Lcd/crt

[sedain1]

on this forum there is ALOT of talk about buying/having LCD's and i find it a little misleading, CRT monitors are still far greater if you have space for it, weight is of no issue..why would you be moving it around alot? and the quality of the picture is better with CRT's also...no ghosting...

besides LCD's being the "cool new thing" there is really imo no reason to get one in my case besides the fact that LCD's supposebly cause less stress on your eyes and i dont notice it when im at my friends house...

LCD's are EXTREMELY expensive, i looked around and the best CRT thats out is around 700 and NO lcd comes anywhere close to what it can do/ the quality of picture and the hz/ resolutions it can attain..

to get something "equivelant" to a normal best buy type CRT you are going to be spending at the VERY LEAST double the money to get a LCD thats anywhere near as good and in some cases triple or more. (no lcd thats out completely eliminates ghosting)

personally i dont get it /shrug, the LCD technology has been out for awhile now and i see it going nowhere its price along with its inherent problems as far as ghosting and a few other issues makes me not wanna touch it with a ten foot pole.

 

[DrumBum]

I'm glad that you know that you don't want an LCD monitor.

 

[sedain1]

im glad to

 

[Sonic Death Monkey]

Are you trolling or are you serious? I have worked in the display industry for over 10 years and I am here to tell you LCDs are far better than CRTs for most applications. LCDs have made huge advancements in color, motion and scaling while continuing to drop in price. In fact I would hazzard a guess that CRTs will be a niche product at best within 5 years. Currently the only thing that CRTs do much better than LCDs is color and that is about to change with the advent of LED backlit LCDs. Sure they are more expensive but all technology leaps are. If LCDs are not for you then that is fine, but I suggest you qualifiy your comments as such.

I wanted to tackle a few of the blanket comments you made here.

the very best CRT thats out is around 700 and NO lcd comes anywhere close to what it can do/ the quality of picture and the hz/ resolutions it can attain..

They best CRT that is out there is the Sony .22mm stripe pitch AG 21" and if memeory serves me it is still over $1k. There are no HZ in LCDs because they are a static device, meaning the pixel is either on or off. The only reason that Hz is even mentioned in specs is because of a throw back from the CRT days. BTW, 60Hz is nominal for LCDs because it is the cycle of electricity. A more accurate representation of LCD timing is the response time. LCD panels are down to the 12ms which equate to over 100fps.

Just some thoughts.

SDM

 

[sedain1]

There are no HZ in LCDs because they are a static device, meaning the pixel is either on or off. The only reason that Hz is even mentioned in specs is because of a throw back from the CRT days. BTW, 60Hz is nominal for LCDs because it is the cycle of electricity. A more accurate representation of LCD timing is the response time. LCD panels are down to the 12ms which equate to over 100fps.

Although LCDs are improving, CRT monitors still have better refresh rates than LCDs. Refresh rate, measured in hertz (Hz), represents the number of times the screen is redrawn per second. A higher refresh rate is better, because lower refresh rates cause screen flicker and jittery moving images. Faster refresh rates make CRTs generally better than LCDs at displaying fast-motion DVDs and games; in tests, LCD displays often fare worse at simple tasks like scrolling through Web pages without blurring the text. CRTs have much less problems with fuzzy moving images.

Currently the only thing that CRTs do much better than LCDs is color

While a CRT can accurately render on-screen differences between midnight blue, dark brown and slate gray, an LCD tends to read dark colors as black, with less nuance.

They best CRT that is out there is the Sony .22mm stripe pitch AG 21" and if memeory serves me it is still over $1k

Model FP2141sb
Picture Tube/Display Size viewable image size : 20"/50.8 cm
Dot Pitch 0.24 Flat Aperture Grille CRT
Deflection 90°
Display Type Totally flat aperture grille CRT, semi-dark-tint screen, OptiClear screen surface
Input Video Signal ANALOG 0.7 Vp-p / 75 Ohms
Sync H/V Separate TTL Positive/Negative
H/V Composite TTL Positive/Negative
Display Colors More than 16 million (Dependent upon display card used)
Synchronization Range (Automatic) Horizontal 30kHz to 140kHz
Vertical 50Hz to 160Hz
Resolutions Supported
640 x 480 @ 50 to 160Hz
800 x 600 @ 50 to 160Hz
1024 x 768 @ 50 to 160Hz
1280 x 1024 @ 50 to 127Hz
1600 x 1200 @ 50 to 109Hz
1800 x 1350 @ 50 to 85Hz
1800 x 1440 @ 50 to 98Hz
1856 x 1392 @ 50 to 95Hz
1920 x 1440 @ 50 to 92Hz
2048 x 1536 @ 50 to 86Hz
Note: Some systems may not support all modes listed.
Maximum Resolution 2048 x 1536 @ 85Hz
Recommended Resolution 1600 x 1200 @ 85Hz
Active Display Area

Factory Setting Horizontal: 15.6 in. / 396 mm
Vertical: 11.7 in. / 297mm
(Dependent upon signal timing used)
Full Scan Horizontal: 16.0 in. / 406 mm
Vertical: 12.0 in. / 304.6 mm
(Dependent upon signal timing used)
Power Supply 100-120/220-240 VAC,50-60 Hz
Power Management IPM (Intelligent Power Manager) System
EPA ENERGY STAR, meets NUTEK based on 2 power-saving modes
Signal Cable Dual,two 15 pin d-Sub connectorsd
Dimensions (W x H x D) 19.5 x 19.1 x 18.5" /495 x 484.5 x 471mm
Weight Net: 65.7 lbs /29.8 kg
Gross: 77.2 lbs /35 kg
Regulatory Approvals UL(UL1950),C-UL(CSA-22.2 No.950-1995),TUV/GS (EN60950:1992&AD1AD/AD2/
AD3/AD4/AD11),FCC-B,DOC-B,MPR-III,DHHS,HWC,RoV,TUV-ERGO (ISO9241-
3,-7,-8),Energy Star,GEEA-LABEL,TCO95,CE Marking (EN55022-B,VCC EN55024,EN61000-3-2,EN61000-3-3)
Limited Warranty 3 years parts and labor,including backlight
Additional Features U-NX gun,SuperBright (picture mode,movie mode),dual inputs,On Screen Manager (OSM),OptiClear, GlobalSync,Plug’n Play protocol (DDC2Bi,DDC/CI),6 languages,factory reset,sizing and positioning, color temperature,pincushion,tilt,rotation,trapezoid,parallelogram,moire cancellation,convergence control,degauss,contrast,brightness,pin-cushion balance,corner purity adjustments,focus adjustments, AccuColor controls


that is the best one i have seen, couldnt find the one you were talking about, googled it and searched thru a few diff sites that sell monitors.


overall though i think our opinions arent to far off from one another, in 5 yrs LCD's SHOULD be better then CRT's but they just arent there yet because even with the 12 ms LCD's someone like me (hardcore gamer) will still notice the ghosting and the color problems

 

[burningrave101]

If you dont have the room or if you plan to move your monitor around alot i would go with the LCD. But like has already been stated its not worth it to buy an LCD if you have plenty of space for a big CRT.

I would much rather have a nice 19"-22" CRT sitting on my desk then a little 17" LCD that would cost the same or more. Sure they are nice but CRT's display better color along with being better for gaming.

If you get a good monitor with a high refresh rate like the Mitusbishi DP930SB 19" your not going to have a problem with eye strain. Or at least i dont. It displays at 1600x1200 88Hz.

My big desk would look pretty stupid with a skinny little LCD sitting on it. I prefer to have something that takes up a little room and fills out my desk better.

But if you DONT have the room and you like to take your monitor to LAN's then go ahead and drop down $500+ on a good LCD. Otherwise pick up a good 19" CRT for $300 or less.

 

[Dan_D]

I find LCD's best in high glare enviroments and when reading text. However with video and anything moving, CRT is best.

 

[Bitchnmoan]

LCD panels are down to the 12ms which equate to over 100fps.

Unless I don't quite understand these things properly, 1.000 second divided by 12ms per frame = 83 fps. Somewhat below 100 fps but still comparable to many monitors (including my CRT). Either way...

While I agree with many of the sentiments sedain1 posted, the fact is that many folks DO need the desk space, DO need to be able to move their screen easily, DO suffer from headaches caused by CRT refresh, and CAN and are WILLING to pony up for those qualities in LCDs.

Personally, I'll be a die-hard CRT whore until MY eyes and needs make the LCD the more compelling choice. However, I don't begrudge those whose preferences lead them in the other direction since they have their own reasons for liking what they do.

 

[Sonic Death Monkey]

Although LCDs are improving, CRT monitors still have better refresh rates than LCDs. Refresh rate, measured in hertz (Hz), represents the number of times the screen is redrawn per second. A higher refresh rate is better, because lower refresh rates cause screen flicker and jittery moving images. Faster refresh rates make CRTs generally better than LCDs at displaying fast-motion DVDs and games; in tests, LCD displays often fare worse at simple tasks like scrolling through Web pages without blurring the text. CRTs have much less problems with fuzzy moving images.

You are confusing FPS and refresh rates, they are similar in name but different in explanation. Hz as it is known in the display industry is how many times per second that a the electron beam paints the screen. Since there is no electron beam and no painting on an LCD Hz does not translate equally. The highest VESA refresh rate I have seen on a CRT was 120Hz and LCDs are coming head long onto that number in FPS. The problem with most gamers is they think the FPS rating they get in games translates into painting of the screen which they do not. Say a high end computer with a high end card gets 300 fps in UT2004, if you are using a CRT the most you will see is 120 of them or the 120Hz refresh of the screen. While a 8ms LCD (Up coming this year) will get 125fps. Where CRTs excel is the nanoseconds it takes to ignite a phosphor vs the miliseconds it takes to open and close an LCD. That is where most of the smearing and ghosting comes from.

My guess your comments are based on viewing a limited number of medicore LCDs which would make your comments fairly accurate. However there are a few cream of the crop LCDs where ghosting and smearing are at a minimum. I have a 23" wide screen LCD with an LG panel in it that is 16ms and there is no smearing or ghosting what so ever. Plus I get the bonus of playing games that are native wide screen like Far Cry, UT2004 and the upcoming Doom3 adn HL2. My point in posting was to try and show that blanket statments about LCDs tend to not hold water.

Model FP2141sb
Picture Tube/Display Size viewable image size : 20"/50.8 cm
Dot Pitch 0.24 Flat Aperture Grille CRT
Deflection 90°
snip...

I am very familar with the FP2141. I have owned several as well as the Mitsubishi counterpart the DP2070. The Sony I was talking about is not made any more but I believe it was the F520 or something like that. It was the only 20"+ CRT that hit .22mm stripe pitch. It was the predessor to the current C520. It was by far the best CRT ever made.

Unless I don't quite understand these things properly, 1.000 second divided by 12ms per frame = 83 fps

Yea you were right. I f'd up. I was thinking of the upcoming 8ms panel I saw demostrated last week.

SDM

 

[Bitchnmoan]

I was thinking of the upcoming 8ms panel I saw demostrated last week.

SDM

How did it look? What was being run on it? And who makes it?

 

[BillLeeLee]

Technically the 'best' CRT would be the Sony GPD-F520, which retails for $1600.

21 inch monitor, .22 dot pitch, 2048x1536@ some very high refresh. It has been discontinued however, but you can still get it. No CRT from the NEC/Mitsu camp has been able to touch the dot pitch offered by the F520 (I'd get one if I had $1600 to spend, but here I am with my FP912).

http://www.sony-cp.com/en/products/crt/f_professional/f520/

As for LCDs, they're still a relatively young technology compared to CRTs, and a lot of the displays don't display true 24-bit color, they just do 18-bit and dither it to reproduce the other colors.

Anyways, I'll agree with the expensive thing, but prices are slowly but surely coming down.

 

[RS3RS]

A 16 MS response time LCD = 62.5 FPS Max
A 12 MS response time LCD = 83.333... FPS Max

Oh, and the reponse time is usually only how long it takes to go from black to white, greys and colors can take many, many times longer to display.

100 hrZ = 100 fps Max
120 hrZ = 120 FPS max

A 17 inch flat screen CRT that can display 120 fps (120 hrZ) is 79 dollars after rebate at Best Buy (99 before rebate).

A 17 inch LCD from newegg with 16 ms response time (62.5 FPS max, less with greys, etc.) is about 400 dollars. (Not to mention this thing is going to be terrible at contrast, can't display nearly as many colors, and text will be blurry unless using a DVI connection).

If you want a 12 MS lcd, it'll cost you over 500.

Over 5 times the cost of a CRT that does better at everything, just to be able to move it around easier when you need to (and in all honesty, how often do you move your monitor around?).


I think the idea of LCD monitors are good. The technology just hasn't matured yet, it's still too new (and too high), and with some time they will be able to over power CRT's. They just need some time though, and at this moment, I would buy a CRT over an LCD without a second thought.

 

[Ludic]

I didn't see anyone address the fact that LCD's use less electricity than CRT's. It may not seem like a huge deal, but over the lifetime of a machine, that savings will show itself, especially if you use your PC 24/7 like most of us here.

 

[Shadow2531]

What about CRT vs. LCD in regards to radiation. Although CRTs are consider safe, I would think LCDs are safer. EMI? ????

 

[Gmok Bonecrusha]

Oh, and the reponse time is usually only how long it takes to go from black to white, greys and colors can take many, many times longer to display.

Does this explain why some games like Enemy Territory seem to ghost more on my 213T? (LOTS of browns and greys).Are there certain colors that seem to ghost more?

While lets take UT2K4 or even WC3 (Extremely colorful..few browns and greys)...I rarely notice the ghosting at all?

 

[RS3RS]

Does this explain why some games like Enemy Territory seem to ghost more on my 213T? (LOTS of browns and greys).Are there certain colors that seem to ghost more?

While lets take UT2K4 or even WC3 (Extremely colorful..few browns and greys)...I rarely notice the ghosting at all?

That could very well be the reason.

I read in a review of a 16ms LCD monitor once (can't remember which one it was at the moment, will post it if I stumble opon it) that there was no ghosting from black to white, and white to black, so it seemed to be around 16ms response time, which is optimal. However, on that same monitor, they measured an approximately 70ms response time with certian shades of grey.

I'm sure this is probably extreme for most LCD's, but it's safe to say, greys and midtones do ghost more than other colors. I know with the 2001FP, some people can see ghosting when displaying greys, while the same people don't see any visual ghosting with "normal" colors.

 

[cccc]

on this forum there is ALOT of talk about buying/having LCD's and i find it a little misleading, CRT monitors are still far greater if you have space for it, weight is of no issue..why would you be moving it around alot?

Who said weight only matters when moving it around a lot?
In my case, I've got a glass desk and putting a 20" CRT on it would crack it.

 

[cccc]

That could very well be the reason.

I read in a review of a 16ms LCD monitor once (can't remember which one it was at the moment, will post it if I stumble opon it) that there was no ghosting from black to white, and white to black, so it seemed to be around 16ms response time, which is optimal. However, on that same monitor, they measured an approximately 70ms response time with certian shades of grey.

I'm sure this is probably extreme for most LCD's, but it's safe to say, greys and midtones do ghost more than other colors. I know with the 2001FP, some people can see ghosting when displaying greys, while the same people don't see any visual ghosting with "normal" colors.

The black-to-white vs grey-to-grey response time difference varies depending on the panel type. For instance, there was a graph somewhere on Anandtech illustrating how S-IPS panels had grey-to-grey response times close to the optimal black-to-white response times while for PVA panels they could rise significantly. On the other hand, this issue seems to have been addressed to some extent in the PVA panel used in Samsung 193P. So, while it's true that grey-to-grey response times are higher than black-to-white response times, developers seem to address this issue as well and not only the black-to-white response time....

 

[sedain1]

My guess your comments are based on viewing a limited number of medicore LCDs which would make your comments fairly accurate. However there are a few cream of the crop LCDs where ghosting and smearing are at a minimum. I have a 23" wide screen LCD with an LG panel in it that is 16ms and there is no smearing or ghosting what so ever. Plus I get the bonus of playing games that are native wide screen like Far Cry, UT2004 and the upcoming Doom3 adn HL2. My point in posting was to try and show that blanket statments about LCDs tend to not hold water.

my point in general is i see no point in "upgrading" if there is going to be a noticeable downgrade, its a HUGE investment especially with how expensive LCD's are.

i would agree that there are a few cream of the crop LCD's where ghosting and smearing are at a minimum but thats just it, minimum is not enough when i use the computer mostly for gaming/video and i would notice ANY ghosting or smearing and it would be highly annoying.

in closing i dont see myself buying an LCD unless i personally get to see a monitor 1st hand in a fps and other games with equal or better performance in color/image quality and ghosting/smearing wise to a CRT that is around 700$ and the lcd has to be priced within 50-100$ of the CRT.

 

[Sonic Death Monkey]

How did it look? What was being run on it? And who makes it?

The sample I saw was actually in TV form. They were running a DVHS on it in 1080i. AFAIK it is AUO. It looked fantastic. There was a plasma nearby running the same clip so I was able to compare color saturation, ghosthing and smearing. Unfortunately I was not able to see it using anything but an HD signal but what I did see impressed the hell out of me.

Do you hear that bell? It is the death toll for plasma.

i dont see myself buying an LCD unless i personally get to see a monitor 1st hand in a fps and other games with equal or better performance in color/image quality and ghosting/smearing wise to a CRT that is around 700$ and the lcd has to be priced within 50-100$ of the CRT.

I hear what you are saying. For me it is worth it for the benefits of an LCD. My computers are used for much more than gaming and the benefits like widescreen, no EMF, higher contrast and brightnes, less eye fatigue, better image on productivity apps are worth me spending the extra money.

Along those lines you are more likely to see CRTs relegated to niche products and go up to meet LCDs that you are LCDs coming down to CRTs price. There is just too much more investment in producing an LCD factory over a CRT factory and CRT manufacturers are closing plants like crazy. The reality is LCDs have dropped in price at a rate much faster than CRTs but CRTs have still eroded so the delta is still there. With new factories coming on line at the end of this year begining of next we will likely see a price drop in the 17" category and 12ms being the de facto standard and the high end being 8ms. The bad news is we are coming headlong into another shortage while we wait for the new factories come online. Gota love the crystal cycle.

SDM

 

[Moore]

You are confusing FPS and refresh rates, they are similar in name but different in explanation. Hz as it is known in the display industry is how many times per second that a the electron beam paints the screen. Since there is no electron beam and no painting on an LCD Hz does not translate equally. The highest VESA refresh rate I have seen on a CRT was 120Hz and LCDs are coming head long onto that number in FPS. The problem with most gamers is they think the FPS rating they get in games translates into painting of the screen which they do not. Say a high end computer with a high end card gets 300 fps in UT2004, if you are using a CRT the most you will see is 120 of them or the 120Hz refresh of the screen. While a 8ms LCD (Up coming this year) will get 125fps. Where CRTs excel is the nanoseconds it takes to ignite a phosphor vs the miliseconds it takes to open and close an LCD. That is where most of the smearing and ghosting comes from.

I just want to point out that's another common misconception. You will still be limited by the refresh rate of the monitor (60-75Hz typical in LCDs), which is the number of times per second the computer sends a new frame to the monitor, it doesn't matter wether its a CRT or a LCD. In CRT's it just happens to be as well the number of times per second the beam scans the full screen.

 

[Synful Serenity]

I think I stated this before but I'll say it again...the 12ms (or 16, or 25 etc.) that is always quoted is only an average. 12 ms does not automatically yield 83 FPS. And it isn't yet available in a 20in+ screen. Depending on the battery of tests used to measure the change, there will be variance, especially between manufacturers. 12 ms is not 12 true ms, it's only able to give you a reference for comparison...Different color transitions will give different rates, which means some colors might take 2-3 times as long to change over. So the 12ms can only be treated as a range and not an absolute number. To have an LCD screen that could guarantee 12ms response time across all possible color combinations would take a *measured* rating more like 4ms or 6ms. You might get the 12 ms if you're working in black and white (or whatever the manufacturers used to determine the 12ms rating) or if you mostly use it for applications where most of the screen stays relatively static. In fast-paced games where the entire screen is constantly being redrawn across all spectrums of colors, the pixels will not be able to catch up with the frame rate. But that's the beauty of it - we're all different. The LCD technology has really started to close the gap to where some people will not notice the blur. Any of you remember the last decade when we still had passive matrix displays that were being measured in tenths of a second?

If you're fine with that and don't see or don't care about blur, LCD is great. If you must have 2048 x 1536 at 85 frames per second (and you can bench 450lbs if want to use it for LANs), then get a CRT.

 

[jmanning95]

Although LCDs are improving, CRT monitors still have better refresh rates than LCDs. Refresh rate, measured in hertz (Hz), represents the number of times the screen is redrawn per second. A higher refresh rate is better, because lower refresh rates cause screen flicker and jittery moving images. Faster refresh rates make CRTs generally better than LCDs at displaying fast-motion DVDs and games; in tests, LCD displays often fare worse at simple tasks like scrolling through Web pages without blurring the text. CRTs have much less problems with fuzzy moving images.

Have you actually used an LCD monitor?
My LCD monitor is set for 60hz (the only choice)
an has no flickering or jittery images at all.
If I set my CRT monitor to 60Hz I can't stand to
look at it.
One problem that LCD monitors have is with ghosting with
fast moving images, but thats nothing to do with refresh
rate. But the newer LCD with response times <16ms don't
have this problem.

 

[Sonic Death Monkey]

I just want to point out that's another common misconception. You will still be limited by the refresh rate of the monitor (60-75Hz typical in LCDs), which is the number of times per second the computer sends a new frame to the monitor, it doesn't matter wether its a CRT or a LCD. In CRT's it just happens to be as well the number of times per second the beam scans the full screen.

You are correct for CRTs but not LCDs. The contention was that CRTs were inherently better than LCDs in frame rates which just isn't true. BTW, LCD frame rates have nothing to do with Hz and everything to do with ms.

I have had FPS vs Hz argument many many times in the past with people, just because your video card can do 300 FPS in UT2004 it does not mean you are seeing 300FPS. The benefit you are getting is the cacluations of the mele in your favor. The computer calculates movement down the the FPS so the faster your computer the better your edge theoretically. Further the more calculations the smoother the movement. The beter edge thing is a theory that I don't subscribe too. Some of the best CS players I have seen use computers that can dip into the teens on FPS during firefights. Sometimes getting better clubs doesn't make you a better golfer.

I think I stated this before but I'll say it again...the 12ms (or 16, or 25 etc.) that is always quoted is only an average. 12 ms does not automatically yield 83 FPS

Not quite. 12ms is typically rated as time it takes a single subpixel to open and close @ 10% to full open back to 10% open. What others were talking about was pretty accurate. The most torture you can put your LCD through is mid-tone to mid-tone shifts. LCDs have to go full throw to get anywhere so if a color starts in a mid-tone and needs to go to a slightly brighter mid-tone it goes something like this 55% open to full open to 10% open to 56% open. And that is just one color shift. On occasion some low end panels will take as much as 100ms or more to do a mid-tone shift. Some manufacturers have started stating their response time as gray to gray which is a much more accurate representation of timing.

There are technologies out there to help the mid-tone to mid-tone problem, most notibly the Mitsubishi FFD (Feed Forward Device) which calculates the timing and forces the LCD to stop mid movement. This was how it was explained to me so I may be off a bit. I have seen panels with FFD on them and there is quite a difference.

There are other things just down the pipe that will also enhance LCDs. The one that will help color the most is using LEDs as a backlight source. White LEDs have a much better white point than CCF tubes in use now. Currently the best LCDs are about 70% accurate in NTSC color space and the most accurate CRTs are around 93%. LCDs using LEDs as a back light source are 107% accurate to NTSC color. When LEDs are finally in use LCDs will start to be color correctable finally.

Sorry to hijack the thread BTW. LCDs are just something I happen to know a great deal about.

SDM

 

[cccc]

There are technologies out there to help the mid-tone to mid-tone problem, most notibly the Mitsubishi FFD (Feed Forward Device) which calculates the timing and forces the LCD to stop mid movement. This was how it was explained to me so I may be off a bit. I have seen panels with FFD on them and there is quite a difference.

Samsung has its equivalent called DCC (some info here)
Don't know if LG-Philips or AU Optronics have something similair though...

There are other things just down the pipe that will also enhance LCDs. The one that will help color the most is using LEDs as a backlight source. White LEDs have a much better white point than CCF tubes in use now. Currently the best LCDs are about 70% accurate in NTSC color space and the most accurate CRTs are around 93%. LCDs using LEDs as a back light source are 107% accurate to NTSC color. When LEDs are finally in use LCDs will start to be color correctable finally.

I wonder how using LED backlight will affect the life span and maximum brightness rates of an LCD monitor? It will obviously thrash CRT monitors in colour reproduction and the graphics department. Also, is this only a NEC niche for now or are other manufacturers preparing models using LED backlights?

NEC-Mitsubishi intros 21.3-inch LED backlit LCD monitor

May 24, 2004 11:15 am ET

NEC-Mitsubishi Electronics Display of America Inc. on Monday introduced a new 21.3-inch LED backlit LCD monitor aimed at desktop publishing, pre-press and other professional markets looking for high color fidelity in a large-format LCD display. The new monitor features 1600x1200 native resolution, 500:1 contrast ratio and 190cd/m2 brightness; it sports VGA and DVI inputs. The display uses LED backlight technology made by Lumileds Lighting, which NEC-Mitsubishi said helps achieve 109 percent gamut for Adobe RGB color space. Pricing was not announced, but NEC-Mitsubishi said to expect the new display to hit stores in the fourth calendar quarter of 2004. NEC-Mitsubishi's Web site was not updated with information about the new display as MacCentral posted this article.

 

[Moore]

You are correct for CRTs but not LCDs. The contention was that CRTs were inherently better than LCDs in frame rates which just isn't true. BTW, LCD frame rates have nothing to do with Hz and everything to do with ms.

No, that is not correct.

Both Hz and response times have to do with the maximum framerate the display will be able to show, and this stands for both LCDs and CRTs. The response time has to do with the intrinsic ability of the display to change the pixels colour. As has been said, in CRTs the rt is in the order of microseconds, while with the LCDs is in the order of miliseconds.

With CRTs it is not a limiting factor, while with LCDs it is (ie: ghosting).

On the other hand, the "Hz" number refers to the speed of the external interface, from the graphics card to the display. That is, the number of times per second a full frame is sent from the computer to the monitor. As you said, you may have 300fps in quake, but you will only see 60, 85, 100... different images per second, depending if you work at 60, 85 or 100 Hz, and obviously you will have tearing as vsinc won't be activated (if it is quake would only generate 60/85/100 fps max).

For example, lets supose we have an uber LCD monitor with 1ms max response time. The display would be able to show 1000 fps maximum, but if the interface works at 60 Hz it will only display 60 fps, but without any trace of ghosting, as the response time would no longer be the limiting factor. On the other hand, if we had 20Hz refresh rate, you could only see 20 fps.

This is also valid for CRTs, where the interface speed in Hz and the internal refresh rate of the screen are independent parameters (although usually they have the same value as there are less technical challenges): In the 20Hz case, the CRT could avoid the flicker refreshing the screen 5 times per each frame received (100Hz efective). The cinema works this way, the movies are filmed at 24 fps (that would be equivalent to the "interface speed" in Hz), but each frame is shown twice in the theater to avoid flicker. Also in the PAL TV system, which works at 50Hz (as opposed to 60Hz in NTSC), the high end TVs refresh the screen at 100Hz to obtain a flickerless image (this could be true for NTSC, I dont know).

Hope that clears up this mess a bit

 

[Synful Serenity]

Not quite. 12ms is typically rated as time it takes a single subpixel to open and close @ 10% to full open back to 10% open...On occasion some low end panels will take as much as 100ms or more to do a mid-tone shift.

So what you are basically saying then, is the 12 ms is not constant. That's all I was trying to say! But you're right, I should have been more specific when I said average, I didn't mean 12 ms as an exact, calculable average, I meant more in the sense that there is a range of values, and that it can be used as a reference point for comparison of the average performance of similar screens. You did go into further detail about how that number was arrived at, though. I still think people should take rated ms with a grain of salt for now, it seems there is still variation between manufacturers, and it doesn't take into account poorer quality screens, like you said. Most people still seem to think that ms is a concrete, indisputably constant number for all pixels in all screens, and that's why it's good to have forums like this to dispel the myths so people can make a better buying decision.

And on the horizon are SEDs (Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Display). Which would merge the benefits of CRTs and LCDs together by essentially making each pixel its own mini-CRT as it would work in the same way with phosphors being lit up by electrons, except instead of 1 electron gun, each pixel will have its own electron emitter, so it will act as if there were millions of electron guns, each for 1 pixel. The refresh rate would be the same as CRTs, in a fixed-pixel flat screen minus the weight, heat, geometry and focus problems of CRTs. There would be no need for backlighting, and viewing angle would be the same as a CRT. Let's hope to see these in the next few years!

 

[Spetsnaz Op]

Yeah I wouldn't buy an LCD......I play games. And some of them run at more than 100 fps . And I can't afford a 17 inch LCD, but I do have a 19" CRT that is faster.

 

[Elledan]

$10 says that CRTs will outlive LCD/TFT displays.

The moment OLED-based displays are taken into production and available for sale, sales of TFT displays will be pretty much zero.

Sure, LCD displays are still a new technology in comparison with CRTs, but I'm afraid that LCDs simply won't be given enough time to improve, because OLED displays _are_ already at least as good as CRTs, meaning that they kick the rear end of LCD displays, while OLED displays can be manufactured on existing TFT production lines (i.e. no expensive conversion/building of new production lines necessary), are far easier and cheaper to produce, and therefore a lot cheaper.

Thereby comes that if LCD technology were a teenager, OLED technology is just about to be born. Meaning that OLEDs can be vastly improved. And it's already better than LCD technology.

So in short, CRTs are a mature, proven technology, therefore it won't be thrown away anytime soon. LCD displays are still trying to find their place, something which will become much harder, if not impossible, once OLED displays are introduced.

In other words, LCDs are a dead-end.

 

[cccc]

In other words, LCDs are a dead-end.

LCDs are not a dead-end. They are continually evolving and getting better. The response time, the colour fidelity, the contrast, everything is improving. By the time OLEDs reach mass production in comparable sizes to be even considered as an alternative, LCDs will have either overcome or significantly improved on the above mentioned issues. CRT factories on the other hand are steadily being closed down, and the question is how many will still be around in a few years...

 

[Elledan]

LCDs are not a dead-end. They are continually evolving and getting better. The response time, the colour fidelity, the contrast, everything is improving. By the time OLEDs reach mass production in comparable sizes to be even considered as an alternative, LCDs will have either overcome or significantly improved on the above mentioned issues. CRT factories on the other hand are steadily being closed down, and the question is how many will still be around in a few years...

Did you miss the presentation of the Samsung 17" OLED display prototype, and a 40" one by another manufacturer, not too long ago?

OLED displays are pretty much ready to go into mass-production. They'll have no problems with scaling, as it's many times easier to manufacture big OLED displays than LCDs ('inkjet' printers are used for creating prototypes, for mass-production, a kind of modified printing press will be used).

So, within two years, OLED displays will be a) available for sale, b) available in sizes anywhere between 15" - 23" and beyond, c) combining all the good points of CRTs (good (true) color-depth, fast refresh-rate) with those of LCDs (small footprint, low(er) power-usage), d) cheaper than LCD and CRT displays.

Since it's unlikely (impossible?) for LCDs to become at least as good as CRTs in all regards within two years, the future of LCDs does look bleak indeed.

 

[cccc]

Did you miss the presentation of the Samsung 17" OLED display prototype, and a 40" one by another manufacturer, not too long ago?

OLED displays are pretty much ready to go into mass-production. They'll have no problems with scaling, as it's many times easier to manufacture big OLED displays than LCDs ('inkjet' printers are used for creating prototypes, for mass-production, a kind of modified printing press will be used).

So, within two years, OLED displays will be a) available for sale, b) available in sizes anywhere between 15" - 23" and beyond, c) combining all the good points of CRTs (good (true) color-depth, fast refresh-rate) with those of LCDs (small footprint, low(er) power-usage), d) cheaper than LCD and CRT displays.

Since it's unlikely (impossible?) for LCDs to become at least as good as CRTs in all regards within two years, the future of LCDs does look bleak indeed.

No, I didn't miss it. So far to my knowledge the Samsung 17" OLED is the only one close in schedule for manufacturing, by the end of next year. The 40" Seiko Epson display is planned for release in 2007 at best.

However, even with the release date of the Samsung model it should be noted that initial release dates, especially of completely new technologies like OLED, are always doubtful. Even the Samsung 172X was delayed for almost a year after supposedly being ready for imminent release already in April last year.

On the other hand 8ms LCD screens are due to launch by the end of this or beginning of next year. NEC is also releasing by the end of this year an LCD that blows away any CRT in colour reproduction. Unlike these screens, I haven't seen the Samsung 17" OLED in any catalogues, we don't know anything about it's price range, we don't know if its life span is comparable to that of LCDs (before the colours degrade) and so on. Until all that is announced, I will consider it vapourware.

Also, this is only a 17" model, if you need a slim and fast 17" screen for desktop use you could buy the Samsung 172X. No need to wait that long for anything slimmer for desktop use unless you're after the 1600x1200 resolution. Personally though, I think that's a bit too high for a 17" screen.

As for the resolution and scaling issue, you've already got 15.4" laptop LCD screens with a native 1920x1200 resolution. That's a better pixel pitch than this 17" OLED will have. As far as I'm aware people have complained about scaling issues, at least with Dell laptops using 1920x1200 screens. Probaby because of a subpar scaler chip. Nothing says this 17" OLED will automatically be better in scaling. Although Samsung uses good scaler chips on their high-end models, Samsung will probably want to cut cost on a debutee technology that's already cost them an arm and a leg in R&D...

 

[Elledan]

When talking about scaling, are you referring to the native resolution nonsense of LCDs?

 

[cccc]

When talking about scaling, are you referring to the native resolution nonsense of LCDs?

Well, I'm assuming that OLEDs are fixed-pixel panels just like LCD, thus in need of scaling. Maybe I'm wrong? In any case, that wasn't the main point of my reply, in fact for me native resolutions are a non-issue as you would always want to work in the optimal resolution. The only issues as I see it is if you've got bad eyesight (thus in need of low resolutions) or if you're a gamer with a 20+ inch LCD using a subpar scaler (games are not as critical as desktop work when scaling).

 

[Elledan]

Well, I'm assuming that OLEDs are fixed-pixel panels just like LCD, thus in need of scaling. Maybe I'm wrong? In any case, that wasn't the main point of my reply, in fact for me native resolutions are a non-issue as you would always want to work in the optimal resolution unless you've got really bad eyesight or you're a gamer with a 20+ inch LCD using a subpar scaler.

OLED displays do have a native resolution. It's the only thing I do not like about OLEDs.

And sometimes you're forced to use something other than the native resolution, like when you're working with a full-screen application that requires a lower resolution. This includes games and video players.

Badly scaled resolutions really make my eyes bleed (as does a 60 Hz refreshrate of a CRT)

 

[Synful Serenity]

OLED displays are pretty much ready to go into mass-production. They'll have no problems with scaling, as it's many times easier to manufacture big OLED displays than LCDs ('inkjet' printers are used for creating prototypes, for mass-production, a kind of modified printing press will be used).

I think the scaling he was referring to here was economy of scale, which as you may know is the decrease in unit cost due to mass production. A screen's resolution scaling ability doesn't have much to do with how easy it is to make it, does it

All this talk about OLEDs also has me hungry for SEDs, whenever they are released also. The battle between SED and OLED might end up mirroring today's CRT vs LCD battle!

 

[Elledan]

I think the scaling he was referring to here was economy of scale, which as you may know is the decrease in unit cost due to mass production. A screen's resolution scaling ability doesn't have much to do with how easy it is to make it, does it

Not directly, I'd think

All this talk about OLEDs also has me hungry for SEDs, whenever they are released also. The battle between SED and OLED might end up mirroring today's CRT vs LCD battle!

For those who haven't got a clue of what SED is, follow this link:

http://www.canon.com/technology/detail/device/sed_display/

Basically, it's like a CRT, only better

 

[cccc]

I think the scaling he was referring to here was economy of scale, which as you may know is the decrease in unit cost due to mass production. A screen's resolution scaling ability doesn't have much to do with how easy it is to make it, does it

LOL, yeah, misread it quite badly

 

[cccc]

OLED displays do have a native resolution. It's the only thing I do not like about OLEDs.

And sometimes you're forced to use something other than the native resolution, like when you're working with a full-screen application that requires a lower resolution. This includes games and video players.

Badly scaled resolutions really make my eyes bleed (as does a 60 Hz refreshrate of a CRT)

I'm all for fixed-pixel devices because they can get infinitely sharper and clearer than any image projection technology. A high enough pixel density combined with a decent scaler would eliminate this issue completely, at least beyond the perception of the human eye. But that would probably demand a pixel density several times that of today's screens, driving up panel prices, maybe demanding better manufacturing processes, and require OS support for ulra-high density panels. Longhorn is supposed to incorporate high DPI support, but probably not THAT high Still, though, that's where it's heading. Given enough time, scaling won't be an issue....