFT part is very important) at a res of preferable 1280 x 768 or if you like Mac the new 30" LCD supplied.

Hey Rod, that is the same Samsung I picked up for my wife. It is a great little monitor, though I like my LaCie blue 19" CRT better for image quality and color rendition. Still though, for the price, it is worth it. I'm well aware of refresh rate issues and have mine set at the optimal level. Some people can't get them high enough unfortuantely and there will always be that flicker, even though we may not perceive it at the higher Hz ratings. LCDs have no flicker issue and ARE easier on the eyes. And let us not forget the radiation. For years at work I sat in front of a huge 21" monitor. High quality yes, but I could almost feel my eyeballs cooking in their sockets. ;] PeeWee has some good tips. If possible, go with the Apple 30". I have nothing but praise for the 23" and it's color is as good or better than most CRT's I've seen and used.

Attached Link: http://www.ciao.co.uk/Acer_AL1912__5635081

Yeah it has been a bane of my life recently I have always preferred a big CRT but the recent LCD from Sony Apple etc the LCD is going to be my next choice, also able to give a larger viewing area, but I have had CRT last for many years and no dead pixel issues that may be a problem.. The screens look a tad delicate to me as well.. Are there any issues these days with lag on computer games the first ones I saw were not to good on that score nor is my laptop..

They have improved greatly over the past few years. These are what I have, including the Samsung ICM mentioned. The Apple is by far my favorite, though I couldn't afford it for myself. Mine is the previous version: APPLE: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002ILKNQ/104-1513414-6641534?v=glance&n=172282 Other Samsung at work, very nice: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1409385,00.asp LaCie @ home, awsome color and clarity. Tube by Sony I believe: http://www4.shopping.com/xPF-La_Cie_Electron_19blue_19_in

I have been told (unverified) that Dell widescreen LCD monitors use the same panel as Apple and give fabulous colour and performance.
The 30" is a monster and requires a special graphics card and a mortgage on your home..... but the 20"...... well........in the UK it is on special offer.

Message edited on: 03/15/2006 10:50

Attached Link: pricing

The link doesn't work :( Only what I was told Kort - the 24" is the first in the range with 1000:1 contrast ratio.

Sorry, use the Samsung one in the middle above and click on "pricing".

Whoa...a boatload of info to absorb here! Look like I'm leaning towards an LCD, for the space savings and less eye strain! Now to go check a few out personally! Thx peeps!

Message edited on: 03/15/2006 11:56

We please to aim! ;^P Happy hunting!

" okay so this is where the A+ training kicks in. Best screen - high def 30" - way pricey and really really big! next best 21" LCD TFT 1280 x 768 resolution, clarity so good you eyes get sucked in. LCD is way better than plasma - the dot ptich is a brilliance compared to excellent. CRT's are bad for your eyes and dangerous, they create X-Rays and can store electric charges for up to 80 years. They are much bigger heavier and have a much lower resale value. LCD can support TV plug-in cards much better. LCD's also come with more user adjustable controls and software. Personally LG Flatron is the way for me... End result - get and LCD TFT (the TFT part is very important) at a res of preferable 1280 x 768 or if you like Mac the new 30" LCD supplied." I'm sorry, but what a boatload of crap. X-rays? MAybe 10 years ago, but todays norms are so strict you get more exposure just walking on the street. And 1280xx768 on a 21" screen, god what a waste of realestate! TFT just doesn't have the colour reproduction of a quality CRT. End result, get a high quality CRT if you're serious about your imaging.

I have to wonder then WHY so many here ARE actually using LCD's and their artwork isn't impacted? Hmmmm?!?!

Guess its what works for you specifically in the end! Have to weigh the pros & cons of both and see'em in action before I decide! (SPACE is a determining factor for me!)

Oh and the CRT monitor that I'm aiming to replace is actually around 10 yrs old and served me well, So ANYTHING would be an improvement! (LOL!)

Hey at least now I know why people say I have a GLOWING personality! !!CRACKLE ZZAAAP BZZZT*!**!

Message edited on: 03/15/2006 13:38

Attached Link: http://www.brightsidetech.com/products/dr37p.php

Nice, looks expencive though!

"Perhaps you have not been keeping pace with developments - top LCD displays outperform CRT in all aspects nowdays."

Ahem, yeah, that isn't your typical TFT panel. I have been keeping up with developments. That one has a LED background to give it more dynamics. The panels you buy in the store use basically tubelights to illuminate the background which has 2 distinct disadvantages:

1. it lacks range, i.e. it only has a limited range of colour in it.
2. it's virtually impossible to produce pure blacks because the light is always on.

Now the dr37p solves both problems by using LEDs that do cover the complete colour range and can be turned off. But again, this isn't something you just buy unless you're willing to shell out a shitload of cash (8000-10000 US$).

So unless you're willing to spend 10 grand, I stand by my statement that a decent CRT outperforms TFT screens (in the normal affordable consumer market). So best to check what you're actually linking to trying to make other look silly.

Message edited on: 03/15/2006 16:57

Regardless of who is right or wrong. "I'm sorry, but what a boatload of crap" Was IMO not necessary, simply stating your view with good old fashioned fact would have been enough. These are just peoples opinions there is not need to be rude and tell people they are talking Crap

Have a walk through some of your medical imaging departments. If you can get in. That's how I chose my Sony's Also as Cindy said up there...one real good satisfaction test is if you hold a print up to your monitor and it is so close to the same. How can that be a bad thing. I'm wondering now if Sony will come out with Silicon Reflective Crystal Display in the nwer monitors.

@ 3DGuy - X-rays are still produced by curved CRTs and they are still in large scale production. If it wasn't the case it wouldn't be taught in IT as an international standard. The CRt's tube is lined and has a protection cap to prevent leakage but it is still a danger if broken or some ID10T desides to "check out" the tube himself.

LCD's are the future and to deny them is futile. Yes CRT's colour is better for print but the new Dell's are EXCELLENT and damn near, we just got 3 at work yesterday... Fantastic stuff.

And if you can really afford it the new TV output High Def LCDs are as good at colour as CRTs, if not better (they are made to be as life like as poss), yes you'll need a fast motherboard and processor and a huge graphics card, but it's all worth it when i'll be the standard in 5 years...

But can you really compare LCD to CRT to High Def when all have manual controls and each person can change it to see as they feel plus retina's being unique have unique colour seeing properties as well and even thou the colour diff from one person's eyes maybe so "microscopic" it's there... So nothing is perfect but honestly to advise some to buy a huge combersome CRT is (to me) really not sound advise, unless you work for the co that manu them...

Message edited on: 03/16/2006 01:16

All electrics are dangerous. If some ID1OT decides to check out the converter powerconverter that comes with his TFT he/she can get a surprise. High voltage in itself isn't dangerous, it's the power that's assiociated with it (it's the Amps that kill you). You can carry a load of 40000 volts of static electricity yourself and discharge it with a spark without ill effects (except maybe a sore spot at the point of discharge). But someone scoping out the innards of a device is not a real criteria for deciding which to choose IMHO. I'm not saying TFT's are bad. If you don't do much graphics, by all means, use a TFT, they're perfectly suited for that. But for graphic work I still recommend CRT's. Especially if you want to work at any resolution you wish to use and not be bound by the native resolution of TFT's. You got to admit that running a TFT at a resolution other than it's native one make it look crappy, no matter how well the interpolation algorithm is. I would say advising someone to use a TFT just because they take up less space is not sound advice (and no, I don't work for a CRT manufacturer). You got to concider more criteria, like what are you going to use it for, and in this instance my opinion is clear enough.

I do agree there about the res, that's why I reccommend 1280 res and yes it does depend on what you want it for. and if you derive your income from the art work... CRt's do still have dot pitch believe it or not but do to much research and years of upgrades they are made at higher res like effective 2MP res not 1Mp of MOST LCDs but apple are still the best for graphics and their LCDs match there CRTs for colour and res... But hell that's why they are so expensive... :}

Make sure whatever you do get allows you to adjust gamma and color balance. Some of the early inexpensive LCD screens did not, (or, there were so many strange interactions between the screen, video card, windows, photoshop, and profiles, that "practically" it was impossible to adjust things!). I suspect this has been solved for the relatively high-end screens mentioned above. All color is illusion, Grasshopper. Tune your own system to make prints the way you like them. If you are in a business, and using commercial printers, you already know the rules (or you have a boss to tell them to you). I've found that the LCD on my laptop is a LOT brighter than my CRT. [In my Gallery, most of the Malaysia series are off of the laptop, and some now look way too dark on my desk. I had to do a lot of re-adjustment to get correct prints. This isn't a limitation of either technology; just a need to get the workflow consistant.] The reality is, if you publish to the Web, every viewers' monitor will be different. [For the quarterly banner contest, I once submitted an entry that had gamma, brightness, and color patches so at least everyone in the Forum would be adjusted closely. It lost. ] Like Cyn, I generally use Viewsonic CRT's. I built a BIG desk out of a couple sheets of 4X8 plywood. I curse the weight on the rare occasions I need to move them. But they work, and are now quite a bargain.

I think that most if not all but the very basic TFT's have gamma and colour adjustment. I have a CTR and a TFT one for web and one for print, the TFT is about 2 years old and quite basic, but it has gamma and colour adjustment, web images look about the same on both, although the default settings on the TFT are way to bright, but ok once calibrated properly. Where print is concerned the printer profiles are the only issues that I sometimes have. It is impossible to have perfect web images if other users are viewing on out of the box un-calibrated monitors. I have viewed my gallery on friends computers (in shock)

LCD's also have dotpitch ;) Sample specs I guess, in the end, it all comes down to personal preference. One can gain advice and as this thread shows, there's many opinions. Best thing is to go to the store and actually see some screens in action before deciding which one works for you. I think there's one thing we can agree on, don't go for the cheapest model you can find (in either type). Usually there's a pro version available that has better specs/colour rendition etc and it's usually worth it to take this into concideration.