Inferiority Of LCD Monitors

matrix563 said:
some lcd tv's are called 'monitors' ;)
Click to expand...

I think monitors fall under the 1920x1200 category these days. HDTV is max 1920x1080 resolution that's maximum. There is a huge difference between LCD monitors and LCD TV's. First, the color panels are different as HDTV has at least 8 bit color panels and LCD monitors have 8 bit. Now if they made LCD monitors to 10 bit that would be great. This is what home theater needs. LCD monitors that can be used for home theater and multimedia like watching a Bluray movie on a panel meant for both PC and HDTV.
 
piako said:
Neither HDTVs or LCDs are what I would consider 'pro' quality. LCDs are a color mosaic while CRT is a aligned image more akin to film quality. LCDs and HDTVs that are based on flat-panel technology typically all have crappy backlight systems that bleed, low contrast, poor pixel response, and non-customizable refresh rates. The only upside is the small footprint and weight.

If you look at the way DVD and high def optical content are put onto those mediums it's a joke. For example on DVD you're storing the content at 720x480 and then most likely stretching it out to 848x480 or something like that. With film it's still anamorphic, but it's film (no pixels). Even if you are able to get 1:1 mapping the inherent crappiness of optical video is the crux. Sure, it can look ok, but compared to the experience on the cutting room floor it's minimal at best. Kind of like seeing the source video for a youtube video. You'd want to watch the source, it looks better.

Even if there was some kind of standard 4:4:4 chroma subsampling and high-bit color you'd need to have a 500GB optical device to serve the capability of the color and contrast space. It doesn't exist.

Today it's about pumping out total crap for the masses. Most people don't care about anything and are so prideful they'll simply buy what some other idiot said was good then invite all their friends over to gloat.

The only technology that I think is somewhat acceptable for true video purity is DLP. The source is still pixelized (not film), but the way the micro-mirrors work is nice. If the ambient lighting is pitch black you'll have a near infinite contrast. But you see, if you're still watching some crap dvd you don't have the full 4:4:4.

It's not necessarily that HDTVs are superior to LCD monitors, it's that the content and delivery channel are mediocre to poor. If you've ever watched uncompressed HD footage I'm sure you'll agree. Once Sony gets out their 100GB brd it may be a interesting viewing experience, but for right now any over-the-air or broadband digital hd broadcast over sat or cable isn't delivering the bandwidth you want to see. It's a matter of time really. America has a huge footprint compared to smaller nations. Running fiber up and down that mofo will be a bitch. And even if you got fiber it's not like some godsend, still slow compared to how it could be.
Click to expand...

Well spoken, I agree 100%.
 
This is a very important issue on LCD monitors and we need these new LED back lighting to come out ASAP to advance the picture quality. I think Samsung has just released it's first last month or so. We'll see how it looks. I have an LCD monitor too and if the fact states that HDTV panels are superior we must accept the truth that it is in fact inferior in terms of picture quality.
 
Eh, I try to see it not as LCDs being 'inferior', you just have to be much more discerning with your needs. With CRTs you got the best of everything (for the most part) right off the bat. So it was really a matter of just deciding on what screen size and resolution you wanted (and the corresponding weight that brought). Nowadays, you really have to ask yourself what you're looking for in a monitor. I think this is beneficial in ways, because it forces you to be more frugal with your money.

And honestly, some people place ALOT of incentive on a small footprint and light weight. I sure as hell won't miss lugging around my 19" CRT up and down stairs whenever I moved. Though I will admit the picture quality of the CRT was better. The only thing I really gained from moving to LCD was much more screen real estate (and frankly, for the price I paid for it, that was good enough).

One thing I will complain about with LCDs is the price. I sincerely believe that some LCDs are way overpriced for what you're getting. Way back when I got a 21" CRT with a recommended res of 1600x1200@85hz. That cost me about $500 or so. When I look up an equivalent LCD (ratched down to 60hz), it costs upwards of $800 to $1,000! Now, those are probably IPS panels judging by the viewing angles, but still, I think its way too much for a lower refresh rate, being effectively 'stuck' at the recommended res, and (arguably) slightly inferior color reproduction. Lower size and weight can only account for so much of the extra cost (unless I'm really underestimating how advanced and hard to implement an IPS panel is).

The same goes for TNs. When I see TNs running for like $400, I start thinking 'Isn't the entire point of TNs to bring cost DOWN for the consumer?'. If I'm going to spend $400 for a TN I will may as well toss that and buy into a more advanced *VA panel instead. I guess the more expensive TNs make up the cost with all the inputs they give you I suppose (some of which are of dubious use to most people).
 
So why doesn't anyone make a 24" widescreen CRT? Seems like there's enough of us out there screaming for this that it would be profitable? My main reason for going to LCD was text reading and having widescreen gaming.
 
jpinard said:
So why doesn't anyone make a 24" widescreen CRT? Seems like there's enough of us out there screaming for this that it would be profitable? My main reason for going to LCD was text reading and having widescreen gaming.
Click to expand...

Well, first I think you're overestimating the size of the audience that would buy something like that. Second, it'd be big and heavy as hell, which would cut down the population willing to buy it even more.
 
Size matters. I was hesitant to put my 19" CRT into retirement, but after a day with my 24" LCD I was convinced. I don't really notice the lack of colour accuracy unless I connect my CRT and LCD side by side.
 
Delta99 said:
Simple, Samsung uses 6-8 bit panels for their LCD monitors that has dynamic contrast ratio that tricks the eyes into making it look like it has a 10 bit HDTV color. Dithering as you explained. Do you understand now?
Click to expand...

Dithering isn't dynamic constrast ratio, and 8-bit computer monitors don't dither. Why would they? Your video card can't output anything better, Windows won't take anything better, and unless you're a print professional you don't have any material that needs it.
 
My eyes are glassing over reading these numbers. Maybe once upon a time id give a care but all i want to know is a 1080p LCD HDTV (be it labeled a monitor or not )going to be as easy on my eyes and as pretty as this Dell 22in ultra sharp i have sitting in front of me?

Here are my preferences for reference, from worst to best.

DLP projection
CRT
LCD + Plasma = Tie LCD for its brightness and sharpness, Plasma for its colors.


Halp.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top