comparison of crt and lcd monitors manufacturer

CRT and LCD are both display devices. CRT is an old technology whereas LCD is modern one. One major difference between CRT and LCD is in the technology used for image formation. The CRT display produces an image by using an electron beam, while LCD display produces an image on the screen using liquid crystal display.

CRT stands for Cathode Ray Tube. CRT displays produce an image on the screen by using a sharp beam of electrons that is highly focused to hit a phosphor screen present in front of the tube. The important components of a CRT are electron gun, focusing mechanism, and phosphor screen.

CRT was used in earlier TVs and computer monitors. CRT produces poor quality images on the screen and also consumes large electricity. The lifespan of CRT displays is very short. Because of all reasons, CRTs are being replaced by other display technologies these days.

LCD stands for Liquid Crystal Display. In LCD, liquid crystals are used to produce images on the screen. LCD displays are thin and more energy efficient, thus they are used in several small sized devices like mobiles, laptops, TVs, desktop computer monitors, calculators, etc.

In LCDs, light is obtained from external sources, and then it is converted into a definite graphics pattern using optical effects. LCDs have several advantages over CRT such as less power consumption, faster response, smaller size, low cost, etc.

Both CRT and LCD have their own advantages and disadvantages. However, these days, CRTs have almost become extinct. No one seems to be using them anymore. LCDs and other display technologies have replaced them because the new devices are highly efficient in terms of cost, power, and performance.

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.

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.

If you have searched the Internet for a TV-buying guide, chances are you have come across videos and discussions singing praises of CRT TV technology. It sounds absurd to even speculate that the obsolete technology can possibly come close to modern LCDs, let alone surpass them. But that is precisely the case.

LCD technology has serious quality issues, and the Internet has only just started to take note of the vocal minority of videophiles explaining how ditching bulky CRTs for modern flat-panel-display technology was a compromise. The notion being, LCDs continue to exhibit deal-breaking flaws that everyone has come to accept like a consumer-electronics version of the Stockholm Syndrome.

It’s easy to get tangled in the technicalities underlying poor black detail of LCDs, but nothing beats a real-world example. Not long ago, the Pentagon was forced to replace the LCD screens within the $400,000 Helmet-Mounted Display (HMD) of the F-35 fighter jets with OLED panels. The LCD panels relaying critical avionics and target acquisition/fire-control system data straight to the pilot’s helmet were plagued with a distracting green glow. The problem was so bad that the U.S. Navy restricted night landings on aircraft carriers.

This phenomenon can be blamed on the transmissive nature of LCDs. The individual pixels don’t emit light. LCDs form an image by manipulating the liquid crystals within the individual pixels to either transmit or block the backlight, which is never really switched off. Some of the backlight tends to leak out. Emissive displays such as CRTs and OLED can simply switch the individual pixels on or off.

CRTs reproduce colors by firing electrons to light up the red, green, and blue phosphor elements coated onto the glass substrate. This inherent accuracy allowed CRTs to achieve a level of color reproduction that was only limited by the video-processing hardware prevalent at that time. LCD manufacturers often specify what percentage of the standard color gamut their displays can reproduce. But full gamut color coverage was so effortless for CRTs that it would have been an exercise in futility to compare them by that metric.

LED lights are inherently impure and incapable of reproducing accurate white light. That’s why the color-accurate LED lights used by professional photographers involve blue LEDs coated with red and green phosphors to generate pure white light. Phosphors are pretty important for accurate color reproduction. The picture tube of a CRT is coated with just that and is critical for rendering the displayed image. Not surprisingly, OLED displays also use phosphor-based emissive illumination to achieve great color reproduction.

The more expensive quantum-dot LCDs achieve wider color gamut and improved color accuracy in a similar manner. These blue LEDs shine onto what’s essentially a plastic sheet containing nanoparticles that glow red and green when illuminated by the blue LED backlight. However, achieving a pure white backlight is great but not nearly enough.

Even quantum dot LCDs must reproduce colors with the same old LCD technology, which cannot faithfully reproduce colors. Worse yet, the bending of light by the liquid crystal panel and its passage through myriad arrays of color and polarization filters makes LCDs susceptible to parallax issues, which leads to color shift and poor viewing angles.

Color reproduction suffers if you don’t spend the big bucks on a fancy quantum-dot LCD. Moreover, the backlight in a traditional LCD isn’t pure white and is marred by hues of pink, orange, and yellow. All these factors further compound the inherent color inaccuracy of LCDs.

If pure blacks and nice colors are something that OLED displays also known to achieve, then why do gamers still swear by CRT monitors? The answer lies in motion. Even the cheapest CRT monitor could easily handle a refresh rate of 85Hz, with most average monitors operating at 100Hz. High-end CRTs could easily achieve 160Hz at screen resolutions of 1920×1200. High refresh rate is necessary for a smoother, more enjoyable gaming experience.

CRTs, however, didn’t have to compromise on picture quality to achieve high refresh rates. LCDs, on the other hand, are quite terrible at handling fast-moving content. The liquid crystals within an LCD are slow to reach, which results in long pixel response times. That in turn leads to a chronic case of motion blur, which makes high refresh rate gaming a tricky affair.

Higher-quality LCDs featuring IPS panels can’t achieve faster response times without compromising color gamut and accuracy. That’s why gaming monitors use TN LCD panels, which exhibit poor viewing angles and washed out colors as well as low contrast ratios. Competitive gamers can’t use LCDs without compromising on picture quality.

There is still a lot more to discuss, and there are many things that CRTs get right. For example, the raster-scanning nature of a CRT plays well with the human persistence of vision and naturally eliminates motion blur. Or that CRTs aren’t restricted to native resolutions and can move between them without losing image clarity or sharpness, unlike modern flat-panel displays.

At the same time, it is naive to turn a blind eye to the merits of LCD technology. Feats such as better brightness, higher resolution, ever-improving pixel density as well as sharpness, and longer service life as well. While LCD technology has clearly been a compromise, OLED has flaws that prevent it from being a viable replacement as well.

However, there’s hope in the upcoming MicroLEDs which combine the best aspects of LCDs and OLEDs and don’t seem to be a compromise compared to the CRTs.

Growing up, Nachiket had a penchant for disassembling household electronics and appliances; most of which couldn’t be reassembled successfully. His parents didn’t approve. These days, he leverages his lifelong pursuit of dissecting gadgets to write about technology. His parents still don’t approve.

By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy and European users agree to the data transfer policy. We will not share your data and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Almost all of us have watched television at some point in our lives. And, most of us have a general understanding of how television works – images and videos are displayed on a screen by shooting electrons at it, which makes the pixels light up and create the image. However, there is a lot more to the process than just that. In order to create an image, television screens need to be able to control the number of pixels that are lit up and the intensity of the light. There are two main ways that this is done – using cathode ray tube (CRT) screens or liquid crystal display (LCD) screens.

CRT is an analog type display that was popular two decades ago, while LCD is a digital type display and is considered as the successor of CRT monitors. But LCDs are not superior in every aspect with CRT monitors.

A decade ago, CRT, or Cathode Ray Tube, was a commonly used analog display technology. It works by projecting electrons onto a phosphor screen. When an electron beam hits the screen, the phosphor lights up, creating a colorful image.

CRT technology was used in a variety of devices, from televisions to computer monitors. It was also used in early video game consoles, like the Atari 2600. While CRT technology is no longer used in today’s devices, it was an important stepping stone in the development of modern display technology.

A CRT display has a vacuumed tube (a tube with no air in it). Plus, it also has an electrode in the back of the vacuum tube that releases electrons. Because it emits positively charged particles, it is referred to as the cathode gun (Because electrons are negatively charged, we know that they’re negatively charged particles). And the electron gun is made up of an array of components which include the heater filament (heater) and the cathode.

Screens are coated in phosphor that glows according to the strength of the beam. When the cathode gun is activated and electrons are fired into the screen, the beam of electrons goes towards various areas of the screen. Then, line by line, the deflection takes place by covering the whole screen.

The brightness of the beam is responsible for the brightness of the image. If your image is much brighter, the electron gun fires a strong electron beam. And if your image is a dark one, the electron gun fires a weak electron beam.

There are both black and white CRT displays and Color CRT displays. Moreover, black and white CRT displays use a phosphor to emit light, while color CRT displays use three phosphors to emit red, green, and blue light. The human eye perceives these three colors when the brain combines the light from the three phosphors.

LCD, Liquid Crystal Display is a digital display technology made of liquid crystals that function by blocking the light. If you have an LCD screen, then you may have noticed that the image on the screen is made up of tiny dots of color. These dots are called pixels, and each pixel is made up of three smaller dots of color. One dot is red, one dot is green, and one dot is blue. Together, these three colors make up the colors that you see on the screen.

An LCD display is composed of two pieces made of polarized glasses that have the liquid crystal substance between the two. And there is a backlight which is important because, without the backlight, we can’t see the image.

The two main types of display technologies used in monitors today are CRT and LCD. CRT uses analog technology while LCD uses digital technology to display the image. Both have their pros and cons, but LCD is the more popular technology today.

When we think of older technology, we often think of big, bulky CRT monitors with a 4:3 display ratio. So, this was the most popular ratio two decades ago, and because of that, most CRT displays were made with a 4:3 aspect ratio. However, it’s not only CRT monitors that had this ratio. Back in the day, even LCD monitors came in a 4:3 ratio. Now, most LCD displays come in a 16:9 ratio, which is known as widescreen displays.

Why did the 4:3 display ratio become so popular? Well, back in the day, most computer users were using their computers for work-related tasks. Word processing, spreadsheet work, and other business applications were the norm. Therefore, the 4:3 ratio was well-suited for these types of applications.

However, as time went on and computer usage became more diversified, the need for a wider display became more apparent. This is especially true for media-related tasks such as watching movies and playing video games. The 16:9 widescreen ratio is much better suited for these types of activities.

The costs of manufacturing CRT and LCD displays used to be quite similar. However, the cost of manufacturing LCD displays has fallen significantly in recent years, making them more affordable than ever before. Thanks to advancements in technology, LCD panels can now be produced more cheaply than CRTs, making them the preferred choice for many consumers.

CRT monitors are typically much larger and heavier than their LCD counterparts. This is due to the fact that CRT monitors use a cathode ray tube to produce the image on the screen. This tube takes up a lot of space, which results in a larger overall footprint for the monitor. Additionally, the heavy glass casing of a CRT monitor can add a lot of weight.

LCDs, on the other hand, are much thinner and lighter, and even there are many display size selections. Moreover, LCD display-to-body ratio is increasing every year.

When it comes to power consumption, CRT displays consume more power compared to LCD monitors. In CRT monitors, there has to be a heated filament so electrons can flow off of the cathode. In order to maintain the heated filament, the CRT monitor requires a high voltage power supply. In addition, the CRT monitor has a yoke coil that needs the power to move the electron beam back and forth on the screen. When the CRT is turned on, it uses a small amount of power to keep the cathode warm.

One of the benefits of LCD monitors is that they are more energy efficient than CRT monitors. LCD monitors do not have a heated filament or yoke coil, so they do not require a high voltage power supply.

LCD displays offer many advantages over CRTs, including lower power consumption, thinner form factors, and sharper images. Thanks to their lower manufacturing cost, LCDs are now the preferred choice for many manufacturers.

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.

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.

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".

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 issue that plagues CRTs and Plasma displays. However, they do occasionally have Image Persistence problems which can be fixed by switching off the LCD for an extended period of time.

LCDs do not "paint" their image. They provide a flicker free image every time. However, games and fast moving videos benefit from a higher refresh rate monitor by appearing smoother

LCD panels are prone to dead or stuck pixels (or dots) on the screen due to their manufacturing process. However, stiff competition has made many manufacturers adopt zero dead pixel / stuck pixel warranties for their products.

Must be used at its native resolution (maximum resolution) for best quality. Using the display at a lower resolution will result interpolation (scaling of the image), causing image quality loss. For this reason, gamers should avoid buying a monitor too high a resolution (e.g. 4K) as you will need more processing power (and more fan noise) to run the game in native resolution. As of 2021, we recommend 1920 x 1080 monitors when paired with recent GPUs/processors.

As CRT monitors are no longer manufactured, LCD monitors are the only way to go. Our recommendation is to go for a LED backlight LCD monitor that has a native resolution of 1920 x 1080.

Currently I am using a curved 31.5 inch 1920 x 1080 G-Sync 144hz monitor - the Acer Predator Z321 Qbmiphzx. It was bought from Amazon UK but it is no longer available as of July 2021. My reason was that it was the biggest G-Sync monitor I could get for 1080p resolution as I did not want Windows to scale font sizes (but I still had to anyway). Before this I was using a 26" Sony LCD TV as a monitor for its 1360 x 768 resolution.

Always preferred tube TV"s, I always had one plus the way they work interests me. I sill got my 36 inch Sony hd tube good tv I won"t make the mistake of buying a cheap liquid crap display again I wasted $150 for 1 year of tv then it burned out meanwhile my old tube doesnt even show signs of wear. So don"t waste time buying liquid crap. Lol

I don"t really like LCD"s, I prefer Old CRT TV"s because it works better with my VCR, and old video gaming systems, with LCD it has the VHS tapes have black bars at the sides and same with the video games. Ssame with my grandson (who is currently 12), so we switched back to our 25 inch CRT zenith Televison and everything went smooth, my grandson enjoys it too.

I have a CRT TV and used to have a LCD HDTV and I think I liked both but I had huge problems with an LCD TV because the screen broke easily and I called up to repair it but my warranty has expired and unable to repair my TV. So I bought another TV and its a Samsuck LED LCD TV and same sh*t happens again. So I give up and used my Old CRT TV left in the storage and I have no problems with this thing. So in conclusion I think CRT TVs are bit better then LCD but I liked LCD because it has HD 1080p and I can save up some space on my table to put stuff on it.

I have both CRT and LCD, but prefer CRT because ic an play at lower resolution (but with AA) this requires less powerfull videocard. Also i like to play old games that have low resolution. LCD displays look crappy whenusing low resolution

Seriously looks like a Windows bashing Linux, or visa-versa. Most of the facts where so outdated, at the time this comparison was written, that it isn"t even funny. LCD only had 8bit color, in 2008? More like 16. But don"t take my word for it, Google is your friend!

You should really make sure the comparisons at the bottom always list CRT on the same side, currently you"re switching between left and right, which makes for a very confusing read. Fix that and it"ll be much better.

actually most LED/LCD tvs are 8 bit panels and then some use 8bit+Frc (pseudo 10bit) then the best we have out in 2019 ATM is a true 10bit panel no 12 bit panels out yet not even the best dolby pulsar is 12 bit....but all that being said the only 10 bit color space format is HDR or HGL and Dolby vision even bluray are only 8bit so it"s pointless before

I made my little research. What I found out is that brainwash marketing confuse people more than the technology itself!. CRT TVs are good with Freeview digital box work fine. But now marketing encourages to buy LED over LCD, the same marketing told us LCD far better than CRT. The difference between LED and LCD: one uses bulbs one uses fluorescent light But huge price gap!. The same applies to smart phones people brainwashed into consumerism, most people don"t need sophisticated smart phones just need reasonable mobile phone can call/text maybe a bit of extras like camera, bluetooth, etc

Brainwash is right. LEDs have been here how long now, and the market has to pretend that LCDs and fluorescents are better than CRTs just to get the consumers to buy them so we have to buy them all over again in a LED solution? It"s all part of a planned progression scheme. The fact is this: CRTs were the green solution, because unlike the LCDs, they only had to be manufactured ONCE to work for at least 30 years verses LCDs which I had to replace every three years. So typical for the baby-boomers to believe every bit of nonsense that"s out there. By the way, I dropped my lap top 3" off the ground and the LCD broke! Meanwhile, I"ve hit my CRT television several times and it still works, it also was in a flood and still works, my house was broken into and it"s still there: they couldn"t carry it on their tweaker bike.

Great article. You just forgot about a very big advantage in CRT screens which is their durability and robustness. like if I accidentally hit my CRT TV, I will hurt myself. I I accidentally hit my LCD TV I will brake it...

Lots of these are untrue: 1st- Power consumed- Yes CRT can take more current at startup but it consumes as much or even less power than LCD when in darker scenes. LCD"s lamps are always on and therefore consume the same current all the time, while CRT fluctuates.

2- "Image sharpness is less than LCD" This is untrue. A CRT monitor can be much more sharp than a LCD monitor, and that at all resolutions supported. This all depends on CRT quality... and these days CRT quality is poorer and poorer with low tube quality control.

3- Radiation- You"d be surprised at how much real radiation is being output. Using a detector.. you have to be at 1 inch of the screen to detect radiation.. just by comparison the detector detects a microwave running at 20 feet.

No one adopted a 0 dead pixel policy. A summary of inquiries for most manufacturers can be viewed on intend dot ro, bottom RMA, then TFT somewhere on that page. Only a select few have a 1 pixel tolerance, the rest no RMA unless it"s over 3 dead pixels.

Without the lcd, we would have no laptops. My father was working on a computer in a suitcase back in 1981 and I said what will you use for a monitor, he said "These will be for businessmen and they will plug into a pay monitor at airports or wherever they will be installed". I said to him that It"ll never fly. What his idea was, is the modern laptop computer, if it weren"t for the monitor issue he could have died a billionaire.

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 d