A death in my computer family / CRT vs Flat Screen

[jaybird3rd]

I've still got my 19" Samsung CRT, which was my main display before I moved to a pair of 19" LCD monitors (also from Samsung). It's probably the last CRT I'll ever buy (outside of classic monitors like the 1702), but I have no plans to get rid of it: despite the advances in LCD technology, CRT monitors do still have their advantages over LCD.

 

If you spend most of your time doing ordinary desktop work, and the default resolution of your LCD monitor(s) is the one you work in all the time, and you never need to change it, then LCD monitors are great. But I used nonstandard resolutions all the time to play fullscreen games (usually in MAME / MESS), and I have a few older systems that are limited to lower resolutions, and I've discovered that my LCD monitors can't handle them. They give me an on-screen error message ("non-optimal resolution" or somesuch) and then cut off completely after two or three minutes. I can't find any options in my monitors' firmware to disable this behavior, so I'm stuck playing games in windowed mode until I can put together another machine to hook up to the CRT (stretching the games to match the default resolution isn't an option for me).

 

Then, of course, there's the issue of light guns and light pens on classic systems, which will only work on CRT displays.

Edited February 28, 2007 by jaybird3rd

[Thomas Jentzsch]

...I've discovered that my LCD monitors can't handle them. They give me an on-screen error message ("non-optimal resolution" or somesuch) and then cut off completely after two or three minutes. I can't find any options in my monitors' firmware to disable this behavior...

Maybey the problem is the refresh rate. LCDs usually are limited to 60 to 75Hz. Lower resolutions might produce too high refresh rates, depending on your video driver. Check those settings, maybe you just have to correct the refresh rates.

[Video]

Is it still true that you can't use a light gun (zapper gun) with an LCD monitor?

 

Actually, that will depend on the type of light gun (you mentioned Zaper) and the type of LCD.

 

The Zapper (nes) works like this. You pull the trigger, the gun sends a signal to the system to switch screens, the system takes the graphic screen off and puts up a dark screen with a point of light on it. The zapper then reads weather it is pointing at a light or not and sends that to the system and the system puts the graphic screen back up. With older LCD monitors, they simply didn't refresh the screen fast enough to allow that gun screen to be displayed, and it would not work.

 

I believe that the Atari and SMS guns work the same basic way.

 

However, some not all, but some modern LCD's will work fast enough and bright enough for this to work properly.

 

If I understand right, the newer light guns, from the SNES on up to moder times read the screen differently. Not sure how, but I know they don't chage the screen, so maybe it's got a smal ccd or something looking for certain paterns on the screen? Anyhow, I don't know, but I'm pretty sure they work differently.

[supercat]

I believe that the Atari and SMS guns work the same basic way.

 

If one focuses a light sensor on a moderately-light spot on an old-fashioned televison screen, one will see, 60 times per second, a group of pulses that are about 64us apart. If the screen is of uniform brightness, the pulses near the center of the group will be larger than those at the edges.

 

Essentially, what's being detected is sweep of the electron beam. The phosphor will glow most brightly when the beam hits it, and it will then start to decay. So when the beam sweeps in front of the focused spot of the light gun, it will generate a pulse. Because a lightgun will usually not have pinpoint focus, it will often be triggered by several consecutive scan lines.

 

On an old-fashioned television set, the sweep of the electron beam is perfectly synchronized with whatever's generating the video signal. If the video game system has just finished clocking out pixel 83 of line 126, when the lightgun kicks out a pulse, that means the television set will probably be clocking out pixel 81 or 82 and so the light gun is probably aimed there.

 

Newer-technology television sets capture the input signal into a buffer and then feed that to the display some time later. On most sets, the lag won't be long enough to be visibly noticeable, but it will render light guns based on sweep timing completely useless.

[Paranoid]

Yeah, I use LCDs almost exclusively now too, for all the reasons that Albert mentions.

 

I do wonder if CRTs will be less reliable than CRTs. I've got old IBM 12" VGA monitors around that were probably built in 1989. I don't see LCDs lasting that long.

[Albert]

Yeah, I use LCDs almost exclusively now too, for all the reasons that Albert mentions.

 

I do wonder if CRTs will be less reliable than CRTs. I've got old IBM 12" VGA monitors around that were probably built in 1989. I don't see LCDs lasting that long.

I have two older LCD panels that the backlight stopped working on. One was repaired under warranty (a Viewsonic), the other was well past the warranty (a Philips). That's the main problem with LCD panels, the backlight. They will fade over time and can potentially burn out. I imagine the LCD panel itself will last a good long time as long as it's not abused. Panels in the future will use white LEDs for the backlighting, will will probably alleviate both of these problems, plus they use even less electricity.

 

..Al

[Albert]

Yeah, I use LCDs almost exclusively now too, for all the reasons that Albert mentions.

 

I do wonder if CRTs will be less reliable than CRTs. I've got old IBM 12" VGA monitors around that were probably built in 1989. I don't see LCDs lasting that long.

I have two older LCD panels that the backlight stopped working on. One was repaired under warranty (a Viewsonic), the other was well past the warranty (a Philips). That's the main problem with LCD panels, the backlight. They will fade over time and can potentially burn out. I imagine the LCD panel itself will last a good long time as long as it's not abused. Panels in the future will use white LEDs for the backlighting, which will probably alleviate both of these problems, plus they use even less electricity.

 

..Al

[ijor]

LCD"s have gotten up to speed where they can do 60hz images (that used to be the deciding factor between CRT and LCD)

 

LCD refresh rate increased considerably. But this still doesn't solve the main issue about refresh rate with classic gaming. It still can't sync at the exact refresh rate emitted by the console/computer.

 

This means that you will always have some delay and/or distorsion produced by the rate conversion.

[Room 34]

If you think an LCD is blurry, then you've got it set to the wrong resolution. An LCD only really works at its default resolution, but I don't know why you'd want to go lower anyway!

Because you play games? A lot of older computer games won't allow you to set a resolution(or a high enough one to match your display), and newer ones may easily tax your hardware beyond what it can playably render at an LCD's native resolution.

 

Personally I have managed to go 100% LCD and I will NEVER go back to CRT. I spent nearly a decade staring at a CRT for 8 hours a day and I have the increasingly thick glasses to prove it. CRTs are bad bad BAD for the eyes.

And yet my glasses have been stable for quite some time.

Staring at any fixed location for long periods is bad for your eyes. There's nothing special about CRTs in that regard.

 

I haven't owned a CRT at home for over 5 years, and finally last year I got an LCD at work. I am VERY happy with the LCDs. I will admit that the color is still a problem (although they've gotten MUCH better), but the clarity of the image and the lack of flickering refresh are more than enough to make up for any shortcomings in the color balance.

If your CRT was flickering, you needed to turn the refresh rate up.

 

CRT TVs have enough phospher persistence that it isn't an issue, because they're designed exclusively for 60Hz refresh rates(or 50, but there's not a phosphor in the world that can help THAT).

Many PC monitors suck at that rate, though. Which is a pity since it's the default.

 

Oh yeah, now I remember why I said I was leaving here. What a waste.

Edited March 1, 2007 by Room 34

[MCHufnagel]

If you think an LCD is blurry, then you've got it set to the wrong resolution. An LCD only really works at its default resolution, but I don't know why you'd want to go lower anyway!

Because you play games? A lot of older computer games won't allow you to set a resolution(or a high enough one to match your display), and newer ones may easily tax your hardware beyond what it can playably render at an LCD's native resolution.

 

Personally I have managed to go 100% LCD and I will NEVER go back to CRT. I spent nearly a decade staring at a CRT for 8 hours a day and I have the increasingly thick glasses to prove it. CRTs are bad bad BAD for the eyes.

And yet my glasses have been stable for quite some time.

Staring at any fixed location for long periods is bad for your eyes. There's nothing special about CRTs in that regard.

 

I haven't owned a CRT at home for over 5 years, and finally last year I got an LCD at work. I am VERY happy with the LCDs. I will admit that the color is still a problem (although they've gotten MUCH better), but the clarity of the image and the lack of flickering refresh are more than enough to make up for any shortcomings in the color balance.

If your CRT was flickering, you needed to turn the refresh rate up.

 

CRT TVs have enough phospher persistence that it isn't an issue, because they're designed exclusively for 60Hz refresh rates(or 50, but there's not a phosphor in the world that can help THAT).

Many PC monitors suck at that rate, though. Which is a pity since it's the default.

 

Oh yeah, now I remember why I said I was leaving here. What a waste.

If it's such a waste, then why bother replying? But then, you knew someone would say something like this.

[JB]

If you think an LCD is blurry, then you've got it set to the wrong resolution. An LCD only really works at its default resolution, but I don't know why you'd want to go lower anyway!

Because you play games? A lot of older computer games won't allow you to set a resolution(or a high enough one to match your display), and newer ones may easily tax your hardware beyond what it can playably render at an LCD's native resolution.

It's a valid reason. Especially if you check to see where you are right now.

 

Personally I have managed to go 100% LCD and I will NEVER go back to CRT. I spent nearly a decade staring at a CRT for 8 hours a day and I have the increasingly thick glasses to prove it. CRTs are bad bad BAD for the eyes.

And yet my glasses have been stable for quite some time.

Staring at any fixed location for long periods is bad for your eyes. There's nothing special about CRTs in that regard.

 

I haven't owned a CRT at home for over 5 years, and finally last year I got an LCD at work. I am VERY happy with the LCDs. I will admit that the color is still a problem (although they've gotten MUCH better), but the clarity of the image and the lack of flickering refresh are more than enough to make up for any shortcomings in the color balance.

If your CRT was flickering, you needed to turn the refresh rate up.

 

CRT TVs have enough phospher persistence that it isn't an issue, because they're designed exclusively for 60Hz refresh rates(or 50, but there's not a phosphor in the world that can help THAT).

Many PC monitors suck at that rate, though. Which is a pity since it's the default.

 

Oh yeah, now I remember why I said I was leaving here. What a waste.

I thank you for your intelligent and thoughtful remarks.

[Room 34]

I'll concede the point about playing games on an LCD. I don't play that many games on the computer, especially older ones, so I don't think about that much. The rest is just the usual hot air. Whether you can see the refresh or not, it causes more eye strain. But I don't know why I'm bothering to argue. I'm tired of pointless argument for its own sake.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

Whether you can see the refresh or not, it causes more eye strain.

I am confused. What causes more eye strain?

[Paranoid]

I'm not sure.

 

I'm not that picky. I've been playing since my computers hooked up to a 13" color television. I can't imagine that the WORST display that a 17" LCD is capable of would be more taxing on my eyes than *that*.

 

As far as trails and refresh rates and all of that... I guess there is some of that... but LCDs have really improved in that regard. For about a third of a price you can get an LCD that is 3 times better than those available in say, 2001-2003, and I think most people would be hard pressed to really spot a difference on most motion graphics between an LCD and a CRT at this point.

 

I'm certain the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. I actually wish I had gone with an LCD TV instead of Plasma, at this point.

[Video]

I would tend to agree that an LCD causes less eyestrain, partially because of the fact that it isn't as bright as a CRT, and partly cause it isn't fuzzy, an LCD shows pixel for pixel, and a monitor, unless it's set for a low resolution shows more of a blurry line.

 

I can see where that's comeing from. But I fix this problem (eyestrain on a crt) useually by turning the brightness way down. It's a lot easier on my eyes to look at light letters on a dark background, than to look at dark letters on a light background.

 

Of course, this doesn't necessairly mean anything. I'm sure this effects everybody differently, so I won't pass it off as fact, but in my case it's true at least for me.

[gdement]

My last CRT was a Trinitron 19", which was normally used at 1280x1024 but could run [email protected] On occasions when I was running games, I really liked running them at 1600x1200 - the detail at that resolution was wonderful and the fuzzier pixels didn't really matter. Unfortunately that monitor didn't last very long.

 

Something I've noticed with CRTs is that as my eyes get tired, it becomes very difficult to read text. Of course it was especially bad on that Sony that was dying, but I've had that problem with other screens also. This is the biggest reason I now prefer an LCD. The pixels are very precise, so I don't have any problem reading even when my eyes are tired. I haven't had any motion smearing or lag, and the brightness/viewing angle are also very good. I don't notice any problem with the screen fading, even from across the room. Those old LCD problems are really in the past as far as I can tell. I do miss being able to run games at higher resolutions, but I don't play them often anyway.

 

Biggest irritation I have is refresh rate issues.

My screen has trouble syncing with old video cards. I don't know why it's such a problem, but I have 2 Diamond PCI cards that cause this screen to blink off intermittently. That only happens in old standard text modes, so I guess it's an issue with the 70Hz (or whatever) refresh rate those modes use. Once a higher graphical mode starts up, it doesn't blink anymore.

 

Also, I had to get a new video card to run this monitor properly. My old GF2MX card had an out of spec refresh rate. 60Hz modes would run at 64Hz, 85Hz modes would run at 90, etc. It wasn't a problem with CRT's because they didn't care, but the LCD wouldn't size the screen properly at 64Hz. I couldn't adjust it enough to get it centered. I know that isn't a typical problem, but it still is just another example of LCD being annoyingly picky. A DVI ti4200 card fixed it.

[Paranoid]

My understanding of LCDs is that the pixles are square and this is why you get the increased sharpness in native resolution. Of course, by the same token, that is why things don't look right when you change resolution.

 

With a monitor, you had square pixles being generated by the PC, and round pixles with a little diamond shaped dead spot (regardless of DPI), in between each group of 4... *plus* alignment issues with the 3 color guns not hitting the pixles dead-on, especially the further from the center you moved out toward the edges.

 

All of this means that in native mode an LCD gives you a much sharper text image. LCDs do not have as much color range (digital versus analog is the reason for this, no?) and refresh and trails have really been reduced to the point where I bet it is beyond human perception.