When will traditional monitors come to a point where they are infeasible?

[Luminescent]

Let's not forget the lack of stereoscopic technology in reasonably priced, mainstream monitors.

 

[MfA]

edit: note that reading reviews simply doesn't tell you if you can live with the compromises. You really have to use an LCD for a few months and then decide if the experience was positive or negative.

Depends on how rich you are, if the price of a large LCD monitor is real money to you the fact you spend that much is always going to colour your vision

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Depends on how rich you are, if the price of a large LCD monitor is real money to you the fact you spend that much is always going to colour your vision

On the other hand, if the price of a large LCD monitor is real money to you such that you can't afford it..that might color your vision as well.

 

[KimB]

On the other hand, if the price of a large LCD monitor is real money to you such that you can't afford it..that might color your vision as well.

LCD's have been getting dramatically cheaper this year, such that large LCD's these days are typically not much more expensive than similar-size CRT's (remember that an LCD's size is the full size of the screen, and thus more comparable to a CRT's "viewable" size spec).

 

[WaltC]

When will current generation monitors need to be replaced?

Assuming a responsible end user, I'd say it all depends on the quality of the monitor... My wife is using a 21" Panasonic E21 bought in 1998, manufactured in 1997--still running flawlessly. I'm using a 21" Sony E540 bought and manufactured in 2002 and running perfectly today.

What limitations do they currently have in relation to 3D graphics?

Limitations in comparison to what? If compared to TFTs/LCDs--I can't think of any at all... The Sony is better than the Panasonic, if that's what you mean. I'd trade neither for an LCD.

Is the range of colours of traditional CRTs and LCDs posing as a future problem?

It's the range of colors most 3d game engines can display that's the current problem, I think. Even so, I wouldn't swap out my CRTs except for better CRTs.

What could eventually replace traditional monitors?

Better, newer and improved traditional monitors?... Some progress is being made as I read on reducing the depth required for beam-gun focus in traditional CRT designs.

It's also nice not having to worry over "dead pixels" and so on. Nice not having to worry over resolutions, either, as CRTs can support them all full screen.

IMO, the only advantage to LCDs that I can think of is depth and weight. If you want IQ stick with quality CRTs. But even with CRTs never forget that you get what you pay for...

 

[WhiningKhan]

I do notice flicker on CRTs at 85Hz (peripheral vision is much more sensitive to flicker, and I'm not constantly staring at the middle of the screen). And I do notice eye strain after hours of work on a CRT even at 100 Hz. With a TFT, I don't. That's enough reason to prefer TFTs over CRTs for me. But there are others.
My notebook display has a resolution of 130 dpi. It's really a shame you can hardly get monitors with that resolution. The font quality is just awesome.
As for the blurring: as I said, I rarely play games or watch DVDs on my computer lately. So I don't care much about ghosting in motion, but I care a lot about the slight blur every CRT exhibits, even the good ones, because you can't hit its native resolution.

I agree completely. For the last years I've been working with a laptop, and after a normal work day (coding, writing spec, using EDA tools, occasional surfing...) there's no eye strain. But at home I have a 19" Hitachi CRT, and a few intensive hours in front of it brings tears in my eyes even at 100Hz.

 

[pcchen]

I still have a CRT around, which I used for accurate color reproduction. It's not that LCD can't have good color reproduction, but LCDs tend to have weird effects on the viewing angle, such as color changes when you move around. I use LCD for almost all other purposes, including gaming.

 

[Moloch]

The point isn't that LCDs are "better" than CRTs, but that the compromises of modern LCDs are more acceptable to the full PC buying audience than CRTs. The simple difference in size (i.e. depth) is enough to sell LCDs no matter what the compromises are, and anyone who has used LCDs in the last few years is aware of how small the other compromises are getting, and the various points where LCDs outperform CRTs.

This is of course only true for users with no specialised needs (such as exact colour calibration or particular resolutions). But such users are at most a few % of the market. CRTs are no longer being made by most manufacturers for good reason.

My own experience of having moved to a dual screen LCD setup in the last year is that I have definitely made a considerable improvement to my viewing pleasure. For my average needs (internet, email, various other 2d apps, occasional gaming, WoW addiction) I simply don't find myself suffering from any of the "compromises". (note, I have a dell 2005FPW IPS panel as main screen).

edit: note that reading reviews simply doesn't tell you if you can live with the compromises. You really have to use an LCD for a few months and then decide if the experience was positive or negative.

Built in video is fine for most users, but you dont see me with it now do you?
Who needs high res gaming, who needs fsaa etc.
Show me an lcd that has better color reproduction, better blacks and minimal ghosting vs a crt of the same price range.

 

[soylent]

Er, this isn't true. You need to have a rectangular "screen" for optimal computer display output (The output needn't necessarily be rectangular, but the data will be), and you're going to need to have pixels to represent the digital content the computer produces. And thus, there will be an aspect ratio in actual pixels.

There is an aspect ratio when you have _chosen_ one, and there is a resolution when you _choose_ one, but there is no reason that this choice can't be left up to the user(within limits of course). With an actual screen using an aspect ratio of x:y of hardware based actual physical pixel elements, you are locked into this and displaying any media with a different aspect ratio is a pain because you either stretch content, crop content, don't use the full area of your screen or a combination of these.

Changing resolutions is also a bit of a pain with many monitors, LCDs in particular, where the image is digitally scaled to fit the screen which often looks really ugly.

There is no reason this device shouldn't equally well handle 2.35:1 just as well as it handles 4:3 without chaning anything in the hardware, just set it to a different display mode and off you go. There is no display device capable of this today that I am aware of.

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

What do you mean by this?
Are you saying that if I had a refresh rate of 61Hz, it would be no better than having it at 60Hz?

That still doesn't make any sense, because our eyes will superimpose the images anyway at 60Hz.

 

[WaltC]

I agree completely. For the last years I've been working with a laptop, and after a normal work day (coding, writing spec, using EDA tools, occasional surfing...) there's no eye strain. But at home I have a 19" Hitachi CRT, and a few intensive hours in front of it brings tears in my eyes even at 100Hz.

Sounds resolution-related to me...I use LCDs at work, too, and notice I have little eye strain mainly because I'm either running in 800x600 or 1024x768. At home with my 21" CRT I run only at 1152x864 and higher, and do notice a bit of eye strain at 1280x1024 and up--which I think is mainly caused by the smaller pixels and text, but easily remedied by shifting resoution down to 1152x864 when text is involved. With LCDs the pixels are always the same size (relatively big on 1024x768 LCDs) regardless of resolution, but with CRTs the pixel size changes with resolution. Eye-strain on CRTs caused by refresh rate is generally due to flicker and flicker is rare on quality CRTs at 100Hz (I don't see any); eye strain on CRTs caused by high-res, smaller pixels and text is much more common, imo.

IE, one should not use a CRT for text displays the way one uses an LCD for text displays--because of the CRT capability of changing the pixel size with resolution that is not possible with an LCD.

 

[KimB]

Eye strain can also be caused by blur, which comes with higher resolutions on CRT's (to varying degrees depending on the dot pitch....I do well with 1280x960 on mine).

 

[swaaye]

I've found that my Dell 2405FPW and 2005FPW screens are far superior in clarity and contrast to my previow Samsung Syncmaster 950P 19". And that was one of the best CRTs I've seen over the years. I simply can not get over how bright these LCDs are. If I put my CRT next to them it looks dull and dark. I was considering dual head with the 2005FPW and the 19" CRT until I put them side by side. The CRT is just plain awful in comparison. On the LCD Letters are incredibly sharp and crisp, images bright and vibrant. DVI is superior to analog but it's not a huge huge difference. Even analog can be good if you have a good video card (many vid cards are not good for analog at high res). I run analog all the time with some old comps here and even at 1920x1200 some are pretty good.

I've messed around with gamma correcting these two screens and they are surprisingly close to correct by default. DVI must help with that. The 2405FPW and 2005FPW have different color I've noticed, but it's not a huge difference. Whites on both are very good IMO. And yes, I've read the complaints about grayscale issues, but honestly I really don't see any disadvantages to the color of these screens in what I do (which is not serious graphic arts or photography, etc). I have never personally seen a CRT which is superior, that's is certain. Other than for black point of course. In that area LCDs are terrible.

To put it simply, playing Doom3 on a LCD sucks. Black point is AWFUL on ALL LCDs. I also don't like to have to deal with the limited number of pixels and widescreen for many games. Old DOS games look like shit on a LCD because of the upscaling they must do. The Dell LCDs have an aspect setting to prevent stretching, but you obviously lose about 1/3 of the screen then. If you can't run the LCD's default res, it will look terrible no matter how amazing the LCD may be. With respect to power usage, LCDs are pretty amazing. This 2405FPW uses like 80W, the 2005FPW 55W. My 19" CRT used over 100W. Then there's the sheer size savings. I can fit two huge LCDs on my tiny desk! And the near lack of weight!

I started with just the 2005FPW which I only bought after seeing one after a friend of mine bought one. It was sharp and bright, and looked great. Watching him play EQ2 on a 20.5" widescreen really caught my eye lol. Accepting the black point issue, I bought one too. I liked that screen so much that I convinced myself to blow $800 on a 2405FPW (Dell coupons!). I do not regret it at all. You haven't seen anything until you rotate at 24" widescreen to portrait and view websites. It's like a wall of image! And even with the black point issue, which honestly is only a problem for Doom3 and other black games lol (Quake?), gaming on a 24" LCD is a totally new experience. It is just amazing how much it draws you in.... BTW these Dell screens have very little light leakage.

So I guess I stand by LCDs in many ways. They aren't perfect, but both CRTs and LCDs are certainly not perfect. There are caveats to both. And this is from someone who was very strongly against LCD tech a year ago. I couldn't stand Doom3 on the things, and the limited pixels really bothered me. But I've seen their advantages now and have been blown away by them.

With regards to eye strain, I have some opinions on that. CRTs may be hard on the eyes. LCDs are too. I've been working on a laptop for almost two years now at work. It's a big one, 17" LCD. But I think the brightness of LCDs, especially these Dells, actually can hurt your eyes if you do not light your environment suitably. And since these screens are so bright you really need to brighten up your room.

 

[Moloch]

I've found that my Dell 2405FPW and 2005FPW screens are far superior in clarity and contrast to my previow Samsung Syncmaster 950P 19". And that was one of the best CRTs I've seen over the years. I simply can not get over how bright these LCDs are. If I put my CRT next to them it looks dull and dark. I was considering dual head with the 2005FPW and the 19" CRT until I put them side by side. The CRT is just plain awful in comparison. On the LCD Letters are incredibly sharp and crisp, images bright and vibrant. DVI is superior to analog but it's not a huge huge difference. Even analog can be good if you have a good video card (many vid cards are not good for analog at high res). I run analog all the time with some old comps here and even at 1920x1200 some are pretty good.

I've messed around with gamma correcting these two screens and they are surprisingly close to correct by default. DVI must help with that. The 2405FPW and 2005FPW have different color I've noticed, but it's not a huge difference. Whites on both are very good IMO. And yes, I've read the complaints about grayscale issues, but honestly I really don't see any disadvantages to the color of these screens in what I do (which is not serious graphic arts or photography, etc). I have never personally seen a CRT which is superior, that's is certain. Other than for black point of course. In that area LCDs are terrible.

To put it simply, playing Doom3 on a LCD sucks. Black point is AWFUL on ALL LCDs. I also don't like to have to deal with the limited number of pixels and widescreen for many games. Old DOS games look like shit on a LCD because of the upscaling they must do. The Dell LCDs have an aspect setting to prevent stretching, but you obviously lose about 1/3 of the screen then. If you can't run the LCD's default res, it will look terrible no matter how amazing the LCD may be. With respect to power usage, LCDs are pretty amazing. This 2405FPW uses like 80W, the 2005FPW 55W. My 19" CRT used over 100W. Then there's the sheer size savings. I can fit two huge LCDs on my tiny desk! And the near lack of weight!

I started with just the 2005FPW which I only bought after seeing one after a friend of mine bought one. It was sharp and bright, and looked great. Watching him play EQ2 on a 20.5" widescreen really caught my eye lol. Accepting the black point issue, I bought one too. I liked that screen so much that I convinced myself to blow $800 on a 2405FPW (Dell coupons!). I do not regret it at all. You haven't seen anything until you rotate at 24" widescreen to portrait and view websites. It's like a wall of image! And even with the black point issue, which honestly is only a problem for Doom3 and other black games lol (Quake?), gaming on a 24" LCD is a totally new experience. It is just amazing how much it draws you in.... BTW these Dell screens have very little light leakage.

So I guess I stand by LCDs in many ways. They aren't perfect, but both CRTs and LCDs are certainly not perfect. There are caveats to both. And this is from someone who was very strongly against LCD tech a year ago. I couldn't stand Doom3 on the things, and the limited pixels really bothered me. But I've seen their advantages now and have been blown away by them.

With regards to eye strain, I have some opinions on that. CRTs may be hard on the eyes. LCDs are too. I've been working on a laptop for almost two years now at work. It's a big one, 17" LCD. But I think the brightness of LCDs, especially these Dells, actually can hurt your eyes if you do not light your environment suitably. And since these screens are so bright you really need to brighten up your room.

I pretty much agree.
There's no disputing lcds are bright, but it comes at a cost.
If you can accept it, cool.
If I didn't use my pc for watching movies and gaming I'd have a lcd, but since I do both, I use crt.

 

[Wunderchu]

HDR display:

http://www.brightsidetech.com

 

[Sxotty]

I just dislike how you cannot change the font size in windows and have everything work out. If I do then menus and stuff don't fit right.

The reason I say is that I like to sit decently far away and I like 1600x1200 but then I cannot read text so I have to ctrl+roll constantly or try to read half menu text or squint at small text, it is a crappy situation all around. Therefore I run at 1280x1024 for text...

 

[Moloch]

way to revive this topic from the grave...

 

[Snyder]

I do notice flicker on CRTs at 85Hz (peripheral vision is much more sensitive to flicker, and I'm not constantly staring at the middle of the screen). And I do notice eye strain after hours of work on a CRT even at 100 Hz. With a TFT, I don't. That's enough reason to prefer TFTs over CRTs for me. But there are others.
My notebook display has a resolution of 130 dpi. It's really a shame you can hardly get monitors with that resolution. The font quality is just awesome.
As for the blurring: as I said, I rarely play games or watch DVDs on my computer lately. So I don't care much about ghosting in motion, but I care a lot about the slight blur every CRT exhibits, even the good ones, because you can't hit its native resolution.

I think you nailed it on the spot here: For work (esp. programming and the like, i.e. text based working) a TFT usually is the better choice nowadays. There the TFTs' advantages (resolution, perfect geometry and sharpness) can shine the most, while the disadvantages (poor color reproduction, shitty black levels, ghosting etc.) don't matter that much.
OTOH - I wouldn't dream of going TFT (or at least TFT-only) at home (for playing games etc.).

 

[KimB]

I think you nailed it on the spot here: For work (esp. programming and the like, i.e. text based working) a TFT usually is the better choice nowadays. There the TFTs' advantages (resolution, perfect geometry and sharpness) can shine the most,

Not to mention desk space. That can be a big deal, depending upon where and how you work.

I know that I often look in envy at my fellow graduate students with newer flatpanel displays, whereas I happen to be stuck with an old 21" CRT that takes up a huge portion of my desk. Granted, it's not as bad as it used to be, as I have much more desk space now. But it'd still be nice to have more.

 

[ClyssaN]

Thats my opinon to, i program a lot and a tft is just great, but for gaming my 21º CRT is the best