4 ms·

I recall CRT monitors were capable of some quite high resolutions (often with a compromise to refresh rate), and it took a while for LCD panels to overtake them

by jl6 5y ago

I recall CRT monitors were capable of some quite high resolutions (often with a compromise to refresh rate), and it took a while for LCD panels to overtake them.

paulpauper 5y ago
I read that CRTs are still better in some respects
- adamredwoods 5y ago
  Better at making my arm hairs stick up.
  - parenthesis 5y ago
    Thanks for reminding me, that as a child I used to love touching the TV screen for the static.
- ridgered4 5y ago
  Input latency, flexibility of native resolution (they don't really have one). It's been awhile since I've looked at them side by side, but I think they're still better on black levels. I suspect color reproduction has caught up though. It's not surprising they fell out of favor though. Once the ghosting stopped being absolutely horrendous the LCD is just superior for office work. Uses less power, saves tons of desk space (and due to less weight, doesn't need a strong desk) and no flickering means a cheapo LCD is probably easier on the eyes than a cheapo CRT. I bet the CRT wwould still be used more often if the supply chain to make them didn't fall apart when the demand disappeared.
- dylan604 5y ago
  For giving you cancer! When Sony first brought out their OLED reference monitors to the market, they had a demo at NAB to demonstrate the various screen types. All of the monitors were the equivalent reference version of that series: CRT, LCD, OLED. It was an interesting demo as they had the same feed going to each monitor. When showing how each monitor could display black, the OLED looked like it was off, the LCD was just a faint shade of gray, while the CRT was much much more noticeably not black from its glowing screen. I started to think to myself how they might be pushing the brightness on the CRT to make it look bad against the others. Right as I was thinking that to myself, the narrator said something to address this thought and then displayed bars. All 3 monitors were correctly adjusted. A gamed CRT with brightness adjusted would have been obvious at this point to those knowing how the test pattern is meant to look. The only thing I'd suggest that a CRT looks better is on true interlaced content.
bityard 5y ago
CRTs, being analog, are theoretically capable of _any_ resolution. But in practice, most monitors were limited to between a few to a few dozen common modes. Toward the end of the CRT monitor's reign, most monitors could display higher resolutions than was really practical for their size, as the physical limit is the size of the "dots" that make up the phosphor layer. (Which is probably not at all the right terminology, because I'm not a CRT geek.) The refresh rate compromise at higher resolutions was due to the limitations of the graphics card, NOT the monitor. LCDs took a little while to catch up for a few reasons: 1) expense! It was hard and expensive to manufacture a display containing millions of transistors with an acceptable (read: profitable) failure rate. 2) colors! LCDs had a reputation for extremely poor color quality in the beginning. Blacks were medium gray at best and primary colors all looked washed out. Today's LCDs still have a hard time getting to "true black." 3) ghosting! Early LCDs had poor response times. Move your mouse cursor and watch it leave a trail across your screen. Fine for word processing and spreadsheets. Terrible for games.
- agumonkey 5y ago
  the CRT had no frequency limit ?
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    Of course they did, the scan rate of the electron guns would be limited at some point. What that limit is I don't know but it was certainly finite.
    - agumonkey 5y ago
      I wonder which component who limit first.. the gun or the flyback driver.
      - postalrat 5y ago
        I was figuring the magnetics that steer the beam.
  - 5y ago
zbuf 5y ago
It certainly took a long time (mid 2010s) for panels in their various guises to truly overtake CRTs for film work. The reason given at my workplace was the calibration control of CRTs took time to be superceded. The Sony 21" CRTs (and 24" in widscreen) had a very good run -- spanning several decades. They were certainly capable of higher resolutions, but the 1600x1200 was pretty much a standard (or 1920x1200 on the 24" widescreen) for that entire run. I can't think of any other desktop workstation performance 'metric' that was stationary for so long.
- aceazzameen 5y ago
  I miss my Sony Trinitron that I gave away in 2015. I remember not having an "HD TV" when I first bought a PS3, so I hooked it up to my Trinitron with component cables and it displayed beautifully. The 1080p TV I bought at a later date felt like a downgrade, despite the larger size.
  - sbierwagen 5y ago
    1600x1200 is 1.92mp, while 1920x1080 is 2.07mp. Technically more pixels, but juuust barely. For quite a few years my setup was a 1080p panel next to an aged ColorSync 20" and the difference was mostly the falloff in the corners of the CRT. (And the incredible weight of the CRT, of course. 78 pounds!)
    - aceazzameen 5y ago
      Late to respond, but 1600 x 1200 was the default resolution on my Trinitron. I believe the max preset resolution was 2048 x 1536 @ 75hz. So it was able to display 1920 x 1080 letterboxed just fine. I wish I never gave it away, but I sure don't miss moving it!

by jl6 5y ago

I recall CRT monitors were capable of some quite high resolutions (often with a compromise to refresh rate), and it took a while for LCD panels to overtake them.

paulpauper 5y ago

I read that CRTs are still better in some respects

adamredwoods 5y ago
Better at making my arm hairs stick up.
- parenthesis 5y ago
  Thanks for reminding me, that as a child I used to love touching the TV screen for the static.
ridgered4 5y ago
Input latency, flexibility of native resolution (they don't really have one). It's been awhile since I've looked at them side by side, but I think they're still better on black levels. I suspect color reproduction has caught up though. It's not surprising they fell out of favor though. Once the ghosting stopped being absolutely horrendous the LCD is just superior for office work. Uses less power, saves tons of desk space (and due to less weight, doesn't need a strong desk) and no flickering means a cheapo LCD is probably easier on the eyes than a cheapo CRT. I bet the CRT wwould still be used more often if the supply chain to make them didn't fall apart when the demand disappeared.
dylan604 5y ago
For giving you cancer! When Sony first brought out their OLED reference monitors to the market, they had a demo at NAB to demonstrate the various screen types. All of the monitors were the equivalent reference version of that series: CRT, LCD, OLED. It was an interesting demo as they had the same feed going to each monitor. When showing how each monitor could display black, the OLED looked like it was off, the LCD was just a faint shade of gray, while the CRT was much much more noticeably not black from its glowing screen. I started to think to myself how they might be pushing the brightness on the CRT to make it look bad against the others. Right as I was thinking that to myself, the narrator said something to address this thought and then displayed bars. All 3 monitors were correctly adjusted. A gamed CRT with brightness adjusted would have been obvious at this point to those knowing how the test pattern is meant to look. The only thing I'd suggest that a CRT looks better is on true interlaced content.

bityard 5y ago

CRTs, being analog, are theoretically capable of _any_ resolution. But in practice, most monitors were limited to between a few to a few dozen common modes. Toward the end of the CRT monitor's reign, most monitors could display higher resolutions than was really practical for their size, as the physical limit is the size of the "dots" that make up the phosphor layer. (Which is probably not at all the right terminology, because I'm not a CRT geek.) The refresh rate compromise at higher resolutions was due to the limitations of the graphics card, NOT the monitor. LCDs took a little while to catch up for a few reasons: 1) expense! It was hard and expensive to manufacture a display containing millions of transistors with an acceptable (read: profitable) failure rate. 2) colors! LCDs had a reputation for extremely poor color quality in the beginning. Blacks were medium gray at best and primary colors all looked washed out. Today's LCDs still have a hard time getting to "true black." 3) ghosting! Early LCDs had poor response times. Move your mouse cursor and watch it leave a trail across your screen. Fine for word processing and spreadsheets. Terrible for games.

agumonkey 5y ago
the CRT had no frequency limit ?
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  Of course they did, the scan rate of the electron guns would be limited at some point. What that limit is I don't know but it was certainly finite.
  - agumonkey 5y ago
    I wonder which component who limit first.. the gun or the flyback driver.
    - postalrat 5y ago
      I was figuring the magnetics that steer the beam.
- 5y ago

zbuf 5y ago

It certainly took a long time (mid 2010s) for panels in their various guises to truly overtake CRTs for film work. The reason given at my workplace was the calibration control of CRTs took time to be superceded. The Sony 21" CRTs (and 24" in widscreen) had a very good run -- spanning several decades. They were certainly capable of higher resolutions, but the 1600x1200 was pretty much a standard (or 1920x1200 on the 24" widescreen) for that entire run. I can't think of any other desktop workstation performance 'metric' that was stationary for so long.

aceazzameen 5y ago
I miss my Sony Trinitron that I gave away in 2015. I remember not having an "HD TV" when I first bought a PS3, so I hooked it up to my Trinitron with component cables and it displayed beautifully. The 1080p TV I bought at a later date felt like a downgrade, despite the larger size.
- sbierwagen 5y ago
  1600x1200 is 1.92mp, while 1920x1080 is 2.07mp. Technically more pixels, but juuust barely. For quite a few years my setup was a 1080p panel next to an aged ColorSync 20" and the difference was mostly the falloff in the corners of the CRT. (And the incredible weight of the CRT, of course. 78 pounds!)
  - aceazzameen 5y ago
    Late to respond, but 1600 x 1200 was the default resolution on my Trinitron. I believe the max preset resolution was 2048 x 1536 @ 75hz. So it was able to display 1920 x 1080 letterboxed just fine. I wish I never gave it away, but I sure don't miss moving it!