Nope. If CRTs were the most viable display from a commercial perspective, they would not be prohibited. Why is gas still being used to power the bulk of the world's vehicles?
Nope. If CRTs were the most viable display from a commercial perspective, they would not be prohibited. Why is gas still being used to power the bulk of the world's vehicles?
Yes, if you have an average person compare an average LCD to an average CRT they will prefer the LCD. That is why LCDs have taken off.
However don't confuse popularity with reality. highest end LCDs still lag behind highest end CRTs in several metrics. The LCD primary advantage is sharpness, weight and power consumption. Important metrics for sure, but color, resolution, and response time are still very important factors for some.
I bought into the hype when my 7 year old CRT died... I got what was the 'hot' 17" LCD at the time. It has great clarity but relatively poor resolution, and response time (accurate color representation is not terribly important to me). I ended up getting a 19" CRT as well, and that has become the monitor for my main machine.
For many, the advantages of LCDs outweigh the shortcomings when compared to CRTs. Luckily those shortcomings are diminishing, and soon we will all be able to use LCDs, but I don't think we've reached that point yet.
The VP191B looks to be using the first LCD panel with real response times that are probably acceptable to 99+% of people, which is a great next step in getting there. Shrink the pixel size a bit and LCDs start being a clear winner.
Reality is that even low-end LCD panels already have response times that appeal to the great bulk of consumers. That's why consumers overwhelmingly choose LCDs. Go tell the millions of people that already use LCDs every day that they "can't" use them. When they tell you that they love their displays, tell them "No, you don't-- it's just hype!". Then tell the CAD and graphics workers that they can't be working on their LCDs, and wind up by grandly declaiming, "Someday, you will be able to buy an LCD with decent resolution" (conveniently ignoring the fact that LCD panels already offer superior resolution).
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
how high end are you talking?? i had a sony g400 when it came out at a very uncool price of atleast $500, that was not the low end. it couldnt pull off 1600x1200 clearly and it was one of the few that could hit 85hz at the resolution. most sink to 60 or 72 at most. course it could do it probably as clear as cheaper monitors did lower resolutions, but i mean crisp clear. my friends new nec flat screen can't do it either. both had very low dot pitches. and i didnt link to the monitor for the monitor really, it was for the phosphor dot info. 299 gets you a decent 19" crt these days..but its not going to do 1600x1200. i don't know how much you'd have to pay for one that could, but i'm guessing it would be wiser to just buy a bigger monitor or an lcd at that price.
The onyl thing that is holding me back is cost. I'd rather pay $200 for a 19" CRT that I can run a res of 1600x1200.
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
so would i..but it doesn't exist
The Samsung 997DF is $200 and runs 1600x1200 @ 76 Hz...
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
76hz isn't enough. and i doubt it has phosphor dots packed in more densly than my g400 or my friends 300dollar nec does. at lower resolutions one can get 100+hz. one of the easiest ways to guage the monitors quality was tolook at its top refresh at top resolution. cheapies have for years and years been stuck at 76hz or lower at 1600x1200
76Hz is okay, and it DOES have the density needed, you linked to the Dan's Data article that used a Samsung display with the same tube technology the 997DF has. Diagonal dot pitch of 0.20, Dan's measured orthogonal dot pitch of 0.231, which is just enough for 1600x1200 on an 18" viewable display... probably not an accident.
People ask too much out of equipment to justify the hatred for it. I've been running at 1024x768 for years at 75hz refresh rate. My old monitors do exactly what I want when I want it. Ohh, and 0roo0roo, my 7 year old gateway monitor runs 1600x1200 at 75hz, probably could run more but I don't care to be honest. Not here to argue with those who think anything not A64/P4 Prescott or LCD's are out of date.
I went down to fry's and sampled some 8ms monitors today. There is a brand new 8ms NEC model that looked absolutely beutiful. Even though it had a 6 bit panel, I didn't notice any washed out colors. In fact the colors were bight and vibrant. Although they did have a video that was being repeated on the monitor, the only true test would be to buy it and try it out at home. I was tempted to buy one and try... to bad it was $500. Even if I liked it, its just too much money.
Oh, and I tried out a few 16ms panels. I tested for ghosting using simple solitaire tests. At 16ms I DID notice ghosting. On the 8ms panels I couldn't see any. I think its safe to say 8ms is good for gaming. Most of these fast response time monitors are still about twice as expensive as a high end 19" CRT though.
Oh, and I tried out a few 16ms panels. I tested for ghosting using simple solitaire tests. At 16ms I DID notice ghosting. On the 8ms panels I couldn't see any. I think its safe to say 8ms is good for gaming. Most of these fast response time monitors are still about twice as expensive as a high end 19" CRT though.
ExpertNovice: You mentioned that money was no object (or was that hypothetical???), and that you wanted the best. Did you look into the Dell 2405FPW by any chance? Just curious. They were discounted below $900 recently.....
Lcd monitors are the future , why go back to something bulky when you can have something better sharper image, brighter, space saving and on and on ....
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Text size ... I personally find 17" LCD's text and windows too small, 19" LCD is good. Course I sit way back in my fat office chair and fat desk which makes huddeling up to screens impossbile.. (about 3-4 ft I can't touch screen)
I had a 20" lcd 16x12 and thought it was aweful due to text size, RMA'ed it same day.
On my 22" diamondpro I find 16x12@100Hz almost too small... but i like game at 20x16@85Hz if game supports due to crisp detail
76Hz may be enough for you but not for everyone. Many will get headaches from a too slow refresh rate on a CRT monitor even if they don't see the flickering. At 1024 I can see the flickering at 85 Hz on a 17" monitor. 75 Hz will trigger a migraine.
Now you know!
I didn't think it was hypothetical until someone pointed out the IBM T221
http://www.officedepot.com/ddSKU.do?lev...hopping%20Comp-_-Datafeed-_-Technology
$1,100 for 2405FPW is a bit pricy but affordable. $7,700 for the T221 might not go over too well with my Wife!
Last night there was deal for what appears to be the 2405's smaller brother the 2005FPW. The price, including shipping and taxes, was $499. Both have 12ms response and the experts here say that 12ms has no performance issues with games except for the fastest action games. I play AC and WoW and both can get intense in large scale battles but the experts have spoken and I know they would not lie or exaggerate. Right?
Thanks for the reference.
Originally posted by: Concillian
I simply don't understand people who buy 19" screens with the same native resolution as 17" screens (1280x1024)... and they pay MORE for them
If the same kind of push happens on shrinking the current low response time panels as we've seen on the response time in general lately, then it won't be more than a year or so that we will see 20.1" 1600x1200 panels with these response times. I figure 150dpi is achievable in 5 years or less on consumer level screens.
I never understood why my Mother had me thread her needles when I was a child. Forty years later I'm much more knowledgeable about differences in others.
204 DPI LCD monitor currently is currently available. The IBM T221. It costs more than my computers but it does show what can be done with an LCD!
Unless I'm doing my math wrong, an 18" (viewable) diagonal 4:3 display is pretty close to 323x242mm (it should be roughly 14.4" by 10.8", or 32.3cm by 24.2cm). So if the orthogonal dot pitch (the actual distance between adjacent subpixels of the same color, or the center of adjacent subpixel triads) is .231mm, that gives a 'phosphor resolution' (so to speak) of ~1400x1050. That is, there are about 1.5 million phosphor triads on the screen. 1600x1200 resolution is about 1.9M pixels.
However, even if the display does have on the order of 1600x1200 phosphor groups, unless alignment is perfect (which, let's face it, it's not on consumer-level CRTs), the pixels won't be right in the middle of the phosphor dots. So your display will be less sharp than if you ran it at, say, 1280x960. Dansdata says you ought to have at least 1.25x the resolution in each direction in phosphors (I'm not sure that's enough to eliminate the effect, but if your alignment is very good it's probably enough). The Nyquist theorem says that ideally, you really want at least twice as many phosphor groups in each dimension than the signal you're sampling, to be assured you can see each pixel clearly even if the alignment is off badly (but if you can count on good alignment, that's way overkill).
This is why I'm sort of skeptical of people who run insanely high resolutions (say, 2048x1536) on 20-22" consumer CRTs. There's only ~1600x1200 phosphors in those displays, so you're not 'really' getting all the detail of a resolution significantly higher than that.
I'll second that 75Hz not being fast enough. People think I'm crazy when I sit down at their workstation and the first thing I do is up their refresh rate from 75Hz to 85Hz.
And Trinitrons are nice but remember, they cost more than your average CRT. Plus, you've got those two aperture wires that are extremely annoying on light images. You learn to ignore them, but you can always see them 99% of the time.
And Trinitrons are nice but remember, they cost more than your average CRT. Plus, you've got those two aperture wires that are extremely annoying on light images. You learn to ignore them, but you can always see them 99% of the time.
I know you were not responding to me but here was the monitor that I needed to replace:
http://www.promarktech.com/imaging/monitors/hitachi/cm772.htm
1600x1200 at 90 Hz. I used to run 1280x1024 at over 100 Hz but my eyes got a bit older since 2001 and began running at 1152x864 at 85 Hz. Recently the flickering began to bother me and I was going to crank it a bit.
BTW, I dont see flickering at work on a Dell 17" monitor running at 1024x768... at 85 Hz. but do see it at 1152x864 at 85 Hz on the other computer. Perhaps I work on computers too much. Ya think?
Because I live on the bleeding edge only when the bleeding edge is superior to current technology. Not simply because someday it will be the best.
Thus, I chose Beta rather than VHS.
Hehe, how many have come back to you and confirmed their eyes were not as tired or they no longer had headaches?
As for the tinitron wires, I can see them but rarely do unless looking for them.
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