Apart from the screen being flat, what is the technical difference/advantage of a flatron over a normal CRT monitor?

If you're asking what the difference is between a flat screen CRT monitor and a standard CRT monitor, then it's claimed that a flat screen CRT has a brighter and crisper display with less reflection and distortion.

However, the best way to determine if a flat screen CRT is better and is worth the extra $ is to do a side-by-side comparison of various standard and flat screen CRT models in a specific size at a local outlet.

Thnx Ski,
A couple of months back i bought a 17" Samsung (SyncMaster 753S) for 100 USD. There was an LG Flatron available at just 115 USD. Some folks think i took the wrong decision by not buying the Flatron for just 15 additional bucks.So i wanted to ask if a flatron is always better than a normal CRT monitor.
How can i make a comparison of the two ?
thnx.

I have 2 monitors a Viewsonic G90mb (not flat) and a G90fb (flat) both are properly adjusted and the only difference (besides two speakers and a microphone on the G90mb) I can find is less glare on the G90fb. They may even have the same CRT.

Although a CRT monitor is called a flat screen the CRT isn't flat. Mine has an extra screen in front of the CRT making it look flat and reducing glare, you can tell this by looking at the screen at a downward angle the corners are farther away from the outer screen than the middle.

The only way to get a truly flat screen is to get an LCD or plasma.

Akif,
I would choose the Samsung over the LG due to better control electronics in the Samsung.
:)

The first basic difference is size. A CRT monitor uses a cathode ray gun in a predetermined way to light up the tube pixels that present the screen display.

The CRT is bulbous in shape, and with its ancillary equipment it is large, heavy, and deep, in comparison to LCD type screens. CRT monitors also consume large amounts of electricity and generate heat like a small electric fire.

LCD screens, on the other hand, have their pixels switched on and off by low voltage circuitry and are able to be manufactured flat and lightweight by comparison. Because they use low voltage they do not consume copious amounts of energy nor generate heat like a CRT.

They do have brighter, crisper, and a better colour depth display. As well as this, they don't refresh the way CRTs do, so there is no issue with flickering, and the image quality of an LCD screen doesn't degrade over time the way a CRT can.

They are however, much more expensive to buy, but hopefully over time this will change. If budget is your issue then stay with a CRT, otherwise why not indulge yourself.

I hope this post answers some of your questions obviously in a short note I cannot do justice to what is a highly complex and technical subject.

Thanks
:)

You're welcome.

How can i make a comparison of the two ?
If your visual memory is good, then just connect each monitor one at a time, and view displays from the same applications using the same resolution, refresh rate, and color depth.

Or you can borrow a dual display video card, and connect both monitors simultaneously for a better comparison.

Posted by PrntRhd,

Akif,
I would choose the Samsung over the LG due to better control electronics in the Samsung.


Thats always good to hear in such situation.:D

Thanx to all the folks for the info.

(LCD's) do have ... a better colour depth display.Nope, LCD's are inherently a digital device which is great, but they still only create about 64,000 colors. Notice this is slightly less than the 65,536 required for 16-bit color. While the color range has improved dramatically, LCD's aren't likely to hit true 24-bit color for quite some time.

CRT's are still king of color creation since they're true analog devices. In fact, there is no measurable range of colors that they are capable of displaying, since even the new floating point 128-bit color in the DX9 spec can't make a CRT break a sweat.

Photo/video professionals are still served well by CRT's, and that won't change for several years at least. Not until 24-bit color can be pumped to a digital display device in a reliable fashion.

saphalline

I do not disagree with anything that you have said, however I find the discussion intriguing. Below is a chart from Tom's Hardware (have not found the way yet of putting charts into my posts). Originally it had three columns "the attribute" "the spec for LCD" "the spec for CRT"

Tom has attempted to rank the attributes for the LCD Vs CRT by using a + for best a ~ for decent, and - for negative. These are listed at the bottom of the chart.

I have added two extra columns for a more mathematical comparison. If either LCD or CRT scores + it gets 2 points, if it scores ~ 1 point, if it scores - it gets 0 points. The points are summed at the bottom of the respective columns.

As you can probably work out the LCD scores 12 points and the CRT scores 11 points. I find it very interesting to put a form of measurement into Tom's chart - hope he'll forgive me. I'm not trying to make any serious point here, I just find the wide range of views on this subject to be fascinating.

If anyone can tell me how to put charts and images into my posts I'll be eternally grateful!!!!


LCD (CRT) LCD (CRT)
Brightness (+) 170 to 300 cd/m² (~) 80 to 120 cd/m² 2 1
Contrast (-) 150:1 to 450:1 (+) 350:1 to 700:1 0 2
Viewing angle (~) 90° to 170° (+) more than 150° 1 2
Convergence errors (+) none (~) 0.0079 to 0.0118" 2 1
(0.20 to 0.30 mm)
Focus (+) Very good (~) satisfactory to very 2 1
good
Geometry (+) perfect (~) possible errors 2 1
Defective pixels (-) up to 8 (+) none 0 2
Input signal (+) analog or digital (~) only analog 2 1
Possible Resolutions (-) set resolution or (+) many 0 2
interpolation
Gamma (color tuning (~) satisfactory (+) photo quality 1 2
for the human eye)
Uniformity (~) often brighter at (~) often brighter in the 1 1
the edges middle
Color purity/color (-) bad to mediocre (+) very good 0 2
quality
Flickering (+) none (~) not visible above 85Hz 2 1
Affected by magnetic (+) not affected (-) depending on fields? 2 0
cladding, can be very
sensitive
Pixel response time (-) 20 to 50 ms (+) not visible 0 2
Power consumption (+) 25 to 40 Watts (-) 60 to 160 Watts 2 0
Space requirements (+) minimal (-) require a lot of space, 2 0
heavy weight

Total 12 11

(+) Best (~) Decent (-) Negative
Best = 2 Decent = 1 Negative = 0

Another point in agreement with Saphalline:D

LCDs have certainly come a long way, but the colours and detail they can reproduce is still not a match for CRTs. The individual transistors which make up a TFT are still too large for finely detailed work. They are excellent for many applications, but as a CRT can be controlled in ways that TFTs could only dream of, for high-end photo work, a CRT still rules. This is still true of games as well, as fast-moving images can still cause latent images (ghosting) on a TFT
One thing here - I don't use CRTs, so that's not why I'd recommend them for high end work; My two monitors are both TFTs. If I needed the high end graphics capabilities, I'd have to make room for a CRT.

TFTs biggest benefits are a flicker-free image and a huge saving in desk space.

Yes another very interesting viewpoint that I would not argue with. The only addition I would make is [QUOTE]

Sorry about that last thread I got knocked off line by my grandson. As I was about to say - another very interesting viewpoint that I would not argue with.

The only issue I would question is where does high end graphics capabilities fit in - these monitors are expensive anyway and not usually for home users.

As I said in my original post:-

If budget is your issue then stay with a CRT, otherwise why not indulge yourself.

If you want to throw in high end graphics capabilities then budget may be a problem here as well. I also have an LCD along with my favorite large screen CRT monitor and both my grandsons love to play Quake 3 on the LCD.

There is no accounting for taste!

Thanks:)

korky45

I do not disagree with anything that you have said, however I find the discussion intriguing.Indeed, I enjoy these discussions as well. Too few of them around here, if you ask me. :D

All very good info from Tom. One thing... the whole DVI vs VGA connector is interesting as well. Did you know that DVI starts running out of bandwidth at 1600 x 1200 resolution? Basically around 2 Megapixels. This is why you don't see any DVI LCD's beyond this resolution. While this can be a problem for the multi-CPU workstation users who made Shrek 2 :p it's not really an issue for most home users. LCD's have their place, and so do CRT's.

And of course the flicker problem. LCD's don't flicker, one BIG bonus for them. However, if MS would get off their lazy a$$es, CRT's wouldn't be problematic, either! Windows has this annoying feature of defaulting to 60Hz for everything! :mad: I dislike this "feature" in particular because it kills my eyes! If Windows would default to 75Hz or more, I think we'd all be a lot happier with CRT's in general.

Granted this isn't really a discussion about which is better, rather which is better for a given situation. I use CRT's right now because I can't afford a new LCD. Too many upcoming hardware upgrades to think about! But I will eventually be looking for some type of flat display technology in the future.

Now this is where things get exciting! LCD's have come an incredibly long way from their pathetic beginnings, and they will continue to be the display of choice for the next 1-2 years. But new flat display technologies seem poised for a take-over soon! OLED (O-Light), plasma, eInk/bi-stable, etc, are all developing nicely. The next 5 years will determine the winners for various devices, but I'm rooting for OLED for PC's. It has the potential to wipe out both CRT's and LCD's in one fell swoop!

Anyone else clamoring for a better display?