Digital BW, The Print

Well I am not about to reiterate the entire debate but I have posted links
to discussions about the resolving power of CRT vs LCD and CRT loses. It is
clear that in general LCDs are more expensive than their CRT forebears and
that to move a CRT it must be priced at a healthy discount. If you like your
CRT then stick with it. As for size and shape, only once you have
experienced the layout benefits of the wider aspect ratio and size can you
begin to appreciate it - and not only for PC CS work: try having both
Capture One screens up side by side in a studio, two pages of a page layout
doc side by side, Final Cut Pro etc etc.  Believe me, once you have worked
with the larger screen and wide aspect ratio you will not go back.


> From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:04:59 +0100
> To: Steve Kale <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: LCD vs. CRT
> 
> 
> Steve Kale writes:
> 
>> With its lower resolution, greater power consumption, radiation, size etc.
> 
> CRTs are capable of higher resolutions than flat-panel displays; that's
> one of the advantages of CRTs.
> 
> Power consumption is higher but neither CRTs nor flat panels are huge
> consumers of electrical power.
> 
> There is no radiation problem.
> 
> Size is not too much of a problem, but weight is a serious issue with
> CRTs, and that's one of the main reasons I'm considering flat panels.
> But flat panels cost much more for much less, and they still don't match
> CRTs for image quality (especially at prices that are only two or three
> times those of CRTs).

In any environment where a desk is against a wall the size of a crt becomes
an issue.
> 
>> My point is there is a set of tradeoffs in considering this question but
>> comparing a good CRT with a cheap/poor LCD is inappropriate.
> 
> Not if you're looking at price, which is a key factor in any buying
> decision.
> 
>> Yes a good LCD costs more than a good CRT ...
> 
> Sometimes five times more, for equivalent image quality.
> 
>> ... but compare a quality CRT with a quality LCD.
> 
> Compare $1000 of CRT with $1000 of LCD.
> 
> Compare 20 kg of CRT with 20 kg of LCD.

No - compare the package:  each has a set of + and -
> 
> Depending on which factor you compare, either technology might be
> favored.
> 
> But you need to look at _all_ factors in order to decide which type to
> buy.

Yes - you contradict yourself within 5 sentences


> LCDs have great advantages, but they have great disadvantages,
> too.  That's why they still have not fully replaced CRTs.  And flat
> panels have been around for forty years.

I think the whole point of this discussion is that they have reached a
price/quality point where, as a result, they are replacing CRTs.

> 
>> My 23in Apple CD display has had absolutely
>> no problems for the last year and half.
> 
> My CRT had no problem for the first 7-8 years or so.

Well done - keep it then!

> 
>> If it had one dead pixel I would have sent it back to the supplier.
> 
> And what would they have done?  Some suppliers refuse to take back a
> flat panel that has less than a "minimum acceptable number" of dead
> pixels (as if any number other than zero were acceptable).

I do not care

> 
>> Oh and I can't describe how good it is to have the large 16:9
>> space to work with.
> 
> The 16:9 ratio would a very awkward aspect ratio to work with, I should
> think.  Hardly anything fits neatly within it.  I guess I could use the
> sides for dialog boxes or something.  But I'd still need high resolution
> and square pixels.

I think you would be very surprised but I do not know how you work - try it
and see.