FLAT vs CRT reviews, opinions?
Yeah I know CRT's are still superior to Flat for Color, but how much better.
I'm considering making the move to flat for the obvious benefits but I need accurate color for high end art output.
I can't afford and don't want a Barrco for 4 grand.
But am considering the Sony Artisan Color or the Apple 23 wide both under 2K.
I also here a rumor that Apple has new flats coming any day that will narrow or eliminate the color issues?
Any info would be appreciated
I'm considering making the move to flat for the obvious benefits but I need accurate color for high end art output.
I can't afford and don't want a Barrco for 4 grand.
But am considering the Sony Artisan Color or the Apple 23 wide both under 2K.
I also here a rumor that Apple has new flats coming any day that will narrow or eliminate the color issues?
Any info would be appreciated
Comments
LCD or CRT?
Unless you are doing high end color work for print, which you say you are, I think you're OK either way.
But, of course, some would disagree.
I do a lot of work in Photoshop, along with video and web work and use an LCD with no problem. Color is not super critical for what I do though.
If color is really critical, get yourself a nice aperture grille (Trinitron) CRT.
By the way CRT all the way baby.
Originally posted by zoozx27
30 " flat coming soon? From who and when?
The RumourMill Inc.?
If you're looking for good color at a reasonable price, I'd suggest looking into LaCie's flat CRTs. I've got 2 19" set up side-by-side, one calibrated for RGB and the other CMYK. Works nicely for my needs (video & print design).
Originally posted by zoozx27
Yeah I know CRT's are still superior to Flat for Color, but how much better.
I'm considering making the move to flat for the obvious benefits but I need accurate color for high end art output.
I can't afford and don't want a Barrco for 4 grand.
But am considering the Sony Artisan Color or the Apple 23 wide both under 2K.
I also here a rumor that Apple has new flats coming any day that will narrow or eliminate the color issues?
Any info would be appreciated
It would be hard for me to give up 1600x1200 resolution. The 17" has 1280x768 resolution. If you're going to do that, why not just switch to DOS while you're at it? Then, to pay $600 for it, why would you want to do something dopey like that? Never looked at 23", but why spend $2000 on something that you can have for $150? LCDs 1) wear out quicker than CRTs, 2) Can have or get dead pixels.
As far as I can think, there are only two reasons to go LCD. 1) You are at the bleeding edge of some market and can justify outragious costs and pathetically steep depreciation. 2) You're a guitarist that play single-coil equipt guitars. CRTs can add hum.
Originally posted by Jukebox Hero
1) wear out quicker than CRTs, 2) Can have or get dead pixels.[/B]
Dead pixels are possible, yes... but LCDs wear out quicker? Where have you heard this?
I certainly know of lifespan issues with CRTs, including screen burn and overall loss of brightness over time. Some cheap CRTs will be in pretty sad shape after just a year or two of use.
I've heard no complaints about LCD lifespan before, and couldn't find anything after trying a few different Google searches on the subject. The only major LCD lifespan issues I've seen are for the lamps in LCD projectors -- which at any rate meant to be treated as easily replaceable components.
In general, the figures I've seen for LCD backlight lifespans are much higher (50%-100%) than CRT lifespans -- though from some a couple of things I read, LCD backlights might have been behind CRTs in lifespan until recently.
I've not found one mention of the LCD displays themselves being expected to fail or fade at all over any time period that anyone felt was worth mentioning.
Originally posted by shetline
In general, the figures I've seen for LCD backlight lifespans are much higher (50%-100%) than CRT lifespans -- though from some a couple of things I read, LCD backlights might have been behind CRTs in lifespan until recently.
This used to be the reason. If they've fixed this problem then scratch that reason not to buy off the list. I guess, since they change the technology ever two years, I should have assumed they fixed the durrability issue.
LCDs are cooler. They say they're better on the eyes but I've never noticed eye strain on a CRT with a reasonable refresh rate. I just think they're still overpriced. Your better off buying a 21" CRT to hold you over two more years. Then, in two years, you could buy a GIMONGOUS LCD for $0.50
Originally posted by alligator
CRT's are UGLY! Get an LCD. You (1) know you want it; (2) want to keep up with your friends; and (3) don't have space for a CRT. Someone tell me I'm wrong. Go ahead, I dare you.
You are wrong. CRTs are FLAT, SHARP, HIGHER RESOLUTION and CHEAP. Flat Panels are FLAT, SHARP, LOWER RESOLUTION and EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE.
Originally posted by Multimedia
You are wrong. CRTs are FLAT, SHARP, HIGHER RESOLUTION and CHEAP. Flat Panels are FLAT, SHARP, LOWER RESOLUTION and EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE.
So, how is a 1600x1200 CRT higher resolution than a 1920x1200 resolution LCD?
Each technology has as high a resolution -- measured in pixels -- as you pay for. It's just more expensive per pixel for LCD.
There are, however, other measures of resolution than pixel count. An LCD pixel is a very discrete unit with a precise and stable geometric location. A CRT pixel is a somewhat vague smudge of light, the R/G/B components of which might not even land in the same place due to convergence issues, that suffers short-term positional displacements due to overall momemt-to-moment screen brightness changes, and longer-term displacements due to temperature changes, external magnetic fields, age of the equipment, etc. LCD pixels stay where they're supposed to be without worrying about convergence, skew, vertical and horizontal linearity, trapezoid, pincushion, and other analog tweaks.
Originally posted by shetline
So, how is a 1600x1200 CRT higher resolution than a 1920x1200 resolution LCD?
When its the low res option on your 23" Sony CRT... Want to play the numbers game? 2304 x 1536 for $3.00
LCD is way cooler. I check ebay all the time for LCDs. I want one for the coolness factor and because I sometimes record guitar on the computer. But I'm not motivated by peer pressure. I'll buy one when they are a cost effective solution. The alternate to a large LCD is to have a fleet of CRT monitors in a semicircular cube. Of course, the radiation may cause you to start growing excessive ear hair.
i never get red eye anymore, I have a 18inch nec lcd panel at work and a 15" samsung panel at home and i rarely get red-eye even after 12 hour shifts... unless for other reasons
Originally posted by zoozx27
Yeah I know CRT's are still superior to Flat for Color, but how much better.
I'm considering making the move to flat for the obvious benefits but I need accurate color for high end art output.
I can't afford and don't want a Barrco for 4 grand.
But am considering the Sony Artisan Color or the Apple 23 wide both under 2K.
I also here a rumor that Apple has new flats coming any day that will narrow or eliminate the color issues?
Any info would be appreciated
Don't kill yourself on this one. Get a 23 inch Apple CD or a Formac. The bigger, the better and you will never look back. You might envy something coming out new, but you will never upgrade, because the 23 inch Apple is awesome.
Originally posted by Multimedia
You are wrong. CRTs are FLAT, SHARP, HIGHER RESOLUTION and CHEAP. Flat Panels are FLAT, SHARP, LOWER RESOLUTION and EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE.
Yes, BUT LCD's are cooler, nicer, easier on the eyes, and get you women easier.
1995 I paid about 1000 dollar for a Philips 17" that has 1024x768 as higest res with decent refresh rate. And that was a damn good deal at the time. In 2000 I bought a similar Samsung 17" CRT for 150 dollar now the same 150 dollar gets me a 17" that is flat and works well at 1280x1024.
For half of what I paid for the 17" in 1995 I can get two 19" CRT or one 18"TFT
Originally posted by DrBoar
It is your money, trust your self not us for the final test8)
2nd that motion. You know what you want.