![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
OLED/AMOLED
- Thread starter shankle
- Start date
Godmachine
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2003
- Messages
- 10,472
We need to make an OLED info thread...
Here is a great place to start.
Note of interest. Steve Jobs in his ever increasing elitism said during his keynote iPhone 4 speach... IPS technology -- "Quite a bit better than OLED."
http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/07/steve-jobs-live-from-wwdc-2010/
Maybe many feel the same way. One of those "if it ain't broke don't fix it" ordeals. I definitely disagree... We need to keep moving tech along. If we never improve what we have or look for better options, then what's the point of technology?
I doubt he actually feels that way, but he has to say that he feels that way, because that's what the iPhone 4 is using.
If Samsung could supply him with enough Super AMOLED panels at the size, resolution, and price that he wanted, then you bet your ass the iPhone 4 would be using them instead of an IPS LCD.
They can't, though. They can't even keep up with Droid Incredible's sales as far as supplying displays go.
I suppose that answers the OP's question as to why we don't have them - no one has the manufacturing capacity to make them. At least not yet.
Well tough. 2015 is a likely reality for an OLED monitor, whether you want to hear it or not.
It is in cellphones because smaller is cheaper and a 10000 hour panel life is plenty for a phone, it isn't for a monitor. It will cut its teeth on portables where smaller cheaper to manufacture, and where the duty cycle is less stressful. Next will be TVs. Then eventually monitors where the usage pattern is the most destructive. That is why it will take the longest to get there as the work out bugs on the way.
If you have deep pockets.
There is a 15" OLED TV and it is expected to make US landfall this summer for a bit under $3000. That and you don't mind burning in the screen.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/home-theater/lgs-15-inch-oled-hdtv-finally-coming-to-the-us-by-summer/2725
limitedaccess
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 10, 2010
- Messages
- 7,592
Samsung seems to be speculating at 2015 as well, for TV/Computer Monitor sized screen anyways.
http://blogs.pcmag.com/miller/2010/05/samsung_expects_1_billion_oled.php
http://olednet.com/focus/focus_board/focus_view.asp?idx=398&mem_stat=0
Seems to suggest that the technology needed for large displays is still not there yet, although OLEDs for small displays will be arriving mainstream much earlier.
But for large screens, it seems consumers will need to fit in at least 1 more upgrade cycle, unless you want to stretch your current displays for another 5 years.
Whoisthisreally
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 1,143
I like how blue phase doesn't even get a mention when it has the potential to be a highly disruptive technology should it succeed in key areas like contrast.
Because technology isn't easy? It isn't like someone snaps their fingers and say "Let it be done!" and it happens. Takes lots of R&D to make something new work.
Even more bad news? It may NEVER happen. OLED has some problems currently that they are working on that keep it from scaling up and really working on the mass market. Now they think they can overcome this, but only time and testing will tell. Maybe the can't, maybe OLED never comes to the home because it just isn't a feasible technology. This could well be a reality.
You are saying what you (think you) need. I am telling you what the reality of the world is. Don't like it? Tough shit. The world doesn't work how you want it to.
As a practical matter I find all the crying about displays to be really stupid. The amount of advancement we've had in 20 years is stunning. I remember playing on my IBM PC like 16 years ago on a tiny 14" CRT monitor. It was blurry, the image wasn't nice and square, it could only do 1024x768 and then with strenuous effort (800x600 was the realistic max). Now I have a beautiful 24" LCD with perfect geometry and a crystal clear image. I remember the TVs of my childhood, 24ish " tubes with poor image quality. They didn't even display SD at full resolution, not that there was an HD. Now I've got a 46" HDTV that is awesome, and light enough I can move it myself.
Displays these days rock. There is room for improvement, of course, there will be until we have a display that one cannot tell apart from reality, but we are a hell of a lot better than we were in the very near past.
Oh and here's a tip: If OLEDs do come to market they are going to be expensive for some time. Even after the price comes down, good ones will cost money. It won't be a perfect display for nothing, the higher quality ones will cost more money. That is the nature of things.
That would require that there be info. As it stands, we do not even have a rumor of an OLED monitor being released to the public.
Whoisthisreally
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 1,143
It'll only become viable once the machinery with high output capacity is in place. This is what companies are investing in right now, but it looks like aren't getting what they want.
The operation lifetime of OLED is not a blessed one. As well as intrinsic degradation, OLED also forms dark non-emissive spots that grow over time by reacting with its electrodes. In some cases the pixel can even catastrophically short out.
OLED material lifetime is sensitive to its operating temperature. The hotter it operates, the shorter it lives. In addition to this, as luminance decays, operating voltage increases. You can imagine how the efficiency decay can quickly accelerate.
The advancements made in the last 20 years is huge. The advancements made in the last 10 years is minute and barely even noticeable. Price has gone down significantly because thats the only thing that sells. Quality haven't moved much more than an inch per year. It's quite sad. Displays of today don't rock. They are cheap - thats the only good thing you can say about them. There is nothing compelling about the quality we get in todays displays.
Good enough? The average Joe might think so, but that doesn't make the displays "rock".
Starting with displays like the SGI 1600SW that came 12 years ago the only real advancement being made since then is price. And sure, the 1600SW didn't come cheap back in the days but thats also what supply and demand gets ya (and not to mention the fact that it was a professional display for the high end market).
Of course you can argue that the same situation still holds for the most expensive EIZO/NEC monitors today compared with consumer monitors of tomorrow and that might be true - as long as we are talking about LCDs but thats the point - even the best LCD is rather disappointing and falls way short in many areas compared to even a simple OLED. The only way you can make an LCD look good is to compare it to another LCD.
Thats the reason for why OLED is so tempting. What we have now suck and there is no way out of it but something radically different. The only real change we have seen in the last 12 years is a switch from CRTs to LCDs and that came with a reduction in quality and resolution that we have barely even made up for yet.
drleospaceman
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2009
- Messages
- 518
LG needs to release their EL9500 in the US already..
Last edited:
daveswantek
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,231
They said 5 years 5 years ago and now they are still saying 5 years. There is no guarantee OLED will ever make it to computer displays, because of the way they are used.
We get these OLED threads starting up about once a month. I believe the OPs really mean "I want a perfect display and I want it cheep", and OLED will probubly be neither.
Even if LG brought their OLED display to market yesterday, does anyone here really believe it would be absent the quality control issues that pleg the displays they are rushing out the door today? Quality products just don't fit todays business model.
Dave
If there were a monitor available that was thin, light, and durable and had a long life, high contrast, quick response, and accurate colors I'd save money and pay quite a bit for it. Unfortunately most consumers wouldn't. The best I can do is try to educate people who like my monitor. I thrown in a few words about contrast and viewing angle and if they're interested answer a few questions.
Oh please.
For one, as you said, things have gotten cheaper. Now maybe you sleep on hundred dollar bills, but most people don't. They've got families to feed and budgets to meet. The idea of being able to get a cheaper display is not a minor thing.
Then there is the massive development in LCDs. Back in 2000, LCDs were still sort of second class citizens. Not only were they pricey, but they lacked in terms of image quality too much to be worth it. However that didn't last long, they improved to the point of being able to give better colour and over all a better image than CRTs.
Yes, yes, I know, they can't do ultra deep blacks, deal with it (neither could many pro CRTs, my LaCie only had about a 1200:1ish CR). In trade for that we have a perfectly stable image that doesn't flicker, with perfect geometry. Do you remember the hours spent on a CRT with test patterns, slowly manually tweaking the geometry to try and get a large, square image? I sure as hell do. Or in the case of CRT HDTVs the time spent trying to get the damn guns to converge properly.
Also LCDs have got brightness for days, and I mean that literally. CRTs never did bright well. 80cd was the normal recommended brightness, which dictated a rather dark room. They could be turned up, but the problem was you started reducing life time, but more that you started getting bleed. The "ultra bright" modes that CRTs had causes the guns to bleed on to adjacent phosphors and thus decreased image quality. No problems on LCDs, they can get very bright, some of them bright enough for direct sunlight, and the image is not compromised in any way.
In terms of resolution, big improvement there. While some high end CRTs technically went higher rez, it wasn't that useful. Not only were pixels getting too small (until recently OSes didn't scale beyond 100PPI well) but things started getting blurred. Yes you could crank that 20" monitor up to 1920x1440 but when you looked at the pixels up close the smeared in to one another and over all gave a fuzzy image. No such problem with LCDs, they can't cheat. A pixel is a pixel.
As for even high resolutions than what we have now, those are coming. There are two reasons they've taken time to develop:
1) OS scaling. As a said, OSes are designed for about 96PPI. When you start getting too many more pixels, things get too small. Older OSes couldn't deal with scaling very well. New OSes, like Vista and 7, have no problem, but there's still a lot of legacy stuff that doesn't. So the OS will order a scale up but the app won't listen. That needs to get solved.
2) Connector bandwidth. With modern displays we are talking a ridiculous amount of data. A 1920*1200, 60Hz, 24-bit display needs 3gbps of bandwidth. 2560*1600, 60Hz 30-bit needs 6.8gbps. So say you wanted a 30" monitor with double the pixels and you wanted 120Hz. That would need 55gbps. Please recall that 6gbps is as fast as SATA goes, 10gbps is as fast as Ethernet goes (and is expensive at those speeds). Currently Display Port can do 17gbps max, so we've got the ability to start getting some higher rez displays and higher colour displays. However it still needs to scale a lot more if we want to really push the resolution.
Really, I think you look back on "the good old days" in your mind to a time that never was. You seem to remember CRTs as this perfect technology. Well turns out we've still got CRTs at work in some places, and I am well familiar with their various pitfalls. They do NOT give a better image than LCDs, especially when you are talking regular office work.
Finally, please recall that there is no guarantee in the world of a certain amount of technical advancement in a given time. You seem to have this attitude that display manufacturers aren't doing enough. Near as I can tell, they are doing all they can and spending billions doing it. It isn't like technology is magic and just wishing makes it happen.
Which QA issues are there with LG's 15" OLED TV currently out in South-Korea & the UK? I haven't heard of any so far.
I had to stop reading your post when I read that ^. Sorry, but either you suffer from color blindness or a really bad memory (or worse: both).
Even *IF* you are somehow able to afford a top of the line LCD that gives decent colors (like, supposedly, the NEC LCD2490WUXi-BK or the PA241W) - which, in this day and age, costing more than a full desktop computer, not many can - you'd still have to calibrate it to achieve accurate colors and decent black levels. And even THEN, you have the fact that you still have to deal w/ the setbacks inherit in LCD technology. Namely: ghosting, input lag, lack of scaling properly when viewing at non-native resolution, poor viewing angles, uneven backlighting, and (often times) ugly text, etc, etc.
But still, w/ consumer-based CRT's, you could buy any average CRT for something like 1/3 of what those NEC monitors cost and achieve better color reproduction and not deal w/ said setbacks. Not to mention, it would still wipe the floor w/ ANY LCD in the everyday consumer, low-to-mid price point range in today's age.
Seriously, if you can find me a 24" or so LCD that has less than 1ms response, no motion blur or ghosting, perfectly even backlighting, accurate colors OUT OF THE BOX w/o having to buy a $300 calibration unit, and costs less than $500 (or roughly the cost of a recently refurbished 24" Sony FW-900 CRT, depending on where you buy it from), I'd really like to see it. Obviously, I am kidding since it does not exist and is why there are hundreds of topics everyday w/ people wanting to buy a decent LCD.
To further solidify my point, why do you think Hollywood post-production studios still use CRT's (namely, the FW-900)? Because LCDs have "better colour and over all a better image than CRTs," right? LOL
Back OT, I wholeheartedly agree w/ the point OP is trying to make: He appears tired of crummy LCD, even IPS technology and wants something better! I think SED/FED HDTV's were supposed to be that answer to better flat screen monitors. But obviously both technologies have been canned and, apparently, OLED is our only viable, or foreseeable "future" technology.
Just want to clarify that that is a Windows-only problem. Of course, that is the OS that really matters to manufacturers, but for example KDE has had automatic DPI scaling for years now.
Agreed - people always remember the past fondly - even if it sucked.
I haven't seen a Super AMOLED screen, but I have used the Nexus One quite a lot - the screen is rather crappy sitting next to my Moto Droid. Sure, the blacks are better, but you really have to be looking to tell. But everything on it is just blurry. IIRC, the subpixels aren't sized the same, giving everything (especially text) this blur that is just horrible.
I want a monitor with the same tech as the Moto Droid - IPS, 260 PPI, 1400 CR - yes please!
What are you talking about? Ghosting is an LCD problem, yes, but input lag isn't. Lack of non-native scaling? Just run at native res - problem solved. Poor viewing angles? Guess you've never seen an IPS or *VA panel in real life - that is only a problem with TNs. Uneven backlighting? Sure, but that is a QA problem, not an inherent flaw in LCD tech. Ugly text? Puhleeze, text on an LCD is miles better than that blurry shit that they called text on a CRT. Subpixel hinting effectively gives 3x the PPI on an LCD for text - CRTs can't compare on that front.
No, not really. I was still using several different CRTs well past the point when LCDs took off - a Sony, an NEC, and some others I don't remember. They were the consumer level CRTs - they sucked ass. They were horrible. I upgraded to a TN and it looked better in every respect, that is how shitty consumer CRTs were.
To further solidify my point, why do you think Hollywood post-production studios still use CRT's (namely, the FW-900)? Because LCDs have "better colour and over all a better image than CRTs," right? LOL
Because they bought them years ago and they are still good enough. Companies don't upgrade to the latest and greatest continually - at least, not for very long.
Instead of these endless "why can't they make giant cheap OLED / OLED Variant / SED / <new variant of non-available technology of the day>" threads, why can't people just post in the EXACT SAME THREAD posted by 100 other users?
I happen to believe that the display is the most important part of a computer setup and fortunately it is also a much better investment (if you could call it that) that easily outlives the computer it is being driven by. Most people however sees the display as some necessary evil and that the best display is the one which cost the least per inch. With that mindset yes, the advancements are substantial. With my look on it, it's quite sad and thats not something that has so much to do with having much money or not.
No, I don't remember spending hours on CRT geometry. Maybe I was lucky. And just because CRTs wasn't perfect doesn't excuse LCDs to be worse
LCDs not only got brightness for days, they got brightness that can blind you. Today you are lucky if you can get a display that you can get low enough to be sensible (thats ridiculous and just proof that the only thing that sells is large numbers on a specification sheet).
So, of course, in reality the ones to be blamed are the mindless customers.
I truly dream of the day when we have decent scaling in the OS. But if the scaling in W7 is anything like Vista it's nothing but horrendous, it's just mindbogglingly bad.
Why do you have to make such an artificial example as a 2*2560x1600*30*120Hz? (besides, thats 29 Gbps and not 55). The bandwidth is not and has never really been a problem for the resolution alone - comparing it with SATA is quite misleading - the interconnect is driven by the needs. SATA has been troubled with drives struggling to manage even one Gbps, up until recently (SSDs) SATA 1.5 Gbps have been overkill (in terms of bandwidth) for everything on the market (aside from port multipliers and stuff like that).
And the whole point with a high resolution is that the pixels are small
It's just now in the LCD world that we associate a high resolution with a large display (which truly is backwards).It just so happens that 16:9 was a perfect opportunity to shrink the display size without the customer noticing (24" is still 24"
) but changing the resolution (other than matching the aspect ratio) wouldn't go unnoticed so all of the sudden we got an increase in resolution It took over a decade and still isn't exactly impressive though... And it was driven by cost cuts...
CRTs wasn't perfect and I do prefer LCDs but CRT was killed of waaay too early. But thats besides the point. The only difference between a consumer IPS display today and one five years ago is that you need sunglasses to view it and special color-aware applications if you wan't to display anything with color. But it's cheap!
And really, whats the best we would dare to hope for in terms of LCDs in the next 5 years? Non-TN 120 Hz? Yep. Hopefully I won't have to buy another display again in the next 7 years or so and hopefully by then we have something that is better than what I've got today (yeah, I know, I'm being optimistic for not only hoping for a price cut).
And I'm not glorifying CRTs in my memory. I'm writing this on an LCD that stands right next to my 10 year old CRT. It just recently started to whine and I've been forced to lower the resolution since the golden years due to it being out of focus. No problem with the brightness though
and the details in the blacks are just astonishing, the LCDs (SIPS + S-PVA) I have next to it look downright pathetic in comparison.Display manufacturers are spending billions in order to manufacture the cheapest display imaginable that have "good" specifications. Cutting corners wherever possible and doing squat to improve quality.
Problem isn't solved by running in native resolution since that requires that you scale content that don't come in the correct resolution.
*VA panels have gamma shift and IPS panels are blessed with extremely bad viewing angles when displaying dark content, the poor viewing angles breaks my heart every time I watch a dark movie on an IPS (even if I sit alone right in front of it).
If getting an even backlight with LCD tech. is so hard that all consumer displays suffer from it it I'd say that at least the difficulties of implementing it is inherent in the LCD tech. and apparently thats enough...
No it's an app thing. Windows supports good DPI scaling of all elements. Apps do not always. On Linux, it is way, WAY worse. Many X apps have no scaling ability, what soever and indeed no awareness of canvas size. This is because X itself provides little more than a framebufer and font server. So how apps work depends largely on the toolkits (if any) they use.
It is just something that will take time before it works well in all things. Some apps already work great, others don't.
So in other words you don't want to see any opinions contrary to your own? Got it. That makes you a zealot and means that your opinion is probably based on zeal, not on fact.
Seriously, if you think CRTs are in every way better than LCDs, you've got your head in the sand. As I said, what of the stability, shape and convergence issues? Did you just not care, did you have a display that had lopsided images, overscan, and fuzzy pixels? Or did you spend hours calibrating and recalibrating the thing, as I did, to try and get the image as good as possible which was still not perfect?
That matters too. Color isn't the one and only important thing to a good image. It is a factor for sure, but plenty of other stuff matters. There are areas, that I've noted (and I can give you a full list if you like) that LCDs are just completely superior to CRTs. There are also areas they fall behind in. However it is not a one way thing.
In terms of colour, any good IPS LCD, yes including the cheaper Dell ones, gives colour as good or better than what you got out of CRTs. And accuracy? What are you on? A cheap CRT had LOUSY colour accuracy. The colours looked fine, but accurate they were not. Heck, most of them were 9300k ish native white point, and if you changed it (if you couldn't all all let you) it just boosted the red channel, generally way too much.
High end pro CRTs were quite accurate, and I'd say probably a bit more accurate out of the box, but about the same calibrated. Fine, but you have to compare high end to high end. You can't say "My LaCie had so much more accurate colour than this cheap TN LCD." I owned a LaCie Electron22Blue IV. Bought it near the end of the CRT era so it was as cheap as you could ever get them. Cost me about $700, not counting shipping (which was a shitload). It's calibrated dE was around 0.5, same as my NEC display.
Making unreasonable demands doesn't make your point, it just makes you appear unreasonable. I could demand a 30" CRT with no geometry or convergence issues for less than $500 but I couldn't have it. Wasn't possible, isn't possible. Demanding it would just make me a jackass.
No, I don't remember spending hours on CRT geometry. Maybe I was lucky. And just because CRTs wasn't perfect doesn't excuse LCDs to be worse
Or you may have simply ignored it. That's what many people did, that's why TVs overscan. However that doesn't mean you are getting a good image. To truly get a good image, where you were using as much of your CRT as possible, without overscan, and had a nice square image took a good deal of calibration (if your monitor let you) and then periodic recalibration. Had to be done by hand too.
Not hardly. On a sunny day, you will have 10,000ish lux in the shade and 30,000+ in direct sunlight.. You don't go blind from that. To the extent you face vision damage at all from a sunny day, it is UV, not visible light.
Rare is the LCD that gets that bright, and you can turn them down. All the LCDs I've played with recently will go down to 100cd easy, usually less. As an example, right now my room is dimly lit, it is cloudy outside and I have a couple of CCFLs on. My light meter shows it as about 20 lux average. If I face it to my screen, held by my head, it is only about 18 lux. Looking at my screen, I see a slightly dimmer image over all than looking at my back wall. Reason is I usually have the room a bit darker than this, and I've calibrated the LCD for that (130cd is the output I've requested from it).
Unrealistic how? The eventual idea with displays would be to drop pixels below the perceptible threshold. So that we don't see pixels, we just see images. That is going to take about 300ppi. You don't get that with doubling the 30" rez, but you get a bit over 200ppi, which isn't bad. Also your calculation is off, you have to double both vertical and horizontal rez, not just one. (2*2560)*(2*1600)*30*120Hz. Really maybe we'd like something more like (3*2560)*(3*1600)*48*120Hz.
Yes it has. Interconnect bandwidth is a major issue these days. It is hard to send that much data down a reasonably priced interconnect. I mean you can always go with more parallel connections, that's what 4k displays do today, but that increases cost and complexity a lot. We are running in to interconnect limits already. For example the 120Hz LCDs don't work over HDMI for 120Hz, only dual-link DVI, Why? Well they use the older HDMI standard, doesn't have enough bandwidth, only enough for 1920x1200@60Hz. Can't drive 1920x1080@120Hz.
It's a major issue, though slowly we are getting interconnects that can handle more. HDMI 1.4 and DP 1.2 both can scale up past where we are now, though nowhere near what we need for a perfect, can't tell it's not real, display.
And there you go. CRTs had plenty of problems, just like LCDs. Different ones, but not a perfect display technology by any stretch of the imagination. Image focus and clarity are big issues to most people. Computer displays are largely used for viewing text and so on. For that, focus and geometry are important. Those are two areas CRTs suck at. At their very best they still aren't as good as LCDs, and at their worst, ouch they are bad.
I'm not saying LCD is the One True Technology(tm) I am saying that over all, the tradeoffs are worth it. There is no perfect technology display technology, there never was. CRT was used not because it was the best but because it was pretty much the only way. LCDs finally got good enough as to make it not useful anymore, and thus it has died off. They also aren't perfect, but they are better over all.
I would really like a better display technology, however I'm a realist. If one comes along, that's great but I don't think there's some conspiracy keeping it from happening. The best available technology is LCD, and it is not at all bad. I am very happy with my LCD. There's a reason I don't have my LaCie monitor anymore. It didn't break, I just didn't need it.
Overscan? That don't take so long to get right and sure, there can be problems but thats when the display is bad to begin with. Seldom it takes more than 5 minutes to get it right. Decent geometry overall can be tricky but doesn't take that long and if it isn't bad from the beginning (which it seldom is) it gets quite good really fast. The CRTs I've used have been quite good at retaining the geometry. But again, I don't buy my monitors based on the price per inch.
TV overscans are quite irrelevant in the context.
I didn't mean that you'd get physically blind... But many displays are too bright even at 0 brightness. It's bad ergonomics, eyes get dry when they don't have to etc.
Artificial. I complained about the low resolutions of LCDs. Not that you should pick the biggest LCD and all of the sudden double the refresh rate, use 30 bits and double the resolution. Not gonna happen over one night and that was not what I meant. If that were a reality and if there was any demand for a display like that then displayport would just up the bandwidth in a new revision. You can't come up with some imaginary display and complain on the bandwidth of something that is designed to only meet the needs of tomorrow (and not 30 years from now).
You said "double the pixels", had you said twice the resolution then it would have been 2*x * 2*y.
HDMI isn't for computer displays anyway, it's a completely different market. The solution already exists for HDMI but noone uses it since it doesn't really make any sense.
So whats the problem? Use dual-dvi or displayport and look how easy that major issue was resolved - and thats with an interconnect thats had use since 2004.
You are not going to see an interconnect that can do Tbps decades before we have any need for it, not because it can't be done but since it doesn't make any sense.
Interconnects are not easy, no. But the problem with displays are certainly not interconnects..
You are overexaggregating the problems of CRTs.
And the real reason for why LCDs are popular is simple. Their small size. Thats the only reason for why they became popular back in the days where LCDs were inferior in every single way except geometry (which noone that bought LCDs back then even knew or cared about) and power consumption and thats still the biggest part in why they are popular (well today there are no alternatives).
If it were the other way around, that LCDs were big and CRTs were thin but everything else the same you would barely be able to buy an LCD if you wanted.
I don't believe in any conspiracy. I only believe in stupid consumers. That and that LCDs have some serious limitations and that the only reason for it's existence is it's low price point and small form factor. Quality is and has always been a serious problem with LCDs.
Last edited:
daveswantek
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,231
Image retention and rapid decay of the blue subpixel as compared to the red and green. All current OLED screens have these issues, that is why no one is talking about OLED computer screens in any time frame.
Sense they are not available in the US we just have to wait and see what other little joules they come up with. Yellow tint, grainey AG coating; I guarantee it will continue until people quit buying it.
Keep dreaming: http://www.hdtvinfo.eu/news/hdtv-articles/40-inch-oled-panel-from-samsung.html
Dave
Last edited:
Call me what you want, but if one were to make a list of advantages CRT's have over LCD's, I'm sure most people who care about display image quality (like most of us lurking on this very thread), would concur CRT's are superior.
Sycraft said:
I did NOT say CRT's are better in every way. Now you're starting to assume and starting to throw words in my mouth (or in this thread, w/e). About the only argument I'd give you that LCD's have over CRT's is the weight and size factor. That and maybe LCD's are brighter and offer higher resolutions (although these latter 2 could be considered moot, if CRT's were still in production and competing).
And what are you going on about in regards to calibrating and "convergence issues?" Sounds like you had a run of sh!tty CRT's, unfortunately for you. As for me, I've personally owned 3 CRT's - all lasting a while - and never had these issues you're talking about (fuzzy pixels??? Aren't you talking about LCD's? LOL).
And for the record, since user "kllrnohj" brings it up: I'm coming from and still using an S-IPS (Dell 2005FPW), supposedly, the utmost, superior KING of LCD monitor technology. While I would consider it "decent," compared to the ViewSonic CRT this replaced, the colors are absolutely inferior compared to it. And one of the very first things I've noticed in this monitor and other LCD's I've seen and personally tested, is the ghosting. If you're a hardcore FPS gamer, and you are old enough to have owned a CRT in their heyday, I'm sure they'd tell you straight up they'd prefer a CRT.
kllrnohj said:
LOL "upgraded." IMO, I - and various others here on [H] would probably agree with - would say that would be more like a "downgrade." But, w/e floats your boat and makes you happy...Enjoy the terrible viewing angles and artificial colors
Sycraft said:
Again, sounds like you've had some poor experience(s) w/ CRT's. In my own experience, the cheapest CRT I once owned (some no name brand that came packaged w/ my IBM Pentium 1) kills this Dell. I still vividly recall the tiny dot-pitch and beautiful reds, greens, blues....all something this Dell (and "cheaper Dells" you speak of) cannot do accurately out of the box, not by a longshot (again, unless I were to purchase a calibration unit, which would be another $200+ or so?).
"Unreasonable demands?" Yes, you just made my point. LCD's can in no way achieve those "demands," that could otherwise be done by a CRT monitor (assuming, again, they were still in production, which they are not).
I just saw a user post something along the lines of: New technology does not necessarily mean it was better than the previous iteration. It just means they were able to mass produce this new iteration (in this case, displays) at a much cheaper price and the masses bought it up.
Judging from your point of view, I'd like to leave it at that... it seems you've been burned by some horrible CRT's and simply prefer the convenience of LCD's. From my POV, it's been the opposite. I've gone through, not a lot, but a few top-consumer (maybe even "prosumer") LCD monitors and have come away underwhelmed, to put it mildly. For the prices I've paid for those LCD's, compared w/ to the day of CRT's, I could have gotten something much cheaper and much better to suit my needs (color accuracy, image quality, lack of ghosting, etc.).
daveswantek
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,231
Exactly; I have been on this forum for almost 3 years and I have started 1 or 2 threads tops. There is a search function! Also none of these people have done any research, so they add nothing new and make ridiculous demands for things that may never exist.
There should be a rule that you have to Google a topic and answer some basic questions before you can start a new thread.
Dave
I tend to agree that CRTs were killed off too early, or similarly LCDs became too cheap too early and the manufacturers realized that no matter what they introduced to the market, people buy it if the price is right. Some of the last consumer CRTs were pretty bad overall - but cheap, but they would even produce a better picture quality than today's TN panels, albeit not in widescreen and not as large screen sizes. Uniformity of the cheapest CRTs were great, which for some reasons seems hard for manufacturers to get right with cheaper LCDs.
However, i'd say that there tends to be a conception that CRTs in general were always better than LCDs and that is definitely not correct. The memories of CRT play a role in this - increasing contrast on CRTs affects focusing or introduces echoes/shadows. Edges may be unshap, depending of how well the yoke deflects.
What i don't get is why CRTs were so relatively cheap when comparing the number of components that went into it. Compare it to a current LCD. My understanding is that a $300 17" CRT would be pretty decent, but maybe i'm just remembering this wrong.
So to the OP: I don't think you'll necessarily find that IPS/S-PVA can't be good enough, it's just that manufacturers don't pull themselves together with the cheaper products. Unfortunately, the bar for cheap is set rather high compared to CRTs. OLED is not produced in larger sizes due to low yield. You'll not be interested in a TFT matrix with plenty of dead transistors and simultaneously pay an arm and a leg for it.
Convergence issues are a problem with any CRT, although it rarely is a real problem on expensive CRTs. The flatter the CRT tube (in depth) the worse the problem becomes. The expensive Eizo and Sony CRTs are very large in depth due to this.Yeastwood said:
By fuzzy pixels i read it as focus, which detoriates with use of the CRT. The highest-end CRTs have a focus setting/knob to tweak the focusing point.
As LCD TFTs do not rely on a yoke to deflect a beam convergence is not a problem. The focus is not a problem either since each sub-pixel is controlled directly.
Last edited:
That monitor is a bit of a dinosaur now, don't measure the LCD's of today against CRT thinking they're all the same as your 5 year old DELL.
S-IPS isn't the king of LCD tech either, that title belongs to H-IPS & S-PVA.
Fuzzy pixels on a (proper) LCD? Don't be absurd.
Neither tecnology is a display nirvana of any kind. The only CRT monitor I could even consider for daily use over my H-IPS NEC is a Sony FW900.
The perfect combination of motion clarity, five figure contrast ratios and superb colour on a PC monitor will be out of reach untill Blue Phase & OLED arrive.
monitorrat
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2010
- Messages
- 221
speaking of getting killed off too early.... that would be lugging a 24-30" Diamondscan up to a 4th floor dorm room
, thanks to LCDs such a thing would no longer be a horror storyThe CRT/LCD thing reminds me a lot of the Vinyl/CDs. People will buy what they are given, and quickly forget what they are missing, even when it is an inadequate replacement (and now mp3s are replacing CDs!). There are many reasons why the industry decided to kill off CRTs, people are easily sold on convenience and aesthetics. It was not an uncommon thing to see CRTs described as "those old, clunky, heavy boxes (which by the way produces an image that is superior in many ways to your crappy TN display)" in marketing, reminiscent of CDs being sold as "superior" to vinyl, when the only redeeming feature was convenience not quality.
I am familiar with tweaking geometry, etc etc. The fact remains that people who are fanatical about quality still to this day choose CRT over other display technologies, maybe you haven't seen all of the posts everywhere of people trying to find FW-900s? Taken as a whole, CRTs still produce the "best" image. When money is no object, people will often buy very high end CRT projectors for a home theater, ones that are almost a decade old because they are passionate about quality. If Sony was still making FW-900s, people would still be buying them.
I recently found myself in need of a replacement for my SGi branded Sony CRT, which was bought around 2003 for $300. I have landed on an IPS panel LCD (HP ZR24w) which I hope can even attempt to compete with my dying CRT in overall image quality and response. I fully acknowledge that LCDs are "getting there", but only just now, years and years after they were dubbed the comparable replacement to CRTs.
On another note, I was psyched when I learned of the SED/FED display technologies that were supposedly on the horizon some time back. It appears that they are now dead in the water?
I am familiar with tweaking geometry, etc etc. The fact remains that people who are fanatical about quality still to this day choose CRT over other display technologies, maybe you haven't seen all of the posts everywhere of people trying to find FW-900s? Taken as a whole, CRTs still produce the "best" image. When money is no object, people will often buy very high end CRT projectors for a home theater, ones that are almost a decade old because they are passionate about quality. If Sony was still making FW-900s, people would still be buying them.
I recently found myself in need of a replacement for my SGi branded Sony CRT, which was bought around 2003 for $300. I have landed on an IPS panel LCD (HP ZR24w) which I hope can even attempt to compete with my dying CRT in overall image quality and response. I fully acknowledge that LCDs are "getting there", but only just now, years and years after they were dubbed the comparable replacement to CRTs.
On another note, I was psyched when I learned of the SED/FED display technologies that were supposedly on the horizon some time back. It appears that they are now dead in the water?
We are a few generations into OLED display technology. Lifetime of even blue subpixels have gone from 14k hours (5 years at 8 hours/day) to 50k+ hours (time to half brightness), which rivals the lifespan of LCDs. Professional OLED-based monitors for broadcasting purposes are already being mass-produced. LG is selling an OLED TV in the mainstream market.
OLED is also taking the portable market by storm. More and more phones and other mobile gadgets feature OLED screens these days. How many issues are there with those? Yes, regular OLED looks washed out in direct sunlight, but Super AMOLED brings it on par with IPS LCDs.
LG, Samsung, and many other companies are heavily investing in new and larger production lines for OLED displays. You really think that they'd spend billions of dollars on a technology which isn't ready yet for prime time?
here we go again..
I think we can all agree what we WANT is the color and motion performance of CRTs in an LCD like package (perfect geometry, size, weight, ~long life, easy on the eyes). As much as I love CRTs, the small size and flicker thing (even high refresh rates) is a problem for me, and I think for most LCDs are easier on the eyes. Right?
I think we can all agree what we WANT is the color and motion performance of CRTs in an LCD like package (perfect geometry, size, weight, ~long life, easy on the eyes). As much as I love CRTs, the small size and flicker thing (even high refresh rates) is a problem for me, and I think for most LCDs are easier on the eyes. Right?
I see no flicker with my CRTs set at 85 Hz, and at 20" with 1600x1200 resolution are competitive with all mainstream and professional LCD options I have looked at. Yes, I would like to get some desk space back, but it's not worth 2,000 Euro and giving up on 25 Hz with the refreshrate in addition to other disadvantages.
I have also noticed that LCDs are far more harsh on my eyes than CRTs, even after calibrating both. Something about the well-defined pixels, polarized light, limited viewing angle (TN panels, mostly) and ghosting or so.
Agree.
A 37'' CRT monitor wouldn't be viable. And playing on a 37'' monitor is an incredible experience.
LOL "upgraded." IMO, I - and various others here on [H] would probably agree with - would say that would be more like a "downgrade." But, w/e floats your boat and makes you happy...Enjoy the terrible viewing angles and artificial colors
Why do you think I'm running 3 IPS monitors now? TNs suck. But that was my point, that was how ungodly *HORRIBLE* consumer CRTs were. The typical consumer CRT sucked ass. Too often people here talk about the high end CRTs as if all CRTs were like that - they weren't. Just like most LCDs are TN, most CRTs sucked donkey balls.
That is why people don't write apps directly on X, they use things like QT and GTK
And no, it isn't worse on Linux. I ran KDE on an 1920x1200 15.4" laptop - almost all of the apps scaled perfectly with DPI, and all of the text and controls did. Windows didn't scale automatically at all (XP or Vista), and even when set, a lot of things in Windows didn't scale, much less other apps. Maybe 7 has improved on this, I don't know, I ran that laptop 3 years ago.
Actually, the annoying thing with Linux's scaling was that manually overriding it was a bitch. I didn't want things to scale, I wanted to cram more on the screen. This was right about the time when most distros were fully switching away from the xorg.conf, and the GUI tools to change settings could do little more than set the resolution.
NKDietrich
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2004
- Messages
- 5,442
So very true. The typical CRT had poor geometry controls, poor pixel pitch, poor quality control, and a huge list of other problems. The average cheap CRT was not much better, if at all, than the average cheap TN panel. Were they capable of all the colors, unlike a TN? Sure, but they sure as hell didn't display them properly. It was very hard to enjoy a low end CRT that had poor color adjustment options, or none at all.
Those of us who had the high end Trinitron screens could barely stand to use other peoples computers because of the blurry distorted little tubes they were using. CRTs had the same low-end high-end split that LCDs do. I'd argue that it was even more severe.
Early desktop LCDs didn't just catch on because they were smaller. They had a lot of advantages in terms of visual quality, not over a high end CRT, but over low end CRTs.