Ugh... Dead Pixel

[Nevada]

GRR! Today I found a dead pixel on my three month old Planar PX191M. Noticed it when I had the white portion of an IM window over the area. I'm probably just going to leave it and just deal. Knowing my luck, I'll try to rub the pixel and make something worse in the process.

 

[VIAN]

should have bought a CRT

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: VIAN
should have bought a CRT

- M4H

 

[sswingle]

I love my LCD. Just a simple little KDS Rad 5. I don't notice any ghosting or delay or anything else people complain about LCDS.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: VIAN
should have bought a CRT

My CRT has 6 dead pixels.

 

[VIAN]

Overall the probability of a CRT getting a Dead pixel is like 1:1,000,000,000 as opposed to an LCD with is 1:1,000. Picture looks better too. One of the things that really annoys me is that LCD's only look good at their native resolution. Imagine haveing a native of 1600x1200 and playing HL2, good luck with performance. There are other things that annoy me too, but that one's been bugging me recently.

 

[sswingle]

Another thing about my LCD, its native resolution is 1024x768.
Before I got my new video card, I had to run a lot of games at 800x600, and they looked fine.

 

[clicknext]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: VIAN
should have bought a CRT

My CRT has 6 dead pixels.

All my pixels are dead, beat that.

 

[Tab]

Manufacture need to shove their dead pixel policys up thier ass. It crazy to see that they actually allow several dead pixels on thier moniters sometimes. If I spend $500+ on a moniter I expect it to work perfectly!

 

[modedepe]

Originally posted by: VIAN
Overall the probability of a CRT getting a Dead pixel is like 1:1,000,000,000 as opposed to an LCD with is 1:1,000. Picture looks better too. One of the things that really annoys me is that LCD's only look good at their native resolution. Imagine haveing a native of 1600x1200 and playing HL2, good luck with performance. There are other things that annoy me too, but that one's been bugging me recently.

Picture better on crt's? I'd say that's a matter of opinion. Some lcd's have better picture than crt's, imo. Plus, they won't give you eye strain.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Originally posted by: clicknext

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: VIAN
should have bought a CRT

My CRT has 6 dead pixels.

All my pixels are dead, beat that.

My Crt has some blurry pixels if that matters... just like 2 or 3 right next to each other, not really noticeable at all...

 

[InlineFive]

Pixels die and yet somehow life goes on...

Seriously, my LCD has about 3 dead pixels but at maximum resolution I dont notice them.

-Por

 

[NYHoustonman]

I have one on mine, towards the right, when black is displayed it's locked at red. No problems though, you really don't notice it, especially in games.

 

[Insomniak]

depends on the purpose.

CRTs are better for gaming, because they dont blur when quick camera movements are involved. LCDs do unless the refresh rate is in the cieling (120Hz +) and LCDs that support astronomical refresh rates cost mucho $$$.

On the other hand, just for desktop usage, LCDs are much lighter and have a much smaller footprint.

You be the judge.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Insomniak
depends on the purpose.

CRTs are better for gaming, because they dont blur when quick camera movements are involved. LCDs do unless the refresh rate is in the cieling (120Hz +) and LCDs that support astronomical refresh rates cost mucho $$$.

On the other hand, just for desktop usage, LCDs are much lighter and have a much smaller footprint.

You be the judge.

I use my LCD to play games, edit and composite videos, do homework, cruise the net, compose music, etc. In other words, I do A LOT with it, and I will NEVER use a CRT again. My 17" LCD has a 16 ms rise/fall time along with 1280x1024 native resolution, and I find it perfect for everything. For some reason, even when my CRT was cranked up to 100 Khz, I could still see the strobing. I have no idea why, but it would make me sick after an hour or so. However, my CRT does not strobe or ghost, and I never feel sick. Aisde from the compact size and brighter picture, the best part is that it produces a perfect rectangle picture with no curvature. Simply beautiful.

But it is all a matter of opinion.

 

[Kingofcomputer]

In the spec, most manufacturers state that dead pixel is nature of LCD, no warranty on that.
Sharp even states that the backlight is consumable, no warranty on that too.
Some are better, like Samsung, states that "Samsung accepts goods exchange for more than five dead pixels found on the panel within seven days from date of purchase ".

 

[VIAN]

Another thing about my LCD, its native resolution is 1024x768.
Before I got my new video card, I had to run a lot of games at 800x600, and they looked fine.

When you run an LCD out of native resolution, the once fine crisp clear lines (at native resolution), become blurred. And that is too obvious and noticeable to be only an opinion.

Manufacture need to shove their dead pixel policys up thier ass. It crazy to see that they actually allow several dead pixels on thier moniters sometimes. If I spend $500+ on a moniter I expect it to work perfectly!

Yes it is very stupid. But LCD's would cost a lot more if they only released perfect ones. You pay so much already because of all the defective ones they have to throw away. LCD manufacuring is cheap.

Picture better on crt's? I'd say that's a matter of opinion. Some lcd's have better picture than crt's, imo. Plus, they won't give you eye strain.

Get a flat screen trinitron and run it at 85Hz or higher and then tell me if you get eye strain. I can stay all day long on my flat screen trinitron. As far as picture quality, check this out that wenfun said:

I just got my Viewsonic LCD yesterday. This is my first LCD. I'm a little disappointed...

My #1 complain is the picture is too bright (I know this sounds funny. This is usually a plus for most people). Unlike my CRT, I cannot adjust the contrast and the brightness of this LCD to complete darkness. Setting the contrast and the brightness adjustment to 0 only dims the display. It's still too bright. I probably can get an anti-glare screen to remedy this issue....

I see a lot of lines/ghosting/halo running across the screen. I tried both the 60Hz (recommended) and the 75Hz, no difference.
It reminds me of low-refresh rate CRTs. I thought LCD is not supposed to have this flickering problem. I don't know if I can get used to this. The image quality of my CRT seems a lot more stable.

Hard to read small text. This is a problem with 17" LDC in general -- the display is too small for the resolution 1280x1024. I have to upsize all my system icon fonts etc. Viewsonic included the 'Fine Tune' adjustment feature which allows you to align the image to get the best quality text. This really helps.

I also notice the lower half of the screen seems to be brighter than the upper half.

Me: She's not too happy with it.

 

[Mem]

I thought LCD is not supposed to have this flickering problem. I don't know if I can get used to this. The image quality of my CRT seems a lot more stable.

There should be no flickering on a LCD,sounds like yours might be faulty.

My Samsung 191T has even brightness across all the screen,text is nice and very crisp(especially in DVI mode) but then mine is a nice 19" screen, ghosting wise in gaming it`s only noticeable on fast action in gaming but then only slight & not enough to bother me,my LCD also has no dead pixels & the colours are superb,Quake 3 looks so much better then my flat screen CRT I use to have.

Scaling wise,I have the option to run non-native resolutions in centered mode which means it`ll have a border and reduce the screen size for that res but it`ll look superb( I still have option for full screen and near full screen size with non-native res).

I would find it hard to go back to CRT,the only advantage CRT has IMHO is in gaming but even then it depends on the games and LCD model you`ve.

Bottom line is LCDs are getting better and CRTs are on a limited Life span now, especially with OLED displays down the road in 2006 or so.


OLED info

 

[VIAN]

K, one day I will get a high quality Samsung LCD and see if all of your claims are true. I will stop bashing LCD's until I see the good quality ones and I will get back to you - may not be for a big while, maybe when this CRT breaks down. I'm not rich.

 

[VIAN]

I went to check out LCD's to see how expensive and to find some good ones to keep in mind. This is what I found out.

___________171p_________172t_________172x
viewable____17___________17___________17
resolution___1280x1024____1280x1024____1280x1024
brightness___250__________250_________270
contrast_____500__________500_________500
view angle___85___________170_________160/140
response____25___________25__________16
color_______16.7__________16.2_________16.2
horiz freq____81___________81__________80
vert freq_____85___________75__________75

These are the specs for the best 17inch monitors by samsung. I've also looked at other companies and they are similar.

171p - good brightness, great contrast, sucky viewing angle, sucky response time, all 24-bit colors supported.
172t - good brightness, great contrast, great viewing angle, sucky response time, missing all 24-bit colors support.
172x - great brightness, great contrast, good viewing angle, great response time, missing all 24-bit colors support.

Now tell me why I wouldn't want to have all 24-bits of color. If I get that then I get crappy response time and viewing angle. They can't win me. Because of these results, the CRT is the better choice because it has all of 24-bit color and a great viewing angle and great response time and great brightness and great contrast. I'm sorry but LCD's can't match the quality. The only thing LCD's hold against CRT's is the space saving, low power consumption bit. Try and prove me wrong.

 

[NYHoustonman]

Wow...Er...My Philips Brilliance 180P (LCD) has better picture quality, especially with DVI, than any monitor I've seen. You can't use one guy as an example for everyone. I can adjust virtually anything on this monitor (to total darkness, as if that matters), hell it can even adjust itself. Whatever.

 

[sodcha0s]

Get a flat screen trinitron and run it at 85Hz or higher and then tell me if you get eye strain. I can stay all day long on my flat screen trinitron. As far as picture quality, check this out that wenfun said:........

I saw and answered that thread, as I have the same monitor. She obviously is using the d-sub connection with a bad/inferior cable. I did the same thing when I got the monitor because the DVI cable wasn't long enough, and yes the picture looked like crap. Once I hooked up the DVI cable and properly adjusted the monitor (there is a big difference in how you set up an LCD, no where near like setting up a CRT) there was no comparison. The picture quality, brightness and crispness of this LCD can't be matched. Oh, this monitor replaced my 17" flat screen Trinitron CRT, so I have a basis for comparison. Pictures, video, games and text ALL look better on the LCD. And the viewing area is larger to boot.

 

[sodcha0s]

VIAN,

Here is the specs for the 171b. It doesn't say it there, but the monitor supports 16.7mill. colors.

 

[modedepe]

Originally posted by: VIAN
Get a flat screen trinitron and run it at 85Hz or higher and then tell me if you get eye strain. I can stay all day long on my flat screen trinitron. As far as picture quality, check this out that wenfun said:

I just got my Viewsonic LCD yesterday. This is my first LCD. I'm a little disappointed...

My #1 complain is the picture is too bright (I know this sounds funny. This is usually a plus for most people). Unlike my CRT, I cannot adjust the contrast and the brightness of this LCD to complete darkness. Setting the contrast and the brightness adjustment to 0 only dims the display. It's still too bright. I probably can get an anti-glare screen to remedy this issue....

I see a lot of lines/ghosting/halo running across the screen. I tried both the 60Hz (recommended) and the 75Hz, no difference.
It reminds me of low-refresh rate CRTs. I thought LCD is not supposed to have this flickering problem. I don't know if I can get used to this. The image quality of my CRT seems a lot more stable.

Hard to read small text. This is a problem with 17" LDC in general -- the display is too small for the resolution 1280x1024. I have to upsize all my system icon fonts etc. Viewsonic included the 'Fine Tune' adjustment feature which allows you to align the image to get the best quality text. This really helps.

I also notice the lower half of the screen seems to be brighter than the upper half.

Me: She's not too happy with it.

I've used trinitron monitors. I've also used lcd's. And I can say that I liked the lcd's I've used much more. The picture quality on them has always been at least as good as a crt, in most cases better. Plus, there is NEVER any flickering. As for adjusting brightness, that has also never been a problem. I have always been able to adjust the brightness and constrast to exactly what I've wanted.

 

[Kingofcomputer]

The Hitachi CML174 or 175 is "16.7M Colors with FRC circuitry".
"LCD Panel Not Published by Manufacturer"