ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- ► Watch the FULL video here (Sept 2022): • DF Direct Weekly #77: ...
► Support us on Patreon! bit.ly/3jEGjvx
► Digital Foundry TH-cam: / digitalfoundry
► Digital Foundry Merch: store.digitalf...
► Digital Foundry at Eurogamer: eurogamer.net/...
► Follow on Twitter: / digitalfoundry
I think one thing to keep in mind is that, at least in my experience in the USA, most people didn’t have high end CRTs and mostly used composite. If you were an enthusiast you could see the negatives of moving to a different display, but going from composite to hdmi was a huge upgrade in clarity
Oh, absolutely. We average consumers were still using our monitors from the 90s, plagued with burn-in and phosphor bleed, focus and aspect ratio never quite right, and we weren't about to go drop $4000 on a top-of-the-line model. My first LCD was a 24" WUXGA Samsung and could swivel to portrait mode. For $650 it was a steal.
That was the time when even cheap crts had decent tubes, so i don't think it was true for monitors. TVs was whole another story, of course cheap TV's was not good
for most people the early lcd experiance would have been with svga on the crt and lcd and the difference was vast!
Agreed. The CRT nostalgia sometimes feels as if everyone had a nice Eizo, NEC, or Sony Trinitron monitor. This absolutely wasn't the case. Most CRTs I've seen were rather awful. Black levels weren't really good, they weren't very bright, and thanks to analog VGA connections you always had to choose between flickering and blurriness. LCDs of course had their downsides, mainly that suddenly everything below native resolution looked like shit (particularly older DOS games), but apart from this the whole experience was just _so much better_.
That's true. I only ever used S-video and component on my CRT tv's. Panasonic.
People were very much aware of the problems with ghosting that LCD TVs had but the form factor ultimately sold it over CRT. The idea that you could have a much bigger screen that didn't take up as much room and didn't weigh a ton was attractive to people.
That is basically it, my parents house last CRT was an amazing Samsung, I think the last movie I watched there was avatar and it looked gorgeous, but at 29 inch it was too heavy and needed a lot of space, you couldn’t mount it on the wall and you needed a big rack to put the TV, the room could never look minimalist.
They changed that for a LG(that still works to this day) it’s way to big and heavy for today standards, but 42 inches was a dream back then and even being heavy by today standards, it was still very light compared to the way smaller Samsung CRT.
I think for the average consumer it’s an easy choice, get a huge TV that is lighter, good enough quality to watch TV and and have a smaller form factor.
I think my aunt had a Wall with a hole for the CRT Tv to make it look smaller.
For those doing spreadsheeting an email, the early LCD monitors were greatly appreciated. First in laptops, and then in desktops. As the technology progressed, more and more switched to the form factor. The transition was smooth.
That’s it. It’s flat, less than 50 pounds and can be hung on your wall. I still find old crt on the sidewalks in my town because they’re so big and difficult to store. Crazy how much space our TV and movies used to take. Now just hang a panel and stream.
As a kid I hated laptop displays. I didn’t like the color change in viewing angles, motion blur or how fragile the screens were. Nowadays it’s hard for me to ignore the false blacks and stretched resolutions.
@@slarbiter Yup. While it's harder to find CRT's than it used to you can still find a lot of people looking to ditch them for free if you move it. I got a 24" Wega Trinitron TV last year at a yard sale for free because the guy just wanted the 70 pound square cube out of his basement.
This, however i waited quite a while and got my first LCD in the later 2000s i think. And i still enjoy my 32" 144hz 4k LCD a lot more than any CRT i owned.😬
I remember hooking up that hd wire on the 360 (it wasn't hdmi at the time) onto our 720p plasma tv and being amazed at how clean and clear Splinter Cell Double Agent looked on it. I also remember hooking up my Wii to a Sony Trinitron after being on an lcd and going "whoa!" after seeing how much better Super Mario Galaxy looked on it compared to the lcd tv.
I believe the very first revision of the white xbox 360 didn't have hdmi and had component video as its best output.
When I watched my HD-DVDs on our SD CRT TV the image quality really was great, better than DVD, even though most of the image didn't fit on the screen. I wish I owned a HD CRT back in the day, even though the digital processor added some lag for games.
the 360 was great on a crt with the hd plugs, where as I remember finally getting a ps3 and it looking like trash through the scart lead so had to buy a lcd tv for the hdmi input which did make the ps3 look a lot better
For me it was GTA 4 720P on Plasma TV nothing has come close to it ever a 4K.
No. Its best output was VGA which gave 1080p. Component gave 1080i.@@km_6433
As someone who still definitely values CRTs in retro gaming, it’s awful to have to lug them around, and once prices were similar, it was worth the minor tradeoffs in picture quality to have a monitor that was that much lighter (especially as the visual fidelity of LCDs improved).
The problem was never just black levels. CRT and (I think) Plasma are pulse-based, while OLED and LCD are based on sample-and-hold. Pulsed displays can exhibit flickering on static content, but they are much better at motion clarity. 60 FPS on an OLED/LCD looks much worse than 60 FPS on a CRT. On OLED/LCD successive frames blur together in a bad way, a kind of double vision.
The Test UFO website can be used to compare this effect on different screens. (They also have a black frame insertion (BFI) test which tries to emulate the pulsed approach on sample-and-hold displays. This fixes motion clarity. Unfortunately it halfs the maximum FPS. It also decreases maximum screen brightness, and it could wear down OLEDs.)
Amazingly, approximately nobody knows about this problem. Apparently not even TV test channels like HDTVTest know about it, as they don't test it in devices. Instead they only look at single frame metrics like black levels or color accuracy.
It's actually crazy. We are basically wasting 50% of our compute budget (double the frame rate compared to CRT to make it look acceptable) just to fix a flaw in modern displays.
By the way, theoretically this problem should be fixable on LCD without relying on software BFI and its drawbacks. They could just strobe the LCD backlight, i.e. illuminate each frame only for a fraction of its frame time. The LCD itself and the viewable FPS would not be affected. The maximum brightness would still go down, but it is higher on LCDs anyway than on OLED. I think that should be the default on LCD-TVs when viewing non-HDR content.
This is remarkable because I remember learning about this issue but have been effectively among the masses in recent years having forgotten all about it as far as day-to-day thinking goes
The transition from xbx to 360 we got a LCD. Back then my mentality was how awesome and big the tv was while taking up little space and how easily you could pick it up.
Also at this time i had no idea what black levels even meant or fps, brightness and ghosting. I was just a regular consumer. 😅 now i nerd out about tvs.
That’s a good point-I imagine it was more difficult to be a nerd about this kind of thing back then. Nowadays I can search for monitor reviews and instantly see detailed comparisons about black levels, viewing angles, response times etc. If this information was available in 2005 I certainly didn’t know where to find it.
I definitely noticed. I bought an HDTV around 2007 and returned it the same day when I saw how my older consoles looked and saw the ghosting.
Admittedly, it will have been a pretty cheap one, but I wasn't impressed when I eventually got an HDTV in 2013 in preparation for PS4.
I kept my CRT as long as I could in a spare room for retro consoles. I now have an OLED 4K screen and wish I could compare it to my old CRT.
yeah back then I had a large CRT tv and a small CRT monitor as well, as well as a 1650x1080 720p LCD TN panel, so I basically had 3 different screens in my room around 2006-2010
My father bought the Philips 32PF9731 in 2006. Only 1368x768, but the image was still looking great in in 2019 when they finally replaced it. (It wasn't used for gaming, though.)
Oled 4k beats CRT in everything except depth of vision, unless if your CRT screen was flat.
I was selling TV's when the flat panel craze/HD transition hit. Plasma was the closest to CRT in terms of black levels, and my god, did those LCDs have blur and backlight issues. Also, if you got the low-end plasmas, the they couldn't do black, just dark gray. I remember all the craziness surrounding plasmas too, the gassing up, the burn in, the whole deal... craziness. The problem was, when you went to large screen tvs, CRTs past 32-36" were so ungodly heavy that you had to get into projection tvs. OF which the CRT based ones did look better, but not until DLP and LCD projection tvs did the sizes and weights thin down. And that early period also did a disservice to customers IMO, with having SD, ED, and HD on the market, but the TV standard going to be HD. IMO, back during that time Sony and JVC (I'Art series) had the top CRT tube tvs. Philips, Toshiba, and Samsung were OK depending on the model. In projection, Hitachi (Ultravision and up lines), Mitsubishi, and arguably Pioneer had some of the best out. But, when the LCD/Plasmas hit, for Plasma it was Hitachi, Pioneer, Mitsubushi, and Samsung--for LCD Sharp and Samsung. Sony had solid models in both but weren't overly better. I remember having to steer customers off the low-end brands like Apex and others, because the picture quality just wasn't there. I really did enjoy my late 00's Samsung HD 32" LCD. I added a 50" Panasonic plasma about 3 years later. I think I still prefer plasma tech. I will say though, that motion blur was real on a lot of those flat panels. And that monster 40" CRT Sony made was so damn heavy, a place I worked that sold it would only deliver first floor and if it had to go up or down stairs the customer had to hire professional movers.
Yup, the Panasonic, and by extension Pioneer Plasma was the thinkin man's TV in those days.
@@CheddarGetter Specifically, Pioneer Elite projection tv's were legit for that tech. Their plasmas were good/great, with the Elite branding or not. Panasonic models were solid top to bottom in plasma. Sony Bravia and XBR models weren't too bad, but Sony really did have the better CRT HD and their LCD projection sets were also top notch.
I immediately noticed the lag when I first had an LG LCD back in 2010 as a replacement to my Philips CRT (when my then 7 son inadvertently kicked the TV out of commission mimicking a Street Fighter move 😂). I was playing with a Hori joystick and I could no longer perform Sagat's combos like I used to in Street Fighter 4. 😬 I had to painstakingly adjust for the delay for some time, but of course eventually had gotten used to it.
the lag on some lcds where so bad then, like 200-300ms. I remember looking up guids to find lcds that good response times
Shoutout to sf4 OG
I think my Philips LCD from 2008 already had a gaming mode. It will still have been a bit laggier than a CRT, but without it playing a game felt like crawling through heavy mud.
It was the weight that mattered most to me. I moved a lot back then, I still do, and with introduction of 16:9, the crts just became impossible to move around withour hired help. I still kinda miss my Sony Trinitron monitor, though.
And the heat. My 2 21" trinitrons took like 300 watts each.
oh yeah those sony trinitrons are still given away by older people because they are so much larger and heavier, most people want to buy one but who can lift them?
I was a kid at the time but I remember our computer room in school changing half of its computer's screens to LCDs. Most kids wanted to use them because they were new, but I remember noticing how the viewing angles sucked and how things just looked kinda wrong (I suppose it wasn't running at its native resolution).
I also remember switching to a LCD TV and noticing how SD content looked awful. It took a while for most media to be updated to HD so I had to live with that for a while.
LCD's were controversal because it were legal to sell new screens with x number of dead pixels.
In my country it were still possible to get a new screen on warranty even if there were only one dead pixel.
It's been a long time, I remember playing Modern Warfare on PS3 on a widescreen CRT. It was a nice TV but it was hard to notice opponents sometimes. The switch to a smaller monitor with 1080p was great, it was like putting on glasses. On the other hand, something like Motorstorm may have looked better on the CRT.
The widescreen and resolution boost on TV shows, sports, then-new-gen consoles and movies at home were so novel when they arrived, any negatives were just completely ignored
Thing is a lot of people jumped multiple technologies around the time - so went from playing a PS2 game on a 24" standard def set, to playing 360 on a 37" widescreen HD TV (or some similar jump), so the downsides were covered up by the general upgrade of everything else. As far as work screens go, for most people motion wasn't an issue, and having a screen twice the size that took up a fraction of your desk space that was less straining on the eyes and easily mountable - was still an upgrade.
With that said I imagine had I been more of a PC gamer at the time then I would have clung on to my CRT for longer.
A 720p or 1080i screen was such a step up from 480i that the negatives were easily overwhelmed. I imagine the first color TVs weren't nearly as crisp as the better black and white screens at the time and that exactly just as many people cared.
I was so excited to get my first "flat" screen TV. It was a 40" Westinghouse LCD. Got home, plugged in my PS2 and then had the worst gaming experience of my life. It was absolutely unplayable. Returned the LCD and bought the biggest CRT at BB which was a 32" Sharp and that is the 2nd best TV I've owned behind my current LG C1 OLED
Flat panel
PS2 looks great on my 65" plasma through component cables.
I didn't even have or really see games on an LCD until 2013 when I got a small 32" Samsung. All I remember was going "wow, so this is what HD looks like" when I hooked up the PS3 and hopped into my go-to games.
i still use my childhood 29 CRT TV from the 90s for retro consoles periodically, and the Plasma 720p Panasonic TV that i used for my xbox 360 back in the day
Competitive gaming communities, like the fighting game community, were probably the first to take notice at LCDs problems. I remember that there was a lot of discussion and testing in various competitive fighting game forums in regards to finding LCDs that could compare to CRTs for tournament play.
Going from CRT monitor for LCD screen was definetly a jump, most of the motivation was getting better resolution and larger size with no headaches at lower refresh rates.
CRT TVs kinda hit the size/affordability limit at around 32".
I had to get one because the text for the radio calls in the first Dead Rising were just way to small to read.
FOR SURE I did. When I still had my CRT screen, I remember going to Best Buy and seeing a new PC running Call of Duty on an LCD monitor and being turned off by the monitor's low response time motion blur (before knowing what that was) and how washed out it looked. Eventually I got an LCD because they were cheaper, easier to find and gave me more space on my desk.
At the time, I didn't watch much television so for me it was primarily computer monitors that I noticed. And there was definitely a feeling of trade offs. While tvs were pretty low res crt monitors could be up to 1024x768 or even higher! And at 80hz! Whereas the lcd monitors at the time had a limited viewing angles, limited colour and blackness replication, and lower refresh rates. But they were so much lighter and thinner and that seemed really cool. I think my feelings at the time was that this was the future of displays and they would catch up to crt's easily in time and they *mostly* have. They've certainly taken a lot longer than I thought and even now as I work and play on a 165hz refresh display it has terrible ghosting that I put up with because I chose a model which has better colour replication for colour matching when doing art. But back in the day it was like.. if you ever wrestled with a large crt taking them up stairs or getting it out of a cabinet to get at the inputs on the back.. the appeal of flatscreens was STRONG.
Oh this is a fun question. In terms of absolute top end picture, you would have wanted an HD CRT at 40".
But those were also really expensive, really heavy, and a total albatross to make happen in your household.
So then it went to other options available - plasma offered similar picture with high resolution and a smaller form factor. But it was still expensive.
DLP was REALLY popular back then - good overall picture and motion clarity. Large screen size, fairly cheap.
LCD also had a bright picture when LEDs became the back light, which was fairly early on. It was still very colorful compared to what we were used to at the time.
And it was lightweight and portable (LAN PARTIES).
People went to these new techs for reasons OTHER than black level and motion clarity. But largest reason of all? 16:9, higher resolution.
The picture CLARITY was such a massive jump from what we were getting at 480i that it just didnt matter to us that our old games looked like shit on the panels.
Combine that with the push to digital TV (now broadcasting in 16:9, at high resolution), widescreen movies, and other content that took advantage of the higher resolution all these displays had, no one was complaining that their LCD had ghosting and bad black levels (also because LCD wasnt the only tech out there).
It wasn't until later on, when interest in old content started to come back, along with ease of access to formerly top, top end CRT tech that we started to appreciate the CRT in ways we never did before.
But i can say i am not ever going out of my way to get my old memorex 25" CRT back into my home ever again.
True, nobody wanted to buy top end CRTs because they were stupidly expensive on launch, not to mention massively huge, stupidly heavy, used ton of electricity and got very hot. Different story when you can pick up something that costs thousands for rock bottom prices because people want to get rid of them.
@@cattysplat I love how people grab a Sony PVM that used to cost $10,000 or some amount back in the 90s for 50 bucks and are like "how did we ever get away from these????".
Still, it's a fun topic. I remember being OBSESSED over resolution back then. 720p vs 1080i was a real thing, because it was all about clarity, and not getting screwed out on resolution because your TV displayed it in an odd manner (remember 720p TVs that would take a 1080i image, convert it to 540p, then do a shitty upscale??).
It's why 1080p was so big back in the mid 00s.
But some TVs looked AMAZING at 1080i when it would display it natively. Let alone the fact that 1080i was less resource extensive when displaying it on a computer.
And if you had a PS2 with gran Turismo 4 that could display at native 1080i, put out to a TV that 1080i was specifically made for? (Like a CRT HDTV).
It was incredible.
There's so much that goes into this topic, and it's just not as simple as "hurr durr, CRTV black levels and motion clarity"
I wondered whether 40" CRTs even existed, but apparently they did. The largest CRT ever was the Sony PVM-4300 monitor with a 43" diagonal and weighing 200kg (=440lbs).
I remember when flat screens first came out as computer monitors, suddenly I was able to fit a screen on my desk nearly. The clarity was perfect, it didn't whine and pop and it stopped giving me headaches. CRTs were generally absolutely garbage horrible behemoth things I will never miss.
In the early 2000s i had a 40" Sony WEGA, which had an amazing picture (despite a slight geometry issue which was only noticeable in horizontal scrolling), and i had to get rid of it when i moved. My next two TVs were LCD and they were very disappointing, though i didn't really know why as i had the "newer must be better" mindset at the time. My latest TV, a Sony A8H that i got a couple of years ago, is _finally_ a superior picture to that 40" CRT i had 20 years ago.
My first transition from CRT was a 50" Pioneer plasma in 2009, then the LG B6 OLED in 2016, then LG C9, and now the C2. I never bought an LCD TV.
I remember the early oughts when people started getting first generation LCDs and wireless mice. In some cases that combination felt like absolute garbage. There was no real debate about it at the time, but it never felt right to me. I once hooked an X360 up to a CRT with a VGA adaper and was blown away by how good it looked compared to a contemporary HDTV.
well actually i got chewed out on messageboards when I brought up i was still using a CRT monitor back in the early 2000s and then i got bullied when I stated I played 360 on an SD Crt instead of a shitty HDready Lcd tv (circa 2005-2007)
@@signorpaldoni I played halo 3 and GTA IV for the longest time on a SD CRT TV because input lag and motion blur on HD TV's were so and is so bad. I just kept it to myself, because nobody cared or remembered how crisp games feel on CRT
It was more about picture clarity at the time. I remember being amazing how crisp everything was.
I remember going from CRT to a 1080p samsung screen around Uncharted 2, and definitely noticed I started doing worse in the online multiplayer, but I was sure it had to be me, I needed to get used to the new screen, at some point I just stopped thinking about it, then only some years ago I learned CRTs had lower input lag and realized why I felt that way.
I had a Sharp LCD and it was better than CRT in any way. No input lag, it was hooked to an original Xbox
unlikely, it was probably a skill issue tho
lol sure....LCD with no input lag back then???@@licenciadoleopoldocanoloza1144
lol game mode wasnt invented yet, i guess thats the reason they have it in all newer TVs to where weirdos still have CRTS because they dont know modern TVs have game mode and want less input lag but in results misses out in finer details and lower colors.
@@FreeAimDog Game mode just reduces digital processing to reduce lag generally to around 18-20ms, which is still very high lag, compared to CRTs 0ms, also game mode does nothing to increase motion clarity, which is where the major advantage in competitive play comes from, LCD's also have terrible greyscale, blacks, and colours compared to CRTs, which have super inky blacks, incredibly rich colours and can thanks to ultra fine dot-pitches that far outclass any LCD's fill-rate, have beautiful fine pitch detail in anything from 240p to 2560p, LCDs have gotten better at multi resolution handling and fine details thanks to subpixel rendering.
The last CRT monitor I bought was a 19-inch while I was living in Chicago. The UPS driver refused to bring it up ny apartment stairs, so I had to drive all the way to pick it up and then try to squeeze the 50 lbs box into the back seat of my car because it wouldn't fit in the trunk. I loved that monitor, but yeah, moving to LCD was mostly just convenience for me.
I think around 2019-2020 is when LED FINALLY got black levels to a level that is really good (depending on brand.) but before that it was always just a dark grey.
I can tell you my experience because I remember it clearly. In 2008 I ditched my CRT monitor (1280x1024 and could go up to 85 Hz frequency) to a widescreen Samsung LCD monitor. I deliberately didn't say HD because the term HD was pretty ambiguous at the time. 😅 Back then 720p was considered HD 1080p was labeled as full HD. Later 720p was renamed 'HD Ready' (Ready for what?😅) and 1080p became 'True HD'. That was a good way to confuse the hell out of average people and make them buy 720p monitors and TV's. Well my monitor wasn't 720p nor 1080p, it's resolution was actually 1680x1050 with an aspect ratio of 16:10. Looking back it's actually surprising how many games actually supported this awkward resolution, like the Total War games, Call of Duty (all the original MW games) Far Cry 2, all the Crysis games (the first one doesn't support 1080p for some reason.😂 That's hilarious.). The last two games I've played which supported this weird resolution were CS: Go and LOTR Shadow of Mordor. But then again, some games did not support it, so I've ended up with a messy image. So my first negative experience was exactly this, running games lower than the actual desktop resolution on an LCD looked (and still kinda looks) awful, especially if compared to my old CRT where the difference switching from 1280x1024 to 1024x768 was miniscule. I could go low as 800x600 and the image quality was still serviceable. It was 640x480 where things got noticeably ugly. The other major problem was ghosting. There is this old RPG with superheroes, Freedom Force and it's follow up Freedom Force vs the Third Reich. I did play these games quite often back in the day. The game is cell shaded resembling 2D art and the main menus have this 2D art scrolling from left to right. When I first tried to boot this game on my brand new 2008 Samsung LCD with it's exceptional 1680x1050 resolution I was in shock. I just couldn't comprehend the level of ghosting. I seriously thought that something's wrong with the monitor but no, that's just the way old LCD monitors were. Overall and despite all the things I listed out I really liked my first LCD, high resolution was all the rage back then and picture clarity and the wide screen format made up for all the disadvantages (more so with TVs than monitors). Btw my old ass Samsung LCD with it's weird ass resolution still works, my mom uses it as her desktop monitor, while all my CRTs have bitten the dust (3 TV's and 2 monitors). When compared to other modern products (phones, printers or even washing machines) LCD monitors are stirdy as fu*k! None of my monitors has actually malfunctioned. My old LCD is 14 years old and still kicking, my 'new'/current monitor is 7 years old.
used to say High Quality 720p and High Definition 1080p
@@n9ne It depends on the country. I live in Slovakia.
@@stanleysmith7551 720p is still called HD here where I live. At 1080p it's called Full HD, and also Ultra HD for 4K.
As someone who worked in the games industry at the time I was extremely grateful for the transition to LCD screens.
Back in the day, you'd have your monitor on your desk and a TV for your console devkit. The TV would often interfere with the monitor, causing its picture to wobble. Vomit inducing. Not long after the transition to LCD, we all got given multiple monitors, which is such a productivity booster.
My first LCD TV (in 2006 or so) was pretty unplayable for some games though. Games like Halo 2 were a smeary mess.
Back in the mid 2000's I do recall noticing how my new 1280x1024 monitor was not as bright and vibrant as the previous Samsung CRT, but the sheer amount of free table space I got in return helped me forget :D
This topic tickles my nostalgia in all the right ways, as I remember having black and white televisions still stationed around the house as a kid (80s kid here). Original LCDs, as John alludes to, were en vogue but TERRIBLE. I didn’t buy my first plasma television until the tech had matured enough to not feel like a step down from CRT strengths. I picked up one of the last Panasonic consumer plasmas and enjoy it in the man cave still today. It was a wild time to be alive!
Yes, anyone using good CRTs noticed. The main selling point of LCDs was that they saved space, and that mattered far more in offices, because it allowed companies to cram more people into the same space.
In fact, I'd say it wasn't until the last 8 years or so that LCDs matched the colour quality / accuracy / refresh rate of my Eizo T966 monitors for a similar price. For a long time, the only "department" where LCDs had a clear visual advantage was image geometry.
If we're talking desktop monitors, the first LCD monitor I got was the Dell UltraSharp 16:10 model in mid-late 2000's and I used it until it died back in 2014. And funnily enough, I got work to replace it with another pair of Dell Ultrasharps which I'm still rocking to this day... well one of them, because one of them broke. I recall thinking the same thing as John that LCDs really sucked back then, but the Dell panels really stood out for some reason.
i've noticed that my retina stopped burning after one hour on front of a non-CRT monitor
I remember that transition and I forced myself to wait till 2012 by the time Black Ops 2 was released. I didn't care for the LCD screen due to the slow refresh rate. I thought it was disgusting. All my friends asked me, "You need to get a new TV" and "why are you still using an old TV?" I told me them that they were too expensive even though they kept showing me how affordable they were.
I told them that I don't like the technology and I thought the image quality sucked. And I'm waiting for them to go down in price.
The LED tech was promising so I did my research and upgraded by 2012. I was looking for a TV with 3 HDMI ports.
I remember watching hockey in HD for the first time on an LCD and being amazed how well I could actually see and track the puck. That's when we made the switch.
My first LCD monitor was a 17" Mitsubishi DiamondView with a max resolution of 1280x1024 (standard for the time), BUT it had a refresh rate of 16ms/60Hz instead of the average 40ms/25Hz.
It might just be rose-tinted glasses talking but I don't recall games ever looking bad on it (might be the 16ms); the colours were certainly different to a CRT but it wasn't unusable.
When LCD hit the market I was working in a graphic repro studio for print and we were on Mac's with 21" Lacie Electron 22 Blue CRT's. We continued using them because the LCD's did not have the gamut depth required for accurate image editing. You would change granular settings and not see any change on a LCD screen, so CRT was the way to go for detailed high quality graphic repro work. Mac eventually introduced the Retina LCD displays, which are supposed to offer the same gamut as CRT for pro work, but they are horrendously expensive. Although I'm now retired, I still have a 21" Lacie Electron 22 Blue CRT on a Mac.
When I moved from CRT to LCD TV I made sure I got a good Sony with a high bit depth panel to smooth out the banding you normally get on a small gamut LCD. OLED gets close to CRT, but I found the LG C2 OLED had weak reds compared to a Sony OLED. When I upgrade to a PS5 Pro I will probably get a Sony A95L OLED to get that illusive CRT depth.
I don't think anyone ever bought a LCD for how the looked back then. You bought one to get a bigger screen that took up less space.
I remember being at some fancy electronics shop in 2005 and they had this expensive Sharp LCD next to a plasma by Pioneer and I could just see there was something wrong with the LCD but I didn't know how to describe it
I tell you that picking up a 35" SD TV requires a lot of strength... I even had a tube HDTV also before HDMI was a thing.... that was heavy also. I was happy LCD screens came about because they were bigger.... higher res too. 65" is slightly above average nowadays. I'd get 75" if it would fit in my car... 65" barely does.
Early LCD/Plasma TVs were total garbage and a big step down from CRT. All my family switched to them but I stuck with CRT. I was honestly disgusted at their lack of caring. The big 'selling point' back then was the switch from 4:3 to 16:9. My relatives spent years watching 4:3 images stretched/squashed to 16:9 and they didn't care, it was completely baffling and ridiculous.
Definitely noticed the horrible black levels on the LCD but the screens were bigger at least and the strobing from the CRT wasn't there. Like a CRT at 60Hz had noticeable strobing from the low refresh rate, so I had to run at 100Hz+ by dropping the resolution on the display. Now finally I'm on OLED and loving the great black levels again with the bonus of HDR, VRR and can't notice strobing like with CRTs. Over 3000 hours as a monitor and no burn-in so far with an LG C1 TV. One downside is the subpixels are arranged left-to-right Red-White-Blue-Green while Windows generally accounts for RGB subpixels. No perfect solutions out there but Mactype seems to help text clarity with a little tweaking to it.
When I first heard about plasma TV's it felt like the future. The idea you could hang a TV on the wall like a painting was crazy in the mid/late 90's. I had a really nice CRT monitor, my memory was it was higher than HD res but I used to watch early HD footage on it and drool and not long after LCD monitors were cheap enough that I managed to get one, giving the old one away thinking it was junk. It was one of the biggest mistakes I've made and until that point I wrongly believed that something newer was obviously better. I wish I'd studied them side by side for a while (not literally, dual display wasn't common) but the person I gave it to was pretty much there when I got the new monitor, not that it would have crossed my mind.
That said, it wasn't that bad either. It took me a long time to realise that it wasn't as good as CRT and while I've toyed with the idea I've never gone back. 4K LCD is good enough even if it's not quite perfect
I had a top end crt, a loewe aconda. Even so it had imperfect geometry, undefeatable overscan and the picture wobbled a bit when going from very bright to very dark fullscreen
I remember first seeing the picture a Loewe could make back in the day. Guaranteed I would have gotten one if I didn’t already have a Sony HD CRT at the time. What happened to yours?
@kenshirogenjuro873 it ended up going to the rubbish dump about 5 years ago as I had no room for it in the house and nobody wanted it. shame really. should have kept it
@@mr.y.mysterious.video1 damn…I might have wanted it! Chances are not enough for the shipping though, wherever in the world you happen to be
I think at the time the sexy thin, flat panels and their LIGHTWEIGHT construction blew us all away. With regards to the image, I recall watching HD-DVD discs (outputting a 1080p resolution) on my new 32" 720p LCD television. It seemed simply amazing and super pin-sharp. So much more detail than on my 32" Philips CRT. But the warmth and the contrasts... it's true... it was different (and better) on CRT. But all those other positives, just left us forgetting all about that little issue!
I sure did. When I first saw an LCD my friend bought and he told me how expensive it was I just started laughing 😂😂😂
honestly, when as a kid we "upgraded" from a CRT pc monitor to a slightly bigger LCD 4:3 for our win 98 i did not notice any real difference. just looked pretty similar exept that the LCD was a bit brighter. i think it was a pretty decent monitor for the time, an LG or something. mostly looked the same in games at 800:600 res despite it not being native. didnt notice any input lag either.
standard definition CRT TVs were always shit picture quality outside of the input lag advantage, so i didnt notice any advantage there either. here in Pal territory CRT TVs also had the disadvantage that they made noticeable noise and flickered (exept for the 100 hz panels) so the LCDs had clear advantages in those regards too.
that being said id still like to have a widescreen CRT pc monitor like Carmack!
Never owned a lcd tv as I always knew they were horrible. I cried when my 27” crt monitor broke and had no choice to buy a over priced Viewsonic monitor with the worst ghosting while playing games such as original counter strike.
Pioneer plasma for life!
Viewing angles didn't matter much back in the day because few people were using multiple monitors. For business use those early LCD's were fine, not great and certainly not the best for user health but CRTs aren't really any better there either.
I hung onto my giant, heavy Trinitron as long as I could - still, to this day it had the best image quality of any display I’ve ever used. Granted, it was lower resolution (1600x1200) but really not by that much. I still miss it.
People love CRT for the same reason they love plasma TV...phosper.
A plasma is basically a CRT with a plasma medium instead of vacume. Both have great black levels and amazing color. There is a cure for LCD without going back to the technological dark ages...OLED
So thankful that teenage Me bought a CRT in 2003 instead of a flatscreen - which ironically I regretted at the time. But here I am twenty years later, having just returned from japan with a super famicom... The first thing I did was pull out the little silver TEAC from the wardrobe, and everything looks so perfect, with its native 60hz support and PAL colours. Phew!
Everyone called them "flat screens" and to have a flat screen mounted was a sign of prestige.
I’m sorry but anyone that thing to CRT was better than LCD you need glasses. NO CRT was not if it was better they would still be making them. This Hass to be the dumbest take I’ve ever heard on this channel.
this just tells me you didnt have rgb cables and used the yellow composite ... opinion is mute
@@vasili1207 I did, like I said if CRT was better they still be making it!!!
they do lol ... look it up mainly in china ... also more profit in lcd as crts are expensive to make hence cheap lcds we have now... smooth brain@@michaeldietz2648
Dont pay attention to vasili, hes just a troll. He has other replies negating any opinion he doesnt agree with under other posters as well
@@michaeldietz2648There were tradeoffs in weight, cost of manufacture and shipping, and size. These were some of the same reasons that Plasma lost out to LCD.
We’ll see if OLED can continue to compete with LCD but the inferior tech tends to win based on cost
I remember people throwing CRTs out and calling them crappy old TVs in 2010 in my family. Unfortunately the jump to Full HD and a flat panel was the only thing people could see and everything else didn’t matter.
tbh I didn't really notice the difference as a kid but as I grew older I really realised how much I hate dealing with interlaced signals on LCDs.
I do like working with CRTs but kinda have to think about power efficiency these days.
You could get a good lcd monitor back in the mid 2000s but you had to spend a bit. Spent $700 on an 20" IPS NEC LCD back in 2007. It had visual advantages and disadvantages to CRTs but at least it wasn't entirely disadvantaged to CRTs in every single visual metric.
Having a sharper image was more appealing back then for most people. I remember falling for that when I was a kid. Now I want to go back to the blur because aliasing drives me crazy.
I made a fuzz back in the day. I held on to my 19" CRT for years and years. I also had one just like it at my job and had big stickers that they were absolutely NOT allowed to replace it with an LCD. The CRT did 1600*1200 and the LCDs at the time were usually 1024*768 and smeary and slow and no contrast...
I remember hunting for an HD CRT that has component and HDMI inputs. Damn thing has a DVI. The Sony was so heavy because the glass was 3" thick. Also found an Insignia (best buy inhouse brand) that was a great picture, but burned out in like 4 years. They smoked ANY Westinghouse etc trash that was around in those days. Only thing that compared was the Panasonic Plasma, and the Pioneer Plasma... which had a Panasonic panel.... They made the red sub pixels slightly larger which really created a more natural look back in the day. I remember when I was selling TVs at that time, the first 1080p plasma cost $9,999. I think it was 50"? Sold one to Jack Nicklaus at sticker price. Loved it so much we actually worked with the company building his basement to build a small theater from scratch, got to run wiring before drywall went up, speakers flush in the wall in the back. A Sony HD DLP projector that was sk bright it could give you true whites on a matte plum colored wall. Ahh man, old HD tech. It was an interesting time. Surprisingly it was easier to sell $1000 Blu-ray players than $600 PS3s as a more functional Blu-ray player. "I don't play games tho" ..... I'm like.... "and?" 😅
Something else to consider: I went from a NICE semi-flat Panasonic 36" CRT to a top-of-the-line Sony XBR2 40" LCD and it had a SMALLER display because tv's are measured diagonally so I actually lost size at 16:9 versus 3:2 on standard def viewing!
Still rocking a 63” 2010 Samsung C8000 plasma TV as my primary TV/gaming display. Still looks great after all these years.
I remember buying my first LCD to replace my CRT back in 2005 - it was 24" Dell 2405 FPW. I clearly remember firing up Doom III and being incredibly disappointed by the terrible black levels and motion clarity. The input lag completely killed off my desire to play any sort of competitive shooter for years. The display looked beautiful in windows, but we sacrificed so much to get there. To this day we're still trying to catch up in some ways - motion clarity especially has a long ways to go before it will match what we had in those days since all of the current display tech is using sample and hold.
First time I used an lcd for gaming I seriously thought there was something wrong with the tv because of how blurry everything was.
That led me to play most PS3 games with my TV's interpolation feature. It was laggy but I didn't notice it that much at the time and the motion clarity was a lot better, so it was this or nothing.
Then much later I heard about black frame insertion and that's only then that I enjoyed gaming on Lcds again because it fix the lcd's motion blur without any hits to input lag or creating fake frames. The LG C1 is the best gaming display ever made and beats the C2/3 because it can strobe at 100+ hz, I can double strobe 60fps content on PC leading to a 4x in motion clarity. So 60fps games looks like 240FPS in term of motion clarity. Native 60hz BFI is also perfectly useable with a 2.6x in motion clarity improvement VS regular LCDs or Oleds. 120FPS games meanwhile looks insane at have the equivalent of 312FPS of motion clarity. I really wish the later oled from LG could still do this...
Resolution was eye-catchy. Details poped-up. Contrast and refresh rate were bad, PC CRTs were bulky, expensive and BETTER
I was very happy with an EDTV CRT + composite cable + Wii at least for a couple of years, when the HD era began.
I remember sending a Sony 480p LCD TV from 2004 back because of how much ghosting there was. I stuck with a CRT until 2009
Having worked in electronics retail since 1999, the first LCD TVs/displays we had in stock were abysmal - but the public were so brainwashed by marketing and the media into thinking they were a step forward (despite the shortcomings at the time being blindingly apparent)......and they'd pay the huge price premium for it! Plus don't get me started on Rear Projection TVs!
They looked blue-ish and had a lot of motion trail at the time, also if you looked at them from an angle you couldn't see anything.
It was the Star Trek effect. Going from a big heavy box piece of furniture to a flat panel you could DIY hang on a wall with ease. People were just wowed by something they thought was impossible.
As someone who has had PCs since 2000, I remember LCDs coming in with atrociously bad colors compared to CRTs. I don't remember when exactly I switched to one, but I think CRTs were no longer being sold by then.
People comparing a PVM crt to a modern low or mid market tv are silly.
Those sony pvm displays were $100,000 when they released.
It would be like comparing a flanders scientific display to any consumer tv.
Absolutely. Gamers who were into tech definitely knew. But eventually you almost had to settle. It took quite a while for LCDs to get fast.
I was a teen and even I definitely noticed. I went from a glorious 19" Viewsonic PF790 CRT to a 17" BenQ something or other 16ms TN LCD and while a huge space saver, the motion blur was bad, the backlight bleed was bad, and anything other than native resolution looked bad.
My first LCD TV was a definite visual downgrade, but on the other hand, the CRT it replaced was 300lbs with no handles. Not the most fun thing to move around.
Honestly thin tech was so in back in the early aughts that it’s hard not to realize why LCDs took off so hard and left CRTs in the trash for folks. We are talking about an era where folks fell head over heals for the Motorola razr. I say this as someone who was guilty of all this as well
CRT EDTV’s are very rare. Zero lag, high resolutions, progressive scan mode, many inputs like RGB scart, component, s-video etc. Panasonic PD30 is one of the best CRT you can get for gaming 480p up to 1080i. Just not many ppl know about them.
we had a high end crt and kept it until it couldn’t be fixed/got tired of lugging a 300 lb tv down 3 flights of stairs because it was as good or better than any lcd we could afford. even after we got a nice lcd we opted to get a nice used crt for the spare room over an lcd because they where still great and affordable.
I could never tolerate the horrible headache flicker on CRTs, so I was happy to embrace LCDs as soon as they were available.
What happened was a decision from a conglomerat of manufacturers who saw that it was cheaper to manufacture smaller lcds than crts…
We were conditioned to think that with large screens you were going to get worse picture quality . They had very large screen projection TVs in the 80s that honestly looked horrible , but you could see them across the room . Luckily now you can get picture quality and size in one , but it wasn't always the case .
A friend of mine around 1990 had a large , expensive projection TV and every time the film (or whatever) was too light in color , like a snowy scene , the whole picture would completely wash out and just go totally white . You got used to it and it was a huge screen so you overlooked it .
My family went from an old 20" CRT to a 50" 3D 1080p TV in 2012, we still use it as our main TV to this day, and honestly it still looks great
When I got my first LCD PC monitor (17") to replace my Sony Trinitron 19" CRT that could run 1024x768@200hz, there was a massive difference in input latency that was intolerable, even when comparing both screens at 60hz. The LCD immediately became my second screen and the dissapointment was palpable.
We had a glass sanyo standard definition, a projection screen many years ago and I swear that glass Sanyo to this day was one of the best tvs ever lol
The first PC I bought myself in 2005 was bundled with an LCD. I ended up exchanging it for a CRT with no regrets. In 2010 when I replaced it I went with a glossy LCD monitor, as I found they did a better job boosting the contrast and colours despite the occasional glare. In 2017 I went with a Samsung matte LCD which I still rock today.
Side note, but when I go to an electronics store it seems like LCD TVs still have much more vibrant colours and contrast than PC monitors with similar specs. Is it just the store setup, or is there a specific reason for this that isn't always apparent on the specs sheet?
I continued to use vga well into the 360 era. Prior to the 360 elite model, the best output available was the vga cable.
My 13" crt in my bedroom was dying late 2006 and bought myself a 32" lcd and really diluted myself it was better "Screen is just so much larger is naturally looks worse obviously" ect. When finally back to CRTs 5 years ago realized how badit was.
I definitely noticed the persistence blur and ghosting of earlier models almost immediately... that always annoyed me.
Thank God, most newer LCD/LED panels are much better now.
I had a high end CRT. I noticed a drop off in quality. I asked a teacher if the new LCDs were better and he just looked at me like it was the dumbest thing he's ever heard "of course they are better than the bulky ones"
The first LCD I got was a Viewsonic VX724 (TN 1280x1024@75Hz) in 2005. Once I upgraded to a video card with dual head support a couple months later I pulled the Dell UltraScan P991 (Trinitron tube, 1600x1200@85Hz if my memory serves) back out to use side by side as a second head and honestly preferred the LCD. Three years later I got a second VX724 and used that setup until a capacitor died and replaced it with a triple head NEC 2090UXi setup (IPS 1600x1200@60Hz). For me, as a programmer (games and web at the time), the clarity offered by LCDs over CRTs outweighed the downsides. Plus some minor things like reclaimed desk space and not having to look at the Trinitron wires. Still have the P991 and most of the CRT monitors my family had in storage and can't say I personally see the appeal even though I understand the pros and cons.
I was working at Circuit City when the first LCD panels began selling. They looked like ass compared to even the cheapest LCD. People just wanted the cool factor. The contrast and viewing angles were hell.
I didn't know much of anything about display tech at the time so as long as it had a comparable resolution I didn't care. I had an HDCRT TV and liked it but I didn't know why.
My first LCD was a Sony Bravia KDL 40" 1080p which my late uncle got me for a grand as he worked in wholesale for Sony. Thing was three grand in stores.
Loved the thing to be honest, and still own but don't use it. My latest is a 55" Hisense U7K and quite honestly love the thing too. My folks have an LG OLED and yeah, it's cool too, but so far as a personal use big screen goes, a miniLED Hisense or TCL isn't going to fail you. They pretty much can do everything (most TV specialist channels recommend them if you don't opt for Sony's or LG's flagship) and you save hundreds of pounds.
Interesting to read Sony might very well be abandoning OLED as they have unlocked tge key to 4000nit miniLED and are now even producing 4000nit miniLED mastering monitors that studios are buying up.
Seems like 8K might be on hold and it in fact being nit count that might become more a USP.
I am still using that tv right now as a monitor. I paid $4000 for it in 2005.
I never really thought the LCD’s “didn’t look as good” at the time LCD’s dropping, I wasn’t really going back to retro gaming, I was playing PS2,
Xbox and GameCube on Component and I thought it looked amazing. By time I started going back to retro 2D, LCD’s had improved a lot and I always bought premium panels so that could be part of why I never had issue with them.
You should remember that plasma screens outcompeted LCD's, until later in the '00's.
What are Plasma's know for?
Having a similar image quality to C.R.T.'s.
Nobody really thought LCD's would fully take over, before OLED's, because we were promised, "SED technology has been developed, and it just needs to be commercialized."