I have a 21" Monitor - however it takes up too mus#ch space & so was looking to go for an LCD monitor. However it seems to be the larger LCD'S (26" +) have the best resalution, I don't mind going for a large screen - but only if I'm going to benefit from it. Any advise would be great. John

Tell you what, you order it and use my address for shipping. I'll be happy to test it for a year or so then email you a detailed report. Sound good to you? :)

Whatever you buy, make sure it has a DVI connector (and your graphics card as well). The image will be a lot better than over analog VGA.

Refesh rate is an issue. Hard to beat a crt on res for $ Then,,, there are projectors...tttthhhhiiiippp. Be IN your animations

I have a strong preference for CRT's over any LCD for a variety of reasons. Chiefly is color reproduction. I've talked with a TFT engineer and he advised me that lower end LCD's are on their way to achieveing 800-1000 contrast ratios. However, that is well under a standard CRT of any size. In regards to response times on LCD's some manufacturers resort to an 18 bit color screen which results in dithering. That leads to further color degradation. This is normaly done to get less than 16ms response times. Check the specs before you buy to be safe if color reproduction is important to you. When I have to do anything on an LCD, I always run the results on a CRT when opportunity allows. Unless you are opting to drop 2-3k on an LCD you may be best suited to a Professional 20" CRT that youcan pick up for $300-400 most anywhere. If cost is an issue I have seen 19" CRTs going for $79-120.

I miss my 21" monitor. One of the electron guns is wonky and I get ZERO image. I was thinking about a LCD, but I think I want another CRT monitor (despite it's size!)
Oh yeah, if you get that LCD I'll take your old CRT monitor :)

Message edited on: 11/29/2005 15:18

Well, I've been using only LCDs for years now, and I can't say I miss CRTs a single bit. Why would I want something that takes three times the desk space and three times the energy? I don't work in preprint, I couldn't care less if Pantone colors come out correctly. But I do spend a lot of time in front of the screen, and the complete lack of flicker or radiation and the super-crisp display is a blessing for my eyes.

I'm in the boat with the CRT over LCD group. Stereoscopics do not work on LCDs (because of refresh rates). A dead pixel on a $3k LCD is a dead LCD. There is no cure but to return for a new display. Color issues, contrast issues, resolution issues - most LCDs have a maximum resolution much lower than the same sized counterpart. Find me a 21" LCD that can do at least 2048x1536 for under $2k (not something that fell off of the back of eBay)). NEC has some for over $4k! Until all of these issues are somewhat resolved and prices drop to near CRT, I'll stick with mine.

Well, it's no secret that I don't like LCD monitors at all. For those who aren't familiar, here's why...

They cannot accurately reproduce 24 bit colour. Sure, they can accept a 24 bit signal but they always fudge the fine graduations from one shade to the next. For the "average" user this is acceptable but then, the average user thinks mp3s sound good.

They have a relatively low resolution when compared to a good quality CRT. My 19" Iiyama will happily take almost anything I care to throw at it but most LCD monitors are stuck at (whoo) 1024 x 768. Some are a little higher res but they are not common and still relatively expensive. Oh, and whatever res the LCD is, that's what you're stuck with.

They have a weird aspect ratio. CRT monitors use an aspect ratio of 4:3, such as 640 x 480, 1280 x 960. LCDs don't. This means that any image shown on screen will be distorted somewhat. Not great when you're trying to make your sizes and proportions accurate.

No graphics professional would consider a TFT/LCD monitor. They just don't cut it.

On the other hand, they look nice and leave a lot more space on your desk.

The only legitimate reason for using LCD monitors for graphics is if you have visual problems resulting from the flicker of CRTs. OTOH, any CRT worth its salt can up the refresh rate well beyond human perception.

Message edited on: 11/29/2005 16:35

I have a Dell 1600 x 1200 LCD sitting on my desk. Under $700 (Canadian) right now. It also has USB ports to plug stuff in, weighs considerably less than the 20" CRT sitting next to it, a lot less power, so on and so forth. I don't know where the "weird aspect ratio" nonsense comes from. The only ones I've seen that don't fall into the same ratios used on CRTs are the widescreen monitors and the ones on laptops. Otherwise, all I've seen are the same as CRTs. As for the price, I remember when everyone was using 14", maybe 15" CRTs. 17" were luxuries, 20" and above were major investments (which most people didn't bother getting because they didn't have the video power to use that much real estate effectively). The 20" LCD I have at home (and is worth $700 new) has more features than the 20" LCD sitting on my desk at work which is two years old and cost $1200, while the first flatscreen we bought for the office a year earlier, same model, was a tad over $1400. If you compare the price decline with CRTs, the trajectory is pretty damn comparable.

"I don't know where the "weird aspect ratio" nonsense comes from." Not nonsense at all, unless you happen to believe that 1280 x 1024 is 4:3. That, by the way, is the most common res of LCD monitors on sale in Europe. Happy for you that you have a 1600 x 1200 LCD but they are not going to be the weapon of choice for the majority of users. Pound for pound a CRT outperforms a TFT. I have no doubt that technology will advance to the point where there's no discernable difference between the image quality of either and eventually, some kind of flat screen will beat the pants off CRTs but it's not there yet.

Not nonsense at all, unless you happen to believe that 1280 x 1024 is 4:3 It's not 4:3, of course. But that doesn't mean that images are distorted. A pixel is still as wide as it is high. Image quality is a matter of what you need: Some may prefer a big color space, I prefer sharpness and absolutely no flicker whatsoever.

" No graphics professional would consider a TFT/LCD monitor. They just don't cut it" I've seen a few photos of the 'big' studios working environments & alot of them..if not all of them are using LCD,probably depending on what part of the pipeline they are in.. I'm dicthing my crt's for a couple LCD's soon ..so the extra space on my desk can accomodate more coffee cups :)

I have a Hitachi 20" CRT and a Megavision 17" LCD on one of my home computers. I use Pantone ColorVision Hardware/Software to calibrate both monitors. I always check the appearance of an image on both monitors before I release it for use. The image looks very good and almost identical on both monitors, and prints to look the same on my Canon S9000 using a printer profile for the printer/paper combination being used. I just did a test. I made a 600 pixel X 600 pixel image. On the LCD (1280 X 1024) the image measures 5 7/8" X 5 7/8", so there is no distortion. On the CRT at 1600 X 1200 pixels the image is 6 1/8" X 6 1/8", so there is also no distortion. I changed the CRT resolution to 1280 X 1024 pixels and the square measures 6 5/8" high X 6 7/8" wide, so there is some distortion. So I guess the LCD is corrected for distortion. I always wondered that. Anyway, I am saving for another LCD display to replace my 20" CRT. I use a Dell 2001FP 20.1" 1600 X 1200 LCD at work, and once I save up enough to buy one, the CRT is gone. If you think LCD's do not compete in image quality to CRT's today, you better look at some of the newer models. I can use my desk space for other things and still enjoy good quality color with an LCD.

Well, I happily stand corrected. Technology moves on and so do I. When my budget allows, I'll be looking at a new LCD, I guess. :)

That makes sense, stonemason. You answered your statement on this: 'big' studios. Big studios can afford to spend thousands per high-quality LCD (three or four per user depending on their part in production, even). Apple LCD displays are medium-quality and priced well. But I must agree with SamTherapy on the resolution issue. There is an upper limit on TFT/LCD which cannot be overcome except by buying a new TFT/LCD. And any resolutions lower than this are interpolated (i.e.: fuzzy). If I wanted to replace my Sony Trinitron 21" CRT @ 2048x1536 with a comparable TFT/LCD, say the Apple 30" LCD Display which does 2560x1600, that's a difference in the CRT cost ($700) and the LCD ($2500) of $1800 - nearly thrice the cost of the CRT! Believe me, this Apple Display is nicely priced compared to other LCDs of similar resolution ($4K to $6K and up, up, and away!).

part of the privelage of being a "professional" is these things are a tax write off ;)

I use to think CRT monitors were superior when compared to early LCD screens, however They have come a long way, and I just ditched all my CRTs for LCDs. The Blacks are blacker, the reds are redder, the purples are purplier (?) after 2-3 years every CRT gets blurrier, but my LCDs should literally last a lifetime (barring any beer accidents).

Affordable LCD displays (less than $500) cannot stand up to even a cheap CRT (less than $150). Quality LCDs exist, but are way too expensive for the average user. My 19" Iiyama CRT (now 2 years old) cost less than 200 at the time, and runs fine at 1600x1200 85 Hz. No flicker whatsoever. Great colors. For the same price I can buy a 21" CRT today that can handle 2048x1536 at decent refresh rates. For the same price I can't even buy the lowliest 15" LCD. Price/performance wise CRTs are still much better than LCDs.

Hey, taking any old 21" CRTs! ;) PLenty of space to wastes here!

volfin: ... or dead pixels (and they are inevitable).

I just sprang for two new 19" crts.. I couldn't pass them for the price, and picture quality...BOTH monitors set me back a total of $140! While two large monitors take up more space then I would prefer, I prefer the color reproduction, and the price/performance point. Two LCDs like this would run me almost $1500! So for 1/10th of th eprice, I can deal with them, until the lcd monitor's prices drop more.

I'll take a CRT over a LCD any day.

Not nonsense at all, unless you happen to believe that 1280 x 1024 is 4:3. That, by the way, is the most common res of LCD monitors on sale in Europe. My point wasn't a claim that it's 4:3. My point is that those aspect ratios like 1280x1024 were on CRTs long before LCDs were common. What, were you thinking that LCD manufacturers arbitrarily decided to give their monitors almost, but not quite, the same aspect ratios as on CRTs?

Attached Link: http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,120529,00.asp

I have two entries into this discussion.

1. SONY FW900 24IN/22.5V CRT 23-27M 2304X1440 80HZ
   This is the finest CRT I ever owned, the biggest, most beautifulist monster. It takes a table, not a desk, to hold this giant, and two people to move it. Sadly a) my unit is burned out; contrast/brightness all the way up, washed out, and b) SONY discontinued the model. You can find them refurbished.

2. Dell 24" LCD, linked above. I am running it in full 1920 by 1200 native resolution and have my cable box plugged into it for HD tv. Love it! But if I could get a CRT this aspect ratio, this size, I'd be all over it. Call Dell to purchase, you can get them down to $850.00

::::: Opera :::::

Message edited on: 11/30/2005 01:26

I wouldn't trade my lcd for anything, except maybe a larger one, i have a 17" high definition gateway, the colors are so vivid and true to life, no heat comes off it, no more eye strain or burning, love it. I take pictures of the roses out front, when you view the pics, the colors are so real, you'd think you could reach out and touch it, best decision i ever made.

Up until two months ago I used to have a nice 21" Viewsonic CRT, beautiful colors great refresh rates but a monster size wise. When it died, we got a deal on that Dell 24" LCD , it's a beauty, even though it's got a bigger screen than the old one, it takes no space on my desk. The only thing I had to do is lower the brightness which was too much for me. Other than that I do graphic work on it without problems, I even play games on it. the wide aspect ratio makes it easy to have a graphic app open and a tutorial side by side at the same time without having to alt-tab between the two constantly. I am trading a little bit of image quality for the real estate I gained back, for me it's worth it. Like Stonemason said, I can have my coffee cup, and even a cat on my desk with me now!

hmm..my cat sleeps on the monitor(the crt)..being a sphynx he likes the warmth..& he's gonna be pissed when I switch to lcd's :

The only drawback to the LCD, is that my Maine Coon decided to jump on top of the upper 1.5" ledge of the LCD in order to by pass my other sleeping cat, on his way to the window. Not quite as wide as the old CRT and definitely not as stable for a cat of that size.

I have a 19 inch Iiyama CRT and a 19 inch Sharp LCD, both on this machine, and the problem i find is A)the refresh is not anywhere near as good as the CRT, and B)the colour difference between the two, I have tried toooo many times to match the two but with limited success... Still i like the CRT, but the size of the LCD and weight are an advantage. Also i have noticed the maximum Viewable screen size on an LCD is Greater than a CRT, as i have about 1/2 inch boarder on the LCD and two and a half inches on the boarder of the CRT...

A 19" CRT usually has 17-17.5" viewable. A 19" LCD has the full 19" Screen size comparisons between LCDs and CRTs: usually a CRT has about equal screen size with an LCD one step smaller. 17" CRT roughly equals 15" LCD 19" CRT roughly equals 17" LCD 21" CRT roughly equals 19" LCD and so on.

You said usually. My late lamented 21" PanaSync E110 had a 20" viewable screen.

Attached Link: http://www.dansdata.com/gz021.htm

Interesting article

Coke... Pepsi Great taste.... Less Filling CRT.... LCD The great debates of our time :)

My 21" Sony G520 has a 19.9" viewable screen.

And, no, this isn't Coke/Pepsi (etc.).

There are fundamental differences between Cathode-Ray-Tube onto Phophorous and Liquid Crystal Display. They are nowhere near equivalent yet. And if you want an LCD display equivalent to a similar CRT in all respects, a second mortgage might be in order...

Message edited on: 11/30/2005 21:37

Not sure if anyone mentioned it, but CRT is no longer being developed (Technology for the best is over two years old now). Anything smaller than 20" is no longer being built new (Watch out for those refurbished deals on small monitors). Larger CRTs at most companies are slated for ending production within 24 months. I can not remember which news magazine I read all this in, but many producers of 15" and 17" CRTs have so many due to the sudden slow down in demand that they are considering scrapping much of their inventory to reclaim the rare metals and other parts for the refurbishing business.

Attached Link: http://www.pcclub.com/product_details.cfm?itemno=A4622774

Measuring the actual lit, usable area with a tape measure taken on the diagonal: My 24" Dell UltraSharp 2405FPW LCD -- 24" exactly My 19" Real Sync REALFlat 9996R-BK CRT -- 17.75" Exactly Usable Height: Dell 12.75 RealSync 10.5 RealEstate: Dell 306 SqInches RealSync 186 SqInches or 372 for dual monitor I have five of the CRTs, purchased from PCClub, they are the default monitor in the studio. We adjust them carefully to fill the maximum space. We color comp them as much as possible. By the way, the physical appearance of this monitor is very unusual; it is beautiful, actually sculptured. They must have "accidently" employed an actual industrial design guy/gal and he/she got away with it. I'm not kidding, these CRT monitors LOOK good. (pic on the above link does not do it justice.) They are rock steady, very flat, reliable and sharp (.21MM Dot Pitch) . Price: $179.99 Dual monitor 19" (17.75") for under $400.00 with the best of the CRT benefits. Think about it. Depth on desk? The Dell uses about 8", the RealSync 17". Width on desk? The Dell 22", RealSync 17" or 34" for dual. ::::: Opera :::::

Since the pricing is heavily debated on, I'm throwing in my 2 cents worth ... seems to me that the average lifespan of a cheap CRT is nowhere near the lifespan of a cheap LCD. That needs to be taken into account. Also... say you have a 20" CRT on for 12 hours a day for 350 days a year. In about a year's time you might have paid dozens of dollars more than a person using an equal sized LCD in electricity... depending on the price of electricity in your parts of the world (and it's been on the rise globally). Personally I've had a good LCD at home for over two years and wouldn't dream of changing back to CRTs (guess I'm not a "professional" then, but at least I have a crystal clear picture with absolute no flickering and no strain to my eyes). When my SONY CRT at work died I was asked whether I wanted a 19" LCD or a 21" CRT ... was a simple decision for me and I now have room for extra Coca-Cola cans on my desk. Dead pixels? ... quickly becoming an issue of the past. Actually we've already seeing ads stating that any LCD with a dead pixel is switched to a new one. Personally I've never even seen a dead pixel on a LCD screen ... despite the fact that I work in IT and have over two dozen co-workers around me with LCDs. shrugs

"There are fundamental differences between Cathode-Ray-Tube onto Phophorous and Liquid Crystal Display. They are nowhere near equivalent yet. And if you want an LCD display equivalent to a similar CRT in all respects, a second mortgage might be in order..."

I disagree. I just paid $369 for a ViewSonic VP191b (19") and the picture is far superior to any CRT I have ever owned. No Morgage required.

Thus Coke... Pepsi. (P.S. I ran my CRT at 85 HZ refresh so kill that theory)

Message edited on: 12/01/2005 19:04

I can not remember which news magazine I read all this in, but many producers of 15" and 17" CRTs have so many due to the sudden slow down in demand that they are considering scrapping much of their inventory to reclaim the rare metals and other parts for the refurbishing business. Wouldn't surprise me. The thing that CRT manufacturers have run up against is that the monitor (CRT or LCD) is one of the most durable components of a computer system. So long as the interface for the cable stays the same, a monitor five years old will work perfectly well on the latest screaming fast all-the-bells and whistles computer. After all, how many of the people here running multiple-monitor setups use monitors from other (discarded or no longer used) computers several years old? My own second monitor, a Dell P1130 (21" CRT, less viewable area than my 20" LCD) is a model that came out over 4 years ago and works perfectly, as a secondary, or even primary, monitor with my computer that was bought just over 4 months ago without affecting the performace of my computer or it's ability to do use the latest and greatest and most demanding software. So while there's demand to continually upgrade computer components for better graphics, better sound, more memory, faster processors, bigger drives, better layout or whatnot, there is no equivalent for monitors. The only real reason to make a significant change in a monitor is to change the basic technology in it, thus the jump to LCDs. You can compare it to how we lost the floppies. It's taken freaking forever for the 3.5 to finally go away (even when there were several technologies available that made the floppy obsolete). My new computer is the first I've ordered where the floppy drive was finally an option instead of a required part. You'll still be able to buy floppies in stores for years, long after drives stop being manufactured widely, because of the legacy issue.

volfin: Yes - 1280x1024 60Hz refresh (16ms latency) Problems with moving video because of the 'Overdrive'. Directly from Tom's Hardware Review of the VP191b. Actually, the higher you rev up a CRT, the softer the image. You get sharper CRT images as you drop the refresh rate. But then don't drop it to 60Hz if avoidable. Mine is capable of 2048x1536@75Hz, and it cost $700 two years ago. Today, maybe $400-$500. As to the electric bill, if you pay twice or more for a comparable (and everyone keeps trying to shrug off comparability here) LCD, how many years will it take for the extra cost to be saved in electricity...

KUROYUME0161: Making up the WHOLE difference in electric bill savings is probably not ever gonna happen. It still needs to be taken into account when comparing the overall costs. Just stating that "my CRT monitor only cost 180$" when making comparisons is not taking into account the average life-span or the costs to actually use the device. If hard-comparisons between prices HAVE to be made (as it seems to be happening in this thread), these things should be taken into account.