Talk:Comparison of CRT, LCD, plasma, and OLED displays

CRT Bias

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article is extremely biased to outdated CRT TV's and omits important problems with them 98.74.156.204 (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It would be helpful to list examples. What exactly is missing? There are several downsides listed already as far as I can see.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Sony Trinitron tubes have a bad color range because they use a missplaced red phosphor in order to achieve better contrast. Sony for this reason did never allow to put Sony TV devices in the same rack as others, because this would have unveiled the color problems. Schily (talk) 11:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

What you are describing is a problem on a single range of products of a single manufacturer. It's not a problem inherent to CRT technology. Besides this would need to be heavily sourced as it sounds a lot like urban legend. Jarreboum (talk) 12:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

CRT bias is just an apparent one, because on many points CRT are still better than their modern counterpoints. The market adoption of Flat Panels was mainly driven by "change, size and weight" irregardless of picture quality sadly. Even today professionals manufacturers try to advertise their monitors as "as good as a CRT!", which is frankly telling. Jarreboum (talk) 12:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

How it sounds to you is your personal impression. The technical background is a fact. Schily (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm assuming you are replying to my other comment higher in the thread. Wikipedia loves facts but needs sources for them. As for mine, Sony introduced in 2011 a new BVM (a professional monitor), proudly touting it as "rivalling top-flight CRT monitors": "LCD displays are increasingly replacing CRT monitors in the professional arena due to their operational flexibility and lower overall ownership cost. In the BVM-L230 you will find a state-of-the-art product that surpasses the performance of its CRT predecessors. Their words, emphasis mine. It took more than a decade to finally get an LCD as good as a CRT, picture-wise. And it's a professional monitor, not something you can buy at Target. And you still have the inherent LCD problems like input lag and scaling problems for different resolutions.Jarreboum (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LED backlight vs CCFL

We need to split the LCD into the two sub categories of back lighting. They are not really the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.188.142 (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Good observation; however, I would have to say that they are more similar then you think. Power consumption, color gamut and display thickness are the only things I can think of that are really affected by the differences between CCFL and LED backlights. Most LED-backlit displays still do not use local dimming (which would introduce further differences). They still frequently strobe the backlight to dim it, to reduce motion smearing, to cause serious eye-strain :-), and to save money over a proper buck converter. 76.6.164.233 (talk) 12:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Power consumption LCD vs. Plasma

Plasma TVs comsume much more power when displaying a pure white image than LCDs, but the average power consumption is about the same or only slightly higher, because LCDs have a consant power consumption, which doesn't depend on the image brightness, because the backlight always runs on maximum power. When displaying a rather dark picture, a plasma TV might even consume less power than LCDs. [1] [2] --MrBurns (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

About lead in the CRT tube

It says "The glass envelopes contain large amounts (often kilograms(Probably GRAMS or less, not Kilograms, as the internal structure is based on Themionic Valve/Tube Technology; and is extremely FLIMSY, with practically NO Lead being present.)[quantify]) of toxic lead and barium as X-ray radiation shielding. The phosphors can also contain toxic elements such as cadmium. Many countries treat CRTs as toxic waste and prohibit their disposal in landfills or by incineration."

The lead is 'in' the glass. It's lead-glass similar to the window in the X-ray room at the doctor office. The lead can not be separated from the glass in the natural environment by acident, even fire. The glass has to be processed to expose the lead and recover it. Therefore I point out that the squawking about lead in CRTs is mostly hype. I wonder sometimes if those who worry so much about lead in the CRT ever use fine (lead)glass crystal when they serve their guests, or have a chandelier with the same glass in their entry hall. As for barium, a citation is necessary on that claim and it should come from the glass supplier to a CRT manufacturer.

I also do not understand what the internal structure being 'flimsy' has to do with a discussion of lead in the CRT? A better word might be 'delicate', as the CRT is a delicate instrument. If a CTRT based TV or computer monitor is dropped more than a couple feet, the tube can be internally damaged, but more likely the other parts of the equipment will fare worse. But the CRT is no more delicate than a similar sized LCD or plasma panel, really. If someone has the time and knowledge, I guess that part of the article should be cleaned up. (BTW I am entering this by using a 24" Sun CRT monitor. I do not care about power consumption, only about image quality and infinite native resolution.)

>> At last, someone with healthy eyes and common sense! Of course that your 24" CRT monitor looks WAY better, it is only that less honest people (or with impaired eyesight) still insists that the old CRT is "obsolete" and an inferior device. My very young son and my wife keep preferring my old 32" Toshiba CRT TV instead of her latest, highly overrated Samsung big flat screen LED-LCD model! In regards to lead, we tried to leach out a measurable quantity of lead from a broken CRT at our chemical analysis lab to address the real danger of this lead... It requires extremely fine grounding of the glass to allow measurable leaching out of the lead, and that is by using strong hydrofluoric acid. The idea that abandoned and broken CRTs will leach out enough lead is frankly ridiculous, but it may give eco-nuts some self delusion and happiness. Amclaussen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.2.236 (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

thank you, Patrick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.190.133.204 (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

LCDs and environmental aspects

Not only CRTs are problematic for the environment, also LCDs, e.g. because the production emmits significant amounts of greenhouse gases. [3]

I think this should be added to the article. --MrBurns (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Motion blur

Why no mention of sample-and-hold-related motion blur? This is a major issue that anything with sample-and-hold suffers from, which is basically LCD, Plasma, and probably OLED (unless it flashes the image once each frame). This type of blur occurs even if the display has zero response time. CRTs display the image for a small fraction of the frame, so suffer very little from this. 24.155.108.53 (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

That's covered by response time. --2003:EF:13C6:DC70:283F:9B24:BCE4:EA6 (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Duplication of pros/cons

When comparing two or more items, if you list pros and cons for each, each section's pros will be a rewording of the other device's cons, and vice-versa. For example, fixed resolution is a con of LCD and Plasma, and a pro of CRT. It seems best to just list the pros of each technology, and perhaps a shared cons for all of them for things that none have overcome yet. 24.155.108.53 (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

LCD monitor power supplies

86.157.187.44, I noticed that the section in the LCD "Pros" list about "Many LCD monitors run on an external 12v power supply" was commented out.

>> "Not true for modern displays. Many use multiple output supplies (such as 5V and 12V.)"

Just here at home, I have 5 LCD displays ranging from 0 to 8 years of age (2 are LED, 3 are CCFL) that all have a single 12VDC input, several of them I have connected to their PC's internal power supply. The other 2 displays have an AC input, and yes, their internal power supples have multiple voltages; but that is beside the point because the monitor presents a single AC input to the user (which is why I said "many run on an external 12v power supply," the others usually run on AC mains voltage). These LCDs have been bought from a wide range of places. When browsing a computer store recently to buy some LCDs (they have all of their models on display, turned on, displaying something), I saw that most of them had a "brick" sitting nearby, with a single, 12v cord plugged into the monitor (they use the round, ring/tip plug that ensures that there are only two pins, 12V and Gnd). As far as the others that did not, the ones that I saw had an AC cord plugged directly into the monitor. As far as "modern displays"? The monitors in that store were all 2 years old or newer, and practically all of them used LED backlighting, and most of them used a 12V tabletop "brick" to convert the power that would be connected to the display. Internally, these displays use one or more buck converters to convert the incoming 12V power to 5V and 3.3V. I have had to replace capacitors in some LCD monitors, and I know what I am talking about. So I believe that your "Many use multiple output supplies" would have to be the exception, not the rule.

>> "In addition, PFC does not increase efficiency -- if anything, it reduces it (typically 85-95% efficient PFC front end), it just makes it easier for the power company to transmit."

I thought that PFC was supposed to increase efficiency by reducing the power loss due to induction in mains wiring caused by the short 5–30A "spikes" that a non PFC power supply could draw. Read Power_factor_correction#Importance_of_power_factor_in_distribution_systems. If a power supply with a power factor of 0.7 used 1 amp (typical for a desktop computer), it would appear (and be metered and billed) as 1.4 amps. Yes, the regular power supply may use less power by a few watts, but the PFC power supply which may actually use a few more watts will be _metered_ as using less power. There is also the quiescent power consumption of having two power supplies plugged into the wall all the time (typically 2–8 watts) instead of only one, and the overhead power consumption to run two power supplies (~5–30 watts, due to excessive bleeder resistors sometimes included, stupidly, in my opinion, to many ATX power supplies) instead of just one. [I am notorious for removing those bleeder resistors and coming away with a computer that uses 1/2 to 3/4 it's original power consumption and whose power supply capacitors are no longer being cooked to death by the heat generated by these resistors]. Besides, it's really nice to only have one cord to plug in the wall. I never have to press the power button on any of the monitors connected to their PC's power supply, because it turns on automatically when I turn on the computer, and turns off when I turn off the computer.

Regards,

76.6.164.233 (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Conversion to chart

I had converted the prose to a chart. This needs improvement! I do not understand some of the technical parameters and it is my first crack at this. I believe I have incorporated most of the data from the prose that I found and the prose may be deleted at a later date after editors are satisfied with the results and that all good stuff is copied over. proofreading would be a good thing to catch my screw-ups. Thanks!

I believe this chart will show the differences much more clearly. It may eliminate some of the complaints on this talk page regarding duplicate/repetitive information. It is a little harder to edit the parameters into it than straight by-the-type prose but much better for the reader. In the end the reader is the important person.

Please improve this chart providing references for all changes. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Chart formatting

Text moved from my talk page for future reference. Some edits were done for topic. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 23:28, 8 April 2013

  Yesterday, I spent some time improving the readability and accuracy of the table. Now, I didn't look at MOS:TABLES or anything else of that type, assuming that if the edits adhere to proper grammar, improve readability, and are done in a professional manner, that they should be fine for Wikipedia.
  Now, I notice that most of my work (including many minor fact corrections/rewordings) has been reverted. The problem with it as it is now, is that it would be really hard for someone who doesn't know much about the technologies (and is coming to learn more) to tell where one line/feature begins, and where it ends, leading into the next one. For instance they may read “slightly blurry halo may appear around objects with high contrast to background.” Which was not the intention of the original text, which meant something like this: “Images are slightly blurry; also, a halo may appear...” And again, they may read “emits strong low-frequency electromagnetic radiation [which] may be considered toxic waste (lead and barium X-ray shielding, phosphors containing cadmium).” Again, not the intended direction for the sentence, which should mean this “The CRT emits strong low-frequency electromagnetic radiation while in operation; during disposal of a CRT monitor, it may be considered toxic waste because it contains lead...)”
  Since you invoked MOS:TABLES to justify your edits, I went ahead and read it. But, I did not find anything on that page that says “Do not use caps unless proper noun; point form does not get periods.” I did find “Only the first word in the caption or heading should be capitalized (except for proper nouns), in keeping with Wikipedia's conventions for capital letters,” which means exactly the opposite of what you wrote (“Do not use caps unless proper noun...”). If I’m reading the wrong page, please point me in the right direction. Currently, I see no purpose to spending a lot of time (like I did yesterday) straightening out a page just to have most of it reverted; but as it is, chances are high that the page may simply be reverted to it’s previous state by someone else.
  Looking at similar articles in Wikipedia, all of them use proper grammar in their tables, instead of this lowercase, punctuationless (I think I just invented a word...:-) mess. See Comparison of graphics file formats and Comparison of defragmentation software and Comparison of audio formats and Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients. One of these actually used periods to list multiple items separately; but they all consistently used the proper capital letter to begin each line. This is also how I think Comparison of CRT, LCD, Plasma, and OLED should read.
P.S. Just quit using those "~~~~" in edit summaries!
—76.6.164.233 (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with you that the clarity without the caps is not the best. I have search WP guidelines for a clear directive on this and most of what I find states we should not capitalize.[[4]] The comparison charts you included do not use all caps, are mixed styles, and not good models to copy. You are misinterpreting the meaning of the statement in WP:MOSTABLE which does not disagree with my statement.

“Only the first word in the caption or heading should be capitalized (except for proper nouns), in keeping with Wikipedia's conventions for capital letters,”

Note in the MOSTABLE quoted sentence that "except" applies to the first word "Only"?

Having said all that I agree the chart prose looks all mushed together and hard to read the items. The chart wrap is nasty! I do like the look of the use of caps better. Found elsewhere, only sentences get periods and they should be avoided in lists. Commas[[5]] are also needed to separate phrases and clauses. Since all these WP items are just guidelines, anyway, I am going to attempt reinstate the work (undo my damage) you have done, by reversions, and attempt to add some commas and remove periods (full stops) where they shouldn't be. Thanks for your input and efforts. Sorry for the drag. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

  Thank you; your latest revision ([6]) is much better. I certainly wasn't expecting such a positive response. I like the new thin table format, too.

  Sorry if I was a little harsh in my post above; at least I hope my point was made clearly. What exactly are the rules for periods in a table? I find contradictory info in the Wikipedia MOS pages. I still think that text like “Emits strong low-frequency electromagnetic radiation, may be considered toxic waste (contains lead and barium for X-ray shielding; phosphors contain cadmium)” needs separated more; if not with periods, at least with something like this “Emits strong low-frequency electromagnetic radiation; when disposing, it may be considered toxic waste because it contains lead and barium for X-ray shielding, and the phosphors contain cadmium”   What are your thoughts?

—76.6.164.233 (talk) 02:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The way I read the guidelines in various articles is that point form data is not suppose to have periods or caps. Some suggest the first line should have caps and every other way since nothing pertains exactly to tables. The closest thing I can guess is inside a cell is a list and that is fairly well defined...but what about when a list is a complete sentence? Sentences should start with a cap and end with a sentence. Then what makes a sentence, exactly? LOL. Yeah. I hated that grid but it seems there are more table on WP that the parameters do not function at all. If you use "wikitable" then the cell padding doesn't work and so on. I haven't found any good info on table formats yet. There is a doc describing features but the examples they give don't match the code to generate them. Geeeesh! Too late for me tonight. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 03:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

LCD response time

  It should be noted that the "1 – 8 ms typical" are manufacturer data and are only valid under idealized conditions. Real-live response times are often much slower than manufacturer data. One example ist this tomshardware article about 3 LCDs. the manufacturer data says 5 - 8ms response time, but tomshardares measurement says 16 - 21ms for these three models (see page 14). --MrBurns (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

  Good observation. I was wondering if manufacturers were fudging those numbers. “Our LCD displays are now twice as fast and have double the contrast ratio of our competitor's screens, due to technological advances in our...um...advertising department.” What we really need is some recent research from the same place comparing the response times of CRT, LCD and Plasma (I know OLED is so fast that it would have to be measured differently). So many people want to know the response time of a CRT display, but when I looked it up, I found a lot of stupidity, like "CRTs don't have a response time," or worse, "The response time of a CRT is 1000/refresh-rate." False on both counts; everything has a response time, and the refresh-rate is time in addition to the response time. After looking high and low on the web, I came across a few places that attempted to measure CRT response time. One source gave 1.6 ms. However, that number is measuring the time from white to near black, and if LCD and Plasma are being measured using shallower measures of gray, it wouldn't be a fair comparison.

  I suggest that printing the real, measured numbers would be better than falling for the hyped numbers from the manufacturers. You're welcome to round up more sources and see if there is a consensus among those who are doing actual measuring tests. Is the 2 ms figure for Plasma accurate? It seems (from pictures that I've seen of ghosting on LCDs) that afterglow is the main problem for LCDs (it is the longer response number for CRTs too; the phosphor lights very quickly, and takes time to fade out). Thank you for your interest in the article.

  While writing this, I just realized that due to LCDs being limited to a refresh rate of 60 Hz (16.7 ms) that this will be a limiting factor in possible measurements. If one is counting how many ghost squares there are on a “bouncing block” animation, each of those squares will indicate a time allocation of 16.7 ms. How could they measure shorter times? I know that many LCD panels refresh the panel itself at ~200 Hz (using sample-and-hold, similar to how Plasma is refreshed at 600 Hz, while still having a framerate of 60). Perhaps that is part of the answer.

—76.6.164.233 (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You can conclude in the text of page 14 of the tomshardware test I linked above that they measured the actual response time (i.E. between the moment where the pixel starts changing color until it reaches its final color), all the rest (Display lag + processing time + waiting until the screen gets refreshed) was included in the "Absulute Input Lag" graph. because of this the input lag from tomshardware is higher than what it would be if they where using the traditional methode (the traditional method is comparing to a CRT-screen, which has almost non input lag). --MrBurns (talk) 06:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Light pens or guns

Is this really necessary to mention? Light guns are obsolete anyway and have been replaced why infrared sensors/accelerometers/gyroscopes as is used in the Wiimote, Playstation Move, Wii U Gamepad, etc. ScienceApe (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and would be glad to see it removed.  I guess we'll wait see what others think.

—Techie007 (talk) 12:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I also agree, this is quit odd to see light pens or guns here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.3.8 (talk) 08:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be moved to the "other" section. I agree that it doesn't warrant its own section, but it does have some historical relevance. Rabbitflyer (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Light guns aren't obsolete per se, but they have been obsoleted by the push towards Flat Panel screens. Light guns are more precise than infrared sensors, accelerometers and gyroscopes. Light gun obsolescence is literally collateral damage of Flat Panel technology adoption. Jarreboum (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

CRTs over 40" dangerous?

In teh article, it says, that for CRTs "over 40" is very heavy and dangerous". Very heavy is definitely true, but why are they dangerous? --MrBurns (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Questioning the accuracy of the color depth numbers

    I find the color depth listed for LCD and Plasma displays to be very unusual.  Up to 68 × 10⁹: I do not find this number in the citations provided, and I don't find it on the Internet.  In addition, color gamut is normally measured in "% NTSC", not number of colors.  I also find the current numbers to be non-credible because most images going to the displays are 24-bit RGB (or 32-bit RGB, which is basically the same thing padded with 8 additional bits not displayed).  This would limit the maximum number of colors ever displayed to 2 ^ 24, or 16,777,216 colors.     Where does the "68 × 10⁹" number come from, and is it correct?     —Techie007 (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement. Especially the fact that a LCD and a plasma having the same colour-depth is impossible. It's very well known that a plasma has a much greater colour-depth as a LCD monitor. An LCD can only display a fraction of the full spectrum that can be outputted by the blu-ray format, while plasma is known to be able to show more colours than what a blu-ray can output. Aszazin (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Related to this is the fact that there's no such thing as pixel resolution of color depth for CRT technology. It is analog. If the unit is receiving digital signals then, yes, there would be a limit but that is not the case for a unit that is entirely analog and receives a signal via an all-analog transmission route. This article seems to show ignorance of the reality of the capabilities of CRT technology. I have only one television - a 1997 27" Sony Trinitron. To me, it is far more watchable than any TV I have seen based on LED or LCD technology. 71.2.145.245 (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Describing brightness

As it is, the comparison often describes brightness as "poor" or "very poor," but doesn't that depend on the user and their needs? Many monitors nowadays are extremely bright, and can't be set to be dim, to the point that they are unusable to people with visual hypersensitivities. Which may be ideal for some users, and inaccessibly poor for others. Maybe it would make sense to describe minimum and maximum brightness separately. 96.231.17.143 (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

aging

Anything ages, e.g. Redox, Rust, Polyurethane#Degradation, etc. The rate of decay (in more extreme situations we name this half-life) of the involved chemicals should be given in this article. From the top of my head I know, it was very high for some chemicals emitting certain colors used in early OLEDs. User:ScotXW^t@lk 10:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Burn in on LCD devices

There is of course burn in on LCD devices. It can be seen on typical ATM screens and on hint screens in buildings. Schily (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Useless table?

I recently viewed the "Comparison of CRT, LCD, Plasma, and OLED". The result, there a useless table. Would you help fix these issues on this article? Akmaie Ajam (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Comparison of CRT, LCD, Plasma, and OLED. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150220052714/http://meleeiton.me:80/2014/03/27/this-tv-lags-a-guide-on-input-and-display-lag/ to http://meleeiton.me/2014/03/27/this-tv-lags-a-guide-on-input-and-display-lag/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120426051605/http://www.home-theater-automation-and-electronics.com/PlasmaTelevisionGuide.html to http://www.home-theater-automation-and-electronics.com/PlasmaTelevisionGuide.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Where is the info on OLED?

The headline explains itself.186.199.145.243 (talk) 07:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Comparison of CRT, LCD, plasma, and OLED. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160315110214/https://lcdtvbuyingguide.com/lcdtvcaring.shtml to https://lcdtvbuyingguide.com/lcdtvcaring.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Poor quality of sources

Adding to the choir of negative remarks above, the quality of sources in this article (and the quality of the citation formatting itself) is extremely poor. Some claims (for example that CRTs have no native resolution; true only in some monochrome CRT devices but not in general) aren't even supported by the sources they're given. I would imagine one high-quality source about CRTs, one high-quality source about LCDs, and one high-quality source about plasma displays should displace all the low-quality sources in the article. Bright☀ 11:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems that you don't understand how a CRT or a shadow mask actually works. It doesn't impose any native resolution and it doesn't limit the resolution in any way. It only makes image quality deteriorate if you set the resolution to an amount that makes the pixels much smaller than the size of the shadow mask (the effect starts be noticeable when the pixel size is about 80% of the shadow mask size. And even if the resolution is set such that it exactly corresponds to the shadow mask, you will almost never have a subpixel that is identical to one of the dots. Because of this such resolutions are also sub-optimal because they create the moire-effect and moire-reduction can be used but it blurs the picture.

The reason for this is the analogue nature of the way that a CRT actually works: by an electron beam that is scanning across the screen (or ion the case of color CRTs 3 beams). These beams emit a lot of electrons and it are turned on continuously (except for black (sub)pixels), so they don't create dots. The shadow mask only filters out unwanted electrons to make it possible that each dot is only hit by the electron beam for it's color. This is possible by using the different angels from the 3 electron beams, that are emitted by 3 different electron guns.

CRTs actually have a maximum resolution, but this is not a native resolution because it is not determined by the screen. The maximum resolution of a CRT is determined by it's maximum horizontal scan rate and it's minimum vertical scan rate. --MrBurns (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Split up CRT

I think the CRT column should be split up into RGB CRT (aka computer CRT) and YUV CRT (aka TV CRT), as they contain a number of remarkeable differences, namely that the YUV CRT is more limited due to only being used for one specific purpose with a specifically different signal. This namely pertains to a more limited color depth, a fixed resolution, and a fixed framerate (with some minor variations between PAL, NTSC, and SECAM). One may argue that the tube and its phosphor coating as the final devices in the display chain may be identical between an RGB and a YUV CRT, but a CRT monitor consists of far more than just a tube, where its input devices will only accept one specific type of signal with those specific limitations or qualities, or else the final output will look fairly strange at best or the monitor may not even display anything at all. --2003:EF:13C6:DC70:283F:9B24:BCE4:EA6 (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Infinite color depth

LaukkuTheGreit has marked an issue with the 8-bit per pixel color depth ascribed to CRTs. Originally, the whole signal path supporting a CRT was analog so there were no bits. I don't know about infinite, but it is probably not appropriate to specify a color depth in bits for a CRT. ~Kvng (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)