PDA

View Full Version : Flat screen or Fat screen? -what do you prefer


nomedo
05-01-06, 22:48
ive been useing those fat screens (CRT) for years on my computers now, and my TV isnt quite slim either ;)
however, for the last year ive had on of those new flat TFT displays thats so hyped both for computers and as TVs.
but right now im running one of each side by side on my comp, and i can really see the differences. or should i say flaws.

the flat sreen is much more sharp, but as soon as u dont use the recommended resolution the image gets way worse then the fat one. so if u cant play games at 1280, u get bad IQ.
although the flat one is brighter, the old one has better contrast and is more vivid. one good thing bout the flat screen is that theres no flickering even in 60hz, cant say that about the CRTs...
but on the other hand, if u ever have watched a movie with friends on one of those thin screens, ull notice that the one sitting on the far left or right get to see the colors inverted. not very funny.
as u see, there are both possitive and negative things about both types.
so which type of screen do you prefer?
http://img437.imageshack.us/img437/9160/fatvsflat9bo.jpg

The Fat or the Flat???

Neteru
05-01-06, 22:52
Purely for space saving, flat. But flat screens can't seem to handle contrast very well and strobe rather a lot.

Gabi
05-01-06, 23:00
But flat screens stobe rather a lot.


:confused: What do they do? I'm afraid I do not know the meaning of this word.

Catlantean
05-01-06, 23:06
I don't know about TVs since the only I have is a 10 year old fat one, and no one I know has a flat one. But for computer screens I have to say flats, because my desk is awfully crowded and flats save space. They're also easier on the eyes.

About image quality, I have a 1st generation LCD and frankly it's not very good. Maybe the best way to illustrate is that all those shades of light blue on the forum skin I'm using show as near-white on it. But the new ones are much much better.

xMiSsCrOfTx
05-01-06, 23:15
I prefer flat screens. :)

Joseph
05-01-06, 23:16
FAT screen of course. Flat screens are not fast enough. This is very simply noticed in moving images like movies and games. Comparison: in the moment that a flatscreen is rendering the first 3 frames and has just showed the first, the CRT has already displayed all 3. And going on with the next as fast as lightning.
Even the best current flatscreens keep showing this lag in moving images. A pain to the eyes!

Thorir
05-01-06, 23:16
Flat. The big ones are too big and unpractical. And oldfashioned.

Joseph
05-01-06, 23:22
Oldfashioned? They are still reference!!! :D

Some people seem to look more at the box rather than the screen itself.

Tramp
05-01-06, 23:28
I prefer the flat screen as I find it better for the eyes. When I go to Dad's and use his old fashioned screen my eyes are aching after 10 minutes. I have not had this problem since switching to the flat screen. My TV is still more the old fashioned tube type even my new big 80 cm TV that I havn't set up yet. But even though the new 80 cm is an old fashioned tube it has a flat screen. Would like an LCD or Plasma TV but they are still too expensive here yet. Even my small LCD for the computer was over $300 AUS. Plasma are still starting price of over $7000 AUS. LCD over $3000 AUS.

Joseph
05-01-06, 23:34
The price of the current LCD or PLASMA flatscreens has nothing to do with its quality, it is based on its novelty, while the technology is not on the same level as the best CRT screens yet. Tramp: if you compare with a average TV tube you're right, its resolution is far behind a quality CRT computer screen.

Legend
05-01-06, 23:39
Going back to a fat screen after watching TV on a flat screen is like looking at the picture through a crystal ball!

Flat screen all the way, baby!

Neteru
05-01-06, 23:44
:confused: What do they do? I'm afraid I do not know the meaning of this word.

Sorry Gabi, I seem to be making a lot of typos lately. :rolleyes: I meant to type 'strobe'.

Tramp
05-01-06, 23:45
Yes Joseph but Dad has the normal CRT screen and it hurts my eyes after about 10 minutes. I would like to go over to Plasma or LCD for my TV as well but they are far too expensive at the moment because they are relatively new. When the LCD TV first came out they were over $10000 and have dropped in price with the advent of the Plasma. I don't play that many DVD's at the moment but I will be when I get the new TV set up. I'm saying I prefer the LCD as it is kinder to my eyes than the CRT and I would prefer to have the LCD TV aslo but I can't afford it yet.

Thorir
05-01-06, 23:52
I love my flat screen! It only weighs like 2,5 kilograms! So I can just lift it up easily when cleaning or something. :) My old TV must have been closer to 30 kilos. :D

Legend
05-01-06, 23:57
We got a high def flat screen TV just before Xmas, but I still have a ****py old one in my room, while the pic on that seems clearer, it's definatly not as sharp, just a little more blurred. I'm getting a flat, wall-mounted HD TV soon, just as soon as I have finished saving up :o

Joseph
06-01-06, 00:00
Tramp, the LCD is kinder to your eyes than the CRT only because it hasn't a lightbulb behind the display screen attacking your eyes. But the response time of the CRT lightbulb is still so much faster! That is what makes watching movies easy to the eye instead of LCD screens which show the stuttering lags!

Scottlee
06-01-06, 00:36
Flat screen for me, although I couldn't tell you why in any great technical depth.

Tramp
06-01-06, 00:43
I'm not looking at it in Technical terms. All I know is they don't hurt my eyes.

Apofiss
06-01-06, 00:52
FAT (crt-flatron) screen for me. Well FAT screens (like mine samsung syncmaster 797DF) has an excellent pixel size [0.20] > considering FLAT screens has about [0.28 - 0.29] which is baaaaad for editing images or working with PS. Also FLAT screens has no black colour (cos of lcd tft structure)! (and that was the final drop to not to get one)... and yesss a view angle, though some FLAT models even has H/W - 178/170 and RESPONSE TIME (ms) 8 > which is good enough. Well basicly FLAT is good for internet browsing and document editing or programing (generally that is for text editing) < my opinion of course. Thought I have tried to play Painkiller on LCD TFT > no problems, except that black colour "problems".

Simulation
06-01-06, 01:16
FAT - Faster sharper and cheaper

Need I so more............

Geck-o-Lizard
06-01-06, 01:22
I go with TFT all the way. Even for gaming.

Apofiss: I actually find the pixel difference between CRT and TFT to be the other way round when I'm working in PS. Every single CRT I've used has made everything appear slightly out of focus compared to the TFT's, and that's actually useless when I'm doing website interface work because I can't work with single-pixel-width lines and patterns at 100% size.

I don't like the flickering that CRT's produce. Comparing it to a TFT is like comparing a candle to an LED torch.

That is what makes watching movies easy to the eye instead of LCD screens which show the stuttering lags!

I only find this the case when I'm watching the movie from over three metres away, i.e. television distance. When I'm up close to the monitor watching a movie, it's the lightbulb's flickering that distracts me, I don't actually notice any lag at all when watching a DVD on my laptop or computer with TFT screen. The same thing for gaming; straining against a flickering bulb to see stuff in the shadows of Thief 3 is akin to torture to me. But then I'm one of the people that hates going out at night because the frequency of the streetlights is annoying.

Sim: "sharper"
A TFT screen displays EXACT pixels. A CRT shines a beam of light through a metal mesh where the pixels aren't actually defined. I say TFT's are much sharper than CRT's.

ELEN
06-01-06, 01:23
I didn't know you could call it "fat" :D

Anyway, fat for me. I find the flat screens incapable of producing the result I want, unless you pay a lot, a lot of money. And why that? Because they are flat? No, I'll pass by...

Fat... Honestly, I didn't know it :p

nomedo
06-01-06, 02:22
^^ yes u can ELEN, at least in swedish the old TVs are called "tjock-TV" now. i just made a direct translation. :rolleyes:

A TFT screen displays EXACT pixels.
actually thats only true when useing the native resolution (1280 for 17-19")
in all other resolutions the result is much worse then on any CRT screen. while thats not a prob with DVD movies, changing to full screen is made player software and the res remains the same, in games the pixels get way out of place when using for example 1024... quite frustrating if u dont have the graphical power to play Doom3, HL2, FEAR at 1280.

that leads my to a new question; the most 32" LCDs that are "HD-ready" have 1366x768 resoultion while the HD-Low resolution is 1280x720...
when looking on that tv, is the picture up sized be software like when using full screen in windows media player, or is the resolution actually changing like when playing games? cause that would **** :o
is there anyone that has such a TV that knows???

Neteru
06-01-06, 02:46
HUH? You're question/remarks don't make much sense nomedo. do you want to rephrase? I have a 26" HD LCD TV.

Hang on. Here's what I think you're saying.

When playing a game (for example) that can't normally reach the high resolution of the TV, is the graphic quality increased or is the game's highest resolution simply stretched to fit?

If so, answer is that it is simply stretched to fit if you play it full screen, but it looks fine.

nomedo
06-01-06, 02:58
lol. ok net, but i dont know if i can... what i mean is that when the TV has a resolution of 1366x768 but the TV signal sends the programs in 1280x720, then either the program has to be scaled up to 1366x768 to fit the hole screen, or the tv has to pretend it has 1280x720 pixels. non of them is optimal, but the later tend to give a worse image quality.

-if someone know that i mean but can say it in a better way, then help me out here ;)

nomedo
06-01-06, 03:21
heres an example net :wve:
in this first pic my TFT screen is using its native res,1280. every pixel is clear.
http://img479.imageshack.us/img479/2305/nat12802bl.jpg

and in the second pic the res is forced to simulate 1024. it gets blurred.
http://img479.imageshack.us/img479/9296/forced10246qz.jpg
because every physical pixel on the screen represent 0,8 pixels by the software.

its more visible to the eye...

i ask because ive heard someone say that a native 1280x720 TV actually looks better then a 1266x768 TV even though it has less pixels...

Draco
06-01-06, 03:38
I love my ViewSonic A90f+

Geck-o-Lizard
06-01-06, 04:40
Nomedo:
That's why you set your TFT monitor to its native resolution. Once you've got it with the correct settings it's crisper than frost. :)

nomedo
06-01-06, 05:10
yes, but that doesnt work very well in games with my mainstream graphics. new games are too slow on my comp when using the native resolution...
so for games crt works better for me...

Neteru
06-01-06, 05:17
I think it scales up nomedo. Think of it this way, when you're watchig a 4:3 ratio broadcast on your 16:9 TV, the TV pretends it's 4:3 by putting black bars at the side of the image, so only the required resolution is used. When you're program is set to a lower resolution, the TV as a Monitor doesn't then put black bars at the side when you're using that program does it? Of course not. It simply stretches the image to fit.

i ask because ive heard someone say that a native 1280x720 TV actually looks better then a 1266x768 TV even though it has less pixels...
I think that depends entirely upon the model of TV used to compare. Some are better than others. But the difference you quote is so little, I can hardly imagine being able to discern which is better.

I don't know any of this for sure, I'm just surmising what seems logical to me. I could be totally wrong. :D

nomedo
06-01-06, 05:42
yea that seems logic :tmb:

Greenkey2
06-01-06, 11:23
Flat screen. No contest. What's all this I hear about lack of visual quality? I've absolutely no problem with the contrast, colour, screen refresh rate etc on the flat screen I'm using right now :confused:. It's also easier on the eyes, space-saving and more energy efficient than a fat monitor.

Nessie
06-01-06, 12:32
A fat screen, but a small fat screen. *nodnod*
I've used flat screens as well, but they were all blurry and... eck.

Gabi
06-01-06, 13:33
Sorry Gabi, I seem to be making a lot of typos lately. :rolleyes: I meant to type 'strobe'.


And I should have realized that, really :o .

BTW., and without going into any technical details, I do prefer FAT, to my eyes they are just that tad more comfortable and display a crisper image. (even though with the PCs we do have flat screens)

tlr online
06-01-06, 13:34
Fat screen for me. Much better quality. :wve:

Colin125
06-01-06, 13:37
Flat screen. Modern, easier to clean and takes up less space and also IMO is better then CRT. :)

Anubis_AF
06-01-06, 13:41
Call me oldfashioned, but I prefer Fat screen TVs.

RAID
06-01-06, 13:52
I prefer Fat Screens. :tmb:

dmc444
06-01-06, 14:09
FAT - Faster sharper and cheaper

Need I so more............

Not necessarily cheaper if you go for a very high quality large monitor, but faster and sharper by a huge margin. So until the technology of flat screens improves a lot, it's "FAT" for me.

nomedo
06-01-06, 14:17
im actually surprised how many that actually prefer the CRT screens. ive heard so many times that the fat screen market is almost dead...

i checked a price site and saw that now u can get a 21" 2048x1536@75hz screen cheaper then a 17" flatscreen. thats insane :eek:

Joseph
06-01-06, 15:21
Flat screen. Modern, easier to clean and takes up less space and also IMO is better then CRT. :)So you have an opinion that Flastscreen is better, Colin. Tell us on what it is based? :)
Exactly. ;)
You see it is a simple fact that (quality) CRT are still the reference and no TFT or LCD or Plasma screeen can match a quality CRT in accuracy and response-time. You guys who compare with an old dull low quality 15" monitor from 1995 are making a wrong comparison. ;)

The only TFT screen that can compete or even surpass all monitor-systems is not developed out yet, it is still in the making, expected in 2007. I believe it is Hitachi working on it? When i find info about it i'll post it here.

Joseph
06-01-06, 15:25
im actually surprised how many that actually prefer the CRT screens. ive heard so many times that the fat screen market is almost dead...

i checked a price site and saw that now u can get a 21" 2048x1536@75hz screen cheaper then a 17" flatscreen. thats insane :eek:That is ONLY because the manufacturers stopped producing them. ;)
Industry has chosen to go for Flat. Investing billions in new developements. Continuing CRT would be too expensive and not rewarding (in sense of money) to them anymore, since many people desire to have such a 'modern' spacey cool flatpanel and are not critical enough about quality.

clairelovestlc
06-01-06, 15:42
i prefer flatscreens all the way, i just think they look so much nicer.... pain in the arse to clean though!!!

LaRaMaster
06-01-06, 16:08
Flatscreens here :wve: !

Geck-o-Lizard
06-01-06, 16:26
You see it is a simple fact that (quality) CRT are still the reference and no TFT or LCD or Plasma screeen can match a quality CRT in accuracy and response-time. You guys who compare with an old dull low quality 15" monitor from 1995 are making a wrong comparison. ;)

I disagree that it's a fact. The only fact is that LCD's and Plasma screens are the old versions of the TFT and they don't get used for computer monitors any more. I'm making my comparison between my 2-years-old 15" TFT monitor and the less-than-1-year-old 19" CRT's they use with the G5 computers in the graphic design suite at my college. I prefer the TFT. :wve:

BX16v
06-01-06, 17:12
For the moment I prefer a good quality iiyama fattie for my PC :D

I have a 100Hz LG TV (fattie) which I'm happy with because HD TV isn't mainstream yet and I cannot justify the expense of buying one until I need one.

Joseph
06-01-06, 20:42
Gecko. Ok you at least give a detailed comparison. You compare between 2-years-old 15" TFT monitor and the less-than-1-year-old 19" CRT's of the Macintosh G5 computers they use in the graphic design suite at your college.
Well, that is 2D. In graphic design, response time plays NO role. Contrast, colour and geometry do. At those points Flatpanel can match and they win of course on the points of space (being thin).

But CRT is finer in displaying more colour nuances. Also what i repeat is that CRT is better in 3D: response time is crucial in moving images: movies and games. It is a technical fact. ;)

Ampersand
06-01-06, 20:46
This is goin' way over my head. :cln:

Flatscreens all the way, anyhow. It's so strange using 'fat' ones now, it's like looking into a glass bubble... :D

Joseph
06-01-06, 22:29
I'll try to make it even more simpler then, Ampersand. 3D is moving images, OK? Playing Tomb Raider you virtually are in an environment. While you 'move around' in the game, the display (monitor screen) is supposed to show it to you realtime. The same happens when watching a movie (a dvd): the movie or the game are like a slide show only very fast: 60 fps = 60 frames per second. That is só fast that your eye would not notice that it basically is a very fast slide show.
The classic CRT (FAT) monitor displays all of these 60 frames without any problem.
Looking at the Flatpanel: it is still struggling with frame 2 and can't even think of frame 3 while the CRT has already displayed 3 frames perfectly and has started with frame 4. :)
In games and movies there is no time for waiting but the Flatpanel is not able to keep up with the pace. So the manufacturers of the Flatpanel apply a trick to hide the gaps between the real frame 1 and 4 for your eyes. A syrup that is meant to hide the -otherwise visible- stuttering between 4 frames. But alas, that syrup is also very visible.

Secondly: the colour accuracy. CRT is based on a lamp, a bulb behind the glass, behind the pixels which is a simple system. This technology has been crystallised out during the past, let's say, 50 years. The flatscreen (totally different and complicated) technology is constantly trying to reach the same accuracy and up till now only fails. The flatscreen technology did never start with display quality, but with flatness. And in that respect it wins superior! But for the actual reliable image-quality as well as fastness (coolness) during moving images CRT is still the reference which is not possible to manage without a bulb.

Geck-o-Lizard
07-01-06, 01:05
Jo: I do animation at college. :wve:

Joseph
07-01-06, 01:16
And? :) Either your animations are moving slow enough to not notice it, or you're half-blind? :D Compare playing UT 2004 on a flatscreen to CRT or compare between the two watching a movie! :)

Geck-o-Lizard
07-01-06, 01:24
I'm not half blind, that's what my glasses solve. :p

I have played Deus Ex, Half-Life and UT2k3 on both my laptop and on my friend's brand new desktop w/ CRT monitor, and there was no frame lag in either case. If there was and I couldn't see it, then it's a problem that doesn't affect me or my decision to be a TFT fangirl. ;)

Apofiss
07-01-06, 01:51
Generally flat screens has only 3 minuses : black colour is gray, lower overall colour (tehnicly possible) displaying quality and huge pixel size which is not quite acceptable for an accurate work with graphics; at least it's my personal experiance with LCD TFT (which was LG 17").

Geck-o-Lizard
07-01-06, 01:55
Apofiss, why is "large" pixel size unacceptable for work with graphics? Just curious, because I've found the precise size of TFT pixels to be an advantage rather than a disadvantage.