CRT versus LCD

Per specs, Apple's old 21" Studio Display (graphite-CRT) and their original 22" Cinema Display (M5662-LCD) have the same ppi (85), but I am struck by the difference in display clarity. Both are set at max resolution: CRT-1600x1200 and LCD-1600x1024. For one thing, text in Microsoft Word looks much sharper on the CRT than on the LCD. It seems pixelated on the LCD. Also, images, such as tiffs, look much sharper on the CRT. The same pics are noticeably grainy on the LCD. Why is this?

What you're seeing is normal. CRTs create pixels by aiming 3 guns (Red, Green, and Blue) at the back of the tube, to the same spot some distance at the front of the tube, which is coated by phosphors. Naturally, there's going to be a bit of fuzz that way. There are no pixels hard-wired into the front of the screen itself. That's why all resolution settings look equally sharp on a CRT.
LCDs do have a grid fixed into the screen, creating pixels with naturally hard edges, so they are sharp by nature. That is why only one resolution setting looks right on an LCD and all others look wrong.
Text looks sharper on an LCD because it really is.
The image probably isn't "sharper" on the CRT, it probably looks more natural since normal vision is about continuous tones. The human eye actually has to look for edges and the brain processes for them. On the LCD, the pixels are sharper, but that's not like the real world. (Every image pro knows that you can never take an image from a film or print camera and just print it - every image in every medium that look sharp was carefully sharpened by software.) Also, the LCD thin black grid around every pixel you can see if you look up close. That grid slightly disconnects each pixel and could cause the apparent graininess.
The CRT hid the low resolution of a monitor because everything fuzzed together a little bit. LCDs are brutally honest. It is 85 dpi, and on your LCD now you can see it. Remember, an 85 dpi image is unacceptably low for printing. If future screens continue to use discrete pixels, it will probably take the higher resolution displays like 150+ dpi to make images look more like print again. We are seeing higher resolutions in PC laptops and the iPhone, so it may be on the way. However, one problem is the higher pixel density you have on an LCD the more area the black line grid takes up relative to the screen.

Similar Messages

CRT but LCD

I looked in the system profiler. On the graphics/display screen, I see it label my monitor as a CRT but i'm actually using an LCD. Is there something wrong here? Mostly curious as to why it says CRT instead LCD. Thanks!

hey there Dale,
i'm no Mac genius, nor any kind of computer geek(that's why i have Macs). i have a 20" Cinema Display & a 17" Philips LCD HDTV w/ VGA-in connected to my DP 2.0 G5(v.2) & the Philps is shown as a CRT, i'm running OS 10.3.9, so it's not related only to Tiger. i don't think it's a bug, but because i'm using ADC>VGA adapter Profiler sees it as a CRT not LCD & what's important to me is that it works & works well. are you using a display w/ DVI or VGA?
good luck.

CRT vs Lcd monitoring

Believe me, I've been struggling with this question for years.
For long I felt CRT monitors were better than Lcd monitors for critical color correction. But feeling the current push in Lcd technology, is the acceptance for professional LCd displays such as the JVC 24"HD ok, or do the people with the golden eyes only see the bvm CRT as the only way for critical color grading?
Knowing I usually color 1080 24p.
If you make a good living coloring, I really would appreciate your comments.
- Eric.

Someday I will be done with this question.
CRT technology fails for a number of reasons over a certain display size, and it is for those reasons that the technology is no longer acceptable,both for the technical and economic challenges. At 24", it is almost not worth the justification for HD in any sense, since that technology really only starts pulling away from what went before it at maybe 36" and beyond.
In years past, the JVC LCD's may have been competitive in terms of rendition, but suffered from massive off-angle viewing problems. It is spectacularly difficult to build a decent LCD -- if you find one in a "reasonable" price category, +caveat emptor+ -- its a $38 Rolex.
Some of the recent plasmas are pretty good. Some high-end post facilities are actually using them, but have conditioned them behind LUT-boxes like Truelight's Northlight system, among others, and have a crack staff of technicians on standby with probes in hand -- and do routine daily/weekly checks, lineups and calibrations. Most of the time, its to make sure the monitor is displaying the AIM values of the day for the associated lab, but its also because they just wander, and not just over time, but with the intensity of the picture that happens to be up.
Consumer TVs are for folks at home to kick back and watch Glee or whatever, or ignore it altogether just to have enough noise in the background to cover what's going on in the foreground.
So if you're making video that people don't watch anyway, LCD is great, and doesn't cost very much either.
jPo
jPo

Can switching from CRT to LCD monitors cause system problems?

My 9.1 locks up periodically (but the cursor still moves) since I replaced two 20" CRT monitors with two Samsung 19" LCD monitors. Could this affect the performance of my machine? I've tried everything else to address the freeze problem but recall the issue started when I installed the LCD monitors. Anything I can do?

Studedot,
You may have issues with the amount of video memory depending on the resolutions of the new LCD screens.
I find LCD screens go up to insane resolutions, way more than the corresponding size CRT monitor, ie. a 17in Dell LCD monitor with higher resolution than a 21in CRT.
It shouldn't cause crashes or freezes, but may cause -redraw problems when closing / moving windows in 2D and playing 3D games.

Convert Crt to lcd? Tray to Slot?

I'd like to convert my crt screen inside my allready hacked imac to an lcd. Think it's possible? I've never done something wierd like this. Just added a bigger hard drive, more ram, case fans, and normal stuff like that. It's too heavy and too noisy, and it gets in the way of the heat flow. Besides, I don't like curved screens.
Also, I'd like to know what my odds are of getting some parts from ebay and using them to make this thing a slot loading imac or at least get a cd burner in it.
Please be kind.

It is possible to add an LCD screen, but would cost you around 450 dollars which isnt worth it at all. It is also possible to change it to a slot loader which my friend did a couple years back and it cost him 150 dollars which isnt worth it at all either, back then it was though since it was new technology. Mine as well get a Mac Mini.
Btw, why would you want to change it to a slot loader, they are both CD Drives and everything?
My saying is "If your computer cant use the newest software update (Tiger in this case) decently, you should save for a new computer). That is why I am ordering a MacBook right now.

Crt or lcd?

hello, does anyone know or have experience in which monitor would be better for video and graphics. ive read that crt's are better but ive also read that lcd's now are pretty good (not as good as crt's but gaining fast). any opinions?
thx

While I love crt, and still using eMac with crt 17" monitor as extended instead of my macbook with 19" lcd screen, I must admit that lcd now a day also more easily configured and also displayed "warmth" color as well as the crt.
So the desicion is up to you, just be aware that most of monitor maker already abandon the crt, and also goes their support to obselete crt model.
I bet more and more application was created using lcd monitor or lcd monitor in mind, so why not go there since you are just about getting started.
Good Luck.

CRT With LCD Laptop

I was told that it’s bad to have an up and running CRT monitor in close proximity to an up and running laptop with an LCD display.
Is there any truth to that?
Message was edited by: HappyWarlock

HappyWarlock,
Hmmm. I've never heard this, but I could see where a CRT might adversely affect an LCD with fluorescent backlighting. I don't see the same thing affecting an LED backlit display, though. I'm not entirely certain that there is even a problem with fluorescent displays.
If you have an older, fluorescent backlit display, you might want to look further into this, but I think it might be false.
Scott

Replace CRT with LCD

Hi every one . I have looked at the conversion to a LCD from the eMac CRT . i was thinking Could i remove the CRT and just run a LCD off the external monitor port ? or will the computer not work if the CRT is taken out ?

I take it that the repair isn't going well then?
Have a look at this page for running an eMac with two LCD monitors - http://www.lbodnar.dsl.pipex.com/eServer/ .. specifically the bit that says parts of the monitor are required for power up of the system..

Switching from CRT to LCD

I am a print graphic designer in need of a new monitor and ahve been given 3 days to find one. My IT folks are suggesting a Samsung SnycmasterXL24. I am concerned with switching to an LCD from a CRT. I have seen some of the other flat screens the regular staff use in here and am not impressed. I am currently using a ViewSonic G225FB 21 with Matrox Parhelia 128 video card with Pantone color calibration software. I have the speed needed to run the graphics software and get great accuracy of color between my monitor and print. Anyone else out there use this monitor? Any issues with graphics software, video cards and color accuracy? Any input is greatly appreciated. I am running Windows XP.
Thank you for your input,
Laurie

Laurie,
I used a ViewSonic G220f CRT for a number of years, and then switched to a Samsung 213T LCD when my ViewSonic went to monitor heaven.
There are some differences between a CRT and and LCD, but I found the transition to be fairly painless. The Samsung is a good monitor, but there is some light falloff when you get to the edges and the corners, more than with the CRT. Still, it is no big deal, at least to me. I do a lot of fine art printing, and my previous job was as a director of marketing, and I sent a LOT of jobs to press.
LCDs are a little less forgiving if you don't view more or less perpendicular to the screen. But, to me, that is also no big deal. A monitor hood is always a good idea, to prevent ambient lighting from reflecting off the face of the monitor.
FWIW, I found the same calibration parameters worked fine on both monitors. I chose 5200K color temp, 2.2 gamma, and a luminance of 90 cd/m2. My monitor and inkjet proofs were dead ringers, and they matched the proofs I got back from my commercial printer very closely.
The 213T is no longer in production, but the Samsung synchmaster monitors are pretty good for the price. I have also heard good things about the NEC monitors, but haven't tried them. If you have money to burn, there are Eizo, LaCie and other high end LCD monitors. I also drive my monitor with a Matrox Parhelia 128 MB card. Be sure to use the digital connection.
Probably the biggest difference, at least to me, is that sharpening looks a little different on an LCD compared to a CRT. You will just have to get used to that. There is no "Perfect" monitor to print match, so whatever monitor you use, you need to get a feel for it.
Hope some of this helps.
Lou

27 inch how many hertz?

I'm wondering if the new imac 27 has 120 hertz refresh rate?
thanks

Well, some interesting theories have been espoused for this question. The fact of the matter is that the issue of CRT versus LCD (with cold cathode backlighting) versus LCD (with LED backlighting) is irrelevant to the original question of Refresh Rate. The "Refresh Rate" on Any monitor is the rate at which the screen image is generated by the illumination of successive pixels on the screen, the image being "painted", as it were, from the upper left hand corner of the screen across to the right and successively down the screen row by row of pixels, until one complete cycle of screen image drawing has occurred.
There are two basic forms of this screen drawing, for those technically interested: "interlaced" and "progressive". On an Interlaced display the rows of pixels are illuminated by first illuminating all the odd numbered rows of pixels on the screen and then proceeding to illuminating all the even numbered rows of pixels. Older monitors used this method. On a Progressive display (the more modern and currently used standard for HD) the rows of pixels are illuminated successively: 1, 2, 3 ,4... in order from top to bottom of the screen.
The refresh rate for most LCD monitors is 60 Hz. The recent exception to this is high-end HD LCD monitors, some of which now utilize a 120 Hz or 240 Hz refresh rate. The advantage of this higher Hz rate over 60 Hz is that fast moving images on the screen show less lag or ghosting.
Hopefully this resolves some of the technical issues raised in this forum

24" LCD AND 19" CRT. Any problem?

Hi,
My current set up is two dual 19" CRTs and the ATI 9800 256MB card.
I want to move up to a widescreen LCD, but am aware of a couple limitations with a 24" LCD.
These being:
1. You have more screen real estate with two 19" than with one 24".
2. CRT is supposedly a better image.
So, my thinking is to move up to a 24"LCD and keep one of my 19" CRTs active as a 2nd/palette monitor. that way I get more screen real estate, and a nice CRT handy if needed.
Can anyone tell me if I'd get eye-strain or headache or something from switching my eyes back and forth from a CRT to LCD?
Any reason I wouldn't want a dual monitor set up where one is LCD and one is CRT?
Thanks very much
G5 Dual 1.8 2GB RAM Mac OS X (10.4.8)

Accidental damage is not covered under the warranty - it is a limited manufacturer's warranty only, not insurance.
If you live near an Apple Store, call the store and ask or make an appointment there to confirm if only the glass panel needs to be replaced, if the store does that, and how much.

DVD looks great on CRT... awful on Plasma

Is it possible to write video to a DVD that will look good on both CRT and Plasma/LCD televisions?
When burning a recent video (24pA, anamorphic, SD) to DVD, the result looks fantastic on an old 13-inch CRT I have, but it looks absolutely awful on my 37-inch plasma. Pixelation, graininess, and other unwanted digital elements show up on the plasma but not at all on the CRT. I've upped the bit rate and double checked all other Compressor settings as per recommendations from several other threads and the Compressor Help Manual, but the result is always the same: GREAT quality (for SD) on CRT... HORRIBLE quality on Plasma.
General advice when editing video in FCP is to view your canvas on a CRT monitor. Now that CRT is on the way out (if not out already), is it wiser to stay within the digital realm and avoid CRT altogether?
I can't be sure what the viewing medium for the DVD will be on the other end when I send it out, so I'd like it to be universally good on CRT, Plasma/LCD television and computer monitors.
Thank you!

Do you mean pixelated, or do you mean that you are seeing combing artifacts?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinterlacing#FieldCombinationDeinterlacing
The Apple DVD player does not deinterlace unless it is set to. And then it is not deinterlacing in the manner that gives you results similar to watching it on a CRT. When watching on a CRT, you are seeing 60 fields a second. To do that properly on the progressive display of your computer, the software would need to do a bob deinterlace, giving 60 complete frames a second. But the Apple DVD Player does not do that, so the motion looks wrong if you are looking at video rather than film.
You could try opening the same disc in VLC, and then select Deinterlace:bob from the video menu. I'm guessing it will look better.
For your plasma, it might be the same problem. Perhaps your DVD player has a setting involving progressive output or deinterlacing, and it is doing it wrong.

Gradient banding in Samsung 20 inch LCD

Now idk where to begin, ok here's the best info i can give
I just assembled a new pc for graphic work/budget gaming 2 days ago:
intel core i3 530 mhz
2 gb ddr3 ram 1333 mhz
xfx nvidia geforce gt 240 1gb ddr5
windows 7 ultimate 32-bit
Samsung Myst Eco B2030 widescreen 20 inch lcd monitor
Now when i opened an old psd which contained some brushing and gradients, i could see bands in the gradients, even the wallpaper i put had bands on it. I even noticed that everything on my lcd looks hellish sharp, and when i force my head really close, i can see small square pixels all over the l cd. Is it due to the analogue output(VGA)?, should i switch to DVI?
I use 1600x900 res (native) at 32 bit
Then to test whether all gradients look the same, i opened a new ps document and made a black to white gradient, but it was smooth, there were no bands in there. But when i made a simple white box, applied full gaussian blur, and zoomed in around 2000% i could see the gradual bands again though not as bad as in the colored psd. It seems the problem only happens when i give a glow, or blurs. Then i played Splinter Cell Conviction (everything Maxed out) and again i could see gradient bands forming up in dark places, like when i die and a small cutscene is played, i could see gradient bands on the 4 corners. What could be the problem, is it the card? the lcd? i am new to lcd monitors so i dont know how to calibrate or whatever.
Please check if anyone else can see the bands on their lcd?

Regarding calibrating your display, it's not strictly necessary, but you did mention "oversaturation" in a post above. It's certainly your call whether you want to make your color-managed applications put out calibrated color.
Re switching to DVI, that's falling out of favor... How are you currently cabled to your monitor? HDMI? VGA? You've mentioned both. DVI would CERTAINLY be better than VGA.
This "Coarse effect" you speak of... Are you talking about jaggy fonts, or what? If so, do you have Font Smoothing enabled?
When I first switched from CRTs to LCDs (in 2004) I marveled that most graphics created by people using CRTs were actually butt ugly, simply because they could not see the actual image content very clearly and tended to overlook things and overcompensate for their own monitors' shortcomings.
On a good LCD using a good interface (DVI or better) you can see every pixel as a discreet element. That's a given.
After my switch from CRT to LCD I had to reset my perceptions - I had thoughts just like yours! After a while you start to realize that what may look oversharp and harsh to you may even still be too subtle for CRT users. For some time there's been a mix of CRTs and LCDs in the world, though honestly lately I've started to ignore the former as they are truly a dying breed (just try to buy a new CRT monitor nowadays). It is not wrong to concentrate solely on making graphics look good on ultra sharp LCD monitors. Don't be too hard on yourself for what you've produced in the past, when you couldn't "see clearly" yet.
That said, I should note that there are some LCDs that are not sharp at all. From time to time people post on this forum that they have trouble seeing the Photoshop UI elements at their fixed small size, and as you're no doubt aware now with your monitor there's really no problem seeing them on a very sharp display.
You could try taking a macro photo of what you're seeing on your display that you don't like. Other than that it's very difficult to communicate about such issues on a forum.
-Noel

Which LCD monitor to get? Dell or Apple?

Hello everyone!
Well, I have decided to make the jump from CRT to LCD. I see that Dell has one similar to the Apple Cinema Display which is 20 inches. I am somewhat confused as to what monitor I should get since to me the Dell looks just as good as the Apple?
Can someone recommend for me a nice 20 inch LCD monitor similar or comparable to the Apple Cinema Display 20 inch?
Thanks,

Hi Nadav,
MacWorld reviews:
http://www.macworld.com/products/displays.html
You decide what is important to you in each review. ie. some displays have a "poor" viewing angle, but if that's not important, or privacy is important, then you can ignore it.
Or the UK MacUser labs tests:
http://www.macuser.co.uk/labs/23:9/19in-widescreen-tfts/products.html
Again, filter what is important to you.
Something that was important to me was pitch size, I'm used to 96dpi now (but 72dpi when I had CRT). 12pt fonts look the same size on every monitor I work on. When I have used a Dell "19in" TFT, it was smaller than my 17in Studio Display. It also had some insane native resolution, which made 12pt fonts tiny and unreadable - annoying if you're proofing PDF documents. When I reduced resolution, it looked awful, and was still unreadable.
Oh yes, TFTs can be awful below their native resolution, while CRTs usually manage quite well. There is a technical reason for this - can't find the link just now - something to do with the phosphor in CRTs, maybe.
Still, this might not be important to you, or TFT monitors with insane native resolutions may be a lot better now. Just something to check, 96dpi is good.

LCD Monitor Calibration Needed

I just purchased a 3rd party 19" LCD monitor, and noticed the the thing is freaking bright!
I need to calibrate this thing before it melts my eyes. I'm looking for either a tutorial on how to properly do this, or a program that will help me with this.
Any help is greatly appricated. Thanks!
--alan

if you've got the money for something worthwhile, the sypder2pro is an excellent monitor calibration tool. it calibrates crt's, lcd's and projectors. it actually allows me to use my 23" cinema display by removing most of the "pink" that the screen evolved to right after it went off of warranty, making it the most overpriced lemon i ever bought ($1799 before taxes).

CRT versus LCD

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for