Modelworks
Lifer
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
reallyscrued
Platinum Member
- Jul 28, 2004
- 2,618
- 5
- 81
Nooooooooooooo! I just noticed ghosting on my LCD. If i move windows around with icons in it, the text for the file and folders named seem to bold for a second if i drag the window left and right.
Ignorance was bliss! I hate this thread. :thumbsdown:
Ignorance was bliss! I hate this thread. :thumbsdown:
Well there's also a certain amount of it that can be optical ghosting. Depends on how fast your moving said files.. Like wave your hand in front of you fast.. OMG REAL LIFE GHOST.....ing.
Assimilator1
Elite Member
- Nov 4, 1999
- 24,152
- 517
- 126
Oh btw, an LCD pro not mentioned, they use less power size for size.
.
akugami
Wow I thought I was sensitive to flicker, I can see a CRT flicker slightly at 75Hz but not above that.
What do strobe lights do to ya??, make me go dizzy or 'micro' black out.
nyker96
Lol, seeing as CRTs screens have been round for at least 50yrs (& possibly more) their doesn't seem to be problems with the small amount of EMR that gets out.
Use a mobile phone?
Flexy
You're wrong about 2 things ref CRTs, decent ones do better contrast than any LCD, & better colour, ever seen an LCD with proper black?
reallyscrued
Lol, just get drunk & blot it all out!
Same here, or until it blows up
.akugami
Wow I thought I was sensitive to flicker, I can see a CRT flicker slightly at 75Hz but not above that.
What do strobe lights do to ya??, make me go dizzy or 'micro' black out.
nyker96
Lol, seeing as CRTs screens have been round for at least 50yrs (& possibly more) their doesn't seem to be problems with the small amount of EMR that gets out
.Use a mobile phone?
Flexy
You're wrong about 2 things ref CRTs, decent ones do better contrast than any LCD, & better colour, ever seen an LCD with proper black?
reallyscrued
Lol, just get drunk & blot it all out!
I have to go with CRT!
If you are lucky and you got a good CRT monitor (not just good model No, but also good serial No :laugh: )
and you know how to fix the picture quality from the menu, the problems for example like Geometry, focus & color inconsistency can be minimized.
I had a very good Mitsubishi (and also an Iiyama) 19" (diamondtron) CRT and at 1280X1024 at 100Hz was just fine! (I prefered actually 1024X768 at 120Hz)
I mean for watching movies or playing games at a 19" monitor, what Geometry (I don't do CAD) or color inconsistency problems (I don't do photo editing on a pro level) was disturbing?
The issues i have with CRT tech (other than the space/weight) is time based picture quality degradation (but also LCD has that, although in much less degree) and especially the eye strain after some time! (I have a radiation suit, so no radiation problems :laugh: )
So although CRT have enough problems already, if we are talking about pure picture quality, in my visual perception the LCD problems are more disturbing!
I mean I can detect with plain eye that the colors are not exactly the same quality (color depth) , I can detect from my balcony that the viewing angles are not good, I can detect the grey blacks,
but most of all i can't stand the motion blur!
Even if there were no other problems except motion blur, I would still consider the CRT picture quality better (that's how much i hate motion blur!)
Overall (not only picture quality) I would pick (up) LCD over CRT (expecially if CRT is 22" :laugh: )
If you are lucky and you got a good CRT monitor (not just good model No, but also good serial No :laugh: )
and you know how to fix the picture quality from the menu, the problems for example like Geometry, focus & color inconsistency can be minimized.
I had a very good Mitsubishi (and also an Iiyama) 19" (diamondtron) CRT and at 1280X1024 at 100Hz was just fine! (I prefered actually 1024X768 at 120Hz)
I mean for watching movies or playing games at a 19" monitor, what Geometry (I don't do CAD) or color inconsistency problems (I don't do photo editing on a pro level) was disturbing?
The issues i have with CRT tech (other than the space/weight) is time based picture quality degradation (but also LCD has that, although in much less degree) and especially the eye strain after some time! (I have a radiation suit, so no radiation problems :laugh: )
So although CRT have enough problems already, if we are talking about pure picture quality, in my visual perception the LCD problems are more disturbing!
I mean I can detect with plain eye that the colors are not exactly the same quality (color depth) , I can detect from my balcony that the viewing angles are not good, I can detect the grey blacks,
but most of all i can't stand the motion blur!
Even if there were no other problems except motion blur, I would still consider the CRT picture quality better (that's how much i hate motion blur!)
Overall (not only picture quality) I would pick (up) LCD over CRT (expecially if CRT is 22" :laugh: )
Seriously? I totally get the fact that most CRTs have worn out and that LCDs are the only game in town. I also get that you can get larger screen size, perfect geometry, and consume less power. But complaining based on footprint and weight on your desk sounds silly to me. My FW900 takes up no more space than your display does, except in the area behind the screen. Is desk real estate so precious that you need to store items behind the screen? And "snapping" desks?! I guess quality must have REALLY dropped from 10 years ago when 100% of displays were CRTs and every desk in the world held the weight just fine.
flexy
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2001
- 8,464
- 155
- 106
Originally posted by: mmntech
CRT was the best but I'll settle for a nice 50'' or bigger plasma display, or DLP projector in it's stead.
do you have any idea how BAAAD plasms are for PCs?
Burn-in (actually: Image Retention), although usually temporary, is the biggest problem...the other one is the relatively high power consumption.
Mem
Lifer
- Apr 23, 2000
- 21,476
- 13
- 81
My biggest problem with CRTs was quality control,back in those days I would find something wrong even with quality brands on my new CRT monitors,geometry,colour balance,focus problems(especially over time) etc to name a few, it got a bit frustrating reboxing them and waiting for the next replacement to arrive and hoping it was fine.
The only real issue you have to worry about with LCDs is dead pixels,so far I had like 1 dead pixel(in the corner so not really an issue) out of 4 LCDs so not bad(besides some sites do a pixel check for a small fee so not an issue) ,you could argue backlight bleed but I have never really had any issues in that area on any of them,so far none have had to be RMAed for any issues.
I still love my 21" Dell Trinitron. It has dual inputs so I don't have to run my WHS headless. It's also still great for gaming with flexible resolutions. I'll use it until it dies.
reallyscrued
Platinum Member
- Jul 28, 2004
- 2,618
- 5
- 81
Nooooooooooooo! I just noticed ghosting in real life! If I look out my window and and swish my head side to side, the text on the billboard across the street seems to streak.
I hate this thread. :thumbsdown:
In all seriousness, damn, I'm really, REALLY surprised in how many Trinitron users there still are. I would love to hook up my old 17 inch Avitron...I think it's still in my garage collecting dust. Man....when I bough it, It was the shit...I was like 10 and I needed another person to help me carry it.
Btw, the in life ghosting may have been because of Assimilator1's suggestion. :wine:
reallyscrued
Platinum Member
- Jul 28, 2004
- 2,618
- 5
- 81
akugami
Diamond Member
- Feb 14, 2005
- 6,210
- 2,551
- 136
Well, at 85mhz or higher it's not very noticeable but depending on the games, sometimes I would notice it. Not much but it's sometimes there.
The "blur" from LCD's don't really bother me though. If I'm really looking for it, I can see it in some of the quicker paced games I play. However, as others have noted, if you're looking at the game and only looking for the blur of the LCD then you're not really enjoying the game. It's like the two thin lines on trinitrons, it's there, it's noticeable but when you're playing a game and absorbed in the game, you won't really notice it.
konakona
Diamond Member
- May 6, 2004
- 6,285
- 1
- 0
Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
My FP2141SB-BK is still easily the best display in my house- the contrast and speed of it are far beyond what the sickly LCDs can do. OLEDs please hurry
hey, I have the exact same one as my main display. :beer::thumbsup: The best part is I found this almost unused for under $100 locally (thank you craigslist!)
and why would anyone ever use a CRT at that kind of near-lethal refresh rate? :Q
You must have meant this in jest, but whatever. Why would you carry a monitor up and down on a regular basis unless you are moving every couple of months? We have these neat things called weight gyms if you need to lift weight
I also happen to agree with what Sunrise089 said, maybe people just need to learn how to organize and manage stuff sitting on top of their desks.
Oh, and I have lived with both (a very nice LCD and top of the line CRT) and could have lived happily with either one. The whole debate over the tech is a bit overblown it appears, as long as you are comparing something decent from respective camps.
Modelworks
Lifer
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
Grab them if you can.
That is a good deal.
Sometimes you will find trinitrons that people throw out. They work but have a very bright picture or it seems the colors are washed out. It isn't anything that cannot be fixed. The eeprom in these monitors becomes corrupted over the years. You can read about it at the site below. A simple cable and software can restore the monitor to factory condition, fixes geometry errors and color problems also that may have occurred over the years.
http://www.geocities.com/gregua/windas/
BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,709
- 3,003
- 126
Well mine must be special then because it does. I can't see any banding or pixelization even if I almost touch the screen with my nose. I?m not sure why this is so hard to believe given it?s an S-IPS panel that does 102% of NTSC?s color space. According to NEC typical CRTs are only 85% while their wide color gamut CRT is still only 93.3%.
To my eyes this LCD blows away my old CRT for colors. Blacks are inky black while colors are rich, especially green shades which look absolutely amazing in games that use a lot of vegetation, like the original Far Cry. I?m playing through Doom 3 right now and it looks amazing. Plus the size of it makes even my 24? CRT TV pale in comparison, and my 19? CRT looks like an iPod screen next to it.
The only significant advantage my old CRT had was refresh rate, so this LCD tears a little more during gaming as I don?t use vsync. But given tearing never bothered me before and given I typically gamed at 73 Hz before vs 60 Hz now, it?s not a huge deal.
As for native resolution, CRTs look like ass at low resolutions given they look coarse, grainy and pixelated. This LCD interpolates well because it has over 4 million pixels with a .25 mm dot pitch. Lower resolutions are a bit softer but they?re by no means unusable. I have a few games set to 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 and they still look great. Even playing Starcraft at 640x480 stretched to 2560x1600 is perfectly usable.
I?m not some delusional LCD fanboy. This panel is really that great.
That says more about your eyesight than LCD vs CRT:
http://compreviews.about.com/o...timedia/a/CRTvsLCD.htm
http://www.itnetcentral.com/te...-crt-displays-338.html
Even people on this forum have their facts straight:
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=31&threadid=2310654
Stick to being a videoCARD mod, displays are obviously beyond you visual capacity...maybee you need to go see a doctor?
Unless you claim different law of physics govern in your residence? *chough*
BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,709
- 3,003
- 126
Heh, thanks for linking to those generic tech articles. I think you forgot howstuffworks and Wikipedia too. You sure showed me. :roll:
How about linking to something that?s actually relevant?
http://www.prad.de/en/monitore...w-hp-lp3065-part7.html
http://hothardware.com/Article...-Panel-Monitor/?page=4
It's also worth noting that HP appears to have silently upgraded the panel; the original spec states 92% NTSC (which was reviewed above) while HP now says 102% on their website. And again, according to NEC?s page, that exceeds even their wide gamut CRT.
The only thing worse than launching personal attacks is being wrong when you launch them.
Modelworks
Lifer
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
Important part bolded.
NTSC isn't what is used for color comparison in color work. CIE XYZ is used because you do not know what standard the monitor will be used to display. The only LCD monitors that pass the requirements have sensors embedded in the display and use LED for back lighting.
They begin at $5,000 in price and the one I saw, a 24" sold for $22,000.
The review on this very site says that the display does not have a perfect gradient. If it is perfect how can their be any comparison, it should win outright without any hesitation.
http://www.anandtech.com/displ...howdoc.aspx?i=2950&p=6
We would actually rate the Dell 3007WFP slightly ahead of the HP LP3065, even though the HP uses a newer 30" panel, but it's still pretty close.
Maybe you got a bad CRT. LCD are getting better for color, but not there just yet.
Back lit LCD cannot produce true blacks like a CRT, it just isn't possible without using LED and lots of sensors.
12ms response time from white to black is nowhere near a CRT. LCD are getting better, but not there yet. If you used a CRT at 73hz then it is no wonder you like LCD. That would cause eye strain. CRT with 100hz is the way to go.
It doesn't matter how many pixels it has , it is the size of the pixels that matters. The image source is still 640x480 and no amount of interpolating will fix that.
640x480 on a interpolated LCD looks better than a native CRT ?
Only if you like to look at something that looks like someone smeared grease all over the screen.
BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,709
- 3,003
- 126
Well the other two reviews stated it did, so what can we conclude from this? Perhaps AT?s display had QC issues, or perhaps not all gradient tests are created equal? That and my panel appears to have been upgraded since those reviews.
I know what banding is; I?ve seen it on many other LCDs. I also have excellent vision and can often read text at distances that my co-workers can?t. I?m not a blind moron or some kind of rabid LCD fanboy.
To put it simply: in the test you linked, on my display I cannot see any banding or hard gradients in the first two images. I also cannot see anything like is shown in their flawed example images.
As for the Dell, I?m not arguing which display is better, I?m merely pointing out that there are some excellent wide-gamut LCDs out there if you want to pay for them, and that they?re a definite cut above other LCDs I?ve used.
Yeah, maybe. Or maybe a 102% NTSC gamut really is better than 85%. If it wasn?t, why would NEC go to all that trouble to create a display that has the highest possible NTSC color space?
I was actually quite concerned about black levels because I?ve seen many LCDs fare poorly there. But as soon as fired up Doom 3 and saw its rich inky black shadows, those fears were soon squashed. Colors are better too, especially the shades of green.
Subjectively to me, the colors on this display look better than my old CRT, and look vastly better than any other LCD I?ve seen.
You?re arguing multiple terms and confusing them under one umbrella. Response time has absolutely nothing to do tearing, which in turn has absolutely nothing to do with flicker.
So let?s break them down to see where things actually stand:
Response Time: yes, like all LCDs, this one ghosts, but it?s extremely rare when it does, and it?s quite marginal when it happens. Essentially I have to be specifically looking for to notice it (kind of like the damper wires on my CRT), so I don?t consider this a huge advantage for the CRT because it doesn?t impede my ability to game.
Refresh Rate: I?m talking about full frames per second, not flicker. I?m not even arguing flicker, you are. At 73 Hz I found flicker on my CRT, but it was acceptable for gaming as games tend to use darker surfaces which mask it, and in exchange I got to use 1920x1440. 73 Hz was far too low for desktop though, and I used 87 Hz there.
To do 100 Hz on my CRT I?d be required to game at 1280x1024 (down from 1920x1440), which looks like utter ass, CRT or no CRT. I?d always try to keep my resolution at 1600x1200 or better because there was clear image degradation below that. 1600x1200 looked visibly coarser than 1920x1440, but it was still acceptable.
Getting back to full frames per second, at 73 Hz the CRT could do 73 full frames per second while my LCD does 60. So obviously the LCD visibly tears more because I run without vsync, but tearing never bothered me before.
It?s absolutely wrong to claim that pixel size is the sole metric for interpolation, and that pixel count means nothing. Your claim is trivial to disprove with basic mathematics.
I have two displays with same dot pitch, but one has a resolution of 6x6 pixels while the other has 4x4. Now I try to interpolate a 3x3 image onto them (full screen).
With the 6x6 display, it?ll be a perfect interpolation because each pixel gets mapped to four others. With the 4x4 display, some will get mapped to four pixels but others will get mapped to less than that, leading to an uneven image.
Interpolation forms the basis of rasterization so you?re essentially claiming that it doesn?t matter what resolution a game runs at, as long as the pixel pitch is the same? What utter nonsense.
Interpolation is based around sampling points and the more you have, the better it works. Obviously a tighter pixel pitch helps too, which is why I mentioned both as an advantage with this display.
But don?t take my word for it, take a look at the interpolation tests here:
http://www.prad.de/en/monitore...-hp-lp3065-part10.html
I?m arguing that both displays start having display issues when the resolution drops. The LCD gets softer while the CRT gets coarser. It must do, because its pixels get bigger, and I?m not sure why people try to pretend otherwise.
I?m not going to argue the technical merits of the two, but subjectively I think I probably prefer playing Starcraft @ 640 x 480 on my 30? LCD than on my CRT.
Like I said before, I?ve seen a lot of LCDs, but this HP is really a cut above them all.
myocardia
Diamond Member
- Jun 21, 2003
- 9,291
- 30
- 91
I keep meaning to ask this in one of the semi-monthly "I'll nevar give up my CRT" threads, but is it only people with bad eyesight who have this problem? I've got slightly better than 20/15 eyesight, and the refresh rate of a CRT makes zero difference to my eyes/brain/whatever, no matter how long I (used to) sit in front of one, and I've done more than 24 hours more than once. Am I the only one, or is it one of those instances where only the people with the problem are complaining, and most people have zero problems, but we never hear about that, since they aren't going out of their way to publicize it?
The reason that I ask is because I've never seen anyone, anywhere complain about this unless they wore glasses or contacts, or at least needed them. Since I can't see whether any of you wear glasses, I have to ask.
reallyscrued
Platinum Member
- Jul 28, 2004
- 2,618
- 5
- 81
I've never had a problem with CRTs straining my eyes either. This is even at using 60 hz refresh rates.
I'm also the type of guy who gets annoyed by things like this, flicker and low resolutions, but CRTs have never bothered my eyes.
I'm also the type of guy who gets annoyed by things like this, flicker and low resolutions, but CRTs have never bothered my eyes.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter