CRT to LCD/TFT question on quality

CRT to LCD/TFT question on quality

Author
Discussion

rameshuk

Original Poster:

591 posts

263 months

Sunday 28th January 2007
quotequote all
Hi.

I have a 4 year old iiyama Vision Master Pro CRT.
Great Screen for video/Photoshop work.


I have noticed quite a few 20-22" widescreen TFTs are around the £250 mark.

How does a mid range CRT compare with the new generation of TFTs.

How much would you say I need to spend to match the quality.

The reason for the upgrade is to free up deskspace.

Anyone done a similar upgrade.
Any Professional recommendations ?

Cheers.


dilbert

7,741 posts

232 months

Sunday 28th January 2007
quotequote all
I guess it's all down to personal preference. Personally I'd say that if you're mainly doing any sort of image work, stick with a CRT. If you're mainly working with texts, go for the TFT. Clearly if space is the primary driver, you'll have little choice.

Whatever you do, if you go the TFT route, make sure you get one with DVI.

agent006

12,043 posts

265 months

Sunday 28th January 2007
quotequote all
There's hardly any difference these days. One of the bosses at work is the biggest graphics quality geek you'll ever meet and he's had a TFT (albeit £3k worth) for a while now in preference to a CRT at home and has had a tft at work for a few years.

dern

14,055 posts

280 months

Sunday 28th January 2007
quotequote all
I've gone from a 19" crt to a 17" TFT and the best thing is the image consistency across the screen as well as the space you reclaim. Then then bought myself a 2nd one and one for the wife. I so software development on it as well as play games and I'd never go back.

scorp

8,783 posts

230 months

Monday 29th January 2007
quotequote all
Aesthetically i still prefer CRT, much easier on the eyes after an 8 hour shift TFT/LCD's seem a bit harsh for me, but then again i turn the brightness down (a lot) to compensate. Quality wise, LCD wins every time, near perfect pixel definition and colour reproduction

aspender

1,308 posts

266 months

Monday 29th January 2007
quotequote all
I'd be wary of getting a cheap widescreen TFT purely because most of them seem to have pretty low resolutions. Remember that the 16:9/10 ratio means that 22" diagonal will be shorter in the vertical than the same 4:3 ratio display. You need at least 1680x1050, and ideally if you can afford to go up to a 24" with 1900x1200 then so much the better. The latter also allows for 1080p high-definition content to be displayed natively. As said already, make sure it has VGA and DVI inputs, then use the DVI one for your 'puter and the VGA one is there for something like an XBox 360.

mr_yogi

3,279 posts

256 months

Monday 29th January 2007
quotequote all
Haven't noticed anyone comment on this yet, if you are going to be using it for Photoshop make sure you get a 8 bit panel.

Most of the manufacturers list the panel type in the specs, the cheaper, faster (response time <12ms) panels are pretty much all 6 bit (or 6 bit plus 2 bit) panels. These use dithering to produce the full range of colours. I had a cheap Dell 17" and the colours were horible. I now have a Dell 1905 and 2407 and the colours are much better. The 2407 has a 16ms response time but is still great for gaming.

rameshuk

Original Poster:

591 posts

263 months

Monday 29th January 2007
quotequote all
This is the one I'm interested in:

iiyama Prolight E2200 WS

www.iiyama.co.uk/default.asp?SID=&LNG=EN&NAV=236&PCAT=2&PROD=7155&CE=F&PARAMS=DATASHEET

it supports the res you recommend but at a low refresh rate:

1680 x 1050 / 65, 60 Hz

My current CRT is running at 120 Hz ! I spend 6 - 9 hours /day staring at it.

What about refresh rates being a lot lower on TFTs/LCDs

thanks for the info so far. Much appreciated.

mr_yogi

3,279 posts

256 months

Monday 29th January 2007
quotequote all
60Hz is all you need on an LCD

mr_yogi

3,279 posts

256 months

Monday 29th January 2007
quotequote all
here is a review:

aspender

1,308 posts

266 months

Monday 29th January 2007
quotequote all
CRTs are interlaced, so the flicker you see at low refresh rates is actually caused by the fact that only half the screen is refreshed at a time. LCDs are progressive and refresh the whole display each time hence they can do fine with a lower refresh rate.

mr_yogi

3,279 posts

256 months

Monday 29th January 2007
quotequote all
no they are not interlaced - SD TV's are interlaced, VGA monitors are not

aspender

1,308 posts

266 months

Monday 29th January 2007
quotequote all
D'oh, you are right. I'll get me coat.

rameshuk

Original Poster:

591 posts

263 months

Monday 29th January 2007
quotequote all
Thanks for that.

Reading your posts has been quite ...ahem REFRESHing.

ThePassenger

6,962 posts

236 months

Monday 29th January 2007
quotequote all
Personally if you were going to be doing heavy duty, professional grade, image/video work. I'd look at Apple's kit.
Yes, it's intrinsically the same panel as Dell offer, but they seem to put the thing through a rather intensive certification and calibration process so that the drivers and colour profiles you install with the monitor make best use of the functionality.

And considering it's all DVI these days, so long as you're PC has the required sockets you can easily drive an Apple display off a PC's GFX card

Alternativley... ohh sod it... Lacie is it? Forgot their name just as I was typing it, but they make the displays that cost lots, are tested, certified and come with hoods for maximum colour accuracy.