compare crt vs lcd monitors quotation

CRT stands for Cathode Ray Tube and LCD stands for Liquid Crystal Display area unit the kinds of display devices wherever CRT is employed as standard display devices whereas LCD is more modern technology. These area unit primarily differentiated supported the fabric they’re made from and dealing mechanism, however, each area unit alleged to perform identical perform of providing a visible variety of electronic media. Here, the crucial operational distinction is that the CRT integrates the 2 processes lightweight generation and lightweight modulation and it’s additionally managed by one set of elements. Conversely, the LCD isolates the 2 processes kind one another that’s lightweight generation and modulation.

If you are looking for a new display, you should consider the differences between CRT and LCD monitors. Choose the type of monitor that best serves your specific needs, the typical applications you use, and your budget.

Require less power - Power consumption varies greatly with different technologies. CRT displays are somewhat power-hungry, at about 100 watts for a typical 19-inch display. The average is about 45 watts for a 19-inch LCD display. LCDs also produce less heat.

Smaller and weigh less - An LCD monitor is significantly thinner and lighter than a CRT monitor, typically weighing less than half as much. In addition, you can mount an LCD on an arm or a wall, which also takes up less desktop space.

More adjustable - LCD displays are much more adjustable than CRT displays. With LCDs, you can adjust the tilt, height, swivel, and orientation from horizontal to vertical mode. As noted previously, you can also mount them on the wall or on an arm.

Less eye strain - Because LCD displays turn each pixel off individually, they do not produce a flicker like CRT displays do. In addition, LCD displays do a better job of displaying text compared with CRT displays.

Better color representation - CRT displays have historically represented colors and different gradations of color more accurately than LCD displays. However, LCD displays are gaining ground in this area, especially with higher-end models that include color-calibration technology.

More responsive - Historically, CRT monitors have had fewer problems with ghosting and blurring because they redrew the screen image faster than LCD monitors. Again, LCD manufacturers are improving on this with displays that have faster response times than they did in the past.

Multiple resolutions - If you need to change your display"s resolution for different applications, you are better off with a CRT monitor because LCD monitors don"t handle multiple resolutions as well.

So now that you know about LCD and CRT monitors, let"s talk about how you can use two monitors at once. They say, "Two heads are better than one." Maybe the same is true of monitors!

Since the production of cathode ray tubes has essentially halted due to the cost and environmental concerns, CRT-based monitors are considered an outdated technology. All laptops and most desktop computer systems sold today come with LCD monitors. However, there are a few reasons why you might still prefer CRT over LCD displays.

While CRT monitors provide better color clarity and depth, the fact that manufacturers rarely make them anymore makes CRTs an unwise choice. LCD monitors are the current standard with several options. LCD monitors are smaller in size and easier to handle. Plus, you can buy LCD monitors in a variety of sizes, so customizing your desktop without all the clutter is easy.

The primary advantage that CRT monitors hold over LCDs is color rendering. The contrast ratios and depths of colors displayed on CRT monitors are better than what an LCD can render. For this reason, some graphic designers use expensive and large CRT monitors for their work. On the downside, the color quality degrades over time as the phosphors in the tube break down.

Another advantage that CRT monitors hold over LCD screens is the ability to easily scale to various resolutions. By adjusting the electron beam in the tube, the screen can be adjusted downward to lower resolutions while keeping the picture clarity intact. This capability is known as multisync.

The biggest disadvantage of CRT monitors is the size and weight of the tubes. An equivalently sized LCD monitor can be 80% smaller in total mass. The larger the screen, the bigger the size difference. CRT monitors also consume more energy and generate more heat than LCD monitors.

For the most vibrant and rich colors, CRTs are hard to beat if you have the desk space and don"t mind the excessive weight. However, with CRTs becoming a thing of the past, you may have to revisit the LCD monitor.

The biggest advantage of LCD monitors is the size and weight. LCD screens also tend to produce less eye fatigue. The constant light barrage and scan lines of a CRT tube can cause strain on heavy computer users. The lower intensity of the LCD monitors coupled with the constant screen display of pixels being on or off is easier on the eyes. That said, some people have issues with the fluorescent backlights used in some LCD displays.

The most notable disadvantage to LCD screens is the fixed resolution. An LCD screen can only display the number of pixels in its matrix. Therefore, it can display a lower resolution in one of two ways: using only a fraction of the total pixels on the display, or through extrapolation. Extrapolation blends multiple pixels together to simulate a single smaller pixel, which often leads to a blurry or fuzzy picture.

For those who are on a computer for hours, an LCD can be an enemy. With the tendency to cause eye fatigue, computer users must be aware of how long they stare at an LCD monitor. While LCD technology is continually improving, using techniques to limit the amount of time you look at a screen alleviates some of that fatigue.

Significant improvements have been made to LCD monitors over the years. Still, CRT monitors provide greater color clarity, faster response times, and wider flexibility for video playback in various resolutions. Nonetheless, LCDs will remain the standard since these monitors are easier to manufacture and transport. Most users find LCD displays to be perfectly suitable, so CRT monitors are only necessary for those interested in digital art and graphic design.

There are two primary types of computer monitors in use today: LCD monitors and CRT monitors. Nearly every modern desktop computer is attached to an LCD monitor. This page compares the pros and cons of both the CRT type displays and LCD or flat-panel type displays. You"ll quickly discover that the LCD or flat-panel displays pretty much sell themselves and why they are the superior display used today.

LCD monitors are much thinner than CRT monitors, being only a few inches in thickness (some can be nearly 1" thick). They can fit into smaller, tighter spaces, whereas a CRT monitor can"t in most cases.

Although a CRT can have display issues, there is no such thing as a dead pixel on a CRT monitor. Many issues can also be fixed by degaussing the monitor.

LCD monitors have a slightly bigger viewable area than a CRT monitor. A 19" LCD monitor has a diagonal screen size of 19" and a 19" CRT monitor has a diagonal screens size of about 18".

The obsolescence of CRT monitors requires replacing stimulators used for eliciting VEPs with new monitors. Currently, LCD monitors are the only suitable alternative, however other technologies, like OLED, may become a viable option [23]. So far, the ISCEV extended protocol for VEP methods of estimation of visual acuity recommends ensuring luminance artifacts caused by non-CRT stimulators [9], which can be achieved by reducing the stimulus contrast [23]. However, this may not be possible without falling below the minimum contrast values recommended for VEP [1, 23]. Since LCD stimulators have been shown to result in mostly a delay in the VEP responses [2,3,4, 23] but seem not to affect the size of the amplitudes [2], we expected no difference between the estimated visual acuity by using LCD or CRT monitors used as a stimulator for the sweep VEP.

The results of the first experiment show statistically significant effects of the monitor type on the time-to-peak after stimulus onset and the peak-to-trough amplitude (Table 1). The mean delay of the time-to-peak after stimulus onset between recordings obtained using the LCD and the CRT monitor was about 60 ms, which is quite high and possibly caused by the relatively old LCD monitor used. Accordingly, statistically significant effects on the time-to-peak after stimulus onset and the peak-to-trough amplitude were found for the monitor/contrast combination in the results of the second experiment (Table 4). Surprisingly, the mean delay of the time-to-peak after stimulus onset of the CRT monitors with high contrast was with up to 151 ms, longer (Table 5) than that of the LCD monitors (with low and high contrast), although one would expect modern monitors to have shorter or even no delays [24, 25]. Additionally, a statistically significant interaction between the spatial frequency and the monitor type was revealed in both experiments, causing an increased time delay for the intermediate spatial frequencies (1.4–10.3 cpd) with LCD stimulation (Fig. 2, top left) in the first experiment and an almost linear increase with the spatial frequencies in the second experiment (Fig. 2, bottom left). This may be explained by the semi-manual cursor placement, which is necessary because the amplitudes are less pronounced at frequencies below and above this frequency band. Another cause might be an input lag resulting from the time required by the monitor to prepare the image data to be displayed. This could be caused by, e.g., internal scaling for non-native resolutions, which may even be present when using the monitor’s native resolution. In the worst case, this leads to nonlinearities of the response timing of the LCD monitor when presenting patterns of low or high frequency [26, 27]. In doubt, the precise duration of the input lag should be measured using a photodiode attached to the display [28] and in case of being constant, the delay could then be subtracted from the respective time-to-peak values. Finally, the higher latencies may also be caused by the different software used for generating the stimuli: whereas in the first experiment, a custom-developed Java-based software was used, in the second experiment, the Python-based PsychoPy was employed. Nevertheless, these differences seem not to affect the estimated visual acuity. The mean peak-to-trough amplitude using the LCD monitor in the first experiment is reduced by about 0.9 µV with a confidence interval from − 1.6 to − 0.2 µV compared to the CRT stimulator, but increased by about 2.6 µV (confidence interval from 1.2 to 4.0 µV) when comparing the new LCD monitor with the CRT monitor (both with high contrast) in the second experiment (Table 5). However, these differences were, despite being statistically significant, within the expected standard deviation from about 0.5 to 7 µV of the P100 amplitude found in the literature [29,30,31] and therefore probably of no clinical relevance (Fig. 2, right). Interestingly, the results of Nagy et al. [2] suggest a similar reduction in the peak-to-trough amplitude when using an LC display for stimulation. In the first experiment, no statistically significant interaction between monitor type and spatial frequency on peak-to-trough amplitude was found but a tendency to smaller amplitudes at intermediate frequencies (Table 1), whereas in the second experiment, the effect of the interaction of stimulator and spatial frequency was statistically significant (Table 4). It has to be taken into account that the residuals of the models were heteroscedastic and therefore the statistical significance of the effects may be overestimated [32].

In the first experiment, the difference between the subjective visual acuity and that estimated by the second-order polynomial method, or by the modified Ricker function, was not statistically significant from a hypothetical assumed value of 0 logMAR (Table 2). Neither were the variances between CRT and LCD statistically different. Accordingly, the linear mixed-effects models revealed no statistically significant effects of neither the monitor type, the recording cycle, nor their interaction on the difference between subjective and estimated visual acuity for both estimation methods (Table 3).

In contrast in the second experiment, the differences between subjective visual acuity determined using FrACT and the visual acuities estimated using the modified Ricker function along with the conversion formula used in the first experiment were significantly different from the hypothesized difference of 0 logMAR for both, the new gaming LCD monitor and the old LCD monitor, at high and low contrast, but not for the CRT monitor. After using an individually adjusted conversion formula for each monitor/contrast combination, no statistically significant difference from the hypothesized difference of 0 logMAR was found (Table 7). However, one should keep in mind that using the results to calculate the conversion formula used to predict the results is circular reasoning. Nevertheless, it indicates, that using individual established conversion formulas calculated from a sufficiently large number of normative data will minimize the error between true visual acuity and estimated visual acuity.

Table 6 lists the signal-to-noise ratio calculated from the fitted Ricker model for the different combinations of monitors and contrasts. The highest SNR was found for the CRT monitor using high contrast. The LCDs showed lower SNR values. The on average higher amplitudes obtained using LCD monitors (Table 5) indicate that more noise is present when stimulating using LCDs. However, this effect could be caused by the different software used for the stimulus presentation and the lower number of sweeps recorded for averaging compared to the recordings using the CRT monitor. Nevertheless, none of the differences between the SNR values obtained from the different monitor types was statistically significant (Table 6), which corresponds to the findings of Fox et al. [28].

We want to point out the limitations of the current study: We included only healthy participants, so the possible effects of LCD stimulators on patients with reduced visual acuity remain unclear and should be further investigated, especially since we found a statistically significant, albeit not clinically relevant, effect of the monitor/contrast combination on peak-to-trough amplitude and time-to-peak after stimulus onset in the second experiment (Tables 4, 5). Further limitations are that the participants were not stratified by age and that the subjective visual acuity in the first experiment was determined using an eye chart projector, in contrast to the second experiment, where FrACT was used, limiting the accuracy of the estimated value. Finally, this study compared only three specific monitors; therefore, the results are not universally valid.

In conclusion, based on the results of this study, LCD monitors may substitute CRT monitors for presenting the stimuli for the sweep VEP to objectively estimate visual acuity. Newer LCD screens, especially with low response times in the range of 1–2 ms, therefore, allow for a reduction in luminance artifacts at required contrast levels [23], albeit the luminance artifact may not have a large effect on the recorded signals [28]. New technologies like OLED displays [23] may even be better suited, since one the one hand, the onset will be the same for the whole pattern, and on the other hand, LCDs and OLEDs provide a constant luminance level during stimulation, whereas CRTs need a constants pulses to keep the phosphor lit up, causing fast local luminance flashes all the time [28]. Therefore, in contrast to CRTs, LCD and OLED stimulators, e.g., may allow for recording true offset responses [33]. However, caution should be taken when leveraging modern displays for stimulation, since their in-built electronics perform all kinds of sophisticated image-enhancing procedures including color-correction, brightness boosting, contrast enhancement by real-time adjustments of the colors or the backlight, or eyestrain-reducing blue light filtering, with the aim to improve the users’ experience, or to increase the monitors lifetime. This applies in particular to consumer electronics like TVs. Gaming monitors, in addition, use special acceleration drivers, which shut down the backlight, insert black frames (Black Frame Insertion, BFI), or employ variable refresh rates (e.g., Nvidia G-SYNC or AMD FreeSync) to clean the retained image from the eye. Therefore, one should disable any image processing or enhancing functionality in the monitor settings, before using the monitor as stimulator for electrophysiological experiments. Finally, it is advisable to perform a calibration with healthy volunteers using best-corrected and artificially reduced visual acuity and to collect normative data for the employed setup, as always recommended by ISCEV [34], in order to establish an individual conversion formula between the sweep VEP outcome and the estimated visual acuity.

No native resolution. Currently, the only display technology capable of multi-syncing (displaying different resolutions and refresh rates without the need for scaling).Display lag is extremely low due to its nature, which does not have the ability to store image data before output, unlike LCDs, plasma displays and OLED displays.

Our results showed that the mfERGs elicited by a stimulus array created on an OLED screen were comparable to the mfERGs elicited by a stimulus array created on a CRT screen. No significant difference was observed between the P1 amplitude of the first- and second-order kernels elicited by the OLED from that elicited by the CRT whereas the P1 amplitude of the first-order kernel elicited by the LCD stimuli was significantly smaller than that elicited by the CRT in all the groups of the averaged hexagonal elements. Only a few implicit times—the N1 implicit time from rings 2, 4, and 5 and the P1 implicit time from ring 5—were significantly different between the CRT and OLED monitors. In contrast, the N1, P1, and N2 implicit times of the first-order kernels were delayed in the mfERG elicited by the LCD in all of the rings compared to the mfERGs recorded elicited by the CRT screen. These findings indicate that the OLED screens would be better for creating stimuli to elicit mfERGs.

The use of OLED screens has expanded although there are still difficulties in producing large-size OLED screens, and their relatively high cost limits their use for television screens and computer monitors. Because OLED displays do not have a backlight, their black is blacker than that of LCD screens. Under low ambient conditions, an OLED screen can have a higher contrast than CRT and LCD screens. OLEDs also have the advantage of a faster response time than standard LCD screens. The LCD displays are capable of between 1 and 16 ms response times leading to a refresh rate of 60 to 480 Hz; however, an OLED can theoretically have less than a 0.01-ms response time enabling a refresh rate of up to 100,000 Hz. Thus, OLEDs can also be used as a flicker stimulus similar to CRTs.

The photosensor measurements showed that the luminance changes of the OLED and CRT screens were very rapid and not significantly different (Figure 4). However, the luminance changes were basically different, i.e., rectangular for the OLED and a train of bursts in CRT. The practical usefulness of these two screens can be confirmed by using them for mfERG recordings as used in routine clinical settings.

The characteristics of OLED screens have been evaluated in detail (Cooper, Jiang, Vildavski, Farrell, & Norcia, 2013; Elze, Taylor, & Bex, 2013; Ito, Ogawa, & Sunaga, 2013), and our results are in good agreement with these earlier evaluations. Recently, the characteristics of an OLED screen (Sony PVM-2541, 24.5-in.; Sony Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) have been precisely measured from the viewpoint of its applicability to visual psychophysics (Cooper et al., 2013). The tested OLED screen was reported to have excellent luminance and color uniformity; excellent low-luminance gradation; stable white and three primary colors throughout the wide luminance range; wide color space, especially for saturated green; and rapid luminance rise/fall times. The authors stated that if large enough OLED displays were constructed, it would be ideal for vision research. However, they also stated that the concept of one frame in the PVM-2541 is different from those in an LCD or CRT display, and it is unclear whether these differences will affect the human perception of short-duration stimuli.

The waveform of the mfERGs elicited by the OLED screen was comparable to that elicited by a CRT screen. The amplitude of P1 and implicit times of N1, P1, and N2 of the first kernel and the amplitudes of P1 and P2 and implicit times of P1 and P2 in the second kernel elicited by the OLED screen were not significantly different from that elicited by a CRT screen.

The luminance changes in the LCDs had a relatively slow rise from black to white and slow fall from white to black. Our previous experiments (Matsumoto et al., 2013) showed that the time delay caused a transient reduction in the averaged luminance of the entire display. To reduce the transient reduction, either decreasing the contrast of the checkerboards or using higher frequency–driven LCDs would be effective. But such a setup for the LCD screen is not easy when used in clinical practice.

When examining each component of the mfERGs, the amplitude of P1 of the first-order kernel and the amplitude of P2 of the second-order kernel elicited by an LCD screen were significantly different from those elicited by a CRT. Only the P1 amplitudes in all rings and the P2 amplitudes in rings 1 and 2 of the second-order kernel were identical between the waves elicited by the LCD and CRT screens. In addition, the implicit times of all components in all of the rings were significantly delayed when the LCD was used as a stimulator compared to that when the CRT was used. This is in good accord with the results by Kaltwasser, Horn, Kremers, and Juenemann (2009) who investigated the suitability of LCD as a visual stimulator for mfERGs. They stated that when an LCD screen was used as a stimulator, the increase in the implicit times and differences in the luminance-versus-time profile must be taken into account. Most of the LCD screens have similar properties with slow luminance rises and falls. The drive system of the LCD display used in this paper was vertical alignment (VA). This system has some advantages by having more uniform luminances and deeper black with a high contrast ratio than twisted nematic (TN) panels. The disadvantage is that they have a slower response time compared to TN panels. In the manufacturer"s specifications of the LCD monitor, the response speed is reported to be 25 ms for black-white-black, which is relatively slow. We measured the rise (black to white, 10% to 90% luminance) and fall times (white to black, 90% to 10% luminance), and the results were 6.2 and 9.6 ms, respectively (Supplemental Figure 2).

A significant delay in the implicit times of the first- and second-order kernels was observed in the mfERGs elicited by the LCD system compared to that elicited by the CRT screen (Figures 8 and 9). The VA of the LCD used in this study has a 25-ms response time, and we used a 60-Hz mode of stimulation. Each sequence of 60-Hz stimulation has a 16.67-ms stimulation period; thus, the first stimulation signal will be fused onto the second signal by 8.33 ms, and this mimics the 8.33 ms of delay in the waveform. In addition, significant reductions in the amplitude of the first-order kernel were observed in the mfERGs elicited by the LCD compared to that elicited by the CRT screen (Figures 8 and 9). We believe that not only the overlapping of the preceded luminance by 8.3 ms (25 − 16.7), but also the slower rising slope of the luminances (6.2 ms) might be responsible for the delay in the implicit times and reduction in the amplitude with a greater contribution by the latter. The longer response times influenced the amplitudes but not the implicit times. Uno, Tahara, Nakao, and Otori (1999) investigated the ERG responses after photostimulation with a varying duration of rise and fall times, and they reported that an increase in the rise and fall times caused a decrease in the amplitudes and prolongation in the latencies.

We believe that the differences of the response times, rise and fall times, and durations of the on-luminance between LCD and CRT screens were the cause of the significant differences in the values of the different components of the mfERGs obtained by the LCD as opposed to those elicited by CRT screens.

The fusion of the LCD responses implies that the m-sequences underlying the multifocal technique cannot be accurately reproduced by the LCD display. Therefore, further investigations on LCD screens with a 120-Hz refresh rate and/or inserting a black frame after each stimulus frame may be helpful to solve this. In other words, our results demonstrated that no black frames are necessary with OLEDs because no fusion occurred.

OLED stimulation had 9.2 ms of delay compared to CRT stimulation. Because the duration of the on-luminance was short enough compared to the 16.67 ms in the OLED, no fusion in the consecutive on-luminance was observed. In contrast, the duration of the on-luminance was relatively long in the VA LCD; in the case of white and white, fusion at the beginning of the second frame took place. Thus, the mfERG waveforms were blunted because the stimulations could not be clearly separated as shown on Figure 4 and Supplemental Figure 2. We conclude that some of the LCD monitors may be not appropriate for eliciting mfERGs or be used with care.

There are several limitations in this study. The frequency used was not 75 Hz, which is widely used in clinical practice. The mechanism for the differences in the implicit times between mfERGs recorded using different monitors was not determined. The properties of the luminance changes were different, and their influence on the retinal response was unknown. Investigating the influence of the different properties on the human visual system will be interesting, but we have only investigated the possibility of substituting the CRT monitor with another monitor as a visual stimulator for mfERG. We investigated a single LCD and a single OLED monitor, but the input lag and response time are unique in LCD and OLED screens. Therefore, a better LCD screen or a better OLED monitor as a visual stimulator may be found with further investigations. Moreover, we only used the S1721 Flexscan LCD monitor, which is a VA type LCD. A TN LCD, which has 5 ms of response time, may minimize the overlapping and may show similar results as OLED displays. In the literature of Cooper et al. (2013), the LG Flatron D2342 LCD, one of the TN LCDs, shows increasing slope up to 5 ms and, after that, shows a plateau (saturation) response. However, most TN LCD panels have a disadvantage in that their response time increased markedly when used under a special mode, such as fine color drawing or low-contrast conditions. Further investigations are needed to compare commercially available TN LCDs with CRTs as visual stimulators to elicit mfERGs.

In conclusion, an OLED screen is a better substitute for a CRT screen on which to create stimuli to elicit mfERGs. Although the waveforms of the mfERGs are similar, they are not completely identical. We recommend that normative mfERGs elicited by OLED screens be collected from normal eyes before the mfERGs from diseased eyes are examined.

The most prevalent type of monitor today is the cathode ray tube (CRT). Despite its rather sci-fi sounding name, a CRT is the same as the picture tube inside your TV. They work by firing beams of electrons at phosphor dots on the inside of a glass tube. The phosphors in a CRT are chemicals that emit red, green or blue light when hit by electrons. These monitors are capable of multiple resolutions, give the best look to full-motion video and provide better control over colour calibration for graphic artists.

On the down side, they hog a lot of room and weigh more than several sacks of potatoes. You can get more compact CRTs called short-depth or short-neck monitors which are a couple of inches shallower than regular CRTs. Unless space is a primary consideration, most people buy a CRT display because they offer good performance at an affordable price.

In the opposing corner are flat panel displays or LCDs (liquid crystal displays) commonly used in laptops and fast becoming popular as desktop monitors. Their major selling points are a slim profile and light weight. A CRT can be deeper than it is wide, whereas a LCD with a base is only about a handspan deep. No heavy lifting required with a LCD; they weigh less than half the average CRT. LCDs require half the power of CRTs and emit much less electromagnetic radiation which can interfere with other electronic devices.

In the screen of a LCD monitor, each pixel is produced by a tiny cell which contains a thin layer of liquid crystals. These rod-shaped molecules bend light in response to an electric current. It"s the same display technology that resides in your digital watch but more sophisticated.

LCDs tend to be clearer than CRTs which can suffer from convergence or focus difficulties. Their improved clarity means that even small LCDs can display higher resolutions than the corresponding sized CRT. They also make small text easier to read. Unlike CRTs, LCD monitors have only one optimal resolution. At lower resolutions, the screen is redrawn as a smaller area or all the pixels in the image are blown-up to fill the screen. The latter solution can make images look jagged and blocky so be sure the resolution of the LCD is the resolution you want to use.

The standard monitor size used to be 15 inches, but 17-19 inch monitors have become the norm as prices have decreased. You can get a 17 inch CRT starting at $300. An adequate 19 inch CRT can be had for $400 but better quality will cost more. If you need a large screen for group presentations, a 29 inch monitor will cost a few thousand dollars. You can get a 29 inch PC/TV hybrid monitor for about $1000, but these monitors have low resolutions and are unable to produce high-quality images.

A LCD is about double the cost of a CRT with a comparable viewing area. The minimum size you should consider for a LCD is 15 inches with prices starting at $600. Larger LCDs go up in price from there with an 18 inch monitor costing around $3000. Buying a flat panel display will definitely leave your wallet flatter too.

A factor for both CRTs and LCDs is resolution. The number of pixels horizontally and vertically defines a monitor"s resolution in pixels or dots per inch (ppi or dpi). The greater the resolution, the more information or image you"ll be able to view at once. The average user will find a resolution of 1024x768 more than sufficient for everyday work. You can achieve this resolution on CRT monitors 17 inches and larger or LCDs 15 inches and larger. Keep in mind that CRTs can display multiple resolutions, but LCDs are optimized at only one resolution.

Monitors can come with a variety of extras. Some have built-in speakers or jacks for microphones and headphones. Other monitors have dual inputs so you can connect two computers to the same monitor. With the advent of USB (Universal Serial Bus), some monitors have USB hubs at the back, allowing you to connect more peripherals. You can also get accessories like anti-glare filters and specialized mounting stands that help minimize glare and provide a comfortable working position.

To keep your utility bill down, you should look for a monitor that is Energy Star compliant. Energy Star is a program developed by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to make energy-saving office equipment like computers and monitors. An Energy Star monitor automatically goes to sleep or powers down after a period of inactivity. This feature can save 60-80% of power during idle times. All you have to do to wake up the monitor is touch the keyboard or mouse.

The majority of monitors are certified as "low emission" since they meet standards like MPR II or TCO. These guidelines were developed in Sweden (the acronyms are Swedish too) by a number of organizations to set limits for electric and magnetic field emissions. The newer TCO standards are the strictest. So if you"re concerned about emissions look for MPR II or TCO certification, not just the words "low emission."

If you"ve decided to get a new CRT then it should have a sufficiently high refresh rate. This refers to how often the screen is redrawn per second. With low refresh rates you can get screen flicker and eye strain. Aim for a rate of 75 Hz for a monitor up to 17 inches in size and 85 Hz for any larger monitor. LCDs are basically flicker free so refresh rates aren"t important.

Another consideration for CRTs is dot pitch. This is the distance in millimeters between phosphors of the same colour. The smaller the dot pitch, the sharper the image. Opt for a dot pitch of 0.26 mm or smaller. You can measure dot pitch both horizontally and vertically, but monitor specs usually quote horizontal dot pitch. Occasionally, the dot pitch is measured diagonally. By multiplying diagonal dot pitch by 0.866, you can calculate horizontal dot pitch.

One of the main disadvantages of LCDs when compared to CRTs is their limited viewing angle. When viewing a LCD straight on it looks fine. But the screen will appear washed-out if you move your head over to the side and look at it from an extreme angle. Low-end LCDs can have viewing angles of only 100 degrees which won"t give everyone crowded round your desk a clear view. For a standard 15 inch LCD try to get a 140 degree viewing angle. Up that by 20-40 degrees when shopping for an 18 inch LCD.

The brightness of LCD monitors is another important factor. LCD monitors have several backlights that provide illumination. Brightness is measured in units called nits. The majority of LCDs produce 150-200 nits which is fine for most users. The backlights in a LCD are good for 10 to 50 thousand hours of operation.

LCDs can provide a range of options for positioning a display. The common way to view a screen is landscape mode (longer than wide). Some LCDs let you pivot the screen 90 degrees so you can view it in portrait mode (taller than wide) which is great if you"re growing tired of scrolling so often. You should also check out whether the screen can both tilt and swivel. Easy adjustment is important if you"ll be doing presentations. You can even mount some LCDs on the wall like a picture.

If space and aesthetics are important to you, then a flat panel is the way to go. Compared to CRT displays they use very little power, emit less heat and radiation, take up a smaller amount of space and are easy on the eyes.

If space is not an issue, it"s probably better to get a good quality 19" CRT monitor than an entry-level 15" flat panel. As well, if you use your computer a lot for graphics and games, a CRT offers a sharper and more detailed display.

CRT stands for cathode-ray tube, a TV or PC monitor that produces images using an electron gun. These were the first displays available, but they are now outdated and replaced by smaller, more compact, and energy-efficient LCD display monitors.

In contrast, a Liquid crystal display, or an LCD monitor, uses liquid crystals to produce sharp, flicker-free images. These are now the standard monitors that are giving the traditional CRTs a run for their money.

Although the production of CRT monitors has slowed down, due to environmental concerns and the physical preferences of consumers, they still have several advantages over the new-age LCD monitors. Below, we shed some light on the differences between CRT and LCD displays.

CRTLCDWhat it isAmong the earliest electronic displays that used a cathode ray tubeA flat-panel display that uses the light-modulating properties of liquid crystals

CRTs boast a great scaling advantage because they don’t have a fixed resolution, like LCDs. This means that CRTs are capable of handling multiple combinations of resolutions and refresh rates between the display and the computer.

In turn, the monitor is able to bypass any limitations brought about by the incompatibility between a CRT display and a computer. What’s more, CRT monitors can adjust the electron beam to reduce resolution without affecting the picture quality.

On the other hand, LCD monitors have a fixed resolution, meaning they have to make some adjustments to any images sent to them that are not in their native resolution. The adjustments include centering the image on the screen and scaling the image down to the native resolution.

CRT monitors project images by picking up incoming signals and splitting them into audio and video components. More specifically, the video signals are taken through the electron gun and into a single cathode ray tube, through a mesh, to illuminate the phosphorus inside the screen and light the final image.

LCD screens, on the other hand, are made of two pieces of polarized glass that house a thin layer of liquid crystals. They work on the principle of blocking light. As a result, when light from a backlight shines through the liquid crystals, the light bends to respond to the electric current.

Thanks to the versatility of pixels, LCD screens offer crisper images than CRT monitors. The clarity of the images is a result of the LCD screen’s ability to produce green, blue, and red lights simultaneously, whereas CRTs need to blur the pixels and produce either of the lights exclusively.

The diversity of the pixels also ensures LCD screens produce at least twice as much brightness as CRTs. The light on these screens also remains uninterrupted by sunlight or strong artificial lighting, which reduces general blurriness and eyestrain.

Over time, however, dead pixels negatively affect the LCD screen’s visual displays. Burnout causes these dead pixels, which affect the visual clarity of your screen by producing black or other colored dots in the display.

CRT monitors also have better motion resolution compared to LCDs. The latter reduces resolution significantly when content is in motion due to the slow pixel response time, making the images look blurry or streaky.

With CRTs, you don’t experience any display lag because the images are illuminated on the screen at the speed of light, thus preventing any delays. However, lag is a common problem, especially with older LCD displays.

CRTs are prone to flickeringduring alternating periods of brightness and darkness. LCDs don’t flicker as much thanks to the liquid pixels that retain their state when the screen refreshes.

CRTs have a thick and clunky design that’s quite unappealing. The monitor has a casing or cabinet made of either plastic or metal that houses the cathode ray tube. Then there’s the neck or glass funnel, coated with a conductive coating made using lead oxide.

Leaded glass is then poured on top to form the screen, which has a curvature. In addition, the screen contributes to about 65% of the total weight of a CRT.

LCDs feature low-profile designs that make them the best choice for multiple portable display devices, like smartphones and tablets. LCD displays have a lightweight construction, are portable, and can be made into much larger sizes than the largest CRTs, which couldn’t be made into anything bigger than 40–45 inches.

A German scientist called Karl Ferdinand Braun invented the earliest version of the CRT in 1897. However, his invention was not isolated, as it was among countless other inventions that took place between the mid-1800s and the late 1900s.

CRT technology isn’t just for displays; it can also be utilized for storage. These storage tubes can hold onto a picture for as long as the tube is receiving electricity.

Like the CRT, the invention of the modern LCD was not a one-man show. It began in 1888 when the Austrian botanist and chemist Friedrich Richard Kornelius Reinitzer discovered liquid crystals.

Later, in 1897, Karl Ferdinand Braun, a German physicist, invented a cathode ray tube with a fluorescent screen and named it the “Braun Tube.” By developing the cathode ray tube oscilloscope, he was the first person to endorse the use of CRT as a display device.

LCD displays are a much more recent discovery compared to CRTs. Interestingly, the French professor of mineralogy, Charles-Victor Mauguin, performed the first experiments with liquid crystals between plates in 1911.

George H. Heilmeier, an American engineer, made significant enough contributions towards the LCD invention to be inducted into the Hall of Fame of National Inventors. And, in 1968, he presented the liquid crystal display to the professional world, working at an optimal temperature of 80 degrees Celsius.

Many other inventors worked towards the creation of LCDs. As a result, in the 1970s, new inventions focused on ensuring that LCD displays worked at an optimal temperature. And, in the 1980s, they perfected the crystal mixtures enough to stimulate demand and a promotion boom. The first LCDs were produced in 1971 and 1972 by ILIXCO (now LXD Incorporated).

Although they may come in at a higher price point, LCD displays are more convenient in the long run. They last almost twice as long as CRTs are energy efficient, and their compact and thin size make them ideal for modern-day use.

LCDs are also more affordable compared to other display monitors available today. So, you can go for a CRT monitor for its ease of use, faster response rates, reduced flickering, and high pixel resolution. However, we don’t see why you should look back since there are so many new options that will outperform both CRTs and LCDs.

First, we will provide a brief technical overview of functional principles as they relate to visual stimulus presentation. Detailed descriptions and parameter measurements are already available from the existing literature; however, our intention here is to equip readers with limited technical expertise with the necessary knowledge to set up computer experiments with LCD monitors. Thus, we keep our explanations relatively short and simplified.

LCD monitors work differently: Each pixel consists of liquid crystal threads that can be twisted or arranged in parallel by an electrical current applied to them. This leads to a polarization effect that either allows or prevents light passing through. A white light source located behind this crystal array uniformly and constantly illuminates the array. To display a black pixel, the crystal threads are twisted by 90° such that no light will pass through. A white pixel is achieved by aligning the crystals such that maximum light is allowed to pass through, until a different, non-white color needs to be displayed (see the lower panel of Fig. 1 for an LCD pixel’s brightness over time). This is a static process, not a pulsed one as in CRTs.

In theory, the difference in presentation methods, namely a strobing versus a static image, should be of no consequence if the light energy that falls onto the retina remains the same over the time period of one single frame. As the Talbot-Plateau law states2 is equally well detectable as a light flash presented for 60 ms at 40 cd/m2. This suggests that temporal integration can be easily described by energy summation”. Thus, in principle, LCD and CRT monitors should be able to yield comparable results.

However, due to the differences in technology, the visual signals produced by the two display types have different shapes (i.e., a different light energy-over-time-curve; see Fig. 1). Moreover, default luminance as well as visual-signal response times (in addition to other parameters, see below) differ between most CRT and LCD monitors

Table 1 reports the parameters we considered in setting up the CRT and LCD monitors. Certainly, most of them are commonly considered when setting up a computer experiment; nevertheless we deemed it important to mention them here explicitly, as their neglect might have unintended consequences. We used a 17” Fujitsu Siemens Scenicview P796-2 CRT color monitor previously used in several published studies including studies with masked presentation conditions

Our measurements revealed several interesting characteristics: First, luminance of the LCD monitor at default setting (i.e., maximum brightness) exceeded the CRT luminance at a ratio of 3.25:1. However, comparable average luminance can be (and was) achieved by downregulating the LCD monitor (the older CRT technology emits less energy even at maximum settings, see Table 2), without participants perceiving it as unnaturally dark. If one plans to upgrade from CRT to LCD monitors in an experimental laboratory, we therefore recommend measuring the CRT monitors’ brightness levels and matching them in the new LCD monitors’ user setup, if comparability with the old setup is needed. This will minimize hardware-dependent variability, thus contributing to better replicability. Please note that a brightness adaption is not a necessary precondition when employing LCD monitors; researchers should simply be aware that the brightness level can have an influence onto the resulting effects, especially in time-critical experiments with short and/or masked presentation. Thus, we recommend the adaptation for time-critical experiments in which researchers orient on existing empirical evidence gathered with CRT monitors. Furthermore, gray-to-gray response times varied slightly depending on the employed brightness levels2), so we suggest that researchers can rely on this more efficient method as an approximation.

For the empirical comparison of human performance with CRT and LCD monitors, we relied on these results and set the monitor settings accordingly (see Method section below).

Participants were administered a masked number priming task and a subsequent forced-choice prime discrimination task using both a CRT and an LCD monitor. In this well-established paradigm

Of central interest was the question whether both monitors would yield comparable masked priming effects. Monitors were set according to the parameters described in the previous section (see also Method section below). In order to obtain conclusive evidence, we decided for sequential hypothesis testing using Bayes factorshttps://osf.io/g842s/.

With CRT"s these controls are quite straightforward, as the control labeled Contrast is actually gain or the slope of the output curve with increasing input voltage, and the control labeled Brightness is actually offset or the overall level of all the points on the curve, with the whole curve shifted up or down with increasing or decreasing control adjustements. With most CRT monitors, the contrast control can be set to maximum unless either that makes the bright colours unpleasantly bright to your eye or you can"t see fine changes in level of about three level steps at bright (ie. you can"t see the difference in a step between RGB levels of 252,252,252 to 255,255,255). The Brightness control is then used to set the black level so one can just see the finest dark steps with no colour management between RGB levels 0,0,0 and about 8,8,8 (preferrably viewing in the dark and with a white border in the view so the eye adjusts to the full dynamic range of the monitor), which could represent a step from the maximum black level of the monitor to a level which is about 5000:1 below full white (over 12 f-stops) on an excellent monitor but more likely to be about 2000:1 to 1000:1 or 11 to 10 f-stops below bright on an average CRT monitor with it"s native gamma response of about 2.5. This is native to most modern monitors in without Look Up Table adjustments - no gamma correction. Note that Mac computers usually apply a correction by default in their LUT"s to make the response appear to be gamma 1.8, in which case a step this size will represent about a 500:1 contrast ratio step (9 f-stops down) and one would have to use a smaller step size of about 4 levels out of 256 in order to get a 2000:1 brightness step.

Due to non-linearities in their response, you can not adjust LCD monitor controls this way, as too much contrast causes clipping of the bright response as the monitor brightness approaches its maximum, and due to limitations in the minimum brightness of the monitors output (their limited contrast ratio) the ability to adjust black level with the brightness control is very limited. In my experience and according to Colorvision"s recommendation, these settings should be left at their default settings. Note that I have found that the monitors with their default settings are not as bright as the maximum levels quoted in their specifications (only about 60% as bright), but at least modern LCD monitors, even with their default settings, compare in brightness to CRT monitors and default settings produce a predictable result that can be calibrated and profiled.

We often get asked, “should I replace my old CRT with a new LCD? What is the difference?” There are several factors to consider including price, resolution, energy savings and disposal. Listed below are some of the top reasons why the LCD may be a better choice.Size and Weight: The color LCD is thinner and much lighter. It is much easier to install into tight areas. The CRT can weigh up to 50 pounds and needs additional bracing and heavier supports.

Price: At first glance, the CRT wins here. It is older technology and the price is cheaper. However you give up all the features mentioned in this list. Also disposal costs and higher energy costs may negate any price savings.

Power: Energy savings on the LCD can make a big difference in companies having multiple units in production. Savings can be as much as 1/3 over the older CRT.

Summary: Based on price alone, you may choose to stay with the CRT. However, you must consider the energy cost savings to operate an LCD vs. CRT, plus the added cost of disposal for CRTs. In many instances, the CRT may actually cost more in the long run. With its large, high resolution screen and compact housing for easy installation, the LCD offers many advantages over the older CRT technology.

No native resolution. Currently, the only display technology capable of multi-syncing (displaying different resolutions and refresh rates without the need for scaling). Display lag is extremely low due to its nature, which does not have the ability to store image data before output, unlike LCDs, plasma displays and OLED displays.