Actually I like the screen space/resolution ratio of the LCD but if it only had the colour saturation, contrast and overall sharpness of the CRT.I like the Colour Contrast of the CRT and the clarity of CRT.
The last CRT monitor I saw had a black screen that was easily noticeable in a dark room. It was a old DELL CRT. I didn't have a LCD nearby to do a direct comparison but for me the picture seemed worse than the one at home on a Samsung LCD. And of course my eyes got tired more quickly. I did try to adjust the settings in the menu but the sharpness and colors were just not there. So I think it's not really accurate to make such generalizations. It really depends on the models you compare. Electronic components do deteriorate over time (specially capacitors) and they haven't manufactured CRT-s for a long time.http://www.digitalversus.com/article-985.html
What's immediately obvious from the graph is that, apart from a few exceptions, whatever contrast ratio the manufacturer actually claims in their documentation, the vast majority of monitors have an average contrast ratio of around 830:1 when we test them in our lab.
There are plenty of people who regret the 'good old days,' but does that include CRT monitors? We went back to take a look at some of our old results, and found that back then, contrast ratios weren't real a big selling point.
They were rarely, if ever, even quoted, so all that we have is our own lab results. Back then, tube-based screens (CRTs), managed to produce whites of 100 cd/mÂ², with 0.3 cd/mÂ² blacks. That's a final contrast ratio of 333:1, or between a half and a third of what today's LCDs can manage.
Strangely their product face-off page has a Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 930SB with much better results
http://www.digitalversus.com/duels.php? ... 5966&ph=13
But still they have LCDs in their database with better results.