Why do professionals choose CRT over LCD?

[Schalldampfer]

I know one of the reasons is truer color display, but I have a hunch there are more reasons. Could anyone enlighten me, please?

[bLack0ut]

That's a lie, my friend works in the graphic design business and she uses ONLY lcds/apples. Then again, it be cause LCDs are nicer on the eyes and her company wants to protect their assets?

[darksparkz]

Maybe price? CRTs would be considered as "older" techonology, so it would be cheaper to buy. But also, if they work in office environment and do 3d images and all that, the extra "truer" color and crisp image quality on CRTs may be needed to look at every single detail.

But then, many companies go for LCD to save space.

[1cem4n]

they can't afford lcds yet maybe? i know my school got all lcds. it's also cause if they already have CRTs, it's not worth it to upgrade and blow a bunch of money which will not improve efficiency. I know my dad's company is still using CRTs because he's a Mortage Broker so he doesn't need an LCD.

-1cem4n

[speed bump]

Becuase 17" LCDs suck compared to 21 inch CRTs for drafting. 19 inch LCDs are pretty expensive also so thats why alot of professionals use them. I think my flat screen CRT has much better image quality than any LCD I have used but thats more my opinion than anything else.

[Echo_]

true color reproduction

[doublejack]

That's a lie, my friend works in the graphic design business and she uses ONLY lcds/apples. Then again, it be cause LCDs are nicer on the eyes and her company wants to protect their assets?

CRTs do still own LCDs when it comes to color accuracy, although LCDs are getting better every day.


I think everyone has hit the main points. Pros continue to use primarily CRTs because they have closer to true colors (especially blacks & dark colors), they still cost a lot less money, and they can be set to higher resolutions on a smaller screen. My wife is a mechanical engineer and she operates CAD at 1600 x 1200 on a 21" CRT. It would cost big $$$ for an LCD capable of doing that.

And LCDs don't hold up as well in an office environment, they are fragile and prone to scratching. CRTs are much more durable in comparison. Also, space is a total non-issue for most engineering houses. It wasn't that long ago when engineers worked on drafting boards with full size prints. Many companies made the transition into the computer age but still have gobs of desk space (didn't replace the furniture) so a massive CRT is no big deal. In fact, it gives them a reason not to buy new furniture :)

[Randyman...]

I work at Fox Sports Net. As you can imagine, PQ (Picture Quality) is VERY important in TV Broadcast. We are migrating to 42" Plasma TV's for our Master Control rooms (total of 50 suites in our new building). The colors are accurate, and these easily qualify as a final "QC" check before our signal invades your lovely homes. We can also "Multiplex" these large screens to have multiple smaller sources (VTR's, Servers, Chyrons, Bugs, Frame Sync's, etc) inside the picture - VERY cost+space effective as well...

Plasmas and LCD's are getting to the point of being very accurate in PQ, and on par with CRT's IMO...

:cool:

[rseven]

Well, the plasmas may be there, but the lcd's aren't. However the plasmas are about to truely surpas the crt's.
http://gear.ign.com/articles/679/679235p1.html
However, for computer uses the lcd's lack the blacks, the contrast and the response of crt's. I use both and if I have to stare at the screen a long time the lcd is wonderful, but if I want to see something at it's best(such as the ballgame) I'm on the crt.

[Randyman...]

LCD also has some new tech on the way that will improve Picture Quality AND greatly bring down the cost (down to CRT prices or lower!). I'll see if I can dig up a link.

:cool:

[sJetski]

However the plasmas are about to truely surpas the crt's.
http://gear.ign.com/articles/679/679235p1.html.That's not a plasma display, that's SED technology you've linked there ;).

[Luftwaffle]

I'm waiting for SED technology to be released. It sounds really hot.

[Echo_]

you knwo those apples are actually like lg or samsung panels right?

[rseven]

That's not a plasma display, that's SED technology you've linked there ;).
You are correct. My first misreading of it was it was a plasma LCD killer as opposed to a plasma and LCD killer. Either way it sounds promising.

[wa77ss]

Well, what difference does it make if its not the most exactly true color ? Isnt it close enough anyways ? Can you tell the difference between two colors from which one was made with a LCD panel and one with a CRT monitor when your sitting 10-15 feet back from your tv ( probablly not a lcd or plasma ) ? I dont think so. So my guess is that they (the pros ) are too cheap.

[Mr.Guvernment]

Well, what difference does it make if its not the most exactly true color ? Isnt it close enough anyways ? Can you tell the difference between two colors from which one was made with a LCD panel and one with a CRT monitor when your sitting 10-15 feet back from your tv ( probablly not a lcd or plasma ) ? I dont think so. So my guess is that they (the pros ) are too cheap.


it matters alot when you are a large corprate company - or a FX designer and making a logo that some company paid thounsands for and want precise colors.- that is what matters. - or say making an Animated Movie like Shrek......

for joe blow, who cares - go buy a high END RGB CRT monitor, they arent cheap.

CRT's do have qualities LCD's dont have yet - hance why they are still recommended for serious GFX designers.

[Echo_]

Well, what difference does it make if its not the most exactly true color ? Isnt it close enough anyways ? Can you tell the difference between two colors from which one was made with a LCD panel and one with a CRT monitor when your sitting 10-15 feet back from your tv ( probablly not a lcd or plasma ) ? I dont think so. So my guess is that they (the pros ) are too cheap.

say your making a billboard and your company wants a color to look like something they printed out and exactly like that. so your on your lcd and you get a color that looks like that and you print out something that is 50 feet long and cost your company 1grand but wait the color is wrong thanks to your lcd

thats why the use crt

and sed is basically a crt except made thin

[shiltz]

I think everyone has hit the main points. Pros continue to use primarily CRTs because they have closer to true colors (especially blacks & dark colors), they still cost a lot less money, and they can be set to higher resolutions on a smaller screen. My wife is a mechanical engineer and she operates CAD at 1600 x 1200 on a 21" CRT. It would cost big $$$ for an LCD capable of doing that.

And LCDs don't hold up as well in an office environment, they are fragile and prone to scratching. CRTs are much more durable in comparison. Also, space is a total non-issue for most engineering houses. It wasn't that long ago when engineers worked on drafting boards with full size prints. Many companies made the transition into the computer age but still have gobs of desk space (didn't replace the furniture) so a massive CRT is no big deal. In fact, it gives them a reason not to buy new furniture :)

LCD's capable of doing that are cheap actualy, only around $450, I one on my home pc.

I'm a designer and work on a 3d CAD program all day, all our workstations have 20.1" LCD's, though we have 16:10 not 4:3 so it's 1680x1050 res instead, working on the LCD's for CAD is so much better than the 21" CRT's we had before, honestly the only reason for CRT's is if you need perfect color accuracy or really high refresh rates, CRT's are still unmatch for color accuracy, LCD's are getting closer, however LCD's are still no where near CRT's for black levels.

For companies LCD's should be their choice for worker health too, flourescent lights + CRT's can cause bad headaces because of the flicker inherent in both, CRT's in general are worse anyways for headaces from the screen refresh, I always get headaces working on them, since we had switched to LCD's no more headaces.

[Pie-rate]

Calibrated 32" Sony CRT - standard referance monitor used in industry:
$35,000

People thinking LCDs are more expensive than CRTs:
Priceless.

[rseven]

Calibrated 32" Sony CRT - standard referance monitor used in industry:
$35,000

People thinking LCDs are more expensive than CRTs:
Priceless.
Coming up with an exception does not mean the statement is wrong. Alaska is colder than New Jersey. Say, one day three years ago they had a relatively warm day and New Jersey a relatively cold one. Does this make the statement about the relative temperatures of the two states wrong? Of course not. It does not take a rocket scientist to verify the statement that LCD's are more expensive than CRT's. It is an accurate supportable statement.

[Pie-rate]

Coming up with an exception does not mean the statement is wrong. Alaska is colder than New Jersey. Say, one day three years ago they had a relatively warm day and New Jersey a relatively cold one. Does this make the statement about the relative temperatures of the two states wrong? Of course not. It does not take a rocket scientist to verify the statement that LCD's are more expensive than CRT's. It is an accurate supportable statement.

However, since we're talking about "professional" LCDs and CRTs, the regular rules of LCDs and CRTs do not apply.

The $35,000 CRT is the standard referance monitor used in the color correction industry. Unless you calibrated an LCD to perfectly match one you could not replace it with an LCD if you were a posthouse.

I believe there is someone that does this, but I don't know how much they cost.

[rseven]

However, since we're talking about "professional" LCDs and CRTs, the regular rules of LCDs and CRTs do not apply.

Point of order!:) We are talking about, "Why do professionals choose CRT over LCD?" not professional LCD's and CRT's. :D
Seriously, this isn't worth arguing about now that I'm on my third glass of wine.:)

[Oroka Sempai]

I went from a 17" Viewsonic PF775 Professional series CRT to a 19" Viewsonic VA902b. I do a lot of photoshop, being a part time web designer, and honestly, I have no regrets of switching, to the point that I am ordering a second VA902b today. The image is sharp, good response times, just as crisp in appearance, none of those trinitron tube lines, and I can see what is on the monitor from any angle.

I can see it being true of older LCD monitors, esp since 3-4 years ago a 19" LCD would be worth 4 high end CRTs, so your option would be a 19" CRT, or a small 15"/17" LCD with average image quality. If I were a pro, I would have gone with a good CRT, might take up more desk space... but no different than the last 20 years of monitors (yeah, i remember those little 8" CRTs). Now a good high quality LCD is as cheap as a good CRT, and the quality is superb, so LCD are the way to go.

[DDR-PIII]

Well, the plasmas may be there, but the lcd's aren't. However the plasmas are about to truely surpas the crt's.
http://gear.ign.com/articles/679/679235p1.html
However, for computer uses the lcd's lack the blacks, the contrast and the response of crt's. I use both and if I have to stare at the screen a long time the lcd is wonderful, but if I want to see something at it's best(such as the ballgame) I'm on the crt.

actually anyting over say 600:1 contrast cant really be noticed and there are alot of lcds that do 700:1.

[Echo_]

actually anyting over say 600:1 contrast cant really be noticed and there are alot of lcds that do 700:1.

have anything to back up that claim?

[futura2001]

The main reason is accurate color representation.
Another good reason is resolution. For a very long time, it was not possible to find an LCD able to render resolutions between 1600x1200 and 2048x1536. The more desktop space you have to comfortably work with is a huge advantage for anything art related.
These days LCDs are catching up in terms of resolutions, and the main drawback is the color representation. "True color" does not mean true color on an LCD, there are limits to what an LCD can display and in color sensitive settings where everything is calibrated to be certain it is accurate, an LCD just doesn't cut it.

[Layback Bear]

CRT have better color saturation, but have more glare from the suroundings your in.

[twoeyes]

and sed is basically a crt except made thin

not really, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube the sed technology seems to have a more LCD like construction and operation rather then CRT.

[Evil_Eye]

not really, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube the sed technology seems to have a more LCD like construction and operation rather then CRT.

I'd have to disagree with you right there.

SED technology uses the same principles as CRT; an electron fired at a phosphor in a vacum to make it glow. This is way different from an LCD in which liquid crystals act like shutters letting out specific bands of light from a backlight.

[doublejack]

I'd have to disagree with you right there.

SED technology uses the same principles as CRT; an electron fired at a phosphor in a vacum to make it glow. This is way different from an LCD in which liquid crystals act like shutters letting out specific bands of light from a backlight.

Agreed. SED works by the same exact principles that CRTs do. In fact, one SED television could be likened to hundreds of thousands of mini CRTs all working together. The main similarity between SED and LCD is that they have a native resolution based on the # of pixels the screen actually contains. That's about where the similarities end.

[b1029384756]

Though I'm far from a professional, the main advantage that CRTs have over LCDs, at least for me, is resolution. Gaming at 2048x1536 with AA and AF looks damn nice. Though, this is changing with all the 2560 x 1600 widescreen LCDs these days. Secondly, response time. The larger high-res LCDs still have fairly poor response times, and I don't like to see ghosting when I'm playing games or watching videos. Finally...yes, CRTs do have better color, especially black, but I can't tell the difference unless I'm looking at the two side by side, but some people might be more sensitive to this.

[hafa]

I've been in the graphics field now for 25+ years and all of my collegues and I use LCD monitors due primarily to eye strain reduction. Since I spend upwards of 18-20 hours per day, 6 days a week looking at a computer screen (none of it gaming or video, by the way), this is a very important quality.

Color rendering with DVI is very good and rivals many high-end CRTs. Granted, the blacks arent quite as saturated, but that's an easy trade off when compared to the other benefits.

In terms of desktop space, multiple LCD with an expanded desktop is the way to go.

[Yuriman]

I have this CRT:

http://www.azatek.com/details.asp?iid=510

My father has this LCD:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824014090

I set them up side by side, and that LCD does not compare. My CRT is just as crisp, just as bright, but the darks are much darker, the colors are much richer. Sitting side by side, it was a shame to see some of my favorite anime in such dull colors comparatively. Funny thing is, had I not set them next to each other, I might not have noticed.

I think LCDs do have a place, at least for now, but for my purposes, a decent CRT kicks the snot out of a cheap LCD.

That, and 5:4 resolutions really irritate me. :p

EDIT: Both were using DVI.

[hafa]

I have this CRT:

http://www.azatek.com/details.asp?iid=510

My father has this LCD:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824014090

I set them up side by side, and that LCD does not compare. My CRT is just as crisp, just as bright, but the darks are much darker, the colors are much richer. Sitting side by side, it was a shame to see some of my favorite anime in such dull colors comparatively. Funny thing is, had I not set them next to each other, I might not have noticed.

I think LCDs do have a place, at least for now, but for my purposes, a decent CRT kicks the snot out of a cheap LCD.

That, and 5:4 resolutions really irritate me. :p

EDIT: Both were using DVI.

Professional-level LCDs such as this one (http://www.viewsonic.com/products/desktopdisplays/lcddisplays/proseries/vp930b/) or this one (http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?pid=10540) are more apt to the subject "Why do professionals..." The difference in quality (and cost) between the LaCie 319, VP930b or its older cousin, the VP191b and the Benq are like night and day.

For folks like me who work up to 120 hours per week, price makes little difference and the monitor that provides the highest level of quality without inducing blindness is the monitor of choice.

[zexmarquies01]

actually anyting over say 600:1 contrast cant really be noticed and there are alot of lcds that do 700:1.

And some people say there isn't a difference between a song at 128kb/s, and a song encoded at 320kb/s. Some can't tell the difference, others can.

saying that the contrast can't be noticed above 600 is 100% based on the person who's looking at the tv/monitor.

all depends on how well one's eyes can pick out minute details such as color quality.


I use an LCD, the black isn't nearly as black as i wish it to be. the reading TEXT is 100 times easier to read than most CRT's ( that i can afford that is ).

I'm using a LCD so my eyes don't have to strain so much. nor do i have to worry about degaussing :D

and a LCD is soooo much lighter than a CRT. god, i hated lugging around my old CRT.

My Half-brother on the other hand, still uses a CRT. and he complains whenever he comes over to my house, and plays games on my PC. he complains about the colors not being as good as they are on his. I have explained to him that its mainly the fact that he has a CRT monitor, and i'm using an LCD.

just depends on the person. I can't stand the refresh rate on a CRT anymore. gives me headaches like crazy now. If you can handle the refresh rate, and can still easily read text on a CRT, and don't mind the weight, or the size, then CRT is for you.

but if you need text to be more clear, and hate Refresh rates, and worry about speakers and such being to close to your monitor, and you have lugging around a heavy CRT, or hate the size of a CRT, then LCD is the way to go.

its all personal preference.

[RedDragonXXX]

Well, the plasmas may be there, but the lcd's aren't. However the plasmas are about to truely surpas the crt's.
http://gear.ign.com/articles/679/679235p1.html
However, for computer uses the lcd's lack the blacks, the contrast and the response of crt's. I use both and if I have to stare at the screen a long time the lcd is wonderful, but if I want to see something at it's best(such as the ballgame) I'm on the crt.

Yep once SED's come out everyone will forget what Plasma, LCD, and CRT's are.

[hafa]

Yep once SED's come out everyone will forget what Plasma, LCD, and CRT's are.

Just finished reading the article and am duly impressed. 100,000:1 contrast ratio and 1ms response times. Unbeliveable! Looks like I might be upgrading sooner than planned...now comes the wait...