Colors are a lot better on LCD, and contrast is as good if not better.

But CRTs still have a better refresh rate for a lot more resolutions.

i have never seen an LCD that can compete with a good CRT in terms of image and color quality

I suppose you are only talking about monitors and not about television screens?

ye, i dont know much about the tech used in TVs, but usually LCD monitors just can't show the same color range a CRT can

quite some time ago when I was familiar with the topic, but afair remember there are a bunch of different LCD technologies used and being invented, each with certains pros and cons.
And a higher contrast and great colors of comes with the con of a bad reaction time, which makes the a no-go for gaming monitors, but a viable choice for TVs.

Oh well, there is still a lot of research going on, ad the improvements in the last 10 years have been large, so I think there is hope we'll get a LCD with good reaction (albeit not as good as crt) and better colors eventually.

SED =/

lcds are already obsolete they wont reach level of crt not in color or refresh...maybe leds will change that

What makes you think that?

the way theire built...they cant eliminate that space beetwen backlights and liquid crystals so there will always be a response time.The light is illuminated from neons and goes through crystals its actually filtered which is shit, it just cant have better colors and at crts light is emitted directly from pixel so it shows better colors,response etc.There are new LCDs now with LED backlights that improve colors but the picture still cant be sharper than at crt since those have 0.21mm and response time is still present here.lcds are only transitory here, real screens to wait for are OLEDs those will have MUCH MUCH better colors,response 0ms and should work at 100khz, id actually change my trusty crt for that screen.

The light is illuminated from neons and goes through crystals its actually filtered which is shit, it just cant have better colors and at crts light is emitted directly from pixel so it shows better colors,response

I'm sorry but that part does not make any sense.

A color is nothing but a wavelength of light. Always.
It does not matter how it is generated. Colors on a painting or photo can look great, and nature itself too. But most of those colors are just a product of absorption.

There are new LCDs now with LED backlights that improve colors but the picture still cant be sharper than at crt since those have 0.21mm and response time is still present here.

this is also questionable, as it is based on the assumption that the distance between pixels can never be reduced, no matter the technological advances. Only time will tell if you are right of not.

You are of course correct with the refresh time, that will always be there, but if it can be reduced to say 2ms (as a really value not what the write in the manual atm!) I believe it will be hardly noticeable as there are others lags inside your machine, too! Again, only time will tell if that can be done.


Calling a technology that is still leading the market and is still being researched a lot obsolete is, in my eyes, a stretch.
OLEDs on the other hand, right now, have the big problem of being very expensive for bigger sizes. They also struggle with a few other problems. I mean, as noctis mentioned, SEDs were also hailed to be the next best thing, with impressive technical data. We'll see. I still think you are much too early to write LCDs of.

In the end, every technology is transitional. ;)



p.s. those 100khz are purely theoretical, if you argue like that LCDs can do 1000 hz...

A color is nothing but a wavelength of light. Always.
It does not matter how it is generated. Colors on a painting or photo can look great, and nature itself too. But most of those colors are just a product of absorption.

wow thats deep a light is radiation :D damn didnt know that, but what happens if u put something infront of that light source can u explain me that,what does that prism spectrometer do, does it form colors?? why cant lcd display natural black then???? pls explain cause to me what i wrote makes a lot of sense

edit: Dont u live in .de? Go visit some electronica/productronica in Munchen...

eh, do you know how to get a "black" color? Cause I think that might clear up some things for you...


there are also lcds which are called "naturally black", as opposed to "naturally white". This means that triggering the crystals with blocks the light or lets it through. See twisted nematic if you want to know more.

I have no clue why you would bring up a prism spectrometer. Do you mean a polarisator?

In any case here is an excerpt from wiki, that I believe might shed some light for you:

In color LCDs each individual pixel is divided into three cells, or subpixels, which are colored red, green, and blue, respectively, by additional filters (pigment filters, dye filters and metal oxide filters). Each subpixel can be controlled independently to yield thousands or millions of possible colors for each pixel. CRT monitors employ a similar 'subpixel' structures via phosphors, although the electron beam employed in CRTs do not hit exact 'subpixels'. Because they utilize red, green and blue elements, both LCD and CRT monitors are direct applications of the RGB color model and give the illusion of representing a continuous spectrum of hues as a result of the trichromatic nature of human vision.

Maybe you don't have a museum at your place, but I can look up the names of the books I used when I wrote my paper. Tell me, if you want me to do it when I get home.

sry but crystals are triggered by electric impulses caused by mosfet transistors, but im not gonna continue to argue here since its clear we dont understand each other I still stand by my statements.Wish my english vocabulary wasnt so poor I could continue this tho...

Yes, I agree we don't seem to understand each other.

after reading again, are you maybe talking about contrast?

Cause contrast is only a part of coloring...



and last but not least, some links:

google scholar is always your friend: http://scholar.google.de/scholar?hl=de&q=...p;as_vis=0

The is also a good comparison you can find on google scholar: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download...p;type=pdf

It is from 2000, though. So I believe it's safe to say the LCD results have improved a lot, since then!

CRTs are now behind LCDs in terms of color quality/fidelity.

and wtf is "image quality" ?

no?

lulz !

no.

nope :P

120hz LCD>CRT>LCD>IPS>LSD>NO Monitor

The monitor hierarchy

I still say 120hz crt > 120hz lcd>etc..

but LSD > any monitor.

i have told you before leprechaun you don't get the pot of gold as i got here first

troll.

fu.

tbh i'd rather have a 16:9 widescreen with a much smaller desk footprint and ever so slightly lessened performance vs a crt that sucks more power than a hooker does cock

While sure, some crts are better than some lcds, i hated having a crt on my desk

I really dont give a fuck what you think dont reply to me

hahaha cant help myself to not + u for this hahahahahah

Did i say sucks more dick than a hooker? i meant sucks more dick than stunt

My Diamondtron just died one me, had to order a alienware 120hz :[

I tested it yesterday and it was pretty decent for gaming, all though picture quality was shit compared to my old CRT.

I thought it was widely accepted that CRT > LCD when it came to color reproduction?

I just replaced my 10 year old CRT with a 'new' CRT and have no regrets. Except for the lack of widescreen, I could give a rat crap about all the so-called "disadvantages."

real view > crt >= 120hz lcd

I dont notice any difference from my 2233rz compared to my crt aim wise.
I notice my eyes dont hurt anymore after long gaming sessions and playing new games (e.g. Crysis, AvP3) in 1680x1050@120Hz is like an orgasm for your eyes.

crt for the win

If anyone ever owned a proper CRT (not the cheap samsung or hansol ones) they would realise that TN LCDs are nowhere close in comparison.

Also, even 120hz LCD monitors have motionblur, even tho its not a real problem anymore.

I just ordered myself sum alienware 120hz, but I bet it will take forever for it to arrive due to union strike within the company that delivers for Dell.

60hz LCD's take a few days to really get used to. It SUCKS, but the more you use it, the easier it gets. After a week or so you don't really think of it as a huge disadvantage.

Yes, 120hz CRT's are the best you can get. As far as what I've seen, nothing compares to it. I've seen the new 120hz LCD's, played on them. I'll admit, it's WAY better than regular LCD's, but the screen blur is still there. It might be small, but it's there.

One day we will eventually reach a point where we can get the identical performance of a 120hz CRT in an LCD, but I can't see that for a few years.

Actually, no. CRTs will always be better for a number of reasons, especially in regards to response time, where the physical limit for LCDs is 1ms and for CRTs its 0.0087ms (or something close to this). And there are better alternatives already such as SEDs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-conducti...er_Display).

Ah, I didn't know about the ms time issues. Nice :)