CRT response time 6ms, 8ms LCDs

I'd definitely consider looking at one of those if it comes out...as long as it's LED backlit also...though I'd rather a top-brand does so first.

One thing about the article though: "CRT monitors have a response time of 6ms"....thats right, and my P4 OCs to 100GHz stock.

CRT response time is measured in billionths of a second.... 6ns would be more accurate.
 
Tomshardware recently measured the response time of a CRT monitor. Results were: 35µs rise and 825µs fall time for a total of 860 µs response time.
 
Lcd's in general are brighter and crisper than their crt counterparts. I upgraded from a generic 17" crt to a 12 ms 19" lcd and the image and text are much sharper and vibrant. The games actually look better on an lcd, but you'll have to put up with some motion blur as a tradeoff.
 
Goat77 said:
Less power consumption,
less radiation
less space
Click to expand...
.
space shouldn't be a deciding factor when it comes to buying a display.

Anyhow, why does anyone needs a LCD less than 16 ms if 16 ms is no longer able to see any ghosting.
 
Happy Hopping said:
.
Anyhow, why does anyone needs a LCD less than 16 ms if 16 ms is no longer able to see any ghosting.
Click to expand...
Because there is still blurring in faster paced games. Even on a 12ms display I can see some blurring during the fast moving scenes. It doesn't bother me but it's definitely there.
 
ETA on LED LCD? :D

I need a 30" as soon as I have money, so by Jan 2005, if things look good, I'll go for it even it is at 16 ms. I can live w/ blur on a 16 ms 30" LCD.
 
Goat77 said:
Less power consumption,
less radiation
less space
Click to expand...

Without the radiation, I cant see or have an inkling of what daylight looks like....
 
Text generally tends to look better on an LCD, but the vast majority of people will agree that image quality in games (regardless of motion blur) is superior on a CRT, and color accuracy is undoubtedly better on a good CRT, hence the fact high-end graphic designers do not use LCD's.
 
Happy Hopping said:
.
space shouldn't be a deciding factor when it comes to buying a display.

Anyhow, why does anyone needs a LCD less than 16 ms if 16 ms is no longer able to see any ghosting.
Click to expand...

Hah, 16ms display is far from ghost free....lets hope OLED displays will have the contrast and speed of a good flat CRT aperture! :) Till then my NEC stays here. Desk Space? With the saved money from a 17 inch LCD I can get 10 desks! :cool:
 
Based on my experience I wouldn't say that crt's have superior image quality in games. Lcd's are more vibrant and alive than crts, and the image is very crisp as compared to a crt. The first time I played farcry on an lcd I was amazed at how sharp everything looked. When I turn on digital vibrance on my card the colors pop more.
 
Happy Hopping said:
.
space shouldn't be a deciding factor when it comes to buying a display.

Anyhow, why does anyone needs a LCD less than 16 ms if 16 ms is no longer able to see any ghosting.
Click to expand...

It shouldn't as far as your needs go, but in a dorm room, those CRT's can be quite a problem. Also, there is a heat factor with monitors in a cramped environment which can ultimately lead to a shorter life of the internal workings of the monitor.

There was also a post later about radiation. There are many types of radation...some necessary, some just the opposite. I'm assuming by less radiation being a plus he was refering to the latter type.
 
Craftish said:
Text generally tends to look better on an LCD, but the vast majority of people will agree that image quality in games (regardless of motion blur) is superior on a CRT, and color accuracy is undoubtedly better on a good CRT, hence the fact high-end graphic designers do not use LCD's.
Click to expand...
Thats not neccessarily true. The color differentiation between a good LCD and a good CRT is unnoticeable to the human eye. In fact most high end graphics designers I know use a LCD, everything is more crisp on an LCD.
 
ben johnson said:
Thats not neccessarily true. The color differentiation between a good LCD and a good CRT is unnoticeable to the human eye. In fact most high end graphics designers I know use a LCD, everything is more crisp on an LCD.
Click to expand...

I agree that the graphics and text are more crisp on a LCD. I've been a user of various CRTs for 10 years and my eyes hurt after 1 hour on the CRT. After I switched to LCD, my eyes don't hurt anymore :) . This is different for different people, so I can only speak form my experience.
 
ben johnson said:
Thats not neccessarily true. The color differentiation between a good LCD and a good CRT is unnoticeable to the human eye. In fact most high end graphics designers I know use a LCD, everything is more crisp on an LCD.
Click to expand...
A lot of high end graphics designers and photographers and other folk use LCDs, and that's why a lot of print houses have a hell of a time accomodating their poorly balanced colors. Or when they have their own printers thats why they have so many calibration problems initially. CRTs have superior tonality and color response when calibrated over a calibrated LCD. It's no secret either, but most people seem to have switched to the belief that LCDs are as good or better when Apple went to all LCD several years ago.

I found it shameful that many of the more respected members of the industry were still saying the Cinema displays were the best out there even earlier this year before the new ones came out. If that doesn't give you a hint of how poor their understanding of it all is, I don't know what will.
 
Well I have a mitsubishi 2060u and i love it very much, im selling my house tho and the guy also wants my monitor, so now its time to upgrade to the 2070sb, i can't wait!

crt for life seriously, games are so much better, text doesnt look as sharp, ill admit that, but thats why I do most of my office tasks on my laptop, and i generally surf half and half on laptop and desktop, the lcd is sharper but i prefer my 22 inch monitor lol.
 
Synful Serenity said:
I'd definitely consider looking at one of those if it comes out...as long as it's LED backlit also...though I'd rather a top-brand does so first.

One thing about the article though: "CRT monitors have a response time of 6ms"....thats right, and my P4 OCs to 100GHz stock.

CRT response time is measured in billionths of a second.... 6ns would be more accurate.
Click to expand...

how do you figure that? a fast CRT will have a refresh rate of 100-120Hz, which ends up being between 10 and 8 milliseconds
 
Happy Hopping said:
Anyhow, why does anyone needs a LCD less than 16 ms if 16 ms is no longer able to see any ghosting.
Click to expand...

Yes, as it was pointed out above, there is still blurring for those whose eyes are fast enough to see it, but as I've said before, the 16ms figure behaves more like an average than an absolute number because certain color transitions can take 3-4 times as long as the 16ms qutoed for the black-white test that is often used. So then you won't be able to get 16ms in all cases, depending on how many different color transitions are on the screen at once. Which is the case with most if not all games....Therefore, assuming the maximum response time of an LCD in a worst-case scenario is 3 times the rated ms, which is conservative, then it would take a display rated 5ms to guarantee at least 16ms in 100% of operating conditions. And this is only for people wishing to have at least 60 *distinct* fps (meaning absolutely no part of the previous frame into the next, visible or not). If you want to run at least 100FPS, the requirements become even more stringent.

Craftish said:
the vast majority of people will agree that image quality in games (regardless of motion blur) is superior on a CRT
Click to expand...

I'm not disputing your opinion...in fact while looking at my friend's 2001fp the sharpness is undeniable, and there is no flicker (though flicker never bothered me to begin with). I think though, that the 2141sb I have (which I took days making sure it was set right) is *quite* sharp, almost perfect, not quite an LCD, but almost, and the same with the colors....They are pretty spectacular for any monitor...So my CRT is pretty close to a given LCD in terms of what matters to me, actual display quality (heat, weight, space, and energy are of no concern to me). However, in terms of motion, the 2001fp was far behind, with Diablo 2 turning into a blurry mess with my souped up Barbarian, as with dragging windows across the screen, among others. Given the disparity between the two, and the importance of motion to me, I stick with the 2141sb...Maybe I'll look into LED-backlit LCDs when they are more available. And remember, some people's eyes are slow enough that they see blur even though there is none, so for them slow response time might not bother them....Your mileage may vary!
 
fugu said:
how do you figure that? a fast CRT will have a refresh rate of 100-120Hz, which ends up being between 10 and 8 milliseconds
Click to expand...

Yes, a refresh rate of 120Hz would mean the *refresh* of the screen would be roughly 8ms. I was talking about *response time*, which is the amount of time it takes for a pixel to change state. Unlike LCDs, phosphors lose their charge almost instantly and have to be freshened. An electron gun fires electrons at the pixels, which illuminates the phosphor quickly, and then it quickly fades. There is only 1 electron gun in the CRT, which means each pixel is drawn one at a time...assume a standard 1280 x 1024 resolution. This would mean there are >1 million pixels being redrawn consecutively 60 times a second, whereas the pixels' duration is much, much shorter. This is what causes flicker....Notice that since the refresh rate is 60, it will be 1/60th of a second before the gun revisits the same pixel. If the speed of the gun is increased, the refresh rate will also increase, and it can approach the rise and fall time of the pixels without causing any blur. So as you can see, the near-instantaneous response time of CRTs is not being taken advantage of.

This doesn't hold true for LCDs since they don't change state unless the image they are displaying changes, and only the onscreen elements that change actually change states; the rest stay the same. Each pixel is changed simultaneously, and at their maximum speed, which is 12, 16ms or 3-4 times as long.

One only needs the innards and video card to drive a CRT monitor at 1000Hz, or more. The response time of the CRT is capable of this, artificially limited by outside factors. In the case of LCDs, the pixels themselves are the limiting factor, artificially limiting the existing hardware (for example, not being able to utilize 120Hz).
 
Synful Serenity said:
Yes, a refresh rate of 120Hz would mean the *refresh* of the screen would be roughly 8ms. I was talking about *response time*, which is the amount of time it takes for a pixel to change state. Unlike LCDs, phosphors lose their charge almost instantly and have to be freshened. An electron gun fires electrons at the pixels, which illuminates the phosphor quickly, and then it quickly fades. There is only 1 electron gun in the CRT, which means each pixel is drawn one at a time...assume a standard 1280 x 1024 resolution. This would mean there are >1 million pixels being redrawn consecutively 60 times a second, whereas the pixels' duration is much, much shorter. This is what causes flicker....Notice that since the refresh rate is 60, it will be 1/60th of a second before the gun revisits the same pixel. If the speed of the gun is increased, the refresh rate will also increase, and it can approach the rise and fall time of the pixels without causing any blur. So as you can see, the near-instantaneous response time of CRTs is not being taken advantage of.

This doesn't hold true for LCDs since they don't change state unless the image they are displaying changes, and only the onscreen elements that change actually change states; the rest stay the same. Each pixel is changed simultaneously, and at their maximum speed, which is 12, 16ms or 3-4 times as long.

One only needs the innards and video card to drive a CRT monitor at 1000Hz, or more. The response time of the CRT is capable of this, artificially limited by outside factors. In the case of LCDs, the pixels themselves are the limiting factor, artificially limiting the existing hardware (for example, not being able to utilize 120Hz).
Click to expand...

thanks, i know how a crt works. at the end of the day, you've still got an effective response time that's limited to about 8-10ms...
 
fugu said:
thanks, i know how a crt works. at the end of the day, you've still got an effective response time that's limited to about 8-10ms...
Click to expand...

Yes, but it's ACTUALLY 8-10ms, not 2-3 times that, depending on the color change.
 
In the context of this post, what I said is relevant. The original poster heard the "effective" response time of CRTs was 6ms (we will make it 8 as you said), and a new LCD was rated at 8ms. For the same reasons as CRTs, the LCD's effective response time will be limited to 8ms also, no matter how low it goes. However, people quote LCD panel response time, not the effective figure, which at the end of the day and the foreseeable future still cannot match the refresh rates that are available, and so it is fair that the proper numbers be compared, hence the miniscule CRT figure. You wouldn't see a 2ms LCD, if and when it came out, being advertised as an 8ms screen, would you?
 
Synful Serenity said:
In the context of this post, what I said is relevant. The original poster heard the "effective" response time of CRTs was 6ms (we will make it 8 as you said), and a new LCD was rated at 8ms. For the same reasons as CRTs, the LCD's effective response time will be limited to 8ms also, no matter how low it goes. However, people quote LCD panel response time, not the effective figure, which at the end of the day and the foreseeable future still cannot match the refresh rates that are available, and so it is fair that the proper numbers be compared, hence the miniscule CRT figure. You wouldn't see a 2ms LCD, if and when it came out, being advertised as an 8ms screen, would you?
Click to expand...

my mistake. i thought you were trying to say that a crt was 6 orders of magnitude faster than an lcd. my point was that if you look at effective times for both screens, they're on roughly the same order of magnitude. lcds are definately a few times slower, but they're aproaching speeds that are acceptable for a lot of gamers.
 
the maximum response times need only exceed 16ms (so say average 5ms, as stated previously), without sacrificing viewing angles, colors or contrast, and LCD's would overtake CRT's with everything but price. Maybe then we'll have LED backlit versions that have no backlighting problems; that has to do nothing but wonders for contrast too, I'd think.
 
Here's my take. Sony leading the trend of killing CRT, is being followed by a no. of other manufacturers. On top of that, the larger screen size, such as 23", 30", are only available in LCD, not CRT.

So even if 23, 30" are kissing at 16ms w/ blur image, we still have to live w/ it, don't we?

CRT max. out at 22", w/ a 21" diagonal. Unless you acct. for the 100+ lb. Wide screen 24" Sony (discontinued). On the other hand, a 21" LCD is 21" diagonal. So this debate is pointless.

I agree CRT is heavy and difficult to carry. They have their moment, and that moment is being faded out as we speak.
 
Happy Hopping said:
I agree CRT is heavy and difficult to carry. They have their moment, and that moment is being faded out as we speak.
Click to expand...

Listen to you guys. A 22" aperture grille monitor weighs under 100lbs. The size and weight shouldn't bother an average size male.
 
CRTs will still be around for a few years at least. I think only the high end CRTs are being discontinued though. People still buy low end CRTs when they need something to display and are on a budget. Also, I doubt people are gonna buy an LCD to use for a server.

Manufacturers aren't gonna tell people this, but they would rather have people buy new and better LCD monitors every year (or how often they decide to release new LCDs) than buy a CRT with no motivation to upgrade. Afterall, once you own a 22" CRT, there isn't any better CRTs whereas owning a 23" LCD today will mean an upgrade when faster LCDs arrive. By killing the high end CRTs it forces people to buy LCDs, and that means more money for the manufacturers.

Until LCDs reach a point where it can match a CRT's refresh rate, quality, and price, there will always be a market for CRTs.
 
CRTs will still be around for a few years at least. I think only the high end CRTs are being discontinued though. People still buy low end CRTs when they need something to display and are on a budget. Also, I doubt people are gonna buy an LCD to use for a server.
Click to expand...

CRTs are becoming more and more difficult to get. Most people think that LCDs are just better and don't realise about their cons except maybe price but even then most budget PCs are coming with some awful low spec 1024x768 15" TFT now. LCDs will get cheaper and CRTs will disappear as you say. Servers often have LCDs these days since LCDs run cooler in racks and take up less space.

One other thing. Anyone buying a CRT must consider the fact that a 3 yr warranty has got to be suspect, the chances of that monitor manufacturer having new stock 2 or more years down the road has gotta be close to zero. Even now when I've had my CRT monitor go faulty its taken 3 or 4 swaps to get an OK one with no damage and no other faults.

I would personally give CRTs no more than two years and more like 1.5!
 
Skyviper said:
Until LCDs reach a point where it can match a CRT's refresh rate, quality, and price, there will always be a market for CRTs.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. LCDs don't need to match a CRTs refresh rate. Quality? I would neither are superior quality over the other. Price? Yea sure. Keep in mind mostly hardcore gamers and graphics people will continue to use CRTs and the number of them are far less than the average everyday home and business user. When you buy a new computer from anyone, you're more likely to be offered an LCD over a CRT. Why? Because that's the way the market is going.

I would have to agree with the person a few posts above, CRTs are being faded out.
 
Phosphors only suffer some response time effects by design, they have persistance.

The persistance of the phospor ensures that any flickering at lower refresh frequencies isn't so noticable (hence old monitors could get away with 50Hz where as a modern display designed for 85-120Hz would be quite noticable), and because you don't want a very short pulse of light, you want continious light ensuring that the average light power per phosper is high while the phospor still falls quickly enought to ensure the display doesn't suffer from the effects all to obvious in LCD's.

CRT's won't be killed off by LCD's, there just not good enough for artists or anyone who needs true color reproduction and a decent ammount of contrast, depending on how fast the responce and how accurate color reproduction is in OLED displays, they could be the true killer as they already have a true black ensuring pretty good contrast.

Though I can't wait to see OLED's for case mods :)
 
cnick79 said:
Not necessarily. LCDs don't need to match a CRTs refresh rate
Click to expand...

They don't? Maybe not for you, but for me to buy an LCD, and for the other people who still have their CRTs for the same reason, they do. And that's why there will still be a market for CRTs, even if it's a niche and their role is greatly diminished. It'd be foolish to say that CRTs aren't being phased out since they are. But I still don't think they will disappear completely, just like the classic American body-on-frame land barge still lives (the Lincoln Town Car and Ford Crown Victoria are the only ones left though). I must say I disagree that high-end CRTs will be the ones to go...if anything, they will be the ones that continue to be offered....For the near future it will be basically the budget lines, the high-ends, but nothing in the middle. The budget lines are still available to sell to people who can't afford LCDs, but they will have no purpose once budget LCDs are the same price. The only reason CRTs will stick around is because of their merit, and that's only going to happen with the best ones which are neck and neck with LCDs (size and weight issues aside). But LCDs lag far behind (in my eyes' perception) in terms of response, which is too important, and I'm sure is for a lot of other people too.

I would consider an LCD when they are capable of displaying 100 frames a second, blur-free. And to avoid any debate as to whether more than 60 is necessary or generalized statements about the human eye's ability to perceive motion which cannot be extrapolated to the individual, in my case, yes 100 frames a second looks smoother than 60, not that there's anything wrong with 60. And I know some games are fixed at 60, but there is still a good portion of games I play at 100. That's just how I like to do things :p

But if you have a 2141sb or 2001FP, you should consider yourself lucky. Either one is better than probably 99% of the monitors most people have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top