Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Thin CRTs to Challenge LCDs in 2005

michael posted more than 9 years ago | from the less-lower-back-pain dept.

Television 472

bigtangringo writes "First Samsung and now LG.Phillips have worked out a way to create thin CRT displays. Thin CRTs offer the best of both worlds -- superior picture quality with a slim size. Thin CRTs are expected to be more expensive than current CRTs, however they are also expected to drop in price rapidly. Both companies plan on releasing Thin CRTs in late 2005."

cancel ×

472 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Perfect Example..... (5, Funny)

hcob$ (766699) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863284)

Of why people like me (and most of slashdot) HATE to rush out and buy new equipment. I just spent a little over 400 on a 19" LCD Pannel, and DAMNIT they come out with this nifty little thingy(that's the technical term ya know).

At this rate of technological development, I'm just wondering when Moore's law will be replaced by Murphy's.

Re:Perfect Example..... (4, Insightful)

FatAlb3rt (533682) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863325)

you only spent $400 on a 19" LCD and that's rushing?! that's where 19" CRTs were a few years ago.

Re:Perfect Example..... (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863470)

More to the point, this should exert downward pressure on all display prices.
I, for one, have enjoyed running multi-monitor systems, when I had the spare, old hardware laying around, but for $400, I expect about a 21" monitor, probably with speakers. Props to the capitalists dropping a '0' behind that figure, and getting it.
Display technology seems priced like beverages at your favorite death-burger counter.

Re:Perfect Example..... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863474)

Shut up and have some sex, you fat pig

Re:Perfect Example..... (2, Informative)

(startx) (37027) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863477)

That depends on your definition of "few". I bought a 19" CRT at WorstBuy for $189 4 years ago, and at that point the price was already pretty steady.

Game play (-1, Troll)

uid100 (540265) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863286)

Two of these would make a sweet setup for HL2.
LCD screens are great for laptosp, suck for desktops.

Eyes (5, Interesting)

mfh (56) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863287)

I'm coding on my system all the time. Recently I was looking at getting a new system (for games and stuff), but I couldn't find any information on the effects of different monitors on my eyes. Does anyone know which type of monitor (LCD, CRT...etc) is safer for prolonged use? I'm talking about 18 hour days... thin or not, what are the effects on my inevitable glaucoma?

Re:Eyes (4, Insightful)

eliza_effect (715148) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863311)

I'm just gonna guess here and say that LCDs are "better" for your eyes, since a nice LCD will have very good contrast (to reduce eyestrain when trying to discern small details) and no "refresh rate" in the same sense that CRTs do (LCDs just refresh pixels that have changed, not the entire screen).

Re:Eyes (4, Informative)

DigitumDei (578031) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863388)

Just to add to this. While the parent is correct, that a LCD is usually going to be better on your eye's, a good quality crt will also allow just as many hours of use with no eye strain.

I find with a cheaper CRT I get headaches after a couple of hours of work. However I purchased an Iiyama visionmaster pro 455 [iiyama.com] and I can literally spend days working on it with no noticable eye strain. It is also brighter and clearer than pretty much any LCD I've seen. So in the end, if you pay a decent amount for a monitor it should be fine.

All the same, unless you plan on playing games on the machine, I'd suggest going for an LCD.

Re:Eyes (5, Informative)

Gonzotek (206051) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863317)

18 hours is far too long to be staring at any one thing, regardless of the technology used. LCDs probably have lower glare than CRTs, overall, but that's not the only factor.
Here are some generalized tips for monitor placement, lighting, and eye health:
http://www.crazycolour.com/os/ergonomics_ 06.shtml

Re:Eyes (4, Interesting)

Dan East (318230) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863342)

This is somewhat anecdotal, but an optometrist told me that reflective and transflective screens are best for the eyes, because they reflect light instead of emit it, and reflected light is more 'natural'.

The only devices I know of with those types of displays are Pocket PCs.

I've always assumed that regular LCDs still were better than CRT because at least you don't have an electron gun deluging your face with radiation.

Dan East

Re:Eyes (1, Insightful)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863370)

but if they reflect light, youre eyes have to work harder to decide what to pay attention to; the reflection or the stuff on the screen. That's bad.

Your optometrist's advice is like saying "Putting water in your gas tank is better because its more natural". Why would I want to stare a glare?

Re:Eyes (3, Informative)

JavaMoose (832619) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863414)

Um, it's obvious that you aren't aware of HOW the different types of LCDs work.

Reflective LCD doesn't mean that it reflects everything around you, or that there is any glare, it just bounces ambiant light back through the panel to improve brightness. This also has the effect of making them good outdoors in sunlight.

Re:Eyes (1)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863435)

oooooooh. Thanks.
I need some starbucks...

Re:Eyes (-1, Flamebait)

Breakfast Pants (323698) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863426)

You obviously don't know what reflective LCD technology is. This is a somewhat understandable mistake. The fact that you can not form a coherent thought however is not quite so understandable.

Re:Eyes (3, Insightful)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863467)

but if they reflect light, youre eyes have to work harder to decide what to pay attention to; the reflection or the stuff on the screen.

Um, a paper reflects light. Thats how you see it. So does mostly everything else in your surroundings, except for the minority of objects which emit light. Lamps and screens, mostly.

By your logic, a paper should be harder to read than a screen. Is it?

Re:Eyes (5, Funny)

Clueless Moron (548336) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863522)

reflected light is more 'natural'.

Gosh. Do the photons come with little tags that say "organically grown"?

Re:Eyes (1)

isorox (205688) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863397)

18 hours is too much for one monitor. I stare at 40, so is that only 30 minutes allowed?

Re:Eyes (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863320)

well CRTs dry your eyes and flicker. Both are bad for them. CRTs also put some some serious electromagnetic fields, which is bad for more than just your eyes unless you're sitting a full three feet away from your computer. LCDs kind of win by default.

Re:Eyes (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863329)

The picture displayed by a CRT is better looking, has truer colors etc, but the LCD is WAY easier on the eyes.

I never gave LCDs a second look until I got a laptop at work ( which has been moved from my desk maybe twice in three years ). I thought it would sit there unused while I used my other computer equipped with a CRT.

But ya know, I gradually used it more and more, and now I use it exclusively despite it's more cramped keyboard. It is entirely because the LCD screen is so much easier on the eyes.

I still have a CRT at home. It's fine for occasional use. But for 8 hours every day LCD is the way to go.

Re:Eyes (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863341)

LCDs = higher contrast ratio better refresh = less strain than CRTs. I can work on an LCD screen all day. With CRTs, after a few hours, I develop sties in me eyes.

Re:Eyes (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863510)

Yep, sure. LCDs have higher contrast ratios. Please get a clue.

Better refresh, well, apart from the fact that the 2 types of screen refresh differently so its a bit oranges-and-apples here, modern CRTs will refresh at stupidly quick refresh rates (200Hz?!). LCDs on the other hand have to be careful with their refresh rates - 16ms is good, 25ms is the older, slower type where you will see 'motion blur' type effects occasionally.

As for your sties, try blinking occasionally.

Ganja (4, Funny)

felonius maximus (601940) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863351)

Smoke more weed, I've heard from reputable scienticians that it's good against Glaucoma.

Re:Ganja (1)

Orgazmus (761208) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863511)

It's not a vaccine, and its not a cure.
It will help for a while, but after the high goes away you will be as bad off as before.
This is not an excuse to cut back on the ganja tho ;)

Well (4, Insightful)

instanto (513362) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863290)

The best of both worlds, but also the worst of the CRT World.

E.g Refresh Rate issues, Pollution, Power Usage.

Still.. a smaller 24" widescreen would be nice, since this Compaq weights around 44 pounds.

And ratiation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863316)

perfect to kill our eyes :-(

I rather prefer LCD screens.

Not exactly flat (5, Insightful)

MrPrefect (805302) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863293)

says they are around 16 inches for the LG and 20 or so for the samsung, not excatly the same, but still might be worth it if they are a bit cheaper then the LCD's

Still pretty heavy (4, Interesting)

jmcharry (608079) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863296)

44kg is still quite heavy. I guess that will be one of the tradeoffs.

"Super-Slim" (4, Informative)

felonius maximus (601940) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863298)

whereas the ultra-slim CRT developed by Samsung SDI has a depth of 417mm and weighs 44kg

Bugger me with a fish fork! That weighs as much as I do!

Re:"Super-Slim" (2, Funny)

muftak (636261) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863309)

you weigh 44kg, thats under 100 pounds? what are you, an anorexic midget?

Re:"Super-Slim" (1)

felonius maximus (601940) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863372)

No, but I eat well.

That is, I eat pies and pasties for breakfast. And I exaggerated, I weigh in at around 52kg after dinner.

Re:"Super-Slim" (1, Funny)

atta1 (558607) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863382)

I eat pies and pasties for breakfast
Well, I can see how you keep the weight off. Pasties can't add much more than a couple of ounces, and the act of eating them probably burns a lot of calories!

Re:"Super-Slim" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863418)

I don't know. These look like they could be pretty weight inducing.

http://kenanderson.net/pasties/ [kenanderson.net]

Re:"Super-Slim" (1)

q-the-impaler (708563) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863482)

I don't think those are the kind of pasties to which your parent was referring.

Alternative pasties [howcool.com]

Re:"Super-Slim" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863335)

i seem to remember ibm had the tech a few years back . it was a high angle crt gun. it allows for very thin crt on the order of a few inches. but it never will see the light of day because at the time it did not make sense to cut into the amount of money they where making with lcd's.(this is not to say there weren't issues still with the tech.)so i would hope that this tech will resurface and be used to help better the market instead of locking it down.) but this is just my point of view. ttfn

Super-slim compared to Michael Moore. :-D (4, Informative)

TheConfusedOne (442158) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863373)

It's marketing speak. 417 mm = 16.4 in

So it's "super-slim" compared to a current huge, "fat" CRT but is a real porker compared to an LCD or Plasma screen.

Strange sexual practices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863405)

If that's what some /.ers get up to, no wonder they can't get laid.

How does this work? (3, Interesting)

LiSrt (742904) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863299)

I assume it just means the electron beams are deflected at a greater angle and you have to be a bit more careful aligning the grille. Is that essentially it?

The technology (1)

twoslice (457793) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863354)

They tried that but no go. Then they tried the yagi's but the signal was crap after 35 degrees so they had to go with an omni antanae and send the signal everywere and hope that the signal sticks to the screen with minimal interference. Once the signal sticks to the screen it gets picked up by a magneto ocsillator which vibrates the information, (sort of like those new fangled hard drives) which then tells the led what colour to display on the screen.

or something like that....

Re:The technology (1)

Mr_Dyqik (156524) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863381)

WTF are you talking about? CRTs use elctron beams, not EM waves, so antennas have nothing to do with it.

i know what he means, what do YOU mean? (1)

RMH101 (636144) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863447)

OP is perfectly reasonable: for "grille" he means the shadowmask behind the screen glass, not some antenna - i don't know *where* you got that from.

Re:i know what he means, what do YOU mean? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863463)

Read at -1 and you'll know where he got it from. His parent really made no sense.

Wide Screen Format?? (1)

Pyrosz (469177) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863301)

If they can get me a wide screen format CRT Monitor for my computer then I'll pick one up. Otherwise I'm waiting for prices to come down more on LCD screens.

thin? (5, Informative)

rdc_uk (792215) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863302)

I don't know about you lot, but to me, while its less-huge than current CRTs, 16-inches is not "thin".

YMMV, obviously.

(from TFA: "A 30-inch-tube television from Samsung Electronics will be about 16 inches thick, deeper than a flat panel set but about the same size as the typical stand on a flat-panel television, a Samsung executive said.")

Re:thin? (2, Informative)

eliza_effect (715148) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863330)

Well, considering my 19" Viewsonic(s) are 18.6" deep, I'd say it's quite an improvement.

Re:thin? (1, Informative)

rdc_uk (792215) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863358)

I wouldn't: my 28" flat-screen, wide-screen "fat" CRT television is a whopping... 22" deep.

Wow; lose 6" (27%) and suddenly its "ultra-thin"? I think not.

BTW: they're televisions, not monitors people. And it didn't say HDTV either, so just the NTSC/PAL resolution, making it even LESS impressive.

Re:thin? (1)

Ruediger (777619) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863400)

FTA:
Samsung SDI plans to start mass production next year with a monthly capacity of 30,000 units. In addition, the depth reduction technology will be applied to the full range of CRTs for both monitors and TVs.

Re:thin? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863401)

All I can say is that if I lost 6", I'd be damned depressed.

Re:thin? (2, Insightful)

spotteddog (234814) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863472)

BTW: they're televisions, not monitors people.

Actually the loss in depth is from the CRT part. The electronics associated with it will determine the use of the thing (computer monitor, HDTV, regular TV, paper weight)

Re:thin? (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863432)

No, but I guess it's "thin enough" (for some applications). Certainly quite a nice depth for a 30" TV. Takes up less space in the living room.

Clive Sinclair did it first (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863304)

Britain's Clive Sinclair made a TV with a flat CRT back in the early 1980s [thevalvepage.com] . Here is a picture: http://www.nvg.ntnu.no/sinclair/images/tv80.jpg

Re:Clive Sinclair did it first (1)

hey (83763) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863352)

Sorry to disappoint you but that picture is a radio. ;-)

Re:Clive Sinclair did it first (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863356)

Linky [nyud.net]

Re:Clive Sinclair did it first (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863369)

And like everything else he made; it was shit.

Re:Clive Sinclair did it first (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863415)

The Sinclair flat CRT was like a walking dog, we did not ask that it was done well, we simply marvelled that it was done at all.

Re:Clive Sinclair did it first (0)

sydb (176695) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863518)

The Sinclair flat CRT was like a walking dog, we did not ask that it was done well, we simply marvelled that it was done at all.

How do dogs get from A to B in your strange world?

Re:Clive Sinclair did it first (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863421)

And all his patents on flat screen CRT's just ran out ... hmmmmm.....

"20% reduction" in power consumption = not bad. (5, Informative)

mopslik (688435) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863305)

Thin CRTs offer the best of both worlds -- superior picture quality with a slim size.

Of course, one of the other bonuses of LCD screens is their low power consumption [howstuffworks.com] . Good for the electricity bill, and for Mother Nature.

At a 20% reduction, that comes out to between 80-90W, compared to 30-40W for LCDs.

Re:"20% reduction" in power consumption = not bad. (1)

Psycho77 (695148) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863343)

I wonder if they are better for our eyes (I doubt). "Best of both world", yeah in the world where corporation live.

Re:"20% reduction" in power consumption = not bad. (1)

JavaMoose (832619) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863395)

That information is dated.

If you compare a new 17in (for example) CRT with a new 17in LCD, the power draw is almost the same.

The improvements in crt technology and electronics in general has led to much higher efficiency.

Re:"20% reduction" in power consumption = not bad. (1)

frozenray (308282) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863538)

> If you compare a new 17in (for example) CRT with a new 17in LCD, the power draw is almost the same.

Keep in mind that the viewable area of CRTs is smaller than the specification by about 1", so the comparison should really be 17" TFT vs. 18" CRT (the latter not being widely available, it's pretty much 17" and 19" today).

One reason we are phasing out the CRTs in the company I work for is the reduced energy consumption. According to our measurements, the TFTs use less than 50% power than a CRT of equivalent size, and we haven't seen a single CRT model that comes even close to a typical 17" TFT (around 40W nominal, depending on the manufacturer).

Re:"20% reduction" in power consumption = not bad. (1)

Phoenix-IT (801337) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863509)

Yes, but have you considered how much more pollution and energy the manufacturing of Thin Film Transistors plates may be compared to a CRT?

I don't know myself, but it would be interesting to take that into account.

Power utilization... (2, Interesting)

rusty0101 (565565) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863310)

Unless the people working on getting these crt's flat are also improving their power draw so that they draw less than an LCD, I personally am not interested.

Imagine (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863313)

...a Beowulf cluster of super-slim CRT's.

Re:Imagine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863384)

they exist; they're called "tanning booths"

LOL, depends what you mean by thin... (1, Troll)

jjn1056 (85209) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863315)

Looks like their 30 CRT will be 16 inches or so thick, which is still several times thicker than the 4-5 inches depth of the LCD and Plasma screens.

Doubt very much this is a challege to the LCD screen on your desk. Even if they used this technology for computer screens you'd still have greater weight and great power usage, and in the end it wouldn't be that much thinner.

Re:LOL, depends what you mean by thin... (2, Informative)

atta1 (558607) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863403)

the 17" LCD on my desk measures over 9 inches when you count the stand, so another 7 still doesn't come close to the depth of a traditional CRT. I'm in this market.

Re:LOL, depends what you mean by thin... (3, Informative)

GodsMadClown (180543) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863434)

They are targeting LCD TVs. Samsung evaluated the physical needs of the market, and decided that 30 CM deep was what was needed to fit the average space. Plasma and LCD have much different characteristics than a direct-view CRT set:

Price. Try to find a decent looking (720p or 1080i) plasma for less than $2000. Samsung is targeting a ~$1k pricepoint on these new thin(er) CRT sets. LCD Tvs of comparaple size are even pricier.

Lifespan. If I'm going to drop $1-2K on a TV, I want the damn thing to last 10 years. CRTs have proven lifespans measured in the decades. Plasma screens tend to go tits-up all too frequently at the 3-5 year mark. LCD screens (being solid state) should have fine lifespan. Unless the backlight has problems.

Image quality. Plasma screens are very much on par with the image quality of CRTs. Blacks are black and they are very viewable at many angles. LCDs have problems with portraying a truely convincing black, and the viewing angle can be a problem. Direct-view CRTs have the disadvantage of being an analog technology, depending on a decent DAC implementation for digital inputs. However, they give great brightness and viewing angle, with deep blacks. They do need to be calibrated correctly, so the cost of a technician might be factored in. At the very least, a $30 calibration DVD is in order.

It's all about choices folks. I, for one, am looking forward to the pricing pressure this new CRT tech will exert on the market. I still have a SDTV. I'd love to get a decent HD set.

Re:LOL, depends what you mean by thin... (1)

Insipid Trunculance (526362) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863517)

MY waist these days is 36 inches , that is what i definitely call thin.

Wont you agree?

How's about a little thinking.. (3, Insightful)

Ancient_Hacker (751168) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863318)

" Thin CRTs offer the best of both worlds -- superior picture quality with a slim size. " I wouldnt call a 20% reduction, from 51 to 41cm deep , a "slim" CRT, nor worthy of Slashdot coverage. And they're probably compromising on something-- I'd guess they're going to lose a bit of convergence near the edges.

I want one! (3, Funny)

mrjb (547783) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863324)

Now I can have a flat screen, and still keep my radiation tan!

Interesting (1)

Steeltalon (734391) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863331)

Wow. I've never been so glad that I still have my old TV from 1997. 25" tube with stereo sound may not be much, but it works well enough. Should be interesting to see these drop in price but I have to admit that it'd also be nice to have some stability in television technology for a little while.

Viva la Valve, Long libe the Vacuum Tube! (4, Interesting)

Sai Babu (827212) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863337)


"CRTs are not going away anytime soon," said Riddhi Patel, an analyst with researcher iSuppli. "They will account for 70 percent of the market in 2008."

I wonder if these employ thermionic emmission, electrons hopping off sharp points, or ???

Any /.ers in the know? There was no tech info on at either referenced site.

I am curious because there may be life left in the CRT rebuilding industry.

I worked in CRT rebuilding plant one winter while in High School. Excepting myself, a high school friend, and an old half blind splotchy looking guy (he ran the hydroflouric acid etching machine) we were the only people who didn't run for the warehouse and hide in boxes whenever the INS appeared.

Dangerous work. Closest I've ever come to immolation. Thank you to whoever invented the dry chemical fire extinguisher!

More Info (1)

Sai Babu (827212) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863422)

As we all know CRTs are much better than TFTs! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863339)

Hello!

My university has recently started replacing its CRT monitors across the various labs and offices, with nice TFT's. This is a process that takes long and as a result not every researcher has a new fancy TFT. Actually, for the moment being only the new researchers get it! The older researchers still use the CRT ones. As a result, some people started complaining about it. (You know, "my eyes hurt" etc. Pretty stupid excuses, if you ask me, but still the point is that the feel it is not fair).

The matter was raised in one of the departmental meetings. Here is the reply from a professor, well established within the department. Enjoy (try to approach it with a humorous view, altough it pissed me off)!

If they're having a fault, for example blur, then they should report that as a fault. They won't have TFTs because it is cheaper this way.

Now when it comes to my own personal preference: I prefer CRTs because they have a faster refresh rate, so they are much better for my eyes and
head! The only advantages a TFT has is that it is smaller and lighter.

Apart from that, LCDs are crap! Another con is for fast moving objects on the monitor, like the mouse pointer, an LCD would leave shadow trails
because they don't handle motion very well.
They're cool on laptops though because of their portability. For desktop machines, I don't see
why the portability is that important, especially for one that you can't take home because it is the University's property. Of course, TFTs are more expensive and look more posh. For this reason, a big plasma monitor wouldn't be so bad, except I'd need to sit a few feet far away from my computer. Then I'd need posh enough input devices and office space to deal with that.

The CRTs they have are good quality ones as well, and not budget ones. At 1024x768, they have a a refresh rate of 85Hz, which is much better than
the crap 60Hz you get on most TFTs. CRTs also have a lot more dots per inch, which is also better for the eyes and the head. People might experience a headache if their monitors are not configured properly eg. configured @60Hz instead of 85Hz.
-----

nice, eh?

Picture quality? (0, Redundant)

LincolnQ (648660) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863349)

Honestly I prefer the LCD on my Powerbook to any CRT I have ever used in terms of picture quality. It's bright, crisp, and I can game on it without any problem (haven't felt like it was refreshing too slow), but maybe other people are more sensitive than me to that.

Re:Picture quality? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863394)

Take a look at some of the LCDs coming out from Sony and Toshiba, with "UltraBright" or "Clear Active Super View" technology. (Basically the matte finish that is typical on LCD screens is replaced with a mirror finish, and an anti-reflective coating). Amazingly bright and vibrant. Hopefully Apple will get some of these screens soon.

Priceless (3, Funny)

Schwing84 (782710) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863353)

Money saved on reduced cost CRT's $20. Money spent on replacing eyes from radiation...priceless

/. is Missing the Point (5, Insightful)

JavaMoose (832619) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863366)

You are all missing the point! These are going to have excellent uses in the LIVING ROOM. The Samsung-SDI model is 32in, and they have a 42in and 50in on the way.

The 32in is estimated to be $1000 retail and is ACTUALLY 1080i, not like the 'take 1080 and make 720" game that Plasma monitors play.

Sure, as COMPUTER monitors it ain't all that great, but these have signifigant advantges over Plasma and LCD in the living room.

Re:/. is Missing the Point (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863454)

>Sure, as COMPUTER monitors it ain't all that great, but these have signifigant advantges over Plasma and LCD in the living room.

I don't understand. What's this "living room" you speak of? Some sort of biomechanical device where people can put their desks and computers? But first you said it isn't great for computer monitors... what else would you use a monitor for? Can you use things that are not attached to a computer??

Re:/. is Missing the Point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863488)

1080i is actually lower resolution than 720p due to the interlacing. If you convert 1080i to progressive it is only equivalent to 540p. The only way 1080 would be superior is if it was progressive and currently there are maybe 3 or 4 tvs that can display that. Check out this article for why 1080i isn't what it seems:

http://www.vxm.com/Progvsinter.html

Weighed in the Balance... (5, Interesting)

Headw1nd (829599) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863371)

This still doesn't beat what, in my opinion, is one of the greatest advantages of other flat displays, weight. I like the concept of a display I can tote myself without fear of a hernia, or more likely, dropping the damn thing. The CRTs mentioned still weigh in at 49 and 44 kg. A slightly larger (37 in) plasma display would weigh in at around 25 kg, and a LCD at less than 20.

Going hand in hand with this, I really like the concept of wall mounting, something even these "thin" CRTs wouldn't be capable of.

Re:Weighed in the Balance... (1)

KyleJacobson (788441) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863485)

You can hang anything on the wall with enough duct tape... trust me :D

Re:Weighed in the Balance... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863492)

Where do you buy your light plasmas? My first hit with google http://www.promarktech.com/imaging/monitors/hitach i/plasma37.htm lists a 37 inch one at 65 pounds without the stand, that would put the whole rig safely in the 40kg range.

picture quality (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863379)

"superior picture quality"? Excuse me? An LCD reliably displays the rectangualar picture as a rectangle. An LCD consistently displays the image in the same place, without losing pixels off the edge. An LCD makes it possible to actually see the individual pixels. An LCD image doesn't flicker. In what way can a CRT image be considered superior?

Re:picture quality (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10863399)

additive color model instead of a subtractive, black isnt true black on a lcd

Re:picture quality (2, Informative)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863442)

In LCDs you have the 50/60 Hz flickering of the background light, the next problem is the switching time/color tearing, which only recently has become a sort of neglectable issue, also there are still somewhat problems with color calibration. Ok all this problems will be solved soon, but the LCDs are still not fully there (even my own Sony X-black although better then most of the other LCDs still has somewhat disadvantages over a good CRT)

Re:picture quality (4, Informative)

rdc_uk (792215) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863446)

Refresh rate.
Colour reproduction.
Viewable angle.
Brightness
Contrast
Difficulty to knock over :)

Contrast? (1)

perdu (549634) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863513)

"superior picture quality"? Excuse me? An LCD reliably displays the rectangualar picture as a rectangle
Unless LCD's have gotten better, they are not very good at rendering all the intensities in an image as well as a CRT. LCD's are OK for very high-contrast gui applications, such as editing black text on a white background, but don't bring out subtle tones/features. If LCD's have gotten better at this, I'd be interested to hear!

Re:picture quality (2, Informative)

Anita Coney (648748) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863520)

The only reason a CRT flickers is because the user is too stupid to correctly set the refresh rate!

Flat panel CRT (1)

PorkNutz (730601) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863407)

I read a story on /. last year about Flat panel CRTs that were going to be made using two peices of glass and a inkjet type process for printing the phosphors and whatnot on the glass. This story claimed that a 50 inch display would cost under $300 US and production would begin in 2005.

Anyone know whats happening with that?

Re:Flat panel CRT (1)

LouCifer (771618) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863438)

Damn. If that's the case, I'll surely be able to convince the wife that we need a 50" tv.

Or maybe two. :D

Sure beats paying upwards of $1500 for the 50" tvs that are on the market now.

talk about hot. (1, Funny)

nblender (741424) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863430)

At work, I have 5 LCD's on my desk comprising 3 computers; with 1 keyboard/mouse... If it weren't for LCD, I'd be wearing shorts and a tank top to work every day....

Power? (1, Insightful)

Jameth (664111) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863449)

By the best of both worlds, did you mean they also consume less power like an LCD does and don't cause a piercing electronic hum like a CRT does, or did you not exactly mean the best of both worlds?

So It Begins... (1)

wbechard (830613) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863456)

Let all reclaim the lost inches of desk space!

I have always pulled my desks out from the wall to help occomodate the large footprint of my monitors. Perhaps in two years I can upgrade to a nice 21" slim CRT and actually have my desks against the wall.

Does anyone know of actual footprint sizes yet?

SED - the new 'killer app' in TV and monitors? (5, Informative)

bullet_tooth (520157) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863459)

SED (Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Display) panels. These are a new flat panel developed by Toshiba and Canon which are as thin as a plasma/LCD but allegedly produce picture quality on par with a CRT. read here:- http://www.physorg.com/news1295.html and http://www.engadget.com/entry/5732841184005838/ (picture and article illustrate that these TVs are already in production). I believe these are slated for a release in 2H 2005.

Best of both worlds? (4, Informative)

oneiros27 (46144) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863491)

Did anyone look at the stats on the Samsung site before claiming this?

a roughly 20% reduction in depth, and a 10% reduction in weight. (mass, weight, whatever, I didn't do so well in Physics).

100mm is less than 4 inches. It's still 417mm deep -- that's over 16 inches... and 44kg? That's almost 100lbs.

So, the great break through is that you won't have to punch out the back of whatever cabinet you're trying to put the TV into. You'll still need help moving it so you don't throw your back out, and still need some sort of cabinet to put it in, as it's not light enough to be directly wall mounted without some reinforcing first.

I'm not saying this isn't a improvement, but it's not any real breakthrough -- things have been getting smaller for years. They'll continue to get smaller.

LCD's blacks (2, Informative)

glsunder (241984) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863500)

I recently bought a 19" 16ms LCD monitor to replace my failing 22" NEC fe1250. It's wonderful, except the black. Absolute black (#000000)actually seems a bit lighter than the shades that are a bit lighter (say, #050505). The other benifits make up for it, but there's no way I'd pay $1000+ for an LCD TV if that's normal for LCDs.

Wha? (-1, Redundant)

wandernotlost (444769) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863515)

Say whaat? CRTs better picture quality who? Am I the only one who abhors CRT screens? Perhaps they're good for TV, but for computer use, to my eyes LCD screens win hands down in every respect. Since when are fuzzy pixels and flickering pictures "better picture quality?" Even for photo editing, I'd take a high-contrast quality LCD over a CRT in a heartbeat.

Re:Wha? (1)

DoktorSeven (628331) | more than 9 years ago | (#10863545)

Some have the complete opposite view of you, though.. like me. LCDs hurt my eyes because of the motion blur and other intangible qualities (meaning I don't know why, it just does) making my eyes hurt after looking at an LCD for even a few minutes. CRTs are much better for me, though of course the refresh rate has to be sufficiently high.

I'm quite happy to hear this news, though. I feared that one day I would not be able to buy a CRT.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>