A CRT is still better in most every way for both photo and video work (you still need a TV monitor, of course, to check your video).

Having said that, you should still get an LCD display, for one reason: eye fatigue. Even with a CRT's refresh rate set correctly, the eye fatigue is a major issue. I still believe my eyesight problems were caused by decades of work in front of a CRT. When I switched to an LCD two years ago, my vision stopped getting worse, and the dry eyes almost completely disappeared. I still go back to my CRT when I'm doing critical photo work, but find the LCD adequate for cutting video.

If you do a lot of video, the refresh of the LCD is important. Samsung has always had really fast LCD displays. Make sure you check this spec before you buy.

John, have you tried setting the refresh rate around 90hz? (72-90hz is ok, 60hz can be bad)

I think a LCD computer monitor would be preferable over a CRT (for video). My reasons:
Thinner bezel is better for dual monitor setups.
No magnetic interference with NTSC monitor.

LCDs are getting extremely cost competitive with CRTs. If you factor in the cost of electricity (which is kind of hard to calculate), LCDs are not that much more expensive.

For photo work, a CRT is probably better for color accuracy when calibrated. For video, use a NTSC monitor for color accuracy (a CRT-based one).

2- If buying a LCD, you can try hot deals sites. In the US... gotapex.com, bensbargains,net, gatwallet.com, etc. Generally I would read/search the forums, and skim the front page.

Thanks for all the tips!

I was able to get a price of $319.95 for a Samsung SyncMaster 915N-Black 19-inch Black LCD Monitor at Dell home by applying the coupon code of
G7$J1QS86XVP3L. The shipping is free and, wait for it,
there is a $20 mail in rebate that brings it down to 299.95.
This is considered to be a good budget 19in monitor.

At Dell Small Business they have this one on sale.
DELL E193FP $303.00 [You Save $75.80] This is certainly a passable monitor, but the Dell Ultrasharp line is much better. I suspect the Samsung above would be a better choice too. However, if I was going to spend $300 or less, I think I would go for the best 17 inch monitor I could afford rather than merely a decent 19 inch. I think it's the best bang for the buck, you sacrifice screen real estate, but you gain a sharper picture and thus less eye fatigue.

You can get a great deal on a Dell UltraSharp 1704FPT 17-inch. It's normally $329, but dell has it for 15% off this week. The coupon code above took another $45 off. Shipping is free and the total comes to $234.65. That is pretty sweet.

If you want more real estate down the line you can get a second LCD monitor when prices come down even more.

If you watch the dell W1900 widescreen HDTV/Monitor goes on sale for 359-389 for a regular price of 799. I've go one and like it. Right now it is 699 (not a good price)

I googled looking for dell discount codes and found a good site that listed them. Then just checked weekly (they show expire dates). A new offer comes out as other expire - end of month has better prices if sales are off.

Have not fed any vegas HD to it yet, but OTA stuff looks pretty good.

I also can switch between DVI input to it and my Pyro via s-video as it has a ton of inputs.

Good points re differences... I am running 3 monitors on a matrox parhelia card: 2 viewsonic LCDs and 1 sony CRT... it's a great combination, and you Do see differences between monitors, so it's important to be able to preview/check in both types.

ken

Surprisingly, Office Depot is a great place to buy an LCD monitor. I ended up returning a ViewSonic 19" from Best Buy to get an LG FLatron L1930B. The ViewSonic looked weird to me unless I was 100% directly looking at it. The image was great, otherwise.

Not all LCD monitors have the same types of panels. The "fastest" ones (which are not really necessary for video editing, but more for gaming) have other drawbacks, in terms of viewing angles and color accuracy.

I don't agree that a CRT is "better" for any application than most of the LCDs currently offered. At one time that was true, but I think that overall, LCDs are brighter, have better contrast a sharpness. A 19" LCD has as large an image as a 20" CRT, which is a monstrous piece of equipment. The biggest problem I see with them is that they don't look good unless they are used at the native resolution. You shouldn't go any lower, and you can't go higher. This bothered me for a few days, but now I don't miss it at all.

Also, they're barely selling CRTs anymore, so chances are, your work (if viewed on a computer) is more likely to be seen on another LCD (something to consider when you are tweaking photos, creating graphics, etc.). Neither a CRT nor an LCD look like a TV monitor, though, so there's no advantage/disadvantage in terms of previewing video on either one.

One thing you can try with a new monitor that has a much higher resolution than you'd prefer:

(1) run the LCD monitor at its native resolution

(2) go into display properties/settings/advanced/general and change the DPI setting to something larger. Then you'll have the best of both worlds.

I don't agree that a CRT is "better" for any application than most of the LCDs currently offered.

One reason CRTs are better for video are that they have no residual "lag" in the image, something even the best LCDs still have (and they still have a LOT of this). Also, LCDs still cannot produce the same shadow detail as CRTs (which is why the highest end home theaters still use CRTs, although many installers are forcing people to switch because three gun projection CRTs require periodic convergence -- a pain for installers and users alike). Finally, CRTs can generally reproduce a wider gamut of colors than most LCDs, something those that do lots of color photo work appreciate and need.

I'm not arguing against making the switch to LCDs -- I'll never go back because I value my eyesight -- but everyone should understand the tradeoffs, and you do give up something going to LCDs.

Thanks again for all your input! I bought one. So far so good. There's some getting used to. I was wondering if any of you may have some setting suggestions that I may have overlooked?

I have all sorts of hints if you find that certain things look to small. Make sure you keep the LCD at its native resolution. Unlike CRTs, you pretty much NEVER want to use any resolution other than the native resolution.

It's at the native resolution. I set the appearence to "clear type", that helped. There just seems to be a minor fussiness(no big deal). Although, this monitor seems so much bigger than my 17" flat screen CRT.

Which monitor did you end up buying?