CRT -v- LCD

[BlueTit]

I have noticed a few posts referring to CRT's better performance and colour accuracy for digital photos. As I have only been using digital cameras for about two years, I have never used a CRT to review photos, so I dragged my 21kg (43lb) CRT downstairs to review the two side by side :rolleyes:

The CRT is a Dell 19" P991 about four years old and was pretty pricey at the time. My LCD is the Dell 1800FP Ultrascan 18.1".

Maybe I am just used to the LCD but I found the CRT looked fuzzy and washed out, is this becuase I am used to the "false" colours of the LCD and the CRT is actually a more realistic display of my photos or is that CRT too old to be comparing against?

I would be very interested to here what anyone has to say about CRT v LCD.



BTW one thing I did discover when looking for reviews on both monitors tonight was a site for fine tuning text display on LCD screens which I have never heard of, you may want to try it:

http://www.microsoft.com/typography/ClearType/tuner/Step1.aspx

It is a quick online four step process from Microsoft to improve the font display quality for LCD screens.

[DocFrankenstein]

I have a viewsonic LCR and a samsung CRT

I find that the CRT shows better shadow detail for the pictures

[Wildewinds]

I have a 24" Dell LCD at home and a Viewsonic 19" CRT here at work. That particular LCD (2405fpw) demolishes the CRT. I think the best thing about it (besides being so huge, which is awesome) is the 1000-1 contrast ratio. It's BRIGHT. However, I have some other LCD's here (cheap ones) that do not look as good as the CRT's.

Luckily for me, I have access to a large format Chromira printer. Doing all the editting at home on the LCD, the prints have turned out EXACTLY like I thought they would.

Thus, I think it's a matter of quality. I think a good LCD can beat out a good CRT. On the other hand, a cheap CRT is better than a cheap LCD.