I strongly disagree:
"I have concluded that LCD screens, of comparable quality and utility are currently overpriced when the outputs are compared to CRT's"
In my experience, there is NO comparison when it comes to display quality.
I replaced two 22" Iiyama CRTs (PM me if interested in buying them...) with 4 22" LCDs.
There is simply no comparison with regard to sharpness and long-term consistency.
The problems with CRTs are multiple:
- Analog VGA cabling (not strictly a CRT issue, but very few CRTs have a DVI inteface) has problems at higher resolutions that are difficult if not impossible to avoid. This is typically observed as a horizontal "shadow" that can be seen around characters. Even the best cables fail to completely avoid this. I don't think it's an issue of eliminating ghosts - it is only possible to minimize them below a threshold that you might consider bothersome.
(DVI cables have their own problems. But they are, at least, a different set of problems. Long cables can be difficult. But when they work, they just work, with no degradation of the image whatsoever. For longer runs - up to 100 feet - boosters do work, but are expensive - about $200.)
- Brightness drop-off over time. Almost impossible to detect, as you get used to it. Until you see a new tube and realize what you've been missing.
- Inaccurate and drifting geometry. Even careful peridic calibration is not able to completely eliminate this. A total non-issue for LCDs, due to their fixed pixel positions.
- Difficulty of acheiving sharpness both at edges and center. Again, even with painstaking periodic calibration. And, again, a non-issue for LCDs - can't happen.
- Much smaller usable screen area for a given screen size. While you CAN adjust a CRT to use most of the visible screen, it is not advisable, as it makes the geometry and sharpness problems that much worse. |
