Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To a lot of people including yours truly, direct-view CRTs still produce a more realistic image than the average LCD flatscreen. That's why I am saving for a plasma flatscreen, which IMO produces pretty much the same quality of image as a CRT (albeit with less efficiency, usually, than an LCD).
Even if the parts were broken and worn out. About 2yrs ago I heard a tv repair man say to replace all the tubes it would cost $300 to $400 this is just for the tubes. I heard the last big fat tvs made from 2005 to 2007 were great tvs the earlier ones were kinda junk
Where I am in Hawaii, with electric rates around $0.45 per KWH, (4x the rate most of you pay in the US) any older TV or computer monitor is unwanted. They simply use way too much power.
My old 31" CRT TV used 320 watts - my new 46" LCD uses 210.
My old 15" CRT monitor used 220 watts and my new 20" LCD uses 18 watts.
"Much better" is an incredible overstatement. They're MARGINALLY better for standard def input, and definitely not built for HD.
Blacks are deeper on CRT and plasmas but the gap isn't as wide as it once was. LCD/LED TVs are catching up rapidly in that department. Clarity is better on modern TVs anyway.
Besides, the space, weight and power consumption is not worth the almost unnoticeable color differences (if you're not setting them side-by-side and watching them at the same time, you'd never know the difference).
I kept my 20" flatscreen CRT monitor for a long time because it was gorgeous. I paid nearly $400 for it at the time. It looked better than the cheapo 19" LCD that replaced it, of course. However, I had a full FOOT of extra desk space. I was happy.
They're MARGINALLY better for standard def input, and definitely not built for HD.
Not to get nitpicky, but the last few years CRTs were available many were capable of displaying 720 to 1080P content, along with the last round of them having 16:9 screens. In fact I'm now looking for a used 16:9 CRT for my mancave until I buy my Panasonic plasma.
One thing I cannot stand at all about LCDs, and that includes LCDs lit by LED lamps, is the use of motion interpolation systems to help eliminate ghosting ("trails"), something plasmas and CRTs don't have a problem with. Known by various trade names like AutoMotion, TruMotion or MotionFlo, it does significantly reduce ghosting, something sports fans & gamers appreciate, but the trade off is the nasty effect it imparts to the image as a whole. And that is what many HT'ers refer to as the soap opera video effect.
This is especially apparent when playing back something shot on film: instead of a smooth organic image, what you get instead is a "crystalline", fake-ish & ultimately cheezy looking (IMO) effect, basically the same thing that a video camera does to the images it captures. No thank you.
FYI: motion interpolation and frame rate - i.e. 60Hz, 200Hz, etc - are not the same thing.
Fortunately you can usually dial down the video effect or completely disable this system if desired (most of the time its controls are buried in a sub submenu in the TV's settings menu, so you'll have to dig a little bit).
Not to get nitpicky, but the last few years CRTs were available many were capable of displaying 720 to 1080P content, along with the last round of them having 16:9 screens. In fact I'm now looking for a used 16:9 CRT for my mancave until I buy my Panasonic plasma.
I agree, but we're talking about an "old broken TV out for trash" that someone took parts out of here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lije Baley
One thing I cannot stand at all about LCDs, and that includes LCDs lit by LED lamps, is the use of motion interpolation systems to help eliminate ghosting ("trails"), something plasmas and CRTs don't have a problem with. Known by various trade names like AutoMotion, TruMotion or MotionFlo, it does significantly reduce ghosting, something sports fans & gamers appreciate, but the trade off is the nasty effect it imparts to the image as a whole. And that is what many HT'ers refer to as the soap opera video effect.
This is especially apparent when playing back something shot on film: instead of a smooth organic image, what you get instead is a "crystalline", fake-ish & ultimately cheezy looking (IMO) effect, basically the same thing that a video camera does to the images it captures. No thank you.
FYI: motion interpolation and frame rate - i.e. 60Hz, 200Hz, etc - are not the same thing.
Fortunately you can usually dial down the video effect or completely disable this system if desired (most of the time its controls are buried in a sub submenu in the TV's settings menu, so you'll have to dig a little bit).
I definitely agree, but like I said, the technology is getting better all the time. LCD definitely has it's drawbacks...which is why other technologies exist.
Location: God's Gift to Mankind for flying anything
5,921 posts, read 13,855,132 times
Reputation: 5229
I gave up my *100 pound* CRT monitor a while back and now have a 32 inch LG monitor, that is 1080 and 120 Hz.
I love it because I can open up plenty of windows without having to squint at my laptop on the side of the monitor.
Bonus: just one click, and I can watch TV ...
Clarity ? I can see the dirt under the finger nails of some people !!!
OLDER CRT SETS ARE MUCH BETTER THAN THESE NEWER SETS!!
Five or ten years ago they weren't nearly as good as a CRT but that has changed and as the technology evolves it will surpass CRT in every imaginable category if they haven't already.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.