afaik the backlight has nothing to do with ghosting and motion blur.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
LCD's = crap because...
- Thread starter SHiZNiLTi
- Start date
afaik the backlight has nothing to do with ghosting and motion blur.
I heavily disagree. FED will roll out in 2009. It costs less to produce since it requires less components. As well as the fact that more then 20% of the emitters must fail before you notice any dead pixels. It offers a superb contrast ratio. As well as eliminates issues with input lag and response time since it's basically a CRT in a flat panel form. The only downside is the flicker issue which CRT's are known to have. But, it's visually superior to LCD/Plasma. It also consumes less power. At first they will obviously be expensive as every technology is like that. But they will IMO begin to replace LCD...LCD manufacturing issues with dead pixels is horrid. We should get what we pay for with a 100% functional screen. Also, backlight bleeding, input lag/response time issues, loss of details in dark areas, etc. These are all heavy negatives to LCD/Plasma...FED eliminates all these problems. The only downside is it has similar issues that CRT's have had. They are also superior to CRT's as well. Even to a trinitron monitor...overall a step in the right direction imo. It just sucks that SED died out so quickly...But glad to see that sony had something very similar to continue their new litter brother from the old trinitron line which we all know as a quality display.
Syndication
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2007
- Messages
- 142
Being less expensive to produce does not necessarily mean that the costs will be passed onto us. I have a sneaking suspicion that LCD's will stay remain the lower end of the market and FED will be the upper end of the market for a long time thus out of the range of most consumers. We've seen the progression of the market folks and panel type be damned. Most people are just happy with TN panels and NEC (once a proud supplier of IPS panels) is moving TN panels into this range to compete on price. People just aren't willing to spend the dough to notice a minimal difference in image quality to them. (When I say minimal, the average user won't be able to tell us anything about backlight bleed or image distortion, nor will they care). The perception that most people hate dead pixels is just not there. Chances are people can't even tell if they have a few dead pixels as the size of the screen increases because they are less likely to notice it. Backlight bleeding is only a problem on cheaper lcd's. Purchasing anything towards the higher end results in almost no backlight bleed at all. Definitely no backlight bleed on the Sharp LC32GP1U tv screen I bought.
In the end though, FED adoption will be SLOW. I agree with you that it will come, but LCD's are here to stay for a while. There is very little demand for high quality displays. It will remain a niche market and thus the prices will remain astoundingly high. You can see that most people on this board are just fine with their Westinghouse displays or Vizio displays.
FED will be a hard sell to the average consumer because you're going to have to convince people why they need it in order to drive prices down. The reason why people are switching to LCD's is the form factor and that sale can only go so far. FED will make the displays thinner, but there is a theoretical maximum to where consumer utility will cease to see the difference between a LCD flatscreen and a FED flatscreen. Only buzzwords like 1080P will move more displays. Given the fact that most people don't even have blue-ray or hd-dvd players, adoption will be slow for FED displays in 2009. Most people are going to be buying their first LCD this x-mas or next before they kill the analog signals here so I don't see FED taking off until there's some radical improvement in resolution standards beyond blueray and hd-dvd which won't be for a while.
The key to LCD-TV/FED sales? Marketing a new format in a higher resolution. FED will probably not make any significant visual different to most people to adopt the displays again since most people are fine with their Westinghouse displays. By the time FED rolls out, LCD will be dirt cheap. It'll be fairly interesting when we get to 2009 though
Syndication, You do have valid points. I also agree with you to some extent. Upon release, FED will be quite expensive for people to get their hands on them. But I think the prices will go down quicker then LCD's have. If it is after all cheaper to produce, as well as producing defect free solutions which LCD's have been with dead pixels...It will drive them to do so in a quicker then normal adoption fashion. After all, there are quite a few people out there who return LCD monitors due to backlight bleeding, dead pixels, input lag, and other LCD related issues. With FED is pretty much eliminates everything...I will agree though that at first it will be pretty damn expensive as all technology is like that. But I expect manufacturers to embrace it quicker, since after all, it's cheaper to make and a much higher success rate. Dead pixels will be pretty much non existent since it requires more then 20% of the emitters to fail. I can't find this one page about FED I found a while back but it stated it can also produce a high range of color space as well..But not as high as LCD's will in the future.
I believe it to be the right step forward...It will be expensive once again at the start...But I think the price will drop rather rapidly. Afterall...Consumers wouldn't really care if it's LCD, or plasma. As long as it has nice colors...is light...and doesn't cost much..they'll pretty much buy anything. Heck...That's the one reason why TN panels have flooded the market so much.
OLED will be definitely nice. But the lifetime is a VERY big issue..Their hours of operation are quite small compared to LCD, CRT, and plasmas. This CRT I'm on has already seen over 35,000 hours of use. I leave it on 24/7 and have had it since around 2001. It still works perfectly fine although it is much blurrier compared to it's new days. Planning to nab a refurbed fw900 or a nec 2490wuxi, dell 3007wfp-hc, or gateway xhd3000 in the upcoming few months. Overall I want the fw900..but 700 for a refurb that can break at anytime is a bit upsetting..Even though it's a grade a- refurb with a 1 year warranty..kinda worried about it. But this monitor I'm on right now would of passed the lifetime of a OLED display....according to wikipedia (take it with a grain of salt, it's wikipedia afterall), a blue OLED lasts for around 5,000 hours...But they have found a chemical replacement for a phosphorescent solution that will bring it up to 20,000. Better but still low...This could indeed be quite old news though. They may have taken it even farther...but haven't looked into it for quite a while.
Overall though, OLED and FED will be a nice new breath of fresh air. Expensive at the start...But both can turn out to be cheaper to produce then LCD/Plasma...With obvious benefits that LCD's really lack in....It'll be interesting to see how the market adopts these new upcoming contenders. After all, all the display enthusiast really know what these new formats mean...and it's a very bright future. ^_^
-edit
I should of re-read before posting...lots of errors. Sorry..lol..Too lazy to fix them.
I believe it to be the right step forward...It will be expensive once again at the start...But I think the price will drop rather rapidly. Afterall...Consumers wouldn't really care if it's LCD, or plasma. As long as it has nice colors...is light...and doesn't cost much..they'll pretty much buy anything. Heck...That's the one reason why TN panels have flooded the market so much.
OLED will be definitely nice. But the lifetime is a VERY big issue..Their hours of operation are quite small compared to LCD, CRT, and plasmas. This CRT I'm on has already seen over 35,000 hours of use. I leave it on 24/7 and have had it since around 2001. It still works perfectly fine although it is much blurrier compared to it's new days. Planning to nab a refurbed fw900 or a nec 2490wuxi, dell 3007wfp-hc, or gateway xhd3000 in the upcoming few months. Overall I want the fw900..but 700 for a refurb that can break at anytime is a bit upsetting..Even though it's a grade a- refurb with a 1 year warranty..kinda worried about it. But this monitor I'm on right now would of passed the lifetime of a OLED display....according to wikipedia (take it with a grain of salt, it's wikipedia afterall), a blue OLED lasts for around 5,000 hours...But they have found a chemical replacement for a phosphorescent solution that will bring it up to 20,000. Better but still low...This could indeed be quite old news though. They may have taken it even farther...but haven't looked into it for quite a while.
Overall though, OLED and FED will be a nice new breath of fresh air. Expensive at the start...But both can turn out to be cheaper to produce then LCD/Plasma...With obvious benefits that LCD's really lack in....It'll be interesting to see how the market adopts these new upcoming contenders. After all, all the display enthusiast really know what these new formats mean...and it's a very bright future. ^_^
-edit
I should of re-read before posting...lots of errors. Sorry..lol..Too lazy to fix them.
Kaldskryke
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
- Messages
- 1,346
It's a big issue but it's going away fairly rapidly.
First of all, lifetime ratings are determined at 1000nits, which I personally find a bit too bright for general use - I'm sure the life expectancy numbers increase significantly at lower brightness levels.
Next, Seiko Epson is claiming their new manufacturing plant can produce panels with lifetimes of 50 000 hours, which is fairly standard, isn't it?
I'd personally be fine with even just 30 000 hours, since I don't leave my panel on all day. Assuming I use my home computer for 4 hours a day, that would give me 21 years of use, even before considering that I'd turn the brightness down for desktop use. I can easily imagine a 50 000 hour panel lasting pasting its obsolecense, because resolutions will continue to increase and eventually 1080P won't be 'high" definition anymore.
You'll just have to get used to turning your monitor off or letting it go into standby when you're not using your computer. OLED screens should turn back on almost instantly so I don't see what the problem with that is.
you guys might like this one one FED 240 fps
http://www.fe-tech.co.jp/en/pdf/FET_PressRelease_E_20070803.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML2Cik7-7ic
for PC use yes (at lest I hope so) but It's rather unlikely to change to a higher television standard in the "near" future, the studios still struggle with even using 720p to it's full potential. And the broadcasters won't be to keen to scrap their new equipment... so I wouldn't expect any new widely available standard for the next 10 to 20 years..
edit:
additional link http://www.fe-tech.co.jp/en/structure/structure.html
http://www.fe-tech.co.jp/en/pdf/FET_PressRelease_E_20070803.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML2Cik7-7ic
for PC use yes (at lest I hope so) but It's rather unlikely to change to a higher television standard in the "near" future, the studios still struggle with even using 720p to it's full potential. And the broadcasters won't be to keen to scrap their new equipment... so I wouldn't expect any new widely available standard for the next 10 to 20 years..
edit:
additional link http://www.fe-tech.co.jp/en/structure/structure.html
What's getting old are people who think that the physical weight of a monitor should somehow be considered when discussing picture quality and/or peformance.
Further, you seem unwilling to accept that you may have had a dud FW900. I have two. Even after calibration, one just looks better than the other. I keep the better one in reserve for that dreaded day that my primary one dies. But, even the "lesser" one has better black levels and color than any LCD I've every used. Please note that folks like Mathesar have top-of-the-line LCDs and still prefer the FW900.
The real "cult" at work in the display industry are those odd folks (regular consumer) who put weight and size over image fidelity. Most numb-skull consumers see thin and light and get all excited. . . but it never occurs to them that the underlying technology of such thin and light displays is just not technically capable of the black levels and color fidelity of CRTs (which they rarely have the opportunity to compare to directly).
And, honestly, this problem is compounded by the fact that 80% of CRT (monitor and TV owners) probably don't have their CRTs set up properly. Anyone who has used a basic Home Theater setup DVD to set brightness and contrast on a CRT quickly realizes that most CRTs are in "torch" mode and are not at their best (blacks and shadows washed out, etc.).
In a nutshell
CRT (properly set up):
Better blacks and shadow detail
Better colors
Never any input lag
Never any ghosting (excepting standard after-image on bright objects)
Flexible Resolutions
LCD
Text - Always super-sharp focus and no convergence issues.
Now, some folks --probably who have either never seen a properly calibrated/setup CRT next to a properly calibrated/setup LCD or have compared a crappy (or defective) CRT to a high-end LCD-- will just assert that their LCDs are just as good as a CRT where the criteria above are concerned. They're just --quite frankly-- mistaken.
This really isn't a subjective thing folks. They are either better or not. It's just a case of some folks not being discriminating and/or being more easy-going about their display choices. But that doesn't mean that the differences aren't real. They're real. They're documented. And it's not just a "cult" of FW900 or CRT enthusiasts stating these things. It's just common knowledge in the display and home theater industries.
Kaldskryke
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
- Messages
- 1,346
I really enjoyed my last CRT for a while; it had pretty nice colors and brightness and contrast. Sadly, it topped out at 1024x768@85Hz or 1280x1024@60Hz (yuck!). For me, switching to a 20" widescreen LCD was all about getting more resolution.
For the most part, I'm pleased with the transition. I only regret the switch whenever I'm watching something dark, but it's not enough to make me go back to 1024x768. It is, however, enough to make me wish OLED/FED/SED/Laser would get to market already.
For the most part, I'm pleased with the transition. I only regret the switch whenever I'm watching something dark, but it's not enough to make me go back to 1024x768. It is, however, enough to make me wish OLED/FED/SED/Laser would get to market already.
Well said. Also, another factor lies in the big issue of LCD manufacturing which can lead to defects. Yes we all get some duds now and then when we open a new neatly packed box of electronics we just purchased. But when it comes to LCD's, the fact remains that "dead pixels" are part of the norm, that is simply inexcusable. If we pay for something brand new we expect it to have 100% functionality. Not 99.8 percent....The fact that you can't return it with numerous return policies unless you have "6 or more" is rubbish. Yes LCD's are a step forward to something thinner, lighter, and more pleasant on the eyes. But the issue still lies that CRT's are superior in terms of quality, dark levels, accurate colors. Yes we may have very rich and bright colors from LCD's...but that still doesn't justify the negatives of dead pixels, input lag, ghosting, inaccurate colors, etc. It's not for no reason that most major film companies still use CRT's. Look at the company that produced 300, pixar, and several others...They are using FW900 trinitron monitors.
Blazestorm: You just got a dud...no need to bash it. It's a common fact that CRT based monitors offer superior levels of blacks, color accuracy, and many other benefits...It seems more to the fact that your part of an LCD cult ^_^.
I'll give LCD credit where it's due...But honestly..IMO. LCD is just a temporary product, a gateway to the flat/thin/light variety of monitors such as FED and OLED that have none of flaws that current TFT monitors contain, and attain the strengths of what makes CRT's superior...and still the choice for movie industries.
vick1000
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Messages
- 2,443
I would gladly use one instead of the Dell you are using, with it's defective VA technology.
I personally have tried a total of 6 different LCD's in the past few months and i ended up taking them ALL back. The 22" TN panels are a total joke, the colors are very innacurate and washed out, especially if you hook an xbox 360 up to them. The BenQ FP241WZ had very nice color but the backlight black level was HORRID, i wouldn't even say it looked gray, more like an off white thats how bad it looked on a black screen. I also didn't like the input lag it had.
So needless to say i have now completely given up on LCD's and for the time being i am going to stick with my trusty old Sony CPD-G520P. To this day i still haven't seen anything that comes even close to it..
Sure would like to get an FW900 though. But since i'm in Canada they are extremely hard to get. Oh well.
So needless to say i have now completely given up on LCD's and for the time being i am going to stick with my trusty old Sony CPD-G520P. To this day i still haven't seen anything that comes even close to it..
Sure would like to get an FW900 though. But since i'm in Canada they are extremely hard to get. Oh well.
My good sir, that is called being ignorant. If you wish to be so though, it's of your own accord.
Even though I've been tipping back and forth between a refurbished grade a- fw900 from accuraiteit and many other LCD's...I think I still might take the fw900 route. I do agree though....Hopefully if I do nab a refurbed fw900, it'll last the passing time till OLED and FED. Afterall, 700 dollars for a refurbed FW900 is quite a lot of money to lose out on >_<.
PCAssembler
n00b
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2007
- Messages
- 31
I used a CRT for 3 yrs in college were it was used pretty much all the time I was at home (programming/gaming etc.) and did not feel strained using it.
When I started working I was given an LCD and within 6 months I had to get glasses as my eyesight started getting bad (the quality of the LCD screen was quite bad, it was an acer 15" where I could actually see the screen flicker). I finally got a chance to change that to an 19" CRT a few months later and took it.
I haven't had a problem since then and am not very sure I would want an LCD now, although most of the LCD's that we have now do not seem as bad as the one I had around 4 yrs back as I still find the CRT better.
I would like to get a sleeker/slimmer monitor sometime soon but my experience with them keeps postponing my getting one.
When I started working I was given an LCD and within 6 months I had to get glasses as my eyesight started getting bad (the quality of the LCD screen was quite bad, it was an acer 15" where I could actually see the screen flicker). I finally got a chance to change that to an 19" CRT a few months later and took it.
I haven't had a problem since then and am not very sure I would want an LCD now, although most of the LCD's that we have now do not seem as bad as the one I had around 4 yrs back as I still find the CRT better.
I would like to get a sleeker/slimmer monitor sometime soon but my experience with them keeps postponing my getting one.
"<scratches head> How is over 100% possible if 100% represents the full color gamut... Anyhow Ive seen high gamut LCD's such as the Dell 2407WFP-HC which feature 92% color gamut vs. the 72% found on typical LCD's ..but so far these high color LCD's suffer from higher than normal ghosting & motion blur."
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/lcd-parameters_16.html
The percentage issue depends on how you define 'color gamut'... until you bust out some laser setups nothing is going to produce anything near the full range of what our eyes can see... but anyways I'm not sure what LCD's % of color gamut is compared against but it is not the full range of colors your eye can see.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/lcd-parameters_16.html
The percentage issue depends on how you define 'color gamut'... until you bust out some laser setups nothing is going to produce anything near the full range of what our eyes can see... but anyways I'm not sure what LCD's % of color gamut is compared against but it is not the full range of colors your eye can see.
as I've stated above 100% is the standard NTSC TV color space, there has been a flaming discussion about color spaces in this thread: http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1228468&page=2
AUO still lists the reference in the panels spec, LG and Samsung only write the number without stating what it refers to.: http://auo.com/auoDEV/products.php?sec=monitor&func=info&product_id=132&items_id=1
the oddly shaped thing is the color the human eye can see, the shapes inside are color spaces defined by the medias primary colors (triangles if RGB):
http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/photoshop/v6/spaces_all.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/f/fd/CIE_RGB-CMYK-Beleucht.png
remember that one of the triangles will be your screen and that the borders of the human eye gamut would be a lot more saturated than what your display shows.
I have been using the following:
1. Mitsubishi DP 2070SB
2. Samsung 225BW (5ms TN)
3. Benq FP91G+ (8ms TN)
For gaming, the Mitsu absolutely batters the LCD's. The smoothness simply can't be beat. I notice the biggest difference in Il2 1946. Planes that whiz by at a high closure rate look perfect on the CRT. As the planes get very close on the LCD's, lag is very apparent.
For fast action gaming, nothing beats the good ol' CRT. For everything else I do, the LCD's are much better, easier on the eyes.......
1. Mitsubishi DP 2070SB
2. Samsung 225BW (5ms TN)
3. Benq FP91G+ (8ms TN)
For gaming, the Mitsu absolutely batters the LCD's. The smoothness simply can't be beat. I notice the biggest difference in Il2 1946. Planes that whiz by at a high closure rate look perfect on the CRT. As the planes get very close on the LCD's, lag is very apparent.
For fast action gaming, nothing beats the good ol' CRT. For everything else I do, the LCD's are much better, easier on the eyes.......
I loved my Dell CRT, but I would never start a thread stating that LCDs suck. They simply do not suck. Perfect? No, but neither are CRTs. One would be crazy at this point to not get an LCD. They are fast enough to minimize lag, they save space, and you can pay for your accurate color reproduction if you like. And what games are you playing that are faster than those that I play?
It's not about what games but how it will be played. The LCDs were never ruled out for gaming in general.
The original question was about monitors for competitive gaming needs, and we so far have found out that a frame rate of over 220fps or 240fps would be ideal as this seems to be the maximum the human eye is capable to distinguish if sony and the US air force's research is to be believed...
So a non ghosting 240Hz Monitor would be perfect, (possible with FED and maybe OLED)
Current generation LCD will stay at 60Hz connected via DVI.
Typical CRTs are capable of refreshrates in the 120 to 160 zone, creating a more fluid and responsive experience, or from a different point of view a competitive advantage, even if it's only a few ms..
(I haven't played for some time, and never have competitively, but this all (including the flaming and ignorance) is highly interesting from a neutral point of few. ^^; )
I have a highend professional CRT and a highend LCD and compared them side by side.
The CRT beating it out the LCD almost in every aspect mentioned in this post
The LCD ended up in my office where it does its job of saving space and the 75 pound beast CRT sits on my 4ft wide solid oak desk at home giving me plenty of room. For me its CRT all the way
The CRT beating it out the LCD almost in every aspect mentioned in this post
The LCD ended up in my office where it does its job of saving space and the 75 pound beast CRT sits on my 4ft wide solid oak desk at home giving me plenty of room. For me its CRT all the way
Syndication
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2007
- Messages
- 142
I got rid of my LCD screen when i grabbed up a 21" viewsonic CRT for $30 used.
The LCD had better image quality but there is a noticable difference (To me at least) in gaming between CRT and LCD. CRT feels much smoother to me even the best of the best LCDs that tout "No ghosting!" have some ghosting affects when comepared with CRT monitors.
I like both and will probably go LCD the next time around but right now the biggest thing for me with my CRT is flexibility the ability to run anywhere from 800x600 to 1920x1440 is nice. LCD's only look good at the native resolution any lower and it looks terrible.
The LCD had better image quality but there is a noticable difference (To me at least) in gaming between CRT and LCD. CRT feels much smoother to me even the best of the best LCDs that tout "No ghosting!" have some ghosting affects when comepared with CRT monitors.
I like both and will probably go LCD the next time around but right now the biggest thing for me with my CRT is flexibility the ability to run anywhere from 800x600 to 1920x1440 is nice. LCD's only look good at the native resolution any lower and it looks terrible.
Actually, I would disagree with the "crazy not to get a lcd comment". Video editing IMO is one of the segments where a CRT is EXTREMELY needed if you are a very tight beat editor. I can't live with an LCD for my video projects. They are edited extremely tightly to music. Therefore a LCD's input lag/response time issues will throw the beats off. Gaming in general is better on CRT's IMO. LCD's may be nice with the higher colorspace displays...But from what I remember, DVI connections can't don't even have enough bandwidth to utilize it. Which display port will solve... (I'm not sure on this fact about the bandwidth and display port, comment on it if you can. Read this somewhere). CRT's still have a place in this world. I will be glad to switch to OLED and FED...But I'd rather nab a refurbed fw900 with a 1 year warranty from accurateit then get a LCD. Personally..I'd rather skip the whole LCD generation, it's not worth the money for my uses.
OP, you're right, 2ms LCDs can't compare to 100hz, 120hz, and 160hz CRTs, depending on resolution. I'm looking for a new 19"-22" widescreen monitor now and I'm not sure if I should pick up a widescreen CRT or LCD. If I were a pro gamer, it'd be CRT hands down but I'm at a point in my life where games are not so important anymore.
Anyone know if there are any CRTs with the "auto" feature? I don't know if that's even possible but that's a huge plus for LCDs, I hate fixing the size and shape of the picture every time I change resolution or refresh rate.
One more thing, with DVI being digital and VGA analog, the DVI monitor will have better picture quality correct? I see that the FW900 has a D-sub(VGA). Does it make a difference? And if so, are there any other quality widescreen CRTS that connect through DVI or HDMI?
Anyone know if there are any CRTs with the "auto" feature? I don't know if that's even possible but that's a huge plus for LCDs, I hate fixing the size and shape of the picture every time I change resolution or refresh rate.
One more thing, with DVI being digital and VGA analog, the DVI monitor will have better picture quality correct? I see that the FW900 has a D-sub(VGA). Does it make a difference? And if so, are there any other quality widescreen CRTS that connect through DVI or HDMI?
Good for you. Oh, and I'm not on a Dell. I'm on to a new monitor which is bigger in size. Something a CRT can't offer me. As far as the picture, I'm 100% satisfied.
So my opinion still stands, to me, there isn't one single advantage of a CRT over a LCD.
Incorrect. Do you know what ignorant means?
ig·no·rant /ˈɪgnərənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ig-ner-uhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
adjective
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3. uninformed; unaware.
4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.
Now, do you know the meaning of opinion?
o·pin·ion /əˈpɪnyən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-pin-yuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
noun
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.
4. Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.
5. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.
6. a favorable estimate; esteem: I haven't much of an opinion of him.
Pay attention to number 2.
I didn't, in any way, claim that I had factual evidence that LCD are better than CRT's. I just said that CRT's suck.
It's partially my fault, I guess I should have spelled out, in my post, that it was my opinion.
I just thought people would have got that.
Just for the record, even though I'm sure it comes across, I'm not trying to be a dick. I just don't like being called ignorant when I don't deserve it. I realize both technologies have their advantages.
Interesting.
Not one clear advantage? i'd say thats taking it a bit far since:
CRTs are far superior in black levels, they have a true tube black level.
No ghosting, ever.
No input lag, ever.
Colors are always more accurate.
You dont trade color for speed.
You either game on them OR to photo work on them, there is no in between - CRT's can do both, and better.
CRT's switch resolution and still have a good picture. If you switch the resolution on an LCD's it looks horrible other than its 'native' res. with the exception of 1:1 pixel mapping.
the ONLY disadvantages I see CRT's having to lcd's is weight, and text clarity, and brightness. Not even heat. My benq puts out more heat than my HP CRT.
We do have to remember, LCD's weren't originally introduced for the home, but the office. That blinding/eye searing brightness associated with lcd's is to make the blacks look blacker, and was needed to compensate for the overly lit office buildings..
You'd have to be completely BLIND not to see these obvious advantages. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but if it's not ignorance, it sure is DENIAL.
Kaldskryke
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
- Messages
- 1,346
Typically when one comes to a conclusion without considering or providing evidence whatsoever, that conclusion has no merit even if it happens to be correct. It's like cheating on a math test: yes your answers are right but that doesn't impress anyone
You said that CRTs suck, "period", indicating that nothing anyone could say would sway your opinion. I think we all recognize that it's an opinion. However implying that you would ignore any claims or evidence to the contrary of your opinion is what was meant by ignorant.It's partially my fault, I guess I should have spelled out, in my post, that it was my opinion.
I just thought people would have got that.
It's almost comical how that dictionary defines ignorant as "uninformed", because being uninformed is not necessarily a fault. I wouldn't call someone ignorant if they could only receive poor education where they live and as a result were uninformed. Considering the root word of ignorant, "ignore", it's obvious that an ignorant person is someone who ignores information on purpose. It's the intent to disregard information, regardless of validity, that so many people find irritating.
I almost agree with you, even. If you favor exact geometry, size, and brightness as primary concerns then certainly LCD panels are better for you than CRTs. As a work monitor, I love my LCD because of the extra space to work with and the crispness of text. Subpixel antialiasing (cleartype) is pretty cool too. They're light and cheap, too, so I disagree with the OP that LCDs suck.
But CRTs don't suck either, because of the advantages already mentioned. They work nicely for games, movies, and photo work where pixel geometry accuracy is not terribly important.
If you had stated instead that "CRTs suck for multiple-window multitasking compared to LCDs" then I'd agree. Just saying that CRTs have no value whatsoever just doesn't make sense.
I just can't wait for the advantages of both to get rolled together in a new technology! I don't really care if it's FED, SED, or OLED as long as I can get a 20"+ 1920x1200 panel.
I've got a question about FED/SED: Removing the need to 'deflect' the electron beam means that geometry will be great, but does that constrain this technology to discrete pixels (ie native resolution) or can electrons be emitted from arbitrary locations? I'd love to adjust resolution without ugly scaling issues.
Interesting.
Not one clear advantage? i'd say thats taking it a bit far since:
CRTs are far superior in black levels, they have a true tube black level.
No ghosting, ever.
No input lag, ever.
Colors are always more accurate.
You dont trade color for speed.
You either game on them OR to photo work on them, there is no in between - CRT's can do both, and better.
CRT's switch resolution and still have a good picture. If you switch the resolution on an LCD's it looks horrible other than its 'native' res. with the exception of 1:1 pixel mapping.
the ONLY disadvantages I see CRT's having to lcd's is weight, and text clarity, and brightness. Not even heat. My benq puts out more heat than my HP CRT.
We do have to remember, LCD's weren't originally introduced for the home, but the office. That blinding/eye searing brightness associated with lcd's is to make the blacks look blacker, and was needed to compensate for the overly lit office buildings..
You'd have to be completely BLIND not to see these obvious advantages. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but if it's not ignorance, it sure is DENIAL.
Again, not one advantage to me. I guess my eyes aren't sensitive to ghosting and what not, but my fairly cheap Hanns-g has black levels are unbelievable dark, and I never see ghosting, or have input lag.
I'm sure it is my not to picky eyesight, but again, there is no advantage of a CRT, in my opinion.
In fact, I hate how heavy they are, and I hate the way they look. I had the glossiness of the screen as well. So to me, CRT's suck, period.
You're right, I should have said why I hated them, which I did in the above post. Part of the reason I didn't, though, is someone would have said something like, "no, you're wrong, blah blah blah". I really didn't want to argue with anyone, it was just my humble opinion.
And of course it has merit, to me...the only person who counts
.It's like cheating on a math test: yes your answers are right but that doesn't impress anyone
You said that CRTs suck, "period", indicating that nothing anyone could say would sway your opinion. I think we all recognize that it's an opinion. However implying that you would ignore any claims or evidence to the contrary of your opinion is what was meant by ignorant.
Stubborn would have been correct, not ignorant. I know CRT's are superior in some aspects. I would have answered differently if I was called stubborn and foolish. I would have said, "Yup!
".I'm just going by the meaning of the word. We can start another thread in Genmay about dictionary.com.
They don't have any value to me. Thats all.
You and me both brother
Hope I made myself clear. I'll try to be better about it in the future.
Digital does not necessarily mean that you will see a sharper or better picture at the display. It just means that the signal from the video device will not be susceptible to interference, degradation, or other harm while it travels from the playback device to the display.
Many of us have seen issues in the past with VGA cables that were too long, or not properly shielded. All sorts of oddness can result. With digital, problems like that aren't generally a worry.
But having said that, a good analog signal that gets to the display device unmolested will look as good as a digital signal. If the pixels get their instructions (so to speak), there's no reason they won't look the same regardless of digital or analog.
LCDs are probably a big improvement for the corporate environment, where CRTs were lower grade and almost never properly set up. (60 Hz hell.)
However, against a high end CRT for an enthusiast machine, size is really the only thing that LCD brings to the table. So, as has been mentioned before...if you get an LCD, get a big one....
However, against a high end CRT for an enthusiast machine, size is really the only thing that LCD brings to the table. So, as has been mentioned before...if you get an LCD, get a big one....
NKDietrich
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2004
- Messages
- 5,442
Depends on your definition of enthusiast. I consider myself a hardware enthusiast first and foremost, I do not play a lot of shooters, I do not judge my level of enthusiasm for PC hardware by my kill ratio in Counterstrike.
As my choice of monitor does not affect the stability or quality of my machine, I believe it is simply a matter of preference. I was late to the LCD bandwagon, didn't use one until last year. But now that I've used one, every CRT appears to be a fuzzy out of focus slideshow.
As my choice of monitor does not affect the stability or quality of my machine, I believe it is simply a matter of preference. I was late to the LCD bandwagon, didn't use one until last year. But now that I've used one, every CRT appears to be a fuzzy out of focus slideshow.
vick1000
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Messages
- 2,443
So you now use a 28" TN panel....LOL excellent upgrade there.
LOL, wow, the monitor snobs come out of the woodwork in threads like this.
Let me ask you this, what gives you the right to roll your stupid little eyes at me? My monitor produces blacks so dark Jesse Jackson himself would be proud. And I don't detect ANY ghosting, and I don't get any input lag.
You can keep your stupid little, formally white, but now yellow stained CRT. For what I use it for, my LCD kicks the shit out of your shitty ass, fuzzy, CRT.
Just because you can't afford to buy anything other than a CRT, that are so heavy and not in demand they are worth about a dollar a pound, doesn't mean you have to try and mock people who can afford differently. Try getting a job and moving out of your parents basement.
Man, seriously, you sound like an ass saying crap like that.
By enthusiast, I guess I meant all the dynamic range, color, speed, and deep blacks, that we pretty much just took for granted with high end CRTs.
LCDs come in much bigger sizes and the larger ones offer much higher resolutions with clarity than a CRT can.
So I don't think it's all one sided by any means.
It's just a shame high end CRTs are no longer available for folks who favored their mix of trade offs.
Trying to hold out for OLED, SED, or such...
vick1000
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Messages
- 2,443
LOL, idiot. I own 2 LCDs, both IPS panels. A new NEC 20WGMX2 and a near perfect used Dell 2005fpw ($459+$200=You fail). I also own a 21" Samsung DF1100 CRT which I am not using ATM, and it will blow away your sorry ass TN panel in image quality with it's DVI to BNC connection.
Tell me. What do you get when you add 7 inches of crap to 21 inches of crap? That's right 28 inches of crap. I'm so glad you can afford such large amounts of crap.