Re:The Chrome Distortion: how Chrome negatively alters our e...
by PeCaN on Saturday March 26, 2016 @05:30PM
(#11367543)
I worked with a CRT monitor for a while (design job at a non-profit; I had 2 CRTs and a several year old Mac Pro—it held up very well though) and it was actually quite nice.
- Non-16:9 aspect ratio. Photoshop is much nicer on 1600x1200 (relatively common CRT resolution) than on 1920x1080. CRTs are frequently 16:10 or even 4:3, so if I had a particularly nice one I'd be hesitant to replace it (4:3 LCD or LED are really hard to find).
- Higher refresh rate. 60Hz is nice enough, but 96Hz or higher is very pleasant. CRTs have a higher refresh rate than LCDs due to how they work (and if they didn't, you'd get quite a headache because there's no backlight).
High-end LCD screens have more or less caught up by now, but it took them a long time and they're still expensive (granted, high-end CRTs are at least as expensive now, but if you've had one for a while there's no real rush to replace it).
- Non-16:9 aspect ratio. Photoshop is much nicer on 1600x1200 (relatively common CRT resolution) than on 1920x1080. CRTs are frequently 16:10 or even 4:3, so if I had a particularly nice one I'd be hesitant to replace it (4:3 LCD or LED are really hard to find).
- Higher refresh rate. 60Hz is nice enough, but 96Hz or higher is very pleasant. CRTs have a higher refresh rate than LCDs due to how they work (and if they didn't, you'd get quite a headache because there's no backlight).
High-end LCD screens have more or less caught up by now, but it took them a long time and they're still expensive (granted, high-end CRTs are at least as expensive now, but if you've had one for a while there's no real rush to replace it).