On 6/6/07, Patrick Finnegan <pat at computer-refuge.org> wrote:
Gaming (speed of display) and color rendition are the
only real two
niches left for CRTs, and LCDs are quickly approaching CRT quality for
those areas...
I haven't done much (any?) high-intensity gaming on LCDs - just
old-school games like Master of Orion or Starcraft (or Zork ;-) so I
can't comment on LCD smear, though I know abstractly it's an issue.
Personally, though, I've spent a lot of time in the past four years in
front of LCDs - more than CRTs (laptops, modern flat panels, etc). I
happen to be on an older Sun monitor at the moment, and it's
annoyingly fuzzy at 1152x900 compared to my 1024x768 laptop. The CRT
is properly adjusted and looks just as good as the day it shipped (or
at least as good as my memories from 10 years ago). It's just not as
sharp as a modern LCD. I recall that older (640x400 and 800x600) LCDs
aren't as sharp as modern ones, either; they've really crisped up the
black and have, as far as I can tell, thinner or optically better
front-glass to minimize pixel diffusion.
That having been said, though, I would still prefer a CRT for
old-school arcade games... who wants crisp edges on Space Invaders or
Pacman (or Boot Hill, Seawolf and the _really_ old-school B&W games).
I'm seeing LCDs advertised with sub-10ms response time. Since that's
faster than NTSC frame-rates, I can't imagine that they look awful
compared to a CRT. The question is, how fast is fast enough that it
doesn't matter.
-ethan