Question about monitors…

You may think the graphics market is large but the number of buyers for CRTs for use in Photoshop is not even worth considering from the viewpoint of a manufacturer.
It can only be hoped that the kind of control that is built into very expensive dedicated graphics LCD panels can be packaged in more affordable units.

Talker wrote:

I have been reading the various posts concerning LCD monitors, and from reading them, as well as numerous magazines on the subject, I was curious as to why manufacturers stopped making CRT monitors and switched to the inferior LCD monitors?

I think the reason for this is new technology. The masses always flock to new things if sufficiently advertised, believing new must be better than old. This is not always true. However I think LCD’s are a better option for regular people, as they use less power and take up less space.

I too prefer CRT. Also LCD’s run at fixed resolution, you can switch but the result is a blurry image. So if you are working on small graphics, switching to lower res (to make the graphics look bigger), won’t be of use on LCD.

—
Dawid Michalczyk
http://www.art.eonworks.com _Sci-Fi, Fantasy and Surreal artwork_

"Dawid Michalczyk" wrote in message

Talker wrote:

I have been reading the various posts concerning LCD monitors, and from reading them, as well as numerous magazines on the subject, I was curious as to why manufacturers stopped making CRT monitors and switched to the inferior LCD monitors?

I think the reason for this is new technology. The masses always flock to new things if sufficiently advertised, believing new must be better than old. This is not always true. However I think LCD’s are a better option for regular people, as they use less power and take up less space.
I too prefer CRT. Also LCD’s run at fixed resolution, you can switch but the result is a blurry image. So if you are working on small graphics, switching to lower res (to make the graphics look bigger), won’t be of use on LCD.

—
Dawid Michalczyk
http://www.art.eonworks.com _Sci-Fi, Fantasy and Surreal artwork_

well my CRT died and I got an LCD and it is not the horror show I anticipated
technology just keeps rolling onwards I had no choice but to get an LCD as no hi end CRT were locally available and way to costly

As most viewers of web pages have LCD I can now see what they are going to be seeing so for web designing it is an advantage
(even though it does not make up for the lack of clarity accuracy for pre-print work)
I also notice less eye strain than CRT
and more room on the desk! this one tilts to vertical too, kinda of a fun feature
I find all text looks horrid on LCD unless using the highest res and clear type settings in WINDOWS

If you get an LCD look for a hi contrast ratio and fast response time make sure to check out the gamma webpages to make sure you see all the variation in the blacks of the grey scales

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:15:33 -0400, "KatWoman" wrote:

well my CRT died and I got an LCD and it is not the horror show I anticipated
technology just keeps rolling onwards I had no choice but to get an LCD as no hi end CRT were locally available and way to costly

As most viewers of web pages have LCD I can now see what they are going to be seeing so for web designing it is an advantage
(even though it does not make up for the lack of clarity accuracy for pre-print work)
I also notice less eye strain than CRT
and more room on the desk! this one tilts to vertical too, kinda of a fun feature
I find all text looks horrid on LCD unless using the highest res and clear type settings in WINDOWS

If you get an LCD look for a hi contrast ratio and fast response time make sure to check out the gamma webpages to make sure you see all the variation in the blacks of the grey scales

Thanks for the tips KW. Hopefully I won’t need to replace my monitor any time soon, am I’m hoping that when I do, maybe they’ll have something decent out there in LCDs.
Why I asked the question is partly because of some of the negatives that you mention. Text looks bad, you need a fast response time, etc. These are things that weren’t a problem with CRTs, plus CRTs are cheaper. It makes no sense to me that all manufacturers decided to stop making a better, cheaper product, and are now making a more expensive inferior product.
CRTs never had problems with ghosting due to slow response times, They never had problems displaying text. And my main gripe, they never had trouble displaying correct colors at various angles, so why stop making them?
I would be very interested to know how many people would be using LCDs if CRTs were still available. Aside from saving space and using less power (as if people really are concerned about how much power one CRT is consuming), there is no benefit to having an LCD. You buy a monitor so that you can view programs on it, and LCDs do a poor job in all aspects of that one function, regardless of how much space they save or how much power they save, when compared to a CRT.(plus they cost more.)
Oh well, as we all know, griping isn’t going to change anything, so I’ll stop my rant here.<g> Thanks again for the tips KW!

Talker

Talker wrote:

Why I asked the question is partly because of some of the negatives that you mention. Text looks bad, you need a fast response time, etc. These are things that weren’t a problem with CRTs, plus CRTs are cheaper. It makes no sense to me that all manufacturers decided to stop making a better, cheaper product, and are now making a more expensive inferior product.

CRTs never had problems with ghosting due to slow response times, They never had problems displaying text. And my main gripe, they never had trouble displaying correct colors at various angles, so why stop making them?

My main monitor is an HP L1925 (21"?), and I have just acquired a Benq FP75G 19"secondary monitor. Both are 1024 x 1280 resolution. Previously I had a reputable brand 19 in. CRT. To my eye the HP gives excellent colour rendition, and I would be happy with the Benq colour rendition, if it weren’t sitting alongside the HP.

I never (well, hardly ever) watch videos on the computer, but I have never had cause to complain about response time. The CRT had a somewhat curved screen, and it wasn’t all that sharp, whereas both LCD monitors are dead flat and really crisp. Text is a bit small on the Benq (don’t even think about trying to run them off their native resolution!), but the HP is far more pleasant to use than the old CRT monitor.

I would be very interested to know how many people would be using LCDs if CRTs were still available. Aside from saving space and using less power (as if people really are concerned about how much power one CRT is consuming), there is no benefit to having an LCD.

I am not at all sure that LCDs use less power than CRTs, but getting rid of half a ton of glassware, and reclaiming half an acre of desk space, not to mention getting a display which causes much less eye strain, were very significant factors to me.

You buy a
monitor so that you can view programs on it, and LCDs do a poor job in all aspects of that one function, regardless of how much space they save or how much power they save, when compared to a CRT.(plus they cost more.)
Oh well, as we all know, griping isn’t going to change anything, so I’ll stop my rant here.<g> Thanks again for the tips KW!

If you try a good LCD monitor I suspect you might change your tune rather quickly.

James McNangle

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:15:33 -0400, "KatWoman" wrote:

"Dawid Michalczyk" wrote in message

Talker wrote:

I have been reading the various posts concerning LCD monitors, and from reading them, as well as numerous magazines on the subject, I was curious as to why manufacturers stopped making CRT monitors and switched to the inferior LCD monitors?

I think the reason for this is new technology. The masses always flock to new things if sufficiently advertised, believing new must be better than old. This is not always true. However I think LCD’s are a better option for regular people, as they use less power and take up less space.
I too prefer CRT. Also LCD’s run at fixed resolution, you can switch but the result is a blurry image. So if you are working on small graphics, switching to lower res (to make the graphics look bigger), won’t be of use on LCD.

—
Dawid Michalczyk
http://www.art.eonworks.com _Sci-Fi, Fantasy and Surreal artwork_

well my CRT died and I got an LCD and it is not the horror show I anticipated
technology just keeps rolling onwards I had no choice but to get an LCD as no hi end CRT were locally available and way to costly

As most viewers of web pages have LCD I can now see what they are going to be seeing so for web designing it is an advantage
(even though it does not make up for the lack of clarity accuracy for pre-print work)
I also notice less eye strain than CRT
and more room on the desk! this one tilts to vertical too, kinda of a fun feature
I find all text looks horrid on LCD unless using the highest res and clear type settings in WINDOWS

If you get an LCD look for a hi contrast ratio and fast response time make sure to check out the gamma webpages to make sure you see all the variation in the blacks of the grey scales

Why would you want a fast response time for Photoshop ??. New games that have lost of screen movement sure that is essential but Photoshop ??. Mind you most monitors are now at about 5 ms or less and that is enough for anything.

I can fit a 24 inch wide screen LCD on my desk if I wanted a CRT I would have to move home and strengthen the structure. (well almost)

John

"John" wrote in message

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:15:33 -0400, "KatWoman" wrote:

"Dawid Michalczyk" wrote in message

Talker wrote:

I have been reading the various posts concerning LCD monitors, and from reading them, as well as numerous magazines on the subject, I was curious as to why manufacturers stopped making CRT monitors and switched to the inferior LCD monitors?

I think the reason for this is new technology. The masses always flock to
new things if sufficiently advertised, believing new must be better than old. This is not always true. However I think LCD’s are a better option for regular people, as they use less power and take up less space.
I too prefer CRT. Also LCD’s run at fixed resolution, you can switch but the result is a blurry image. So if you are working on small graphics, switching to lower res (to make the graphics look bigger), won’t be of use
on LCD.

—
Dawid Michalczyk
http://www.art.eonworks.com _Sci-Fi, Fantasy and Surreal artwork_

well my CRT died and I got an LCD and it is not the horror show I anticipated
technology just keeps rolling onwards I had no choice but to get an LCD as no hi end CRT were locally available and way to costly

As most viewers of web pages have LCD I can now see what they are going to be seeing so for web designing it is an advantage
(even though it does not make up for the lack of clarity accuracy for pre-print work)
I also notice less eye strain than CRT
and more room on the desk! this one tilts to vertical too, kinda of a fun feature
I find all text looks horrid on LCD unless using the highest res and clear type settings in WINDOWS

If you get an LCD look for a hi contrast ratio and fast response time make sure to check out the gamma webpages to make sure you see all the variation in the blacks of the grey scales

Why would you want a fast response time for Photoshop ??. New games that have lost of screen movement sure that is essential but Photoshop ??. Mind you most monitors are now at about 5 ms or less and that is enough for anything.

I can fit a 24 inch wide screen LCD on my desk if I wanted a CRT I would have to move home and strengthen the structure. (well almost)

John

I did notice slower redraw on some filters with large files hence my comment and I am a 3d gamer so
that matters to me

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 17:54:00 -0400, "KatWoman" wrote:

"John" wrote in message

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:15:33 -0400, "KatWoman" wrote:

"Dawid Michalczyk" wrote in message

Talker wrote:

I have been reading the various posts concerning LCD monitors, and from reading them, as well as numerous magazines on the subject, I was curious as to why manufacturers stopped making CRT monitors and switched to the inferior LCD monitors?

I think the reason for this is new technology. The masses always flock to
new things if sufficiently advertised, believing new must be better than old. This is not always true. However I think LCD’s are a better option for regular people, as they use less power and take up less space.
I too prefer CRT. Also LCD’s run at fixed resolution, you can switch but the result is a blurry image. So if you are working on small graphics, switching to lower res (to make the graphics look bigger), won’t be of use
on LCD.

—
Dawid Michalczyk
http://www.art.eonworks.com _Sci-Fi, Fantasy and Surreal artwork_

well my CRT died and I got an LCD and it is not the horror show I anticipated
technology just keeps rolling onwards I had no choice but to get an LCD as no hi end CRT were locally available and way to costly

As most viewers of web pages have LCD I can now see what they are going to be seeing so for web designing it is an advantage
(even though it does not make up for the lack of clarity accuracy for pre-print work)
I also notice less eye strain than CRT
and more room on the desk! this one tilts to vertical too, kinda of a fun feature
I find all text looks horrid on LCD unless using the highest res and clear type settings in WINDOWS

If you get an LCD look for a hi contrast ratio and fast response time make sure to check out the gamma webpages to make sure you see all the variation in the blacks of the grey scales

Why would you want a fast response time for Photoshop ??. New games that have lost of screen movement sure that is essential but Photoshop ??. Mind you most monitors are now at about 5 ms or less and that is enough for anything.

I can fit a 24 inch wide screen LCD on my desk if I wanted a CRT I would have to move home and strengthen the structure. (well almost)

John

I did notice slower redraw on some filters with large files hence my comment and I am a 3d gamer so
that matters to me

I am surprised about the filter redraws. Oh well I live and learn.

John

"Talker" wrote in message

I have been reading the various posts concerning LCD monitors, and from reading them, as well as numerous magazines on the subject, I was curious as to why manufacturers stopped making CRT monitors and switched to the inferior LCD monitors?
I say inferior because I have never seen or read about any LCD monitor that could compete with a CRT monitor. CRT monitors don’t need response times, they can be viewed at any angle, they are cheaper, and they display 16.7 million colors.
My monitor is a 21inch Trinitron that is about 8 years old. I don’t know how long it will last, but CRT’s outlive most LCD monitors too, and when this one dies, I dread having to choose an LCD monitor that I know won’t compare to this Trinitron.
Why did they stop making CRT monitors when there is obviously a large graphics market for them? I was just wondering if anyone knew…?

Talker

I can realate with your post. I have a 21" Dell with a Trinitron tube also and just ordered
a 24" LCD to opimize desk space but I’m not getting rid of my CRT, I will use it as a second screen and place it next to my printer on a cart or something.

I had a HP with a Trinitron tube that died on me and I found a cheap source for a replacement.
If its possible for you to order online check this out.
http://www.directron.com/used21.html

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:36:57 GMT, "/\\rtful ]\)odger" wrote:

"Talker" wrote in message

I have been reading the various posts concerning LCD monitors, and from reading them, as well as numerous magazines on the subject, I was curious as to why manufacturers stopped making CRT monitors and switched to the inferior LCD monitors?
I say inferior because I have never seen or read about any LCD monitor that could compete with a CRT monitor. CRT monitors don’t need response times, they can be viewed at any angle, they are cheaper, and they display 16.7 million colors.
My monitor is a 21inch Trinitron that is about 8 years old. I don’t know how long it will last, but CRT’s outlive most LCD monitors too, and when this one dies, I dread having to choose an LCD monitor that I know won’t compare to this Trinitron.
Why did they stop making CRT monitors when there is obviously a large graphics market for them? I was just wondering if anyone knew…?

Talker

I can realate with your post. I have a 21" Dell with a Trinitron tube also and just ordered
a 24" LCD to opimize desk space but I’m not getting rid of my CRT, I will use it as a second screen and place it next to my printer on a cart or something.

I had a HP with a Trinitron tube that died on me and I found a cheap source for a replacement.
If its possible for you to order online check this out.
http://www.directron.com/used21.html

Thanks for the website. I’ll bookmark it.

Talker

James McNangle wrote:

Talker wrote:

Why I asked the question is partly because of some of the negatives that you mention. Text looks bad, you need a fast response time, etc. These are things that weren’t a problem with CRTs, plus CRTs are cheaper. It makes no sense to me that all manufacturers decided to stop making a better, cheaper product, and are now making a more expensive inferior product.

CRTs never had problems with ghosting due to slow response times, They never had problems displaying text. And my main gripe, they never had trouble displaying correct colors at various angles, so why stop making them?

My main monitor is an HP L1925 (21"?), and I have just acquired a Benq FP75G 19"secondary monitor. Both are 1024 x 1280 resolution. Previously I had a reputable brand 19 in. CRT. To my eye the HP gives excellent colour rendition, and I would be happy with the Benq colour rendition, if it weren’t sitting alongside the HP.

I never (well, hardly ever) watch videos on the computer, but I have never had cause to complain about response time. The CRT had a somewhat curved screen, and it wasn’t all that sharp, whereas both LCD monitors are dead flat and really crisp. Text is a bit small on the Benq (don’t even think about trying to run them off their native resolution!), but the HP is far more pleasant to use than the old CRT monitor.

I would be very interested to know how many people would be using LCDs if CRTs were still available. Aside from saving space and using less power (as if people really are concerned about how much power one CRT is consuming), there is no benefit to having an LCD.

I am not at all sure that LCDs use less power than CRTs, but getting rid of half a ton of glassware, and reclaiming half an acre of desk space, not to mention getting a display which causes much less eye strain, were very significant factors to me.

LCDs use a tiny fraction of the power of a CRT and are cheaper to manufacture with less parts… so from a purely environmental stance, LCDs are much better.

Anything to help me justify the £1200 I spent last year on my 30" ACD (which I adore, but sooooo expensive).

I get a lot less eyestrain on this ACD LCD, and to be honest resolution is irrelevent these days so long as it is "high". You CAN zoom in in PhotoShop you know 🙂 Also Operating Systems are becoming resolution independant, so everything you see is being scaled in some way (Vista and OSX anyway).

—

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

http://www.northleithmill.com

-.-

Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com

KatWoman wrote:

"John" wrote in message

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:15:33 -0400, "KatWoman" wrote:

"Dawid Michalczyk" wrote in message

Talker wrote:

I have been reading the various posts concerning LCD monitors, and from reading them, as well as numerous magazines on the subject, I was curious as to why manufacturers stopped making CRT monitors and switched to the inferior LCD monitors?

I think the reason for this is new technology. The masses always flock to
new things if sufficiently advertised, believing new must be better than old. This is not always true. However I think LCD’s are a better option for regular people, as they use less power and take up less space.
I too prefer CRT. Also LCD’s run at fixed resolution, you can switch but the result is a blurry image. So if you are working on small graphics, switching to lower res (to make the graphics look bigger), won’t be of use
on LCD.

—
Dawid Michalczyk
http://www.art.eonworks.com _Sci-Fi, Fantasy and Surreal artwork_

well my CRT died and I got an LCD and it is not the horror show I anticipated
technology just keeps rolling onwards I had no choice but to get an LCD as no hi end CRT were locally available and way to costly

As most viewers of web pages have LCD I can now see what they are going to be seeing so for web designing it is an advantage
(even though it does not make up for the lack of clarity accuracy for pre-print work)
I also notice less eye strain than CRT
and more room on the desk! this one tilts to vertical too, kinda of a fun feature
I find all text looks horrid on LCD unless using the highest res and clear type settings in WINDOWS

If you get an LCD look for a hi contrast ratio and fast response time make sure to check out the gamma webpages to make sure you see all the variation in the blacks of the grey scales

Why would you want a fast response time for Photoshop ??. New games that have lost of screen movement sure that is essential but Photoshop ??. Mind you most monitors are now at about 5 ms or less and that is enough for anything.

I can fit a 24 inch wide screen LCD on my desk if I wanted a CRT I would have to move home and strengthen the structure. (well almost)

John

I did notice slower redraw on some filters with large files hence my comment and I am a 3d gamer so
that matters to me

That’s got nothing at all to do with the monitor you are using. We’re talking here of 1000s of responses a second 🙂 That matters a lot in gaming, but PhotoShop doesn’t have to do anything instantly at ALL.

—

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

http://www.northleithmill.com

-.-

Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com

SpaceGirl wrote:

LCDs use a tiny fraction of the power of a CRT and are cheaper to manufacture with less parts…

Passive LCDs (as used in wristwatches, remote controls, etc) use an infinitesimal amount of power. However in a monitor, although the power actually used in the LCD display is probably quite small, there is some sort of light behind the display, and this uses a substantial amount of power. I don’t know what the lights are, but at least some monitors use LEDs.

I have a Benq FP75G monitor alongside an HP L1925, and when I come into the office on a warm day, and sit down in front of them, I can feel the heat radiating from them. The spec sheet for the Benq gives its power consumption as 40W maximum, and I suspect the HP draws even more.

One paper I found (http://www.viewsonic.com/monitoruniversity/lcd.htm) gives the power consumption of a 19" LCD display as 45W, compared with 100W for a 19" CRT.

so from a purely environmental stance, LCDs are much better.

I suspect that ‘substantially better’ may be close to the mark than ‘much better’.

James McNangle

James McNangle wrote:

SpaceGirl wrote:

LCDs use a tiny fraction of the power of a CRT and are cheaper to manufacture with less parts…

Passive LCDs (as used in wristwatches, remote controls, etc) use an infinitesimal amount of power. However in a monitor, although the power actually used in the LCD display is probably quite small, there is some sort of light behind the display, and this uses a substantial amount of power. I don’t know what the lights are, but at least some monitors use LEDs.
I have a Benq FP75G monitor alongside an HP L1925, and when I come into the office on a warm day, and sit down in front of them, I can feel the heat radiating from them. The spec sheet for the Benq gives its power consumption as 40W maximum, and I suspect the HP draws even more.

One paper I found (http://www.viewsonic.com/monitoruniversity/lcd.htm) gives the power consumption of a 19" LCD display as 45W, compared with 100W for a 19" CRT.

so from a purely environmental stance, LCDs are much better.

I suspect that ‘substantially better’ may be close to the mark than ‘much better’.

James McNangle

The laps behind LCD screens are usually low-powered tubes, the sort you find in energy saving light bulbs (because the light is a very pure white). For example, the average 17" CRT consumes about 120W, while a 17" LCD consumes around 40W. So says our office green person anyway! 🙂

I googled and found this too:

http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/howmuch.html

—

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

http://www.northleithmill.com

-.-

Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com