You need to be more specific about the criteria to be used in the comparison, but energy wise the lcd uses less power than a crt and that is good for the planet. LCD televisions also take up less space.
Although an LCD costs less energy to run, their production processes use more energy than the production of CRT televisions, which may make an LCD more costly in energy, depending on the life of the TV. LCD televisions are starting to incorporate LED backlights, with have the advantage of allowing individual areas to be switched on and off. This enhances contrast (including deep blacks) and picture quality. Picture motion 'smoothness' remains a key advantage of CRT, as the images can "scan" across the screen rather than being limited to jumping between pixels. For optimum picture quality, a HD CRT TV with HDMI input (not upscaling) is better if you can live with the bigger size and higher running cost.
A CRT produces a better picture then a LCD. Color standards were set for film and television years ago. As of 05-25-2009 LCD's still can not meet or surpass this standard. 'Deep black' a standard set years ago for film and television is the ability of film and television 'CRT' to show shades of color and gray all the way to complete deep black. An LCD can not meet or surpass this standard. An Lcd can show colors in a Bright kind of way , I call this LCD 'Eye Candy' , it is not true colors and deep black. All this is researchable on the net. And No a plasma screen can not meet or surpass the standard of film and television CRT.
LCD monitors are NOT faster than CRT's, CRT images move at the speed of light and have almost no input lag. LCDs have input lag and this is why good ones are so expensive.
LCD, or the liquid crystal display, weren't "invented" for use in televisions. Televisions are just one application of liquid crystals. The properties of liquid crystals were noted many years ago. When a voltage is applied to a liquid crystal molecule, it moves, or rotates. This property can be used to affect light transmission through a transparent medium. A liquid crystal display is just an application of this phenomenon. The earliest application I know of was the production of low powered numerical displays used as an alternative to LED seven segment displays. Think of the handheld calculator. It typically uses an LCD. The picture superiority of LCD televisions over CRT is debatable. I own a widescreen CRT television, and I am amazed at how superior it is to typical consumer level LCD or plasma displays in terms of colour accuracy, black levels and contrast. But it sure has its drawbacks: limited size, hernia producing weight and higher power consumption than LCD panels, for example. Plasma displays suck more power than either LCD or CRT, though. I am sure that flat panel displays will one day offer something better, but they just aren't as mature a technology as CRTs yet. But unless you buy used, you are pretty well out of luck for buying a CRT display these days. Also standard crt screens require a lot of power in their vertical and horizontal hold architecture. Using liquid crystal displays reduce the power used. for convenience and luxury
Cathode Ray Tube (or CRT) - the older type of tv set or monitor, and the LCD display (or flat-screen)
A cathode ray tube (CRT) was the main way images were presented to people before LCD, Plasma and LED screens were produced. Everyone who watched television or used a computer before 1996 or so watched CRT screens.
An LCD screen is a liquid crystal display screen, most used in the flat panel display televisions. CRT is a cathode-Ray Tube screen which works by electrons moving back and forth across the screen.Ê
In my opinion, the LCD definitely is better than the CRT, based on the simple fact of clarity and color. While CRT is less expensive than an LCD, it also causes increased eyestrain when viewing a computer screen for a long period of time.
CRT is cheaper than LED.
At this point, I would say that a CRT had no advantages over a LCD monitor. The LCD is probably cheaper, it takes up less space, is easier on the eyes, and provides better revolutions.
As LCD display technology improves, it now beats CRT for clarity and image stability. CRT based computer monitors are no longer mass produced and existing CRT monitors are usually several years old. As they age, the image becomes softer so there will be few CRT displays that can compare with a modern LCD screen.
32 inch tv is worse quality than 27inch because the pixals have to spread out more try sitting further away. As for the CRT better than LCD that seems to happen to me but watching in HD is much better than CRT.
LCD monitors are NOT faster than CRT's, CRT images move at the speed of light and have almost no input lag. LCDs have input lag and this is why good ones are so expensive.
It is cheaper than a LCD monitor.
An LCD monitor does not have a better resolution than a CRT, generally speaking. Very old and cheap CRT's (pre 1995) have lower resolutions than newer models. LCD's are limited to "Native Mode" which means that they will produce images at higher or non-native modes, but these are lower quality images. Good CRT monitors (professional level monitors) will produce images in resolutions much higher than LCD monitors, and at refresh rates that are triple (or more: for fast moving video FPS type games). They also have better contrast ratio's, better color reproduction (higher number of colors), no motion blur or screen sheering, wider view angles, better environmental light adaptation, no dead pixels, no banding, no hatching flicker. Most non professional CRT's will still beat a LCD hands down on these same issues. LCD's are also limited life (1/4 or less) than a CRT. You only save electric usage(LCD 5/65, CRT 30/150 watts), and desk space for an LCD.
The LCD takes much LESS energy than a CTR.
Quality wise, no. But energy cost, and weight, most definitely.
There are: CRT monitors (those fat monitors) and LCD monitors (flat screens)
LCD stands for Liquid Crystal Display and CRT stands for Cathod Ray Tube