What local retail stores still sell CRT monitors?

[willbill]

I'm not sure what you mean when you say the "gray
scale" is better - a better response curve, greater
dynamic range, what? Better blacks - unless you're
using the CRT under dark-room conditions, where the
lower black level is actually perceivable, I doubt this;

interesting you'd focus in on my last sentence

this is my recent experience with my 22"
Philips CRT

it does better blacks and gray scale and
response, and has usable res up to 1920x1440
(actually to 2048x1536, but i've not (so far)
pushed it to that)

ok, exactly how long has it been since you've
used any CRT for over a month? my bet is years

meaning you don't make judgements like this
in an hour or a week or even a month

also, the OP is pretty clearly goning to
buy a flat screen, so why are you posting?

let's see: because *i* am in favor of CRT?

why is it that you feel sooo threatened by
anyone openly posting in favor of the CRT?

i mean, CRTs are clearly in their death thros (sp?)

but if you ARE using the CRT in the dark, it should be
noted that this remaining advantage of the CRT is
rapidly going away.

"rapidly going away" is true

meaning that the CRTs that are still left, have
merit over the best/latest flat screens, but not
as much as a year or two ago

meaning that you have been (3 years ago,
when flat screen had limited merit over CRT)
a major fan boy of flat screen PC monitors

i simply don't get it

The CRT is no longet the champion
in terms of contrast/dynamic range (it's not the LCD, either
current, but LCDs ARE rapidly getting better in that regard).
By "response," I can only assume you mean response time -
and that is the other remaining major difference between the
two technologies. CRTs are faster in terms of response, but
it's also a very different sort of response - the CRT being
a true raster-scan device, while the LCD basically is a
"write and hold" sort of display. LCDs are now widely
available with response times well under a video frame
time - down in the 5 ms range and under - but the "hold"
behavior still makes for a different "look" to the display.
Various techniques are now being used to improve what's
called the "motion picture response time" - different from the
simple on/off transition rate - but those have to date mostly
been used in TV panels. They're only starting to trickle into
the monitor market.

geez

flat screen fan boy sums it up

But even that shows a very significant difference between the
two technologies - significant development is still going on in
the case of the LCD and other types. I can't recall the last
truly significant paper I saw on a new development in CRT
technology. R&D dollars go where the future is.

the issue in this thread isn't where
the R&D bucks are going

the issue is if the last of the CRT monitors
still have merit over flat screen monitors

my vote is that they still do

bill

 

[DRS]

[...]

Only that your personal preferences - or mine, for that matter -
aren't what drive this market.

Ain't that the truth. I'm so glad I got my 19" Mitsubishi Diamond Digital
just before they disappeared.

 

[Bob Myers]

otoh and imo and fwiw, your open anti
CRT position may risk your job

Sorry, but you're still confused about this; nothing I'm saying
here has to do with "my" position one way or the other. I
am merely reporting what IS already going on in the market,
and what we can reasonably expect to happen in the future.
My personal preferences don't enter into that.

to me "fan boy" means:
one who supports a future position even
though it isn't merited in the present

OK - but in that case, I would say you've yet to show why
anything I have said about the future of this industry isn't
merited.

that was especially true 3 years ago,
when you posted strongly in favor of
flatscreen; also i'll grant that it's
a still closer call (against you) today

So let's see how things are going here - you're saying that
3 years ago, I posted "strongly in favor of flatscreen,"
which I'm assuming means I posted something suggesting that
the non-CRT display types (and specifically the LCD) would
take over the market. They've done exactly that. Three years
ago from right now - in other words, early 2004, the CRT was
still just barely the #1 display in the market in unit-volume terms.
It had already lost that position in terms of revenues. It lost the
unit-volume leadership by the end of that year, and now enjoys
an under-20% (and declining) market share. So what, exactly,
did I say 3 years ago that was incorrect?

interesting

we have a jerk by your name on the ..chips
n/g posting to his now being an owner of AMD
mobo/CPU, but still being a believer of Intel. :\

Could very well be; I'm certainly aware that my name isn't
all that unusual. I know of three "Bob Myers" in my local
area besides myself, and as many as FIVE of us have worked
for my present employer at the same time. I, of course, can
take no responsibility for what any of the others might have to
say on any given subject.

Since you didn't say anything further on this, shall I assume that
you no longer consider the above statement to be "a bunch of
crud?"

i have a very recent Samsung 204B 20" flatscreen
(1600x1200) and a recent Philips 22" and 19" CRT

both CRTs get my vote over the 204B flatscreen

am i missing something?

Only that your personal preferences - or mine, for that matter -
aren't what drive this market.

Bob M.

 

[Bob Myers]

it does better blacks and gray scale and
response, and has usable res up to 1920x1440
(actually to 2048x1536, but i've not (so far)
pushed it to that)

I still don't know what you mean by "better gray
scale" or "response" - I've given my guesses as to
what you might mean, earlier - but until you clarify
this it's going to be hard to comment further.

ok, exactly how long has it been since you've
used any CRT for over a month? my bet is years

Sorry, you lose - and apparently didn't read my last
post very closely. I've got a CRT monitor in regular use,
AND an LCD monitor in regular use as well. I've also
formally evaluated literally dozens of examples of both
types over the years.

also, the OP is pretty clearly goning to
buy a flat screen, so why are you posting?

To clear up some misunderstandings and erroneous information
that was presented earlier in this thread.

let's see: because *i* am in favor of CRT?

Nope; doesn't make a hill of beans difference to me one way
or the other. I don't even have any idea who you are, so why
would YOU being in favor of CRTs concern me?

why is it that you feel sooo threatened by
anyone openly posting in favor of the CRT?

I don't. But if someone posts - in ADDITION to statements
relating to personal preference - erroneous information relating
to the behavior of a given technology or the state of the display
industry/market overall, I'm going to correct that. Sorry if this
offends you.

Bob M.

 

[willbill]

[...]

Only that your personal preferences - or mine, for that matter -
aren't what drive this market.

Ain't that the truth. I'm so glad I got my 19" Mitsubishi
Diamond Digital just before they disappeared.

that sums it up nicely.

fwiw, you can find some still useful info
on CRT monitors and the old (still useful)
Nokia ntest.exe program (for Windows 98/2k/xp)
at www.repairfaq.org

(http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/F_Repair.html

and

http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/crtfaq.htm

and

http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/deflfaq.htm

and...)

the ntest program is buried somewhere,
but worth finding.

bill

 

[Pipboy]

I don't. But if someone posts - in ADDITION to statements
relating to personal preference - erroneous information relating
to the behavior of a given technology or the state of the display
industry/market overall, I'm going to correct that. Sorry if this
offends you.

Bob M.

I think your the same dipshit that tried to hoodwink me into thinking LCD
is better than CRT. Want to know how I know CRT is better? My eyes tell me
so. I'm not going to debate the pros and cons of each but suffice it to say
a good CRT is better than any LCD you could possible show me in almost
every area. Not every area but enough to make the CRT still the clear
winner for anyone that cares about image quality.

 

[chrisv]

I'm so glad I got my 19" Mitsubishi Diamond Digital
just before they disappeared.

8) My work monitor is a 19" Mitsu Diamond Pro 930 SB. Great monitor
- sharp as a tack. My home monitor is a 21" Sony F500R, which is
absolutely fabulous in every way - hope it lasts forever. 8)

 

[Bob Myers]

I think your the same dipshit that tried to hoodwink me into thinking LCD
is better than CRT.

Assuming you mean "you're" - no, I'm not. Your buying decisions
are just exactly that - YOURS - and I wouldn't try to talk you out
of whatever you want to decide.

Want to know how I know CRT is better? My eyes tell me
so.

Bingo. The CRT IS better, according to YOUR preferences and
in YOUR application. But what that really means is that there is
no such thing as one display technology being "better" than another,
except in terms of very specific and objective performance parameters.
What's best for a given individual or appplication is always a question
of personal preferences and needs. Where this discussion always
runs into trouble is when people start thinking that their personal
preferences are somehow fundamental laws of the universe, or
actually have something to do with an imagined inherent "goodness"
about a particular technology. I can tell you where the CRT is
objectively superior (i.e., in terms of the raw numbers), and I can
tell you where the LCD is objectively superior. Which one is "right"
for YOU is completely up to you.

The bottom line is that I have no objection to anyone saying "I
prefer CRTs" OR "I prefer LCDs." When the conversation heads
off into flat statements of "This one IS better," that's when I'm going
to object.

Bob M.

 

[willbill]

Assuming you mean "you're" - no, I'm not.

odds are that you are that dipship

at least that's what i've thought of
you for the last 3+ years with your
video n/g posting

i mean you've posted in favor of flatscreen
here for the last 3+ years

Your buying decisions
are just exactly that - YOURS - and I wouldn't try to talk you out
of whatever you want to decide.

that is way too offbase

you've clearly posted in favor of
flatscreen this past 3+ years

yet here you are laying rest to that
and now saying that the decision is
"YOURS"

Bingo. The CRT IS better, according to YOUR preferences and
in YOUR application. But what that really means is that there is
no such thing as one display technology being "better" than another,
except in terms of very specific and objective performance parameters.

"objective" vs subjective?

new is frequently thought to be better
(it's built into our USA learning system),
but it all too often isn't so

the one thing that is better about new
is the profits for the companies that
do it; especially those who manage to
get new (18 year) patents on it.

What's best for a given individual or appplication is always a question
of personal preferences and needs.

maybe, maybe not; also see above

Where this discussion always
runs into trouble is when people start thinking that their personal
preferences are somehow fundamental laws of the universe, or
actually have something to do with an imagined inherent "goodness"
about a particular technology. I can tell you where the CRT is
objectively superior (i.e., in terms of the raw numbers),

i'll bite, let's hear it: give a numbered list of
where you think the CRT is objectively superior

and I can
tell you where the LCD is objectively superior.

ok, give a numbered list of where you think the
LCD is objectively superior

Which one is "right"
for YOU is completely up to you.

The bottom line is that I have no objection to anyone saying "I
prefer CRTs" OR "I prefer LCDs." When the conversation heads
off into flat statements of "This one IS better," that's when I'm going
to object.

i get nervous with people like you who
are going to educate us as to what is
and isn't "objectively" true

you were clearly flat wrong with your
adulation of flatscreen 3 years ago

i can't think of any serious reason to
believe your new "objectivity" now

fwiw, odds are your past open posting in
favor of flatscreen has hurt your job
with HP so i suggest you be careful here

i'll grant that the future is flatscreen
and that that future is very near

my recent experience sez that that future
is not yet here

bill

 

[Bob Myers]

i'll bite, let's hear it: give a numbered list of
where you think the CRT is objectively superior

The more important parameters where the CRT
would be superior include black level (and with it,
dark-room contrast), the inherent response curve
("gamma"), and, of course, response time (especially the
so-called "motion picture" response time, at least until very
recently). Also until recently the CRT would typically have
the ability to resolve more effective gray levels, in part
due to the response curve advantage. CRTs would also
typically be better at meeting certain color gamut requirements,
but this is because the gamuts in question were specified
with CRTs in mind in the first place (e.g., sRGB or Rec. 709).

ok, give a numbered list of where you think the
LCD is objectively superior

Brightness (for typical monitor products), geometry, "focus"
(not really comparable, but the LCD and other flat technologies
are inherently fixed-pixel devices and so have essentially
perfect "focus"), contrast under typical ambients/brightness
levels, color gamut (recently, esp. with LED backlighting),
plus of course the obvious advantages in weight, thickness,
ambient E & M field and EMI immunity, power, and reliability.
These last few are often the most important concerns for
many customers and applications. Recent LCDs have also
demonstrated support for much higher resolution (either in
the sense of PPI or addressable pixels) than could ever be
clearly achieved with a CRT of comparable brightness.

i get nervous with people like you who
are going to educate us as to what is
and isn't "objectively" true

You can be nervous all you like; if you disagree with
anything I say regarding objective qualities, however, I
will ask that you tell me what you think the "right"
answer is.

you were clearly flat wrong with your
adulation of flatscreen 3 years ago

Yes, apparently, given the domination of the market
that I mentioned before - which started a bit over
3 years ago as of now, and currently has reached the
point where the LCD is significantly over the 80%
market share point.

fwiw, odds are your past open posting in
favor of flatscreen has hurt your job
with HP so i suggest you be careful here

Your concern for my career is noted, and please rest assured
that I will give it exactly the attention that it warrants.

Bob M.

 

[Pipboy]

The bottom line is that I have no objection to anyone saying "I
prefer CRTs" OR "I prefer LCDs." When the conversation heads
off into flat statements of "This one IS better," that's when I'm going
to object.

Bob M.

OK, sorry for confusing you with someone else. I'm a gamer and CRT is the
still tops for that purpose. If I was a using a monitor for word
processing, programming, CAD then I would choose LCD. I've had two LCD's so
far and both have dissapointed me as their flaws and limitations are too
obvious to me.

 

[Pipboy]

i mean you've posted in favor of flatscreen
here for the last 3+ years

Hmm, maybe it is him. I remember some LCD evangelist in this group feeding
me BS about LCD manufacturer's when I complained about them using grey to
grey for response times. I told him black to white takes longer and is what
they should be using, he lied and said grey to grey takes longer than black
to white and the manufacturers were using the correct way to measure pixel
respose time.

 

[Pipboy]

Yes, apparently, given the domination of the market
that I mentioned before - which started a bit over
3 years ago as of now, and currently has reached the
point where the LCD is significantly over the 80%
market share point.

My experience with LCD goes back a bit more than 3 years ago. I paid over
$800.00 CAD for a 17" Samsung 171S. Much happier now with my current 22"
Diamondtron tube.

 

[DRS]

Hmm, maybe it is him. I remember some LCD evangelist in this group
feeding me BS about LCD manufacturer's when I complained about them
using grey to grey for response times. I told him black to white
takes longer and is what they should be using, he lied and said grey
to grey takes longer than black to white and the manufacturers were
using the correct way to measure pixel respose time.

GTG is indeed a superior measure than the average response time when it's
done properly, and yes, in certain cases it can be slower than the average
(it can be faster too). Given the stick manufacturers have taken from
people who know what they're talking about over not providing GTG times, if
I were you I'd be pleasantly surprised you found one trying to do the right
thing.

 

[chrisv]

OK, sorry for confusing you with someone else.

I don't think you did, although you may have misinterpreted what he
said. I'll forgive you for that, since Bob is known to have similar
difficulties with what he reads-into what others write...

 

[rjn]

Bob, I'm not even sure they still DO that in Sandy Eggo....
been quite some time since I was down there, though.

That was where I sent my GDM FW-900
for refurb before selling it on eBay a couple
of years ago.

Sony could have moved the operation, but
I suspect they still do hi-end refurbs somewhere,
as many CRT users are clearly unwilling to move
to LCD yet (and if I were in heavy pre-press, I might
be buying all the Artisans that turn up on eBay

So let me update the eBay advice:
Buy Sony.
But first find out where you'll need to Fedex it
for refurb (and Fedex was by far the cheapest).

 

[Bob Myers]

Hmm, maybe it is him. I remember some LCD evangelist in this group feeding
me BS about LCD manufacturer's when I complained about them using grey to
grey for response times. I told him black to white takes longer and is
what
they should be using, he lied and said grey to grey takes longer than
black
to white and the manufacturers were using the correct way to measure pixel
respose time.

It could certainly be me who said that, and it's not a lie at all.

For most LCD technologies in their basic form, the gray-to-gray
response can and many times WILL be far longer than what it takes
for the full white-to-black or black-to-white transition. The reason
for this somewhat counterintuitive situation is that the LCD is really
just a "light valve" sort of device that relies on the molecules of the
LC material switching between two states (or to various
intermediate states) in response to a voltage applied across the
material. The problem is that the voltage difference between any
two gray states, or white or black and an intermediate state, is
obviously less than it's going to be when doing the full white-to-black
transition. Less voltage change means, simply put, that the molecules
aren't being "kicked" as hard (less force to make the transition), and
so the transition is slower.

The solution to this in modern panels is "overdrive," which is a method
in which a higher voltage than is needed for the intended gray level is
initially applied across the LC, and then the voltage is reduced on
subsequent frames until that cell "settles in" to a stable gray state.
This method improves the GtG response significantly over what it
would be with the staight drive, but does nothing to improve the full
white/black transitions (since for most drivers, you can't apply a voltage
in excess of the "full white" or "full black" level). So we wind up with:

1. The basic (w/o overdrive) GtG transition IS often slower than the
full black/white changes, AND

2. With overdrive, GtG can be faster than the black/white, which
typically is not improved by this method.

For the full story on what the display is going to actually look like, you
need to look at BOTH specs (plus, due to other methods that are
now being applied to LCDs, yet another spec called the "motion
picture" or "moving edge" response time - which is only somewhat
related to the other two).

Glad to be able to clear that up.

Bob M.

 

[Bob Myers]

My experience with LCD goes back a bit more than 3 years ago.

Mine does, too. I worked on my first LCD monitor design in
the late 1980s. At that time, the panel alone (which was by no
means a 17") cost several thousand dollars in small production
volumes. The sole benefits were that it enabled a thin, light
monitor that wasn't troubled by magnetic fields, which was a big
deal for several customers at the time.


Bob M.

 

[DRS]

[...]

The solution to this in modern panels is "overdrive," which is a
method in which a higher voltage than is needed for the intended gray
level is initially applied across the LC, and then the voltage is
reduced on subsequent frames until that cell "settles in" to a stable
gray state. This method improves the GtG response significantly over

I've read of problems with overdrive. If the voltage is too high it can
produce bright artifacts around moving objects.

 

[Bob Myers]

news:[email protected]

I've read of problems with overdrive. If the voltage is too high it can
produce bright artifacts around moving objects.

That can certainly happen, and has on some of the early overdrive
panels; clearly, it will depend a lot on how well the overdrive
circuitry/algorithm is implemented, and secondarily whether or not
it can compensate for other factors that may influence the basic
response time of the LC cell. There's also a potential problem, if the
monitor design is not done carefully, when an "overdrive" panel is used
with a scaler/controller IC which itself implements an "overdrive"
function (i.e., some monitor scaler/controllers can be set to implement
overdrive by feeding the panel with intentionally high values for the
first frame after a gray-level change; if the panel already is doing
overdrive on its own, though, you can imagine the trouble this could
cause). It's like most things - there's a right way and a wrong way
to do it.

Bob M.