Re: LCD vs CRT resolution
- From: "Steve Thackery" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 09:58:25 +0100
Until recently I have assumed that the picture quality of an LCD
screen was streets ahead of a CRT screen, but one or two comments here
have made me wonder if that assumption is correct. Can someone
enlighten me?
Most people would agree that a really good CRT - correctly set up - looks better than an LCD or plasma.
HOWEVER - it is very often not the case in real life. CRT's can go out of focus; it is very challenging indeed to achieve perfect beam focus across the entire screen. The electronics are sophisticated and it is quite common for a TV to gradually drift out of focus as the years pass.
Secondly, convergence. Perfect convergence across the entire screen is, again, immensely challenging to achieve, and it is very common for a CRT TV to show convergence errors after some time in service.
The great thing about LCD and plasma is that you don't need to worry about any of these.
On the other hand, most would agree that an LCD picture is less rich and dynamic than a CRT picture, and in particular they are still prone to "glowing" blacks.
They've made great strides in this area, but LCDs show blacks by blocking off the light from the backlight. There is always some light leakage, hence the glowing greys. A few manufacturers have introduced hacks by varying the intensity of the backlight dynamically, but the bottom line is, it's an inherent weakness in the technology.
Plasma avoids this problem, but has it's own shortcomings. They use a lot of energy, for one thing. The other issue is that if you don't sit well back you can clearly see the pixel 'mesh'.
In summary, then: most people would agree that a perfectly set up CRT gives a better picture than an LCD or plasma. But most CRT's are running with focus and convergence problems, which make the picture look fuzzy compared with an LCD or plasma.
Don't think for a moment that LCDs and plasma took over from CRT because they are better! They took over for three good reasons:
1/ Cheaper. After decades of manufacture, there is no more room for driving down the manufacturing costs of CRTs, and frankly they are expensive to make. LCDs and plasma screens are also expensive to make, but both offer great potential for ongoing reductions in manufacturing costs. That means more profit for Sony, et al.
2/ Bigger. It is a real challenge to make a CRT work satisfactorily above about 36". There is no inherent limitation in the size of LCDs and plasma screens, and the demand for high quality, large screens meant a move away from CRT technology was required.
3/ Flat. Most people prefer the dead flat viewing screen an LCD or plasma can offer. More importantly, CRTs are extremely deep compared with LCD and plasma, especially in the larger sizes. Bulky TVs were becoming less acceptable to owners.
I would compare the picture on your particular TV with those you see in the shops, and then decide if you want to switch. There's certainly no rush: LCD and plasma are improving all the time, and OLED screens will be coming along in the next few years.
SteveT
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: LCD vs CRT resolution
- From: Java Jive
- Re: LCD vs CRT resolution
- From: Colin Stamp
- Re: LCD vs CRT resolution
- From: Alan
- Re: LCD vs CRT resolution
- From: bugbear
- Re: LCD vs CRT resolution
- From: Mark Carver
- Re: LCD vs CRT resolution
- Prev by Date: Re: LCD vs CRT resolution
- Next by Date: Re: LCD vs CRT resolution
- Previous by thread: Re: LCD vs CRT resolution
- Next by thread: Re: LCD vs CRT resolution
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|