Would an average LCD be easier on the eyes than your average CRT? If so what would be the most important specs to look for in a LCD for minimum irritation? Also how much would running an LCD not in native resolution (most likely a lower resolution) affect the picture?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
CRT and eyestrain.
- Thread starter whargoul
- Start date
nullvector
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2002
- Messages
- 1,508
I like my refresh rate about 85hz. I can see flashing at anything lower than 75hz.
On my 930SB, I run 1280@100hz, which is really nice.
I noticed that alot of it has to do with whether you view a lot of white screens or dark screens. Writing code for hours on end with a white background really bothers my eyes, but doing the same with a darker or black background doesnt hurt that much.
I dont like LCD's too much, so I'm not too sure about long-term eye strain with those, but I dont think it would be any worse than a 60-70hz CRT.
On my 930SB, I run 1280@100hz, which is really nice.
I noticed that alot of it has to do with whether you view a lot of white screens or dark screens. Writing code for hours on end with a white background really bothers my eyes, but doing the same with a darker or black background doesnt hurt that much.
I dont like LCD's too much, so I'm not too sure about long-term eye strain with those, but I dont think it would be any worse than a 60-70hz CRT.
LCDs are better for eye strain than crts because the text is much sharper. Of course that is only in native resolution and using dvi. If your using 15pin or non native, it looks the same as a crt, sometimes worse. Personally I think my fp2141 looks way better with text than the 17in lcds at the labs at school, but they are 15pin. If you want minimal eye strain, get lcd w/ dvi and use native. Otherwise get a better crt.
yakz part deux
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2001
- Messages
- 158
Aside from being vastly sharper and having perfect geometry, LCDs also don't continuously refresh the screen. The downsides to LCD are:
The pixels are always the same size. On a large CRT display, lower resolutions will take on a sort of "interlacing" effect which somewhat negates the effect of the enormous pixels. Similar to the way a TV makes the craptacularly low NTSC resolution look OK, this means that lower resolutions look better on a CRT. Also, some LCDs just have heinous scaling and interpolating algorithms, making lower resolutions look extremely awful.
There is no black. Yeah, some LCDs have higher contrast ratios than others (however, most manufacturers just make these up to their liking), but no LCD has black. While there is also always some residiual light visible on a CRT, the effect is much more pronounced on LCDs.
LCDs are much slower transitioning from one color to another, especially grey-to-grey. While great strides have been made, and will be made, even on the 2001fp there is a teensy tiny bit of perceptible ghosting in some situations.
Defects. A 5,760,000 element display is not going to be easy to manufacture. That being said, you're probably not going to find many CRTs with dead/stuck pixels or uneven backlighting. If you are the kind of person that demands perfection and doesn't mind abusing liberal return policies, you can probably get around this issue.
There are probably more, but these are the major ones. Anyway, I have a 2001fp, and the idea of going back to CRT frightens me.
-yakz^2
The pixels are always the same size. On a large CRT display, lower resolutions will take on a sort of "interlacing" effect which somewhat negates the effect of the enormous pixels. Similar to the way a TV makes the craptacularly low NTSC resolution look OK, this means that lower resolutions look better on a CRT. Also, some LCDs just have heinous scaling and interpolating algorithms, making lower resolutions look extremely awful.
There is no black. Yeah, some LCDs have higher contrast ratios than others (however, most manufacturers just make these up to their liking), but no LCD has black. While there is also always some residiual light visible on a CRT, the effect is much more pronounced on LCDs.
LCDs are much slower transitioning from one color to another, especially grey-to-grey. While great strides have been made, and will be made, even on the 2001fp there is a teensy tiny bit of perceptible ghosting in some situations.
Defects. A 5,760,000 element display is not going to be easy to manufacture. That being said, you're probably not going to find many CRTs with dead/stuck pixels or uneven backlighting. If you are the kind of person that demands perfection and doesn't mind abusing liberal return policies, you can probably get around this issue.
There are probably more, but these are the major ones. Anyway, I have a 2001fp, and the idea of going back to CRT frightens me.
-yakz^2
Thanks for all your replys. Just for the record I am looking at a Viewsonic VE500. 16ms refresh and average contrast / brightness at a decent price.
DVI is a good point. The Viewsonic doesn't have DVI. I know it's a long shot, but would getting a video card (I probably will need to if I want to play games at 1024x768) and a VGA->DVI adaptor work?
The reason I was asking about lower resolution is because my dad might not like 1024x768. But it seems it wouldn't be possible. We were looking at some 17" and he did comment that 1280 was "almost" too small.
Accurate colors aren't an issue. I do dabble in Photoshop, but nothing serious.
Abusing policies isn't a problem.
DVI is a good point. The Viewsonic doesn't have DVI. I know it's a long shot, but would getting a video card (I probably will need to if I want to play games at 1024x768) and a VGA->DVI adaptor work?
The reason I was asking about lower resolution is because my dad might not like 1024x768. But it seems it wouldn't be possible. We were looking at some 17" and he did comment that 1280 was "almost" too small.
Accurate colors aren't an issue. I do dabble in Photoshop, but nothing serious.
Abusing policies isn't a problem.
