CRT Screens

My LCD monitor died,should I contiune to use this CRT screen?It has a 1600x1200 Resolution at 17 inches and refresh rate of 85Hz

 

I don't see why not? The small size of the display might be a pain in the ass to get used to & the CRT will make your eyes burn (experienced that myself), but IMO it should be fine till you get a new monitor

 

The size is not really a problem here,you can see clearly letters,i like CRT screens so much just because no input lag and the previous good experiences through the years

 

sounds like you answered your own question

 

I don't like CRT screens, my laptop screen has no input lag

 

CRT: Has retro aesthetic
LCD: Does not have retro aesthetic

I think there’s a clear winner... (*´꒳`*)

 

if it works, it works.
Only because a CRT is a bit old, dosen´t mean it´s bad. Sure, 17 inches is a bit "small", and 4:3 isn´t really nice

 

It is fascinating how CRT Screens have 85hz refresh rate.IT MAKES ME FEEL SO SATISFYING

 

Yeah but then my LCD has sub millisecond response time (lower than CRT) and 144hz refresh
--- Post updated ---

It does, just, it's usually very small.

 

CRTs should have less input lag than any LCD. OLEDs and plasma screens can get close though. CRTs aren't bad though, newer ones look just fine. CRTs can actually outperform most modern flat screens in every category but resolution.

 

CRTs don't get below 8ms of input lag. Most modern LCD technology is capable of 4, much is capable of sub 1. Its only early LCDs that couldn't match CRTs, and also many TVs have high latency drivers so may be as much as 50ms input lag. A modern LCD monitor is less laggy than a CRT

 

Sorry, I should've said response time. CRTs should have sub-microsecond response times. Input lag will be 8.3ms, but that's only because that's how long it takes for them to draw a frame at 60Hz (the 85Hz one mentioned would be even faster). Either way, even modern OLEDs won't be meaningfully faster than a CRT, other than the difference caused by their higher (120 to 144 Hz) refresh rate.

 

I already found myself a replacement for my old monitor.Its an LG Flatron W2043S

 

Again, you are incorrect. Gray to gray response times in a CRT are still in the milliseconds domain and beaten by the humble TFT LCD. There is not one specification tat a CRT beats a modern LCD at and this has been the case for over a decade. It was only EARLY LCD that couldn't match CRT. Only exception being in TVs where the controller itself has high latency, most TVs support a direct passthrough or game mode that slashes that though and most monitors make no efforts to be middle man interferers. Ghosting can even be problematic in a CRT, somewhat negating the 85Hz refresh (that most CRT didn't reach).

There is only one modern application of CRT technology, and that's in physics experiments and high frequency oscilloscope usage
--- Post updated ---
The idea that a CRT is better is a very old myth. Very very old, from the days of LCD being cutting edge technology nothing like today's displays. It's the same myth as tubes being better than transistor amplifiers, objectively, they aren't, they distort and have poor frequency response. The same myth as vinyl being better than digital, when today's digital has better dynamic range, less distortion etc etc. It's myths originating from comparing old versus old, not old versus new, compounded by a bit of clinging to the past

 

Wow this got heated,
I'll admit to being a bit biased because I am a fine connoisseur of old computer hardware. But I won't claim CRTs are "better" than modern LCD screens, because they probably aren't. I think Six Six Seven Seven is right, A lot of that logic does come from when LCD screens really weren't all that great, if you have ever tried playing something like Commander Keen on any sort of old LCD screen from the 90's (particularly those found in laptops), you will very quickly discover why this sort of logic exists. On those screens any sort of movement, particularly scrolling, would cause terrible ghosting, and make most games essentially unplayable without inducing a headache. If you ever wondered why the "mouse trails" functionality exists, it was because these early LCDs were so slow at redrawing the screen you would essentially loose the mouse cursor. For the longest time LCDs really weren't up to snuff with CRTs, and it wouldn't be until the early to mid 2000's for most people to switch over to them. With that being said these LCDs from the 2000's still weren't as good as CRTs, particularly because the refresh rates of these monitors were simply not as high as a CRT's refresh rate This is kinda why you still see this argument, even today a lot of common LCD monitors still don't go over 60Hz, but now days tech such 120Hz and 144Hz is becoming popular it will likely become more common in the future (if it already hasn't)

But with that being said, CRTs aren't a bad option, they certainly aren't worthless or terrible screens. They are, for the most part still completely useable by today's standards. You might need an adapter if you don't have VGA, but those aren't too expensive. If you have one, there really is no point in letting it go to waste, it could be a nice cheap/free secondary monitor for things like chats and web browsing, and of course it's the way to go if you love retro PC gaming.

 

Perhaps I have been misinformed. Well, either way, at 60 Hz both a CRT and modern screens will update within a frame, and CRTs do still have an advantage when being fed native analog. And, a decent 2000s CRT won't have a noticeable disadvantage over a modern LCD, other than size and resolution (although will be beat out by the better color and dynamic range of OLED).

 

CRTs have a response time of 1µs (1 microsecond), the only thing that has similar figures are plasma displays. The phosphor in the screen itself has a decay time (1-2ms) which is the limiting factor, LCD pixel response has caught up to that decay time now on high end monitors. Due to the nature of the technology there is no display lag, while an LCD can have up to 3-4 frames or up to 68ms of display lag due to processing, scaling and other digital processing. Ghosting really isnt a problem for any CRT and is another strong point of the technology. The one thing that you will notice as a big advantage with a CRT over an LCD is motion blur, the fact it is impulse driven eliminates eye tracking motion blur, some LCD panels have similar methods for motion blur reduction but only in the high end and for a select few gaming monitors. Good way to see this in action is to use this test https://www.testufo.com/photo

There are also a number of advantages with black levels and contrast that only OLED displays can match (those aren't really applicable to monitor use case).

They're also used in retro gaming because of the large delay added when a TV or monitor has to upscale and de-interlace an image before displaying it.

Probably quite alot of other things i missed but thats just off the top of my head.

 

*20,000Hz whine intensifies*

 

*CRT SCREEN TURNING ON PRODUCING A ELECTRIC SOUND*

 

I prefer 4:3 because you can see more vertical content