kick wrote:FirebrandX wrote:kick wrote:
CRTs are better for browsing the net and CAD work.Very few LCD monitors have a VESA stand that can rotate the monitor 90 degrees to compensate for the "short screen".
I agree with most of your points except this one. WTF do you mean "short screen"? My LCD is just as tall as my CRT, but is wider (16:10). Are you somehow equating a rectangle as being shorter than a square? You can't really claim that out of context of the heights of both screens.
By short,I mean a modern 22" 16:9 LCD has LESS vertical screen height than a 19" (18" visible) flat CRT
So you were being selective in that point, which is why I disagree with it.
Anyway, I do agree as I said on the other points. I take it step further with emulation. On CRTs, you can scale ANY custom resolution to fit the screen without having to use software aspect correction. It will look virtually perfect. With LCDs, you want to stay with native res or effects like scanlines look like shit. Also in general a non-native image has issues on LCD.
One thing I will tip the hat to LCD though is the native res has shaper pixels than CRT. With CRT, there is always an analog convergence factor, no matter how expensive or well tuned the set is. With LCD, the native res is ALWAYS in flawless focus. But then again, that's because it doesn't have to focus anything at native res. Its both a benefit and a detriment at the same time.