M
Mxsmanic
When my CRT monitor finally failed, I decided to switch to an LCD
display. I had been debating the matter for months, ever since my CRT
showed the first signs of an impending demise. While no two people have
exactly the same requirements for a monitor, I thought I'd describe my
reasoning here so that others might benefit from it (just as I profited
from asking around a lot before making my decision).
I use my monitor for a wide variety of computer tasks, most of which
require sharp images rather than precise or vivid colors and contrasts.
However, I do a fair amount of work on photographs, which requires the
best possible image quality overall.
My reasons for choosing a LCD were as follows, in roughly decreasing
order of priority:
1. WEIGHT. It sounds odd, but this was a big concern for me. A good
quality, 20" CRT weighs easily 30-35 kg. The better the CRT, the more
it weighs. Now, lifting 30 kg straight up from the ground is no great
feat--but lifting a huge, awkward CRT with no handles and wrestling over
the edge of a desk and onto a table is a hazardous operation for anyone
who doesn't regularly manipulate heavy weights in this way, because the
slightest wrong movement can put eccentric stress on the spine for which
untrained back muscles may not be ready to compensate. I've seen too
many people injure their backs (sometimes permanently) in seemingly
innocuous operations of this type to be willing to risk it myself (I'd
have to move the CRT alone). So this was a major issue for me, and the
huge weight of CRTs (especially good quality, 20" tubes) really worked
against them.
2. SIZE. An issue mainly in combination with weight, above. The size
alone would fit on my desk, but trying to wrestle a massive cube that
weighs a ton really seemed like a problem.
3. AGING. CRTs age more steadily than LCDs, as far as I can tell. They
gradually drift out of adjustment and one must watch them constantly.
Sometimes they can be brought back into adjustment; sometimes they
can't.
4. GEOMETRY. LCDs operating at their native resolutions (1600x1200, in
my case) are extraordinarily sharp and have no problems with geometry,
convergence, rotation, magnetic fields, etc. Since I do a lot of work
with text and graphic elements that are very small (I try to profit as
much as possible from the available resolution with tiny fonts), this
clarity of the image is important.
5. OPERATING CYCLE. LCDs are less prone to burned-in images and the
like, so I don't have to worry as much about running screensavers or
using power-saver modes. I already have cheaper LCDs that I run
continuously, since they use very little power and then aren't much
affected by continuous operation (as far as I can tell).
There are some serious disadvantages to LCDs, although in my case they
weren't enough to tilt the balance in favor of CRTs, such as:
1. PRICE. LCDs are extraordinarily expensive, especially in 1600x1200.
The price increases rapidly if you want image quality sufficient for
photo work, or even approaching that level.
2. DEAD PIXELS. I don't consider _any_ dead pixels to be acceptable,
despite the whining and excuses made by manufacturers who are still too
incompetent to mass-produce defect-free flat panels.
3. IMAGE QUALITY. Even the best LCDs can't approach the best CRTs,
despite the fact that the latter are nearly ten times cheaper. This is
not too much of a big deal for any ordinary work, but for photo and
prepress work, it does make a difference. However, all things
considered, I just couldn't afford to go too far in the direction of
top-of-the-line photo quality monitors. Maybe next time (and perhaps in
years to come flat panels may eventually match CRTs, but I'm not holding
my breath).
Anyway, I ended up replacing an eight-year-old Sony Multiscan 20seII
with about 30,000 hours on it with an Eizo Flexscan L885 flat panel.
The Eizo is a medium-high grade of flat panel intended for CAD/CAM, and
has a very sharp image with pretty good image quality overall. It's not
the CG line of photo-quality displays, which I could not afford, but I
think it's a good compromise. It certainly looks very nice after
squinting at the CRT as it gradually failed (during the last 90 days or
so the Sony deteriorated rather sharply). But I can see that the LCD
doesn't have the very dense blacks and blinding whites that CRTs can
provide. On the other hand, it's astonishingly sharp (every pixel
clearly defined, even with VGA input).
So there's my $0.02. I hope time will prove this to be a wise decision,
and I hope by the next time I need a new monitor flat panels will have
improved enough and come down in price enough to make CRTs truly
obsolete--but that may take a long time.
display. I had been debating the matter for months, ever since my CRT
showed the first signs of an impending demise. While no two people have
exactly the same requirements for a monitor, I thought I'd describe my
reasoning here so that others might benefit from it (just as I profited
from asking around a lot before making my decision).
I use my monitor for a wide variety of computer tasks, most of which
require sharp images rather than precise or vivid colors and contrasts.
However, I do a fair amount of work on photographs, which requires the
best possible image quality overall.
My reasons for choosing a LCD were as follows, in roughly decreasing
order of priority:
1. WEIGHT. It sounds odd, but this was a big concern for me. A good
quality, 20" CRT weighs easily 30-35 kg. The better the CRT, the more
it weighs. Now, lifting 30 kg straight up from the ground is no great
feat--but lifting a huge, awkward CRT with no handles and wrestling over
the edge of a desk and onto a table is a hazardous operation for anyone
who doesn't regularly manipulate heavy weights in this way, because the
slightest wrong movement can put eccentric stress on the spine for which
untrained back muscles may not be ready to compensate. I've seen too
many people injure their backs (sometimes permanently) in seemingly
innocuous operations of this type to be willing to risk it myself (I'd
have to move the CRT alone). So this was a major issue for me, and the
huge weight of CRTs (especially good quality, 20" tubes) really worked
against them.
2. SIZE. An issue mainly in combination with weight, above. The size
alone would fit on my desk, but trying to wrestle a massive cube that
weighs a ton really seemed like a problem.
3. AGING. CRTs age more steadily than LCDs, as far as I can tell. They
gradually drift out of adjustment and one must watch them constantly.
Sometimes they can be brought back into adjustment; sometimes they
can't.
4. GEOMETRY. LCDs operating at their native resolutions (1600x1200, in
my case) are extraordinarily sharp and have no problems with geometry,
convergence, rotation, magnetic fields, etc. Since I do a lot of work
with text and graphic elements that are very small (I try to profit as
much as possible from the available resolution with tiny fonts), this
clarity of the image is important.
5. OPERATING CYCLE. LCDs are less prone to burned-in images and the
like, so I don't have to worry as much about running screensavers or
using power-saver modes. I already have cheaper LCDs that I run
continuously, since they use very little power and then aren't much
affected by continuous operation (as far as I can tell).
There are some serious disadvantages to LCDs, although in my case they
weren't enough to tilt the balance in favor of CRTs, such as:
1. PRICE. LCDs are extraordinarily expensive, especially in 1600x1200.
The price increases rapidly if you want image quality sufficient for
photo work, or even approaching that level.
2. DEAD PIXELS. I don't consider _any_ dead pixels to be acceptable,
despite the whining and excuses made by manufacturers who are still too
incompetent to mass-produce defect-free flat panels.
3. IMAGE QUALITY. Even the best LCDs can't approach the best CRTs,
despite the fact that the latter are nearly ten times cheaper. This is
not too much of a big deal for any ordinary work, but for photo and
prepress work, it does make a difference. However, all things
considered, I just couldn't afford to go too far in the direction of
top-of-the-line photo quality monitors. Maybe next time (and perhaps in
years to come flat panels may eventually match CRTs, but I'm not holding
my breath).
Anyway, I ended up replacing an eight-year-old Sony Multiscan 20seII
with about 30,000 hours on it with an Eizo Flexscan L885 flat panel.
The Eizo is a medium-high grade of flat panel intended for CAD/CAM, and
has a very sharp image with pretty good image quality overall. It's not
the CG line of photo-quality displays, which I could not afford, but I
think it's a good compromise. It certainly looks very nice after
squinting at the CRT as it gradually failed (during the last 90 days or
so the Sony deteriorated rather sharply). But I can see that the LCD
doesn't have the very dense blacks and blinding whites that CRTs can
provide. On the other hand, it's astonishingly sharp (every pixel
clearly defined, even with VGA input).
So there's my $0.02. I hope time will prove this to be a wise decision,
and I hope by the next time I need a new monitor flat panels will have
improved enough and come down in price enough to make CRTs truly
obsolete--but that may take a long time.