StarDestroyer.Net BBS

So, I'm just putting the finishing touches on my new setup, and the last thing on the list is a monitor.

Right now, I'm using a 15" TFT, 25ms. It does it's job fine, doesn't take up hardly any space, but that's not really an issue, it's light, etc, etc. I keep hearing bad things about TFT monitors though, dead pixels, they're bad for gaming.

So, what're the pros and cons of TFT monitors and of CRT monitors? Which is better? Which do you prefer?

Okay I fucked up the poll when trying to edit LCT to TFT

Sorry

I gona try this ot in testing and fix it.

~Faram

Heh, bad Faram!

You mean LCD. TFT is a subtype of LCD.

Sorry, my bad, the place I'm getting my setup from has them all (the ones in my price range anyway) labeled TFT or CRT.

LCD costs way too much for a good one. I have a CRT here, I bought it for $100, and its crisper than ANY other monitor I've ever seen. You have to look a little harder, but there's true quality out there.

LCDs typically have inferior color fidelty and redraw rates compared to CRTs. They are, however, much lighter, tend to have a sharp image and use less power.

Cheap CRTs can drive low resolutions well but if you want a crisp image at, say, 1600x1200 @ 100Hz that'll cost you a pretty penny.

Well, here's a list of what I've got to work with. Considering how much the rest of the setup is costing, I really can't stretch to over £100, including VAT.

Right now, I'm looking at this one, this one and this one. The only LCD/TFT I can really go for is a little 15" one, but I'd rather have a bigger screen.

My 19" CRT cost about 200 bucks, and it is extremely nice. The only gripe I have with it is that it has a massive ass.

Oh, and I use CRTs because they are cheaper( I'm an airman, and therefore poor) and have better contrast (looks better).

CRT. The other white meat blurs when I play FPS, which is about all I play on the PC.

I really don´t care as long as it´s big.

I used to sneer at the price of expensive TFT monitors. But a few months ago my CRT broke down and i decided to take a gamble and get a 17" TFT. Best move i ever made, the picture quality is sharper and much cleared, also i'm told there is a lot less that can break down in them so they should last a lot longer.

After having a 19'' CRT for 5 years and now being proud owner of 2x 19'' TFT i have to say TFT all the way. They are much more convenient, if it comes to extensive reading on monitors. My eyes stay fresh much longer and same goes for my overall state of health.

LCD. I can afford it, I get more deskspace, the girls don't point and look at you wierd when they come to visit, it's alright for graphics work (not great), and for some reason while my parents have no problem spotting ghosting on my 25ms Dell FP1702, a famous model for ghosting, I can't see any ghosting at all, even in FPS. Though I suppose for publishing I should use the 1600x1200 resolution, it's not really nessasary - a 21" CRT would fall out of my apartment and an LCD with that kind of resolution ... seems extravagant.

CRT, my $300 19' CRT has lasted me two years now, no complaints, looks good and plays good to.

My $500 19' "Gaming" LCD is pretty good, but its dark(Even when maxed lighting) and the afformentioned FPS bluur

At the moment, I'd say CRT.

At work I have a 17" LCD display at 1280x1024. It looks neat, and everything is sharp, except that the color balance is perpetually a bit off, (mostly because colors that are relatively close together in terms of their RGB components, tend to look the same.) Not to mention the LCD display is meant to display one resolution really well (1280x1024) and cannot drive lower without looking fuzzy. And I wouldn't want to pay for one myself, given that they still cost a lot.

At home, I have a 17" CRT, a cheap 17" CRT that can only drive up to 1152x864 @ 85Hz, and while it can handle 1280x1024, it can only do so at 60 Hz, and I cannot tolerate 60 Hz without having this pervasive feeling of wrongness. But, up to 1152x864, the CRT can draw all resolutions up to that crisply and cleanly. Not to mention I can tell the difference between two subtly different colors that I can't with the LCD display at work. And CRTs don't ghost. The only disadvantages to my CRT is that it can't hit 1280x1024 at anything higher than 60 Hz, and that it is big and unweildy, compared to my LCD display at work.

LCD. I have two Dell 20.1" (2001FP) monitors set up for dual screen at work, and one Dell 24" (2405FPW) monitor at home (newly acquired). These things annihilate the CRTs I've used in the past (Viewsonic 17", Hitachi 19" and Phillips 19"). These LCDs have awesome color reproduction, very good black levels (the only thing the CRTs are better at), no ghosting or bluring (the scaling on my 24" for low res stuff is excellent), not to mention just how clear, crisp and bright the screens are.

Edit: We also have an older model ViewSonic 19" LCD at work. While its not good for gaming (except RTS), it also is superior to the CRTs we have here (which are in the el-cheapo to mid-range quality range).

Arrow Mk84 wrote:LCD. I have two Dell 20.1" (2001FP) monitors set up for dual screen at work, and one Dell 24" (2405FPW) monitor at home (newly acquired).

... Dude I want your job.

For home? I'll take a nice gigantic 21" CRT.

I wouldn't mind an LCD for taking to LAN parties though.

I like my LCD screen because it's big and bright, but I can't get all colours to work in Photoshop damnit! If I use the standard colour management (sRGB-numbers) all blue colours turn purple and if I use the screen's I get all colours but, they are not exactly right. The bluest I can get is actually 11,7,250 or something like that. So I like my normal monitors because they can display colour correctly.

Never looked back after spending the $$ for my Hitachi 17-inch LCD with 16ms response times. Coming to work and using a CRT is a step down in clarity, brightness and colors.

Not a hardcore gamer but there are no noticeable ghosting/blurring problems on the LCD with the games I do play, getting fast response times appears to be the key here.