comparison of crt and lcd monitors supplier

The crucial difference between CRT and LCD exist in their image forming technique. CRT displays image on the screen by making use of electron beam, however, LCD utilizes liquid crystals for the formation of an image on the screen.

Another major difference that exists between CRT and LCD is their size and dimension. CRT monitors are thicker and heavier but small in size than that of LCD.

We will discuss some other important differences between CRT and LCD but before that have a look at the rough draft of the contents to be discussed under this article.

DisadvantagesHeavy, gets heated at rapid rate during operation.Provides fixed aspect ratio and resolution, requires large area, operating temperature is limited between 0 -60 degrees.

CRT is expanded as Cathode ray tube. It is a vacuum tube that produces images when a sharp beam of the electron which is highly focused hits the phosphor screen that is present at the front-end of the tube.

It consists of certain basic components that are responsible for the generation of an image on the screen. The figure below shows internal system involved in a CRT:

An electron gun assembly is present that produces a sharp beam of electrons. These electrons when moves inside the tube experience acceleration by the anode and focused towards the screen.

The two deflection plates are the reason for the movement of the beam horizontally and vertically. However, as the two movements are not dependent on each other thus the beam after hitting the screen, gets fixed anywhere on it.

When we talk about the screen of CRT then it is basically termed as the faceplate. The inner surface where the beam strikes is basically a phosphor coating. This phosphor is responsible for the conversion of electrical energy generated by the movement of the electron beam into light energy.

It is noteworthy in case of CRT that phosphor screen generates secondary electrons when electron beam hits it. So, in order to sustain an electrical equilibrium, the secondary emitted electrons must be collected which is done by aquadag.

LCD stands for Liquid Crystal Display. In LCD liquid crystal is utilized in order to generate a definite image on the screen. Liquid crystal is basically termed as the fourth state of matter. It permits the display to be very thin and thus supports numerous applications.

When we talk about LCD then its principle of working is such that light energy is not produced by LCD, despite light energy generated by an external source is controlled in order to have light or dark appearance at some particular areas.

Here, a layer of liquid crystal is placed between 2 polarizing films. When light emitted by an external source falls on the layer of liquid crystal then their combination generates a coloured visible image that is displayed on the screen.

A backlight present at the back end of the screen emits light that after passing through the polarizing film gets polarized. The light can be horizontally or vertically polarized that rely on the type of polarization filter.

An external potential is provided to the liquid crystal. This potential changes the orientation of the molecules. After this polarized light is passed to the crystal that generates bright and dark spots at the screen of the display.

One of the excellent property of LCD over CRT is its antiglare property. LCD screen more efficiently reduces the glare generated by light as compared to CRT.

CRT is more dominant to flickering as it possesses a low refresh rate that causes a drop in image brightness that is easily recognized by naked eyes.As against, flickering is not that much higher in LCD due to its high refresh rate.

CRT and LCD both have their separate advantages and disadvantage over the image formation technique. But LCD has replaced CRT very efficiently in the recent era. Despite LCD is more costly than CRT but due to its better image display and almost negligible flickering property, it is widely used.

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.

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.

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

FlickeringFlickering is recognizable by the naked eye because of the monitor’s low refresh rateFlickering is almost negligible thanks to its high refresh rate

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.

The images created on the phosphor-coated screen consist of alternating red, blue, and green (RGB) lights, creating countless different hues. The electron gun emits an electron beam that scans the front of the tube repetitively to create and refresh the image at least 100 times every second.

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.

The liquid crystal molecules are then aligned to determine which color filter to illuminate, thus creating the colors and images you see on the screen. Interestingly, you can find color filters within every pixel, which is made up of three subpixels—red, blue, and green—that work together to produce millions of different colors.

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.

The invention of the cathode ray tube began with the discovery of cathode beams by Julius Plucker and Johann Heinrich Wilhelm Geissler in 1854. Interestingly, in 1855, Heinrich constructed glass tubes and a hand-crack mercury pump that contained a superior vacuum tube, the “Geissler tube.”

Later, in 1859, Plucker inserted metal plates into the Geissler tube and noticed shadows being cast on the glowing walls of the tube. He also noticed that the rays bent under the influence of a magnet.

Sir William Crookes confirmed the existence of cathode rays in 1878 by displaying them in the “Crookes tube” and showing that the rays could be deflected by magnetic fields.

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.

Later, in 1907, Boris Rosing, a Russian scientist, and Vladimir Zworykin used the cathode ray tube in the receiver of a television screen to transmit geometric patterns onto the screen.

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.

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!

"Between 0.0001 and 0.00001 nits" "Sony claims an OLED contrast range of 1,000,000:1. When I asked how the contrast could be so high I was told that the surface is SO black the contrast is almost infinite. If the number representing the dark end of the contrast scale is nearly zero then dividing that number into the brightest value results in a very, very high contrast ratio."

Does not normally occur at 100% brightness level. At levels below 100% flicker often occurs with frequencies between 60 and 255 Hz, since often pulse-width modulation is used to dim OLED screens.

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.

Responsible for performing installations and repairs (motors, starters, fuses, electrical power to machine etc.) for industrial equipment and machines in order to support the achievement of Nelson-Miller’s business goals and objectives:

• Perform highly diversified duties to install and maintain electrical apparatus on production machines and any other facility equipment (Screen Print, Punch Press, Steel Rule Die, Automated Machines, Turret, Laser Cutting Machines, etc.).

• Provide electrical emergency/unscheduled diagnostics, repairs of production equipment during production and performs scheduled electrical maintenance repairs of production equipment during machine service.

Resolution on a CRT is flexible and a newer model will provide you with viewing resolutions of up to 1600 by 1200 and higher, whereas on an LCD the resolution is fixed within each monitor (called a native resolution). The resolution on an LCD can be changed, but if you’re running it at a resolution other than its native resolution you will notice a drop in performance or quality.

Both types of monitors (newer models) provide bright and vibrant color display. However, LCDs cannot display the maximum color range that a CRT can. In terms of image sharpness, when an LCD is running at its native resolution the picture quality is perfectly sharp. On a CRT the sharpness of the picture can be blemished by soft edges or a flawed focus.

A CRT monitor can be viewed from almost any angle, but with an LCD this is often a problem. When you use an LCD, your view changes as you move different angles and distances away from the monitor. At some odd angles, you may notice the picture fade, and possibly look as if it will disappear from view.

Some users of a CRT may notice a bit of an annoying flicker, which is an inherent trait based on a CRTs physical components. Today’s graphics cards, however, can provide a high refresh rate signal to the CRT to get rid of this otherwise annoying problem. LCDs are flicker-free and as such the refresh rate isn’t an important issue with LCDs.

Dot pitch refers to the space between the pixels that make up the images on your screen, and is measured in millimeters. The less space between pixels, the better the image quality. On either type of monitor, smaller dot pitch is better and you’re going to want to look at something in the 0.26 mm dot pitch or smaller range.

Most people today tend to look at a 17-inch CRT or bigger monitor. When you purchase a 17-inch CRT monitor, you usually get 16.1 inches or a bit more of actual viewing area, depending on the brand and manufacturer of a specific CRT. The difference between the “monitor size” and the “view area” is due to the large bulky frame of a CRT. If you purchase a 17″ LCD monitor, you actually get a full 17″ viewable area, or very close to a 17″.

There is no denying that an LCD wins in terms of its physical size and the space it needs. CRT monitors are big, bulky and heavy. They are not a good choice if you’re working with limited desk space, or need to move the monitor around (for some odd reason) between computers. An LCD on the other hand is small, compact and lightweight. LCDs are thin, take up far less space and are easy to move around. An average 17-inch CRT monitor could be upwards of 40 pounds, while a 17&-inch LCD would weigh in at around 15 pounds.

As an individual one-time purchase an LCD monitor is going to be more expensive. Throughout a lifetime, however, LCDs are cheaper as they are known to have a longer lifespan and also a lower power consumption. The cost of both technologies have come down over the past few years, and LCDs are reaching a point where smaller monitors are within many consumers’ price range. You will pay more for a 17″ LCD compared to a 17″ CRT, but since the CRT’s actual viewing size is smaller, it does bring the question of price back into proportion. Today, fewer CRT monitors are manufactured as the price on LCDs lowers and they become mainstream.

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.

Text and images (scans of census records) are crisper and sharper and the LCD monitor is easier on your eyes. Monitor"s size: Traditional monitors are similar to a TV because both of them have the CRT (Cathode Ray Tube). That is the reason for its bigger size. It therefore occupies more space at the desk. It is also heavy.

However, LCD monitors have thin flat screen. Therefore occupies very less space and is lighter than the CRT monitor. LCD monitors can be fixed even on wall. Display Size: Even though the display size of a CRT monitor is calculated diagonally, the actual display size is smaller. For instance a 17" CRT monitor will actually have a display size of only 16" However, the display size of 17" LCD monitor will have 17" display size. Resolution: CRT monitors can show different resolutions. The resolution can be changed as required. LCD Monitors will have Native Resolution and therefore has a fixed resolution. The best resolution will be the native resolution for that LCD monitor. Viewing Direction: A CRT screen can be viewed from all directions. And from different distance. But LCD monitors cannot be viewed from all directions. LCD monitors can only be viewed straight. Therefore its viewing direction is limited. If viewed from other directions the colors will change and sometimes the vision will be unclear if not viewed straight. But in recent years the new LCD monitors have improved on this defect. Radiation Emission: The radiation emission in CRT monitors are higher. This will not be visible normally but it will affect eyesight and may cause head ache. Long term use of these monitors may even affect the eyes adversely. LCD monitors do not have this type of Radiation emission. Therefore LCD monitors are good for the eyes. Price: CRT monitors are priced very cheap. However they consume more power. LCD monitors are priced higher, but they consume less electricity. Though the electricity consumption is not very significant for personal use, it is very cost efficient in big organizations with many computers.

Text and images (scans of census records) are crisper and sharper and the LCD monitor is easier on your eyes. Dot pitch: This is the space between dots and is measured in fractions of a millimeter, e.g., .25mm. The smaller the number the better because the dots are tighter. Many manufacturers don%u2019t even list the dot pitch anymore and you probably won%u2019t be able to tell the difference between a .22 and .27 pitch anyway. So, if you like the monitor then don%u2019t worry about the dot pitch. Passive-matrix vs. active-matrix: Do not buy a passive-matrix monitor. I seriously doubt you%u2019ll even see one for sale, but%u2026just in case. Having said that, there are some new passive-matrix technologies that are worth buying. If the monitor isn"t TFT (a type of active-matrix), look for CSTN or DSTN (the latest passive technologies). Brightness: How bright is the picture, expressed as cd/m (I have no idea what the units mean). Look for a brightness level of 200 cd/m or greater. Again, if the monitor specs don%u2019t list this value (not all do) be sure you can get your money back. If the lighting in your office (kitchen table) is subdued the brightness factor won%u2019t be as important as if you have a lot of sunlight streaming in. Don%u2019t pay extra for extra brightness unless you%u2019re worried about bright sunlight. Overall, the contrast ratio will have a bigger impact on picture quality. Monitor"s size: Traditional monitors are similar to a TV because both of them have the CRT (Cathode Ray Tube). That is the reason for its bigger size. It therefore occupies more space at the desk. It is also heavy. However, LCD monitors have thin flat screen. Therefore occupies very less space and is lighter than the CRT monitor. LCD monitors can be fixed even on wall. Display Size: Even though the display size of a CRT monitor is calculated diagonally, the actual display size is smaller. For instance a 17" CRT monitor will actually have a display size of only 16" However, the display size of 17" LCD monitor will have 17" display size. Resolution: CRT monitors can show different resolutions. The resolution can be changed as required. LCD Monitors will have Native Resolution and therefore has a fixed resolution. The best resolution will be the native resolution for that LCD monitor.

Speaking of easy on your eyes, there isn"t any glare, and the flat screen means no distortion. By the way, even those expensive old-fashioned flat screen CRT monitors have some distortion. Monitor"s size: Traditional monitors are similar to a TV because both of them have the CRT (Cathode Ray Tube). That is the reason for its bigger size. It therefore occupies more space at the desk. It is also heavy. However, LCD monitors have thin flat screen. Therefore occupies very less space and is lighter than the CRT monitor. LCD monitors can be fixed even on wall. Display Size: Even though the display size of a CRT monitor is calculated diagonally, the actual display size is smaller. For instance a 17" CRT monitor will actually have a display size of only 16" However, the display size of 17" LCD monitor will have 17" display size. Resolution: CRT monitors can show different resolutions. The resolution can be changed as required. LCD Monitors will have Native Resolution and therefore has a fixed resolution. The best resolution will be the native resolution for that LCD monitor. Viewing Direction: A CRT screen can be viewed from all directions. And from different distance. But LCD monitors cannot be viewed from all directions. LCD monitors can only be viewed straight. Therefore its viewing direction is limited. If viewed from other directions the colors will change and sometimes the vision will be

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Associated DataThe empirical experiment was preregistered. The preregistration, as well as all data, analysis scripts, and experimental materials are available at (https://osf.io/g842s/).

Liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors are nowadays standard in computerized visual presentation. However, when millisecond precise presentation is concerned, they have often yielded imprecise and unreliable presentation times, with substantial variation across specific models, making it difficult to know whether they can be used for precise vision experiments or not. The present paper intends to act as hands-on guide to set up an experiment requiring millisecond precise visual presentation with LCD monitors. It summarizes important characteristics relating to precise visual stimulus presentation, enabling researchers to transfer parameters reported for cathode ray tube (CRT) monitors to LCD monitors. More importantly, we provide empirical evidence from a preregistered study showing the suitability of LCD monitors for millisecond precise timing research. Using sequential testing, we conducted a masked number priming experiment using CRT and LCD monitors. Both monitor types yielded comparable results as indicated by Bayes factor favoring the null hypothesis of no difference between display types. More specifically, we found masked number priming under conditions of zero awareness with both types of monitor. Thus, the present study highlights the importance of hardware settings for empirical psychological research; inadequate settings might lead to more “noise” in results thereby concealing potentially existing effects.

With modern display technology becoming increasingly advanced, bulky cathode ray tube (CRT) monitors are (with few exceptions) no longer being produced. Instead, flat panel technologies have become the de-facto standard and among those, liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors are most prevalent. This technological change has also affected experimental research relying on computerized presentation of stimuli. Based on decades of experience with CRT monitors, their characteristics are well known and they have proven to provide reliable and precise stimulus presentation

The present paper summarizes the current knowledge base regarding important differences between CRT and LCD monitors; it aims to provide a hands-on guide for the setup of computer experiments using LCD monitors in a manner that yields reliable presentation times and CRT-comparable results. Additionally, we provide empirical evidence from a masked priming task and a prime-discrimination task, demonstrating that current-generation LCD monitors can be used for masked visual stimulus presentation.

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

FeatureDescriptionRecommendationCommentExperiment settingLCD panel typeIPS (in-plane switching): true-color and contrast less dependent on viewing angle, slower response time;

Native resolution, screen diagonal, and aspect ratioWith constant screen diagonal and aspect ratio: The higher the resolution, the smaller objects and stimuli that are measured in pixels appear on the screen.To achieve results as close as possible to a CRT experiment, calculate the size (e.g., in mm) of one native pixel and resize the stimuli if necessary, so that the real size (in mm) on the CRT corresponds to the real size on the LCD.Take the aspect ratio into account to avoid distortions like they would appear when a resolution with an aspect ratio of 4:3 (e.g., 1024 * 768) is applied to a monitor with a native aspect ratio of 16:9 (e.g., native resolution of 1920 * 1080). If you need to do the latter, consider letterboxing.In the present study, CRT resolution was 1024 * 768 (visible area 324 * 243 mm, aspect ratio 4:3), diagonal 17”, dimensions of 1 pixel: 0.316 * 0.316 mm. LCD resolution was 1024 * 768 (visible area 531 * 299 mm, aspect ratio 16:9, dimensions of 1 pixel (letterboxed to 4:3) was 0.389 * 0.389 mm). LCD stimulus size thus needed to be enlarged by a factor of 1.23. Stimuli were adjusted to match sizes.

Monitor brightness (as can be set in the monitor’s user menu)Provides the same amount of radiated energy in a single frame compared to CRTs.Measure the brightness of a used (and warmed up) experimental CRT with a luminance meter with both a completely black and a completely white screen. Try to match both values with the LCD.When an exact match is not possible, try to adjust the monitor’s contrast setting accordingly (i.e., usually downregulate the LCD).In the present study, CRT settings used an on-screen-display brightness setting of 100%; LCDs were set to 9%.

Refresh rateMultiple complex effects are dependent on the choice of the correct refresh rate, particularly the multiples of the presentation time of a single frame.Choose the refresh rate to match your CRT or, when designing a new experiment, to match your desired stimulus presentation times as closely as possible.Example: Stimulus presentation 30 ms; typical refresh rates are 60, 70, 100, 120, 144 Hz. Possible choices are two frames of 60 Hz = 2 * (1/60) = ca. 33 (ms). A better choice would be three frames of 100 Hz = 3 * (1/100) = 30 (ms).The experiment in the present study used a refresh rate of 100 Hz with presentation times consisting of multiples of 10 ms.

DCC (dynamic capacitance compensation)Faster gray-to-gray response times at the cost of a constant delay of approx. one frame.Turn on when possible.Signals tend to slightly overshoot a few percent brighter than intended, typically for approx. 1 ms.

We tested various monitor user settings, refresh rates, resolutions and luminance settings (see materials available at https://osf.io/g842s/) with regard to the emitted light energy–over-time-curve and therefore response characteristics (i.e., onset and offset of full screen and centrally presented stimuli). Measurements were conducted with a photodiode setup, using both an oscilloscope (model “Agilent MSOX 3012 A”) and a self-developed microcontroller setup as measurement devices. Stimuli were black and white squares.

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.

Note. Brightness refers to monitor menu settings, cd/m² was measured with the luminance meter and also calculated from the measured voltage (i.e., via oscilloscope). The voltage function matches the values measured with the luminance meters almost perfectly.

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/.

As we aimed to find evidence for or against monitor type differences in priming, we applied sequential hypothesis testing with Bayes factors (BF), which allow quantification of evidence both for and against a null hypothesisn = 24 was collected (see preregistration), we continued data collection until the preregistered BF (with JSZ prior r = 1) was reached. Specifically, data collection was stopped after the BF reached either (a) BF01 > 6 in favor of the null hypothesis of no difference in priming effects for CRT and LCD monitors, or (b) BF10 > 6 in favor of the alternative hypothesis that there is a difference between CRT and LCD monitors. We computed the BF after each day of data collection, and the critical BF was reached after testing 68 participants.

Participants were non-psychology students from Saarland University (40 females, 25 males; age Md = 25 years, range: 18–36), who were compensated with €8. Participants gave written informed consent before the study, and were free to withdraw from the study at any point in time. Anonymity of data was ensured, and treatment of subjects was in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. According to the guidelines of the German Research Association (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft; DFG), no ethical approval was needed for this study (http://www.dfg.de/foerderung/faq/geistes_sozialwissenschaften/index.html) because it did not pose any threats or risks to the participants and participants were fully informed about the objectives of the study. The chairman of the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Empirical Social Sciences of Saarland University confirmed that ethical approval was not needed for this study.

All participants had normal or corrected-to-normal vision. Data from one participant were excluded because of an outlying error rate, as specified in the preregistration (i.e., using an outlier criterion of 27.5% computed based on the initial sample of n = 24); one participant erroneously took part in the experiment twice; another participant’s data were lost due to experimenter error. Thus, final sample size for analysis was N = 65. All data (including the excluded data files) are available at https://osf.io/g842s/.

The experiment was a replication of Kunde et al. 2003, Exp.1et al.’s experiment). Participants’ task was to classify one-digit target numbers as smaller or greater than 5. Preceding the targets, sandwich-masked number primes were presented. The basic design of the priming task was a 2 (prime: smaller/greater than 5) × 2 (target: smaller/greater than 5) × 2 (monitor type: CRT vs. LCD) within-participants design. Following Kunde et al.et al.et al. did not find an impact of these factors on the congruency effect; they were, however, included for replication purposes (As a side effect, Kunde et al. found an interaction of notation match x congruency x prime novelty indicating small differences in masking efficiency due to greater/smaller overlap in prime-target shape; we also found such an effect, see below).

We used two 17” Fujitsu Siemens Scenicview P796-2 CRT color monitors and two 24” ViewSonic VG2401mh TFT monitors, all set to a resolution of 1024 × 768 pixels, and a refresh rate of 100 Hz . Luminance on both monitors was set to 110 cd/m² (using the luminance meter model “Gossen Mavo-Monitor USB”). The room was completely dark (i.e., measured background luminance was less than 0.5 cd/m²). Stimulus presentation and measurement of response latencies were controlled by E-Prime version 2.0 run on a DELL PRECISION T1600 computer. Participants gave their responses with a standard QWERTZ keyboard connected via PS/2. They sat at a distance of approx. 60 cm to the monitor. Distance to the monitor and viewing angle were measured at the beginning of each task (i.e., with each monitor change) and visually monitored by the experimenter in regular intervals.

Up to two individuals participated concurrently, separated by partition walls. Participants were randomly assigned to a monitor order (CRT or LCD first), and switched monitors twice, that is, they first completed the priming task on monitor 1, then the same priming task on monitor 2 [or vice versa]. Afterwards, they switched again to monitor 1 for the prime discrimination task, and then executed the prime discrimination task again at monitor 2 [or vice versa]).

The trial sequence was as follows: First, a fixation cross was displayed for 30 frames (i.e., 300 ms), followed by a pre-mask presented for seven frames (i.e., 70 ms), the prime presented for three frames (i.e. 30 ms), and a post-mask for seven frames (i.e., 70 ms; SOA = 100 ms). The post mask was immediately followed by the target, which was presented for 20 frames (i.e., 200 ms), followed by a blank (black) screen for 200 frames (i.e., 2,000 ms), which signaled the response deadline. Response keys were the ‘f’ and ‘j’ keys on a standard German QWERTZ keyboard, marked with blue stickers. If a response was given, immediate feedback (“Richtig!”/“Falsch!”; i.e., “Correct!”/“Wrong!”) was provided. After an inter-trial-interval of 800 ms, the next trial started. Figure 2 depicts an example trial.

At the beginning of the experiment, participants were informed that the experiment was investigating the differences between CRT and LCD computer monitors and that they were therefore asked to work on a simple number-categorization task using different monitors. They were instructed to categorize the presented numbers as quickly and accurately as possible. They were not informed about the primes. To familiarize participants with the procedure, they first received a practice block of 32 trials. The actual experiment consisted of five blocks of 128 trials each. After each block, participants were free to take a short break.

Mean response latency for correctly categorized targets was the dependent variable of interest. Data preparation and analysis were done as preregistered, that is, trials with reaction times below 150 ms or more than 3 interquartile ranges above the third quartile or below the first quartile of the individual distribution were discarded (1.06% of all trials), as were trials with incorrect responses (M = 6.48%, SD = 4.42%, range from 1.09% to 20.39%). Table 3 shows mean reaction times and error rates across conditions.

In the following, we present the Bayes factors based on sequential hypothesis testing as preregistered (computed with JASP, version 0.10.2), alongside results of conventional null-hypothesis significance testing (NHST) on the final sample (conducted with SPSS, version 26) to allow comparison with the original results of Kunde et al.N = 65 provided sufficient power to detect effects of dZ = 0.35 (i.e., between small and medium size according to

As our central hypothesis regarded the (lack of) priming differences between monitor types, we first present the Bayesian analysis assessing the interaction of priming condition (congruent, incongruent) and monitor type (CRT vs. LCD).

The final BF01 for the interaction of priming condition and monitor type was BF01 = 7.47; this means that the data are approx. 7.5 times more likely under the null, and thus represents moderately strong evidence for the hypothesis that the two monitor types produced equivalent masked priming effects. The evolution of the BF01 can be seen in Fig. 3. Overall there was also strong evidence for the presence of a small priming effect (M = 1.92 ms, SD = 4.15 ms, dZ = 0.46) with BF10 = 46.62.

Development of the Bayes Factor BF01 in favor of the null hypothesis for the priming condition × monitor type interaction term across the course of the experiment.

The 2 (priming condition: congruent vs. incongruent) × 2 (monitor type: CRT vs. LCD) × 2 (notation match: match vs. non-match) × 2 (prime novelty: practiced vs. unpracticed primes) repeated measures ANOVA yielded significant main effects of priming condition, F(1,64) = 13.82, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.178 (dz = 0.46), monitor type, F(1,64) = 99.11, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.608 (dz = 1.23), and notation match, F(1,64) = 5.33, p = 0.024, ηp2 = 0.077 (dz = 0.29). Furthermore, a significant three-way-interaction of priming condition × monitor type × notation match emerged, F(1,64) = 7.00, p = 0.010, ηp2 = 0.099 (dz = 0.33). No further results were significant (for the sake of interest: priming condition × prime novelty, F(1,64) = 2.55, p = 0.115, ηp2 = 0.038 (dz = 0.20); priming condition × notation match, F(1,64) = 2.16, p = 0.147, ηp2 = 0.033 (dz = 0.18); priming condition × monitor type × notation match × prime novelty, F(1,64) = 2.77, p = 0.101, ηp2 = 0.042(dz = 0.21)). We also checked for a possible effect of monitor order; no effects emerged. Please note that the main effect of monitor largely reflects the DCC input lag (see Introduction), that is, the recorded response times are larger for the LCD monitor, because the internally recorded stimulus onset time is earlier than it actual was due to the input lag.

We followed up the significant three-way interaction with separate ANOVAs for each monitor type. The repeated measures ANOVA for the LCD monitor yielded a significant priming condition × notation match interaction, F(1,64) = 8.16, p = 0.006, ηp2 = 0.113 (dz = 0.35), while the interaction was not significant for the CRT monitor, F(1,64) = 0.58, p = 0.45, ηp2 = 0.009 (dz = 0.09). In the LCD monitor analysis, prime-target combinations with non-matching format yielded a congruency effect, t(64) = 4.54, p < 0.001, dZ = 0.56, while matching prime-target combinations did not yield a congruency effect, t(64) = 0.22, p = 0.83, dZ = 0.03. It is likely that differences in masking efficiency were responsible for this finding (i.e., stimuli matching in format mask each other better), as Kunde et al.

The signal detection index d’ served as the dependent variable in the prime-recognition task. In a first analysis, d’ was tested against zero with a repeated-measures MANOVA, with monitor type as a within-participants factor. The constant test of this MANOVA was not significant, F(1,64) = 0.01, p = 0.94, ηp2 = 0.000 (dz = 0.01), indicating overall chance performance. The main effect of monitor type was also not significant, F(1,64) = 0.59, p = 0.45, ηp2 = 0.009 (dz = 0.10), indicating zero awareness with both monitor types (d’CRT = 0.004; d’LCD = −0.005).

A repeated measures ANOVA with notation (Arabic vs. verbal), prime novelty, and monitor type as within-participants factors yielded a notation × prime novelty interaction as the sole significant effect, F(1,64) = 6.20, p = 0.015, ηp2 = 0.088 (dz = 0.31). Practiced digits were recognized better than unpracticed digits (d’prac_digits = 0.021; d’unprac_digits = −0.009), t(64) = 1.97, p = 0.05, dZ = 0.24, while there was no such effect for number words, t(64) = 1.80, p = 0.08, dZ = 0.22 (d’prac_words = −0.019; d’unprac_words = 0.006). Indeed, recognition was different from chance performance for practiced digits, t(64) = 2.16, p = 0.034, dZ = 0.25, but not for any other item type, ts < 1.

The present paper contributes in important ways to empirical investigations of effects that necessitate millisecond-precise timing, such as the masked priming effects inspected in this paper. We laid out important differences between CRT and LCD technology, and provided guidelines on how to configure a current-generation LCD monitor to achieve results comparable to those obtained with a CRT monitor. Thus, our paper may help researchers establish adequate conditions to conduct such experiments with the precision needed, using state-of-the-art technology. Empirically, we demonstrated that experiments requiring precise timing—in this case a masked priming experiment—can yield comparable effects using CRT and LCD monitors. Specifically, we found comparable masked number priming effects using CRT and LCD monitors under conditions of zero prime awareness (with the exception of the practiced digits condition), as assessed with a separate forced-choice prime discrimination task. Thus, we replicated and extended the findings of Kunde et al.

First of all, the present paper shows that current-generation LCD monitors can be used for millisecond-precise presentation, even under masked presentation conditions. To this end, we used a twisted nematic (TN) panel, enabled DCC, used high-contrast stimuli, and adjusted the luminance of the LCD screen to yield a result comparable to a CRT monitor, given a predetermined stimulus presentation time. As we outlined extensively in the theoretical introduction, and as already stated by several other authors

Regarding our empirical findings, we found, as hypothesized, significant and comparable masked number priming effects using both CRT and LCD monitors under conditions which yielded (for all except one condition) zero awareness in a subsequent forced-choice prime discrimination task. The Bayes factor evaluating a difference in priming effects between CRT and LCD monitors—the preregistered main hypothesis that provided the basis for data sampling—indicated strong evidence for the null hypothesis. Thus, the present results show that LCD monitors are suited for research requiring millisecond-precise timing, and that such research can yield comparable results to those obtained with a CRT monitor if luminance is matched and settings are chosen appropriately.

To summarize, the present empirical results showed that LCD monitors can be used for research requiring millisecond-precise timing, which can yield results that are comparable to those obtained from research conducted with CRT monitors, if settings are chosen appropriately. Our study thus highlights the importance of considering the effects of technological setup on empirical research. We hope that researchers in the field can use the recommendations we provided to achieve high precision in visual stimulus presentation.

We thank Kilian Leonhardt for his help in measuring the signal shapes of the CRT and LCD monitors and for providing the measurement device. We thank Felix Kares and Tatiana Koeppe for their help in data collection, and Ullrich Ecker for his comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript.

M.R. conceived and designed the study, analyzed the human performance data, prepared the figures and tables belonging to the human performance data and wrote the main manuscript text. She also prepared all materials which are online available at OSF. A.W. configured the LCD and CRT monitors as well as the computers, did the hardware measurements, programmed the study, wrote some of the corresponding paragraphs in the manuscript and prepared the figures and tables related to the hardware settings.

The empirical experiment was preregistered. The preregistration, as well as all data, analysis scripts, and experimental materials are available at (https://osf.io/g842s/).

1. Wiens, S. & Öhman, A. Probing unconscious emotional processes: On becoming a successful musketeer in Handbook of Emotion Elicitation and Assessment (eds. Coan, J. A. & Allen, J. J. B.) 65–90 (Oxford University Press, 2007).

3. Elze T. Misspecifications of stimulus presentation durations in experimental psychology: A systematic review of the psychophysics literature. PLoS One.2010;5:e12792. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0012792. PubMed] [CrossRef]

5. Ghodrati M, Morris AP, Price NSC. The (un) suitability of modern liquid crystal displays (LCDs) for vision research. Front. Psychol.2015;6:303. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00303. PubMed] [CrossRef]

6. Lagroix HE, Yanko MR, Spalek TM. LCDs are better: Psychophysical and photometric estimates of the temporal characteristics of CRT and LCD monitors. Atten. Percept. Psycho.2012;74:1033–1041. doi: 10.3758/s13414-012-0281-4. [PubMed] [CrossRef]

7. Bauer B. A timely reminder about stimulus display times and other presentation parameters on CRTs and newer technologies. Can. J. Exp. Psychol.2015;69:264–273. doi: 10.1037/cep0000043. [PubMed] [CrossRef]

8. Elze T, Tanner TG. Temporal properties of liquid crystal displays: Implications for vision science experiments. PLoS One.2012;7:e44048. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0044048. PubMed] [CrossRef]

9. Zhang GL, et al. A consumer-grade LCD monitor for precise visual stimulation. Behav. Res. Methods.2018;50:1496–1502. doi: 10.3758/s13428-018-1018-7. [PubMed] [CrossRef]

10. Bognár A, Csibri P, András CM, Sáry G. LCD monitors as an alternative for precision demanding visual psychophysical experiments. Perception.2016;45:1070–1083. doi: 10.1177/0301006616651954. [PubMed] [CrossRef]

11. Kihara K, Kawahara JI, Takeda Y. Usability of liquid crystal displays for research in the temporal characteristics of perception and attention. Behav. Res. Methods.2010;42:1105–1113. doi: 10.3758/BRM.42.4.1105. [PubMed] [CrossRef]

13. Sperling G. Flicker in computer-generated visual displays: Selecting a CRO phosphor and other problems. Behav. Res. Meth. Instr.1971;3:151–153. doi: 10.3758/BF03209940. [CrossRef]

14. Greene E. Evaluating letter recognition, flicker fusion, and the Talbot-Plateau law using microsecond-duration flashes. PLoS One.2015;10:1–17. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0123458. PubMed] [CrossRef]

15. Parr AC. The candela and photometric and radiometric measurements. J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol.2001;106:151–186. doi: 10.6028/jres.106.007. PubMed] [CrossRef]

17. Gorea A. A refresher of the original Bloch’s law paper (Bloch, July 1885) i-Perception.2015;6:1–6. doi: 10.1177/2041669515593043. PubMed] [CrossRef]

18. Smith PL. Bloch’s law predictions from diffusion process models of detection. Aust. J. Psychol.1998;50:139. doi: 10.1080/00049539808258790. [CrossRef]

19. Scharnowski F, Hermens F, Herzog MH. Bloch’s law and the dynamics of feature fusion. Vision Res.2007;47:2444–2452. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2007.05.004. [PubMed] [CrossRef]

20. Folyi, T., Rohr, M., & Wentura, D. When emotions guide your attention in line with a context-specific goal: Rapid utilization of visible and masked emotional faces for anticipatory attentional orienting. Emotion; 10.1037/emo0000621.supp (2019). [PubMed]

22. Rohr M, Degner J, Wentura D. The ‘emotion misattribution’ procedure: Processing beyond good and bad under masked and unmasked presentation conditions. Cogn. Emot.2015;29:196–219. doi: 10.1080/02699931.2014.898613. [PubMed] [CrossRef]

25. Kunde W, Kiesel A, Hoffmann J. Conscious control over the content of unconscious cognition. Cognition.2003;88:223–242. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00023-4. [PubMed] [CrossRef]

29. Open Science Collaboration: Nosek, B. A. et al. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science349; 10.1126/science.aac4716 (2015). [PubMed]

31. Shimizu H. Measuring keyboard response delays by comparing keyboard and joystick inputs. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput.2002;34:250–256. doi: 10.3758/bf03195452. [PubMed] [CrossRef]

As of July 2021, CRT monitors are no longer in production. Even if you managed to get a used CRT monitor, there is a issue of connecting it to your system as newer PCs/notebooks come equipped only with HDMI and/or DisplayPort display ports. However, this can be worked around using HDMI to VGA adapters.

The viewable area is about 0.9 - 1.1 inch smaller than the size specified on paper. This is due to the frame around the glass screen. So a 15" CRT would have only about 14" of viewable area.

17 inch LCD has 17 inch viewable. 24 inch LCD has about 23.8" viewable depending on model. Slightly less viewable as sizes go bigger, but not as severe as CRT.

Many manufacturers tout true flatness for their CRT monitors, but the sad truth is that most are fake. In reality it is only the outer glass that is flat, and not the actual screen. The true 100% perfect flat monitors are the aperture grille tubes made by Mitsubishi and Sony. Even then, these tubes have a disadvantage - a faint thin line or two (depending on size) running through the screen to stabilize the grill. Some people find this distracting, especially if you work on a white background (eg. documents) most of the time.

CRTs emit electromagnetic radiation. Much of it is filtered by the lead heavy glass front and the rest that reaches your eyes are mostly harmless. Even then, radiation still passes through the screen and some people regard them as hazardous.

CRTs weigh heavier, especially in the front (the display area) 17 inch CRT weighs around 16kg. 19 inch CRT weighs around 20kg.

Higher power usage, more than 400% compared to an LED backlight LCD of equivalent size. 17 inch CRT requires around 90 watts 19 inch CRT requires around 110 watts

LCDs are free from the burn-in i