Talk:Comparison of CRT, LCD, plasma, and OLED displays

The title should be changed to reflect that the article also includes a comparison of OLED

power consumption LCD vs. Plasma

Plasma TVs comsume much more power when displaying a pure white image than LCDs, but the average power consumption is about the same or only slightly higher, because LCDs have a consant power consumption, which doesn't depend on tzhe image brightness, because the backlight always runs on maximum power. When displaying a rather dark picture, a plasma TV might even consume less power than LCDs. [1] [2] --MrBurns (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

About lead in the CRT tube

It says "The glass envelopes contain large amounts (often kilograms(Probably GRAMS or less, not Kilograms, as the internal structure is based on Themionic Valve/Tube Technology; and is extremely FLIMSY, with practically NO Lead being present.)[quantify]) of toxic lead and barium as X-ray radiation shielding. The phosphors can also contain toxic elements such as cadmium. Many countries treat CRTs as toxic waste and prohibit their disposal in landfills or by incineration."

The lead is 'in' the glass. It's lead-glass similar to the window in the X-ray room at the doctor office. The lead can not be separated from the glass in the natural environment by acident, even fire. The glass has to be processed to expose the lead and recover it. Therefore I point out that the squawking about lead in CRTs is mostly hype. I wonder sometimes if those who worry so much about lead in the CRT ever use fine (lead)glass crystal when they serve their guests, or have a chandelier with the same glass in their entry hall. As for barium, a citation is necessary on that claim and it should come from the glass supplier to a CRT manufacturer.

I also do not understand what the internal structure being 'flimsy' has to do with a discussion of lead in the CRT? A better word might be 'delicate', as the CRT is a delicate instrument. If a CTRT based TV or computer monitor is dropped more than a couple feet, the tube can be internally damaged, but more likely the other parts of the equipment will fare worse. But the CRT is no more delicate than a similar sized LCD or plasma panel, really. If someone has the time and knowledge, I guess that part of the article should be cleaned up. (BTW I am entering this by using a 24" Sun CRT monitor. I do not care about power consumption, only about image quality and infinite native resolution.)

thank you, Patrick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.190.133.204 (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

LCDs and environmental aspects

Not only CRTs are problematic for the environment, also LCDs, e.g. because the production emmits significant amounts of greenhouse gases. [3]

I think this should be added to the article. --MrBurns (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Motion blur

Why no mention of sample-and-hold-related motion blur? This is a major issue that anything with sample-and-hold suffers from, which is basically LCD, Plasma, and probably OLED (unless it flashes the image once each frame). This type of blur occurs even if the display has zero response time. CRTs display the image for a small fraction of the frame, so suffer very little from this. 24.155.108.53 (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)