Quote Originally Posted by pixelthis
THEY are just used to CRT and don't want or care to make the capital investment.
AND just because the hospital industry is not your industry makes it no less important.
EXCEPT in their case accuracy (or lack of it) can cost lives.
Except that medical imaging does not use applications like color grading or creating digital intermediaries, where the color accuracy needs much tighter tolerances. The color accuracy is CRT's strength, and that's the reason why they're still heavily deployed in professional broadcast/mastering and digital press applications. Considering how heavily the studios and broadcasters have invested in the transition to HD, swapping out the monitors would be a minor cost by comparison. The reasons why CRTs are still in use has everything to do with performance, since they are working with master sources.

Quote Originally Posted by pixelthis
There is no reason that a CRT should be any more accurate than an LCD, its just
inertia and human nature keeping them around.
If flat panel options were sufficient for high end applications, they would have replaced CRTs a long time ago, just like they did in other service industries (those that don't use high end visual applications). Human nature and intertia didn't stop financial services and insurance offices from switching to flat panels. If Sony did not see a need in the professional market, they would not have introduced this OLED lineup. The OLED models look like they're aimed at replacing Sony's broadcast LCD monitors. If the performance advantage is as clear cut as the PC World article indicates, then there's no reason why OLED shouldn't gain a significant foothold in the professional markets. Especially since it costs only 10% more than Sony's professional LCD models.