![[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 Computer Monitors ?
- Thread starter Rob.
- Start date
Back in 2007, some of the big monitor manufacturers made lots of happy noises about how OLED monitors were going mainstream in 2008. Didn't happen. Big face-plant.
Samsung announced a 55" OLED TV in 2009, but have yet to release it. Oops, embarrassed themselves again. LG has announced a 55" OLED TV this year, and they even have a price of $12,000 on it; let's wait and see if they don't embarrass themselves too.
Don't hold your breath for an OLED monitor. They aren't even talking about those. We usually see credible chatter about new monitor technology up to a year in advance here on HardOCP, and at the moment we have nothing whatsoever.
Samsung announced a 55" OLED TV in 2009, but have yet to release it. Oops, embarrassed themselves again. LG has announced a 55" OLED TV this year, and they even have a price of $12,000 on it; let's wait and see if they don't embarrass themselves too.
Don't hold your breath for an OLED monitor. They aren't even talking about those. We usually see credible chatter about new monitor technology up to a year in advance here on HardOCP, and at the moment we have nothing whatsoever.
Mark Rejhon
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2004
- Messages
- 1,395
When OLED arrives on the market, pay attention to which OLED you buy.
Some of them actually have worse motion blur than some of the better LCD's.
See Why Do Some OLED's Have Motion Blur?.
Manufacturers need to design them appropriately, for elimination of motion blur.
Just because pixel response time is 0ms, does not eliminate the sample-and-hold motion blur problem.
I'd like my inexpensive 4K impulse-driven OLED display tomorrow, but I think I need a time machine set to the 2020's for that.
It depends on what you are willing to pay (PVM-2541 is ~$6000), and if you are OK with seeing a shadow of the task bar after using it for an extended period of time, so far the manufacturers only offer TVs and video monitors that are less likely to suffer from pixel aging than those intended for the desktop. As they age the same OLEDs are currently closer to being a replacement for plasma than a replacement for LCD.
why would anyone skip IPS LCDs? 
CRTs are not your sharpest type of displays and look terrible at day when there is a lot of light in the room. And prolonged usage of CRT is not very healthy for eyes, especially when it's used for text reading.
LCD only setup gives you even more issues as you can get good color, good motion and good contrast at the same time and you can't really get good "night" contrast at all. There are monitors specialized to do one thing very good but they suck at other aspects eg. good gaming monitor will have terrible colors and blacks.
so why just not use both CRT and LCD simultaneously?
it's no-brainer CRTs are better but still using just CRTs doesn't have any sense at all. In my long monitor history I was only happy with CRT+ LCD combinations. Just be sure not to get crappy TN and you will be happy
when OLED monitor come out they won't be as good as you hope them to be, especially "affordable" ones. I bet good CRT will still be better at almost everything. Don't believe me? Just look at smartphones with OLED: bad viewing angles, motion blur, bad colors, etc. Only real improvement over CRT multimedia-wise will be ANSI contrast ratio.
Until OLED evolve enough to surpass CRT in general image quality it will be a very long time so don't hold your breath
CRTs are not your sharpest type of displays and look terrible at day when there is a lot of light in the room. And prolonged usage of CRT is not very healthy for eyes, especially when it's used for text reading.
LCD only setup gives you even more issues as you can get good color, good motion and good contrast at the same time and you can't really get good "night" contrast at all. There are monitors specialized to do one thing very good but they suck at other aspects eg. good gaming monitor will have terrible colors and blacks.
so why just not use both CRT and LCD simultaneously?
it's no-brainer CRTs are better but still using just CRTs doesn't have any sense at all. In my long monitor history I was only happy with CRT+ LCD combinations. Just be sure not to get crappy TN and you will be happy
when OLED monitor come out they won't be as good as you hope them to be, especially "affordable" ones. I bet good CRT will still be better at almost everything. Don't believe me? Just look at smartphones with OLED: bad viewing angles, motion blur, bad colors, etc. Only real improvement over CRT multimedia-wise will be ANSI contrast ratio.
Until OLED evolve enough to surpass CRT in general image quality it will be a very long time so don't hold your breath
Namelessme
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,161
Agree with XoR, the best scenario would seem to be to pair up a decent LCD + CRT, assuming your desk can support them. Best of both worlds.
If you just game, or watch movies, perhaps CRT only would be okay, but if you use a computer for any text uses at all, one would be better off using an LCD for normal PC tasks, and CRT for gaming/movies.
If you just game, or watch movies, perhaps CRT only would be okay, but if you use a computer for any text uses at all, one would be better off using an LCD for normal PC tasks, and CRT for gaming/movies.
Namelessme
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,161
I'm not going to debate the qualities of CRT over LCD, as in many respects, I feel CRTs are better. The problem of course is that we simply can't drive to the nearest store and pick up a new high-end Trinitron/Diamondtron CRT. Personally, I feel text was much worse on the CRTs I owned, compared to LCDs... but whether that matters to you or not depends on how much text you deal with.
But the idea of using an LCD + CRT has merit, even if you think LCDs offer no benefits over CRTs at all. By using an LCD paired up with a CRT, you won't need to keep the CRT running every time you use your computer, hence extending its lifespan. They won't last forever, and hunting down good quality replacements are a major pain (and sometimes impossible).
No offense, but I was the biggest proponent of Triniton during it's heyday. Now? I'll pass. First, the heat output is insane. Then there's dampening wires. Jesus christ the dampening wires, in this day and age, are so annoying. I didn't mind them back then but I'd rather not see them ever again. All CRTs are prone to geometry problems which is simply never an issue with LCDs. Colors are no better than IPS. Power consumption through the roof. Distortion over time from the screen warming up. Having to use screen savers to prevent image retention. Poor text clarity. I'm sorry, even the shittest cheap LCD will absolutely destroy a Trinitron in terms of text sharpness.
Also, low resolution. VGA is limited to the low 2304x1400 resolution.
The only advantage CRTs have is refresh rate. And that is only an advantage if you game and literally absolutely have no care about what anything else looks like on the screen. Windows image quality is so much worse and muddled in terms of text output on every CRT that there is no way I could possibly do real work on a trinitron anymore......they are outdated. Keep in mind I loved trinitrons 10-15 years ago, they WERE the best screen years ago. Now, I dunno. I definitely wouldn't use one presently.
I loved Trinitrons a decade ago and used them exclusively. Now? Trinitron has too many drawbacks. Period. Text sharpness is terrible as mentioned even compared to the worst LCDs on the planet, dampening wires, geometry issues, etc. I will never, ever go back personally. To each their own though.
Last edited:
Namelessme
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,161
Strange how the dampening wires bothered some people. I am not saying you are incorrect, as they obviously bother you, and I recall reading how they bothered other people too. For myself, I just ignored them ... never was a big deal to me.
Heat, on the other hand, could be an issue. The warmest CRT I owned was a 19" Dell Trinitron ... I got it during one summer, and it was my biggest CRT that I had tried at that time. Previous I was using a 17" Sony.
During the first couple of days of using it I wondered how come I was getting so sweaty ... it felt like I was melting. Then I reached up and felt heat pouring out from the top of the monitor. I kept thinking how it'd make a great space heater during the winter months. Strangely a 21" NEC CRT produced less heat than that thing did, no idea why.
@Rob
I am not sure if you are here to argue the merits of CRTs or ask about OLED or alternatives. But keep in mind everything is subjective, so stating absolutes is sort of silly. Actually, I find arguing the merits of CRTs sort of silly to begin with, as although they were superior in some ways, the simple fact remains it's not an option for most people. Unless a person is willing to go and meet a bunch of strange people on Craigslist (one of the reasons I got tired of hunting down CRTs), or get lucky and find a like-new CRT that someone just happened to throw away, nobody can get decent CRTs in good condition anyway.
Heat, on the other hand, could be an issue. The warmest CRT I owned was a 19" Dell Trinitron ... I got it during one summer, and it was my biggest CRT that I had tried at that time. Previous I was using a 17" Sony.
During the first couple of days of using it I wondered how come I was getting so sweaty ... it felt like I was melting. Then I reached up and felt heat pouring out from the top of the monitor. I kept thinking how it'd make a great space heater during the winter months. Strangely a 21" NEC CRT produced less heat than that thing did, no idea why.
@Rob
I am not sure if you are here to argue the merits of CRTs or ask about OLED or alternatives. But keep in mind everything is subjective, so stating absolutes is sort of silly. Actually, I find arguing the merits of CRTs sort of silly to begin with, as although they were superior in some ways, the simple fact remains it's not an option for most people. Unless a person is willing to go and meet a bunch of strange people on Craigslist (one of the reasons I got tired of hunting down CRTs), or get lucky and find a like-new CRT that someone just happened to throw away, nobody can get decent CRTs in good condition anyway.
The inability of finding a decent CRT doesn't make them any worse.
The frustration of gamers in particular for having their game affected drastically by the new technology, especially the fps gamers, for the simple fact that the motion blur became a reality with LCDs, is simply not fun to deal with.
Unfortunately the big companies see the gamers as statistical number that they don't bother about. I felt like I had a boat that forgot me on a deserted island. Do you think is fair? After all this time that we had perfect motion now we have to live for 20 years with motion blur? Honestly, if I could do something about it, I would. Unfortunately there is absolutely nothing in this world I can do about it. The only thing I can do, is not buy poor technology. I accept IPS monitors as being a good alternative and I am happy enough with them. However, the IPS glow and the motion blur are the real concerns that I still have at the moment with my monitor.
So why don't accept the fact that motion blur IS A PROBLEM. Cause that is the truth, lets face it.
Also, our eyes scream that they don't want backlight driven devices, yet we still consider, oh, not us, the big companies, consider the solution of coming up with a hybrid between LCD and OLED. Seriously light the monitor itself in an angle if you want more powerfull image instead of sending light towards us directly....
The frustration of gamers in particular for having their game affected drastically by the new technology, especially the fps gamers, for the simple fact that the motion blur became a reality with LCDs, is simply not fun to deal with.
Unfortunately the big companies see the gamers as statistical number that they don't bother about. I felt like I had a boat that forgot me on a deserted island. Do you think is fair? After all this time that we had perfect motion now we have to live for 20 years with motion blur? Honestly, if I could do something about it, I would. Unfortunately there is absolutely nothing in this world I can do about it. The only thing I can do, is not buy poor technology. I accept IPS monitors as being a good alternative and I am happy enough with them. However, the IPS glow and the motion blur are the real concerns that I still have at the moment with my monitor.
So why don't accept the fact that motion blur IS A PROBLEM. Cause that is the truth, lets face it.
Also, our eyes scream that they don't want backlight driven devices, yet we still consider, oh, not us, the big companies, consider the solution of coming up with a hybrid between LCD and OLED. Seriously light the monitor itself in an angle if you want more powerfull image instead of sending light towards us directly....
Color saturation is much better wide-gamut LCD monitors than on any CRT (colors on my W2420R can be so saturated you can get cones-ache from prolonged usage of native gamut mode
CRT never had "zero" motion-blur because there is a lot of phosphor trailing going on and 1ms LightBoost monitors are actually better here.
Contrast is more complicated issue. There are situations where CRT worse than LCD, especially good one
Where CRT is still king without a doubt is viewing angles. I have one of few the best LCD in this regard and CRT is still better...
Where CRT excels is combination of all those factors. Those bulky heavy things have their issues but image quality wise there is nothing better at the moment
@xoleras
deep down inside you know your new and fancy LCD are just pure crap and because of that you are so hostile toward this technology
Mark Rejhon
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2004
- Messages
- 1,395
As Blur Busters, let me go on defense of CRT.
I've owned CRT's for many years, as a CRT die-hard.
I totally agree with you that things like contrast / black levels / etc are lacking on LCD
I owned a CRT projector!
Here are some photos from ten years ago:
Yes, I even learned to calibrate it (convergence, astig, keystone, bow, etc)
Model: NEC XG135; MSRP $23,995 -- I bought it on bargain at $8,000 in year 1999.
My Old Website: http://www.marky.com/hometheater
That's 1080p in 1999, everyone!
I define "zero motion blur" as motion blur that's below human perceptible levels.
CRT does have zero motion blur from the perspective that motion blur is below human-perceptible levels.
It's a moot point as it is too weak to usually affect motion blur, but it is correct that CRT phosphor has the minor artifact of phosphor-decay that can affect a little blurring at ultra-high-speed motion that's too fast for human eyes to track, but it only shows up in things like dungeon games and ultra-fast 180 degree flicks while the CRT is pumped to maximum brightness. (Higher brightness will drive the phosphor harder and cause longer phosphor decay-to-black cycle; but lowering brightness will reduce this ghosting greatly) However, to be fair to CRT, LightBoost can have its own separate minor artifacts too (the faint trailing sharp ghost, found worse on some panels like ASUS VG278HE but much better on some panels such as BENQ XL2411T) but it actually shows up only on high-contrast scenes far more often than in dungeon games. Bottom line, both kinds of motion artifacts on CRT and the better LightBoost displays/modes are so faint that it is mostly irrelevant.
Measurements have shown that LightBoost=10% (OSD set to minimum strobe length) actually has less motion blur than some medium-persistence CRT's. But this is really moot, as both CRT's and LightBoost=10% have "zero motion blur" from a human vision perspective (below human perceptible levels).
Again, see, I was a CRT die-hard too.
But it seems I'm far more picky about motion blur than contrast/black levels/etc. Anyone who says LightBoost doesn't successfully eliminate LCD motion blur, is lying or a silly shocked disbeliever. (*Comparable in average human perception to medium-persistence CRT phosphor league, ones with 1 to 2ms phosphor decay cycle, found in tubes with medium persistence phosphor such as GDM-W900. This is not completely to short-persistence CRT phosphor. Remember, we're not talking about the microsecond illumination start from the electron beam excitation, but the whole phosphor decay-to-dark cycle which is millisecond league now currently roughly comparable to LightBoost for the on-to-off duty cycle). Remember, though, you need fps=Hz for zero motion blur (from human perspective) on impulse-driven displays such as CRT, plasma or LightBoost.
Again, I owned a CRT projector! -- 92" CRT projection screen
I even learned how to calibrate it. Opened it up myself too, to maintain it, in fact. Also did geometry, convergence, astigmatism, focus, trapezoid, bow, parallogram, you name it -- I was a CRT calibration expert in the league of ISF calibration. (Although I did not get ISF certified, I outperformed many ISF technicians). Yes, I calibrated my CRT to full ISF standards, colorimeter, equipment, and all!
But yes, I totally agree with you about contrast/black levels/etc are lacking on LCD. Definitely text/convergence/focus is better on an LCD. But, there is irreconcilable proof: the LCD motion blur has finally been successfully conquered. Even TFT Central says LightBoost outperforms all past scanning backlights ever tested. I reiterate: Anyone who says LightBoost doesn't successfully massively reduce LCD motion blur, is lying or a shocked disbeliever. Now stop, before you react to that statement: I totally agree with you that contrast / black levels / etc levels are lacking on LCD compared to CRT Again, you don't have to sell your CRT.
I'm on your side, buddy!
Last edited:
@xoleras
deep down inside you know your new and fancy LCD are just pure crap and because of that you are so hostile toward this technology
Yep! Definitely. It's not like TN panels and CRTs have TONS of drawbacks such as poor text clarity (trinitron), poor viewing angles (TN), LOW RESOLUTION (BOTH), insane heat output (trinitron), image retention + screen saver requirement (trinitron) , dampening wires, etc, etc. The only tech giving me what I want is IPS and PLS, and they're the only techs that move resolution (eg higher than 1080p) forward.
I understand that refresh rate is better on Trinitron. That however is one of the issues you have to weight against the other cons - some of which are mentioned above. Some don't mind, others do. Some prefer the smoothness of Trinitron/CRTs, and I can respect that. It's just not my priority - IPS panels game very well although not quite as well as lightboost or Trinitron.
Now with that said, OLED and 4k screens will be exciting once they're mass market. However I feel that is quite a few years away - the price is prohibitively expensive right now and they're being produced in minuscule volumes.. When we get there, it will be time to re-evaluate which technology is right for my needs. I think I can safely state that none of the above drawbacks with respect to TN panels or CRTs will be an issue with either OLED or 4k screens. I just can't go back to trinitrons because of those now, personal preference. I'll just leave the topic alone henceforth...if someone else likes CRTs I will respect that. I also was a Trinitron fan 10-15 years ago. I loved them then. But now? Not a fan at all anymore. Personal preference! To each their own
Last edited:
The claim that even the worst lcds have sharper text than crt's is the biggest pile of horse manure I have ever read on these forums.
I switched from a sony crt to a sony lcd (both top notch models at their time) way back when and the first thing I noticed was the much inferior text due to the sandpaper antiglare on the lcd as well as the poor dot pitch, or ppi rather.
No offence but I am shocked and I can only conclude that you are gaining something from this, and that you don't care about the qualities that we lost long time ago, and you embrace the unfair marketing practices that are used by the manufacturers at the moment.
The fact that general screen geometry wasn't perfect doesn't affect at all the text sharpness. If you could prove me that the real contrast ratio between 2 adjacent pixels on the screen (and not 2 pixels in oposite sides of the screens) is bigger on a TN/IPS LCD then it is on a CRT (not 100% sure about pva), then I am sorry but you need to get more information on what exactly makes a text more readable.
And I can't stress enough that it doesn't help me at all to have 1 milion contrast ratio between 2 oposite sides of the screen, because when I try to read a character in a text, is 2 adjacent pixels that give me the contrast ratio needed to read that text.
My biggest desire is to have a way to inform as many people as possible about those marketing lies, as I can see that authorities close their eyes at this way of cheating, and the manufacturers take full advantage from it.
Marketing lies. Gaining something from this. I don't even know what to say, are you even serious? Listen to yourself with the conspiracy stuff, i'm not sure if you're just joking or not. But, you know what, use your CRT forever by all means.
Last edited:
Agree that LCD's advantage in ANSI contrast ratio / checkerboard test, is often outweighed by other factors in imaging and especially in animation and graphics.
However, with the way text is normally displayed now -- black text against a white background, fine text will normally be blacker/sharper on an LCD as it does not suffer from internal reflections like a CRT does. Though as long as the CRT is well focused and not overdriven, text should still be subjectively black and pleasing. On the other side of it, an LCD with low DPI and higher ANSI may look rough and not pleasing to some. (I had an experience of such recently.) Guess my favorite rendition of text so far would be what I first saw on the third generation iPad.
As to marketing, Sony tried to honestly highlight the respective pros and cons of each technology. Sadly their balanced approach and attempt to offer both technologies did not carry the day. Back then, some of LCD's rise made sense (e.g., why would people still buy FW900 for spreadsheets) and a lot of it didn't, at least in a good way (e.g., terrible PQ on the early LCDs, which I as a consumer coming from a low end CRT I never changed from 60 Hz know nothing about anyway, and the LCD is so thin).
More recently, we've had the reprehensible marketing based on brightness, but also some encouraging marketing based on color accuracy and lack of PWM...
However, with the way text is normally displayed now -- black text against a white background, fine text will normally be blacker/sharper on an LCD as it does not suffer from internal reflections like a CRT does. Though as long as the CRT is well focused and not overdriven, text should still be subjectively black and pleasing. On the other side of it, an LCD with low DPI and higher ANSI may look rough and not pleasing to some. (I had an experience of such recently.) Guess my favorite rendition of text so far would be what I first saw on the third generation iPad.
As to marketing, Sony tried to honestly highlight the respective pros and cons of each technology. Sadly their balanced approach and attempt to offer both technologies did not carry the day. Back then, some of LCD's rise made sense (e.g., why would people still buy FW900 for spreadsheets) and a lot of it didn't, at least in a good way (e.g., terrible PQ on the early LCDs, which I as a consumer coming from a low end CRT I never changed from 60 Hz know nothing about anyway, and the LCD is so thin).
More recently, we've had the reprehensible marketing based on brightness, but also some encouraging marketing based on color accuracy and lack of PWM...
DavidtheDuke
n00b
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2012
- Messages
- 4
Is there anyone who actually has one of those Sony 24" displays? It's 24k and I haven't seen anyone with pictures or anything. I suppose anyone with one would be outing themselves to probably being a millionaire though
Mark Rejhon
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2004
- Messages
- 1,395
Yup, it's the only way to get zero motion blur without big bezels.
Vega even used to game on triple Sony FW900 CRT's using fresnel lens, but he says this is vastly superior (on the Grand Total sum of _all_ CRT PROS+CONS versus _all_ LCD PROS+CONS). I also happen to agree too. There are some purposes where if you are stuck with LCD, then one acknowledges the LightBoost stroboscopic backlight manages to successfully get into the ballpark of CRT-equivalence in motion blur (at least versus medium-persistence phosphor).
Yes, yes, CRT's are superior in several categories. I dont disagree.
...But that is not the point.
...The point is LCD motion blur problem finally got successfully conquered with stroboscopic backlights (Related invention: The invention of active alternate-shutter 3D helped eliminate pixel persistence leakage between adjacent refereshes; which recently helped make zero motion blur LCD's scientifically practical), read the TFTCentral article explaining why LightBoost blows away old LCD scanning backlights ... It scientifically makes sense too to those who understand LCD's and CRT's intimately (whether it be CRT flyback transformers or LCD mechanics); the 1.4 millisecond stroboscopic backlight ON-to-OFF duty cycle of the specially tweaked LightBoost=10% setting, zero light leakage between frames, and is measured to have a similar motion blur equivalence to a GDM-W900, which actually uses a medium-persistence phosphor that doesn't noticeably decay fully to blackness (after electron beam excitation for the whole ON-fade-to-OFF duty cycle) in less than 1ms. More info covered via science & references.
From a human perspective, "zero motion blur" means motion blur that's now successfully pushed below human perception levels (LightBoost LCD's has 12x less blur -- 92% less motion blur -- than a 60 Hz LCD. That's a full, complete, order-of-magnitude, for those of you who understand SCIENCE. It actually SHOWS to the human eyes too, for those people sensitive to motion blur (like us CRT die-hards, like me). Even I acknowledge that CRT is superior in many categories.
For those who passed high school science, here's:
The Zero Motion Blur FAQ: How Is It Scientifically Possible To Shatter The LCD Pixel Persistence Barrier?
Last edited:
Your arguments make sense if you game and do absolutely nothing else. Anyone that has tried TN panels in surround, well, I say good luck to you because the color shifting is quite bad to the point of negating the entire point of surround.
The more adventurous type can remove the bezels and run triple portrait. Now who wants to do that? Not me. I'd rather run landscape like, a normal person.
The more adventurous type can remove the bezels and run triple portrait. Now who wants to do that? Not me. I'd rather run landscape like, a normal person.
Last edited:
Mark Rejhon
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2004
- Messages
- 1,395
Observe I took no extreme side about other aspects (e.g. text crispness), that some others did.
That said, I do believe the best full-color LCD's (e.g. so-called "retina" displays and similar) do text and photo crispness/sharpness far better than the best full-color CRT's of a given size. Also, I've seen CRT's (Even 0.26mm dotpitch) whose graininess bothered my eyes far more than the matte coating on a run-of-the mill 1080p TN panel. Then again, some really good CRT's have really good purity and no ugly coating on the tube's surface itself. I said nothing about LCD's always being better than CRT's for text, it's only a general rule of thumb -- I've seen well-calibrated CRT's that do text better than low-resolution LCD's that have nasty anti-glare coathings.
We can cherrypick all day long, but the absolutes make no sense: I also disagree with "LCD always universally has better text than CRT". That's not a correct statement either.
There are other things (other than gaming) LCD is also good for, too, and there are also other things that CRT's are good for, too. I'm sure it's worth panning that there's a lot of cheap, crappy LCD's -- more fragile, antiglare problems, manufacturing defects, PWM problem (sometimes worse than CRT flicker unless you go into one-strobe-per-refresh mode), and all that ugly stuff. What I don't like is the attempts to paint every single LCD attribute as all being terrible, with one single paintbrush.
Thread will always be full of strong opinions. At least I'm not siding to CRT-onlyness or LCD-onlyness. Besides, a big goal of Blur Busters is to make people notice and start addressing some of the problems more seriously (e.g. LCD motion blur, and also make sure that there are upcoming OLED's that avoid the same problem). Even ASUS and NewEgg noticed (see media coverage). Would be silly to prevent a good thing from happening.
Different people have different preferences too. There are some who like the clarity of LCD text while also really sensitive to motion blur; some people loved enabling LightBoost at the Windows desktop (and was also a CRT user too), so your statement is invalidated already at least for some individuals. I don't like portrait TN's because I use the desktop, but I still keep the zero motion blur too. My previous post is one of the many dozens of examples of what LCD can do that CRT cannot easily, and is satisfying certain types of CRT diehards (some were pro-CRT chiefly due to motion blur, for example). There's a whole world of preferences.
Eventualy, future displays can technically combine the best (e.g. Retina resolution, wide-gamut, zero motion blur, etc) while also pushing the black levels deeper too. There's many years of progress before inexpensive zero-motion-blur OLED's take over (ones that successfully ticks all checkboxes). Let's take advantage of them sooner than later; might as well.
That said, I do believe the best full-color LCD's (e.g. so-called "retina" displays and similar) do text and photo crispness/sharpness far better than the best full-color CRT's of a given size. Also, I've seen CRT's (Even 0.26mm dotpitch) whose graininess bothered my eyes far more than the matte coating on a run-of-the mill 1080p TN panel. Then again, some really good CRT's have really good purity and no ugly coating on the tube's surface itself. I said nothing about LCD's always being better than CRT's for text, it's only a general rule of thumb -- I've seen well-calibrated CRT's that do text better than low-resolution LCD's that have nasty anti-glare coathings.
We can cherrypick all day long, but the absolutes make no sense: I also disagree with "LCD always universally has better text than CRT". That's not a correct statement either.
There are other things (other than gaming) LCD is also good for, too, and there are also other things that CRT's are good for, too. I'm sure it's worth panning that there's a lot of cheap, crappy LCD's -- more fragile, antiglare problems, manufacturing defects, PWM problem (sometimes worse than CRT flicker unless you go into one-strobe-per-refresh mode), and all that ugly stuff. What I don't like is the attempts to paint every single LCD attribute as all being terrible, with one single paintbrush.
Thread will always be full of strong opinions. At least I'm not siding to CRT-onlyness or LCD-onlyness. Besides, a big goal of Blur Busters is to make people notice and start addressing some of the problems more seriously (e.g. LCD motion blur, and also make sure that there are upcoming OLED's that avoid the same problem). Even ASUS and NewEgg noticed (see media coverage). Would be silly to prevent a good thing from happening.
Different people have different preferences too. There are some who like the clarity of LCD text while also really sensitive to motion blur; some people loved enabling LightBoost at the Windows desktop (and was also a CRT user too), so your statement is invalidated already at least for some individuals. I don't like portrait TN's because I use the desktop, but I still keep the zero motion blur too. My previous post is one of the many dozens of examples of what LCD can do that CRT cannot easily, and is satisfying certain types of CRT diehards (some were pro-CRT chiefly due to motion blur, for example). There's a whole world of preferences.
Eventualy, future displays can technically combine the best (e.g. Retina resolution, wide-gamut, zero motion blur, etc) while also pushing the black levels deeper too. There's many years of progress before inexpensive zero-motion-blur OLED's take over (ones that successfully ticks all checkboxes). Let's take advantage of them sooner than later; might as well.
Last edited:
Well, I can certainly agree that no technology currently is perfect, whether it is CRT, TN or IPS. To that I guess I look forward to OLED and 4k once they become mass market (I think this is still years away).
Do you feel that OLED is indeed our best hope for motion fluidity in addition better black levels and current IPS benefits?
Do you feel that OLED is indeed our best hope for motion fluidity in addition better black levels and current IPS benefits?
Last edited:
I think OLED is our only hope for something better because what other display technologies are being developed for TV or monitor use now? Look over the list of emerging display technologies.
Mark Rejhon
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2004
- Messages
- 1,395
At the end of the day, many of us probably agree that OLED has the biggest chance of bringing back CRT-like experiences in many categories such as contrast and color.
The motion blur category will be something we need to pay attention to by the OLED manufacturers; it is definitely possible provided the manufacturers make it happen. There are OLED's that reduce motion blur but even the early professional OLED's now available, not yet eliminate it all the way down to CRT levels (see Why Do Some OLED's Have Motion Blur?. This is the sample and hold effect. OLED is very impulse-drive friendly in order to match CRT quality in zero motion blur but the OLED brightness doesn't shine as brightly as CRT phosphor (during it brief illumination , so OLED can't yet easily be strobed as briefly as CRT's... yet. High speed video of CRT scanning). The manufacturers will have the conundrum of deciding to keep it flicker free (causes sample-and-hold motion blur) or impulse-drive (eliminate motion blur but cause flicker, even if not perceptible). It should be an option (setting).
The motion blur category will be something we need to pay attention to by the OLED manufacturers; it is definitely possible provided the manufacturers make it happen. There are OLED's that reduce motion blur but even the early professional OLED's now available, not yet eliminate it all the way down to CRT levels (see Why Do Some OLED's Have Motion Blur?. This is the sample and hold effect. OLED is very impulse-drive friendly in order to match CRT quality in zero motion blur but the OLED brightness doesn't shine as brightly as CRT phosphor (during it brief illumination , so OLED can't yet easily be strobed as briefly as CRT's... yet. High speed video of CRT scanning). The manufacturers will have the conundrum of deciding to keep it flicker free (causes sample-and-hold motion blur) or impulse-drive (eliminate motion blur but cause flicker, even if not perceptible). It should be an option (setting).
Last edited:
Namelessme
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,161
Unfortunately I think it's going to be several years, at least, before OLED is available in monitors (at a non-insane price). And like the early days of LCD, I expect the first models to not exactly be perfect.
What could be possible, at least a bit sooner, is something like LightBoost + IPS, assuming the technologies aren't incompatible. I admit I haven't followed LightBoost stuff much, as I am not a fan of TNs and don't game much on the PC side of things. Even better would be LightBoost + IPS + A-TW. No glow, great angles, good motion -- it'd at least solve some of the major LCD issues and doesn't require some tech that is 10 years away.
What could be possible, at least a bit sooner, is something like LightBoost + IPS, assuming the technologies aren't incompatible. I admit I haven't followed LightBoost stuff much, as I am not a fan of TNs and don't game much on the PC side of things. Even better would be LightBoost + IPS + A-TW. No glow, great angles, good motion -- it'd at least solve some of the major LCD issues and doesn't require some tech that is 10 years away.
Mark Rejhon
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2004
- Messages
- 1,395
They aren't incompatible; but it comes down to cramming a square elephant into a round peg hole:
Fitting the elephant of pixel persistence into the time period between LCD refreshes (something that active 3D panels are required to do; or alternate-shutter 3D is imposssible -- the 3D requirement automatically ends up creating zero motion blur 2D capability). This provides clean refreshes for a stroboscopic backlight to flash through; with minimum pixel persistence leakage from the previous refresh. Contrary to many people's belief, there's lots of benefit (from a stroboscopic backlight's point of view) of getting pixel persistence down to 2ms -> 1ms -> 0.5ms etc. It makes it easier to cram the elephant (pixel persistence) through the drinking straw (the blanking interval between refreshes). Scanning backlights don't have the pixel persistence timing restrictions of stroboscopic backlights, so 60 Hz IPS HDTV's use scanning backlights to reduce motion blur -- this is already done in existing tech. Problem is that there's so many weak links in a scanning backlight that it ends up being practically gimmick. This usually has major problems of input lag since it's so frequently combined with motion interpolation and extra processing, which is not game friendly. However, stroboscopic backlights massively outperform scanning backlights for many reasons already covered (TFTCentral article, Blur Busters article). Many early scanning backlights were essentially worthless for computer use. LCD GIMMICK.. (Though if the science worked; the science is sound). But today; it's different. LightBoost is the first truly game-friendly backlight-based LCD motion blur elimination technology to finally be usable for LCD's that actually has actual measured/confirmed (and translates to actual eye, not exaggerated specs) order-of-magnitude motion blur elimination (relative to standard sample-and-hold 60 Hz LCD). I'd estimate it will be about a few years before we see a really good game-friendly stroboscopic backlight arrive with a wide-viewing-angle LCD technology such as IPS; at least one manufacturer such as ASUS has heard it loud and clear there's demand for such a tech (ASUS confirmed VG248QE is one of their best selling monitors; and 20% of amazon.com customer reviews mentions the LightBoost zero motion blur effect). Once the pixel persistence elephant is cleanly bypassed, there is no upper limit to motion clarity on LCD -- when the pixel persistence is cleanly bypassed -- pixel persistence ceases to be the motion blur limiting factor when the complete pixel transition cycle is succesfully kept in total darkness between stroboscopic flashes. In this case the upper limiting factor of motion clarity on LCD automatically becomes how briefly you can strobe the backlight. The pixel persistence elephant was only conquered recently; in late 2011 with TN cleanly bypassing pixel persistence at up to ~120Hz league (LightBoost). IPS is only recently fast enough to fairly cleanly bypass pixel pesistence at ~60Hz for synchronized stroboscopic backlights; but that's not good enough yet (too much flicker disadvantage, ala CRT 60 Hz). Example: Sony's interpolation-free "Motionflow Impulse" stroboscopic backlight on Sony HX950 HDTV -- a high-priced IPS HDTV with a stroboscopic backlight feature that allows you to turn off interpolation -- is limited to 60 Hz and not enabled in Game Mode; but at least far more game-friendly than motion interpolation is. For the Motionflow Impulse (Without interplation), blur elimination factor is only about 4:1 rather than 12:1 (LightBoost) relative to 60 Hz sample-and-hold though. But as you can see, stroboscopic IPS already exist now.
Future could lead to experimental blue-phase LCD's have microsecond-league pixel response times; as tested in the laboratory. I've read about it in this month's issue of SID Magazine (Society for Information Display; SID.org), an industry journal I subsribe to as I'm an Associate Member of SID.org. Blue-phase LCD's are fast enough for frame-sequential color using an RGB backlight, no need for color filters in LCD (they even tested that in the laboratory!) but I generally don't like the frame-sequential idea (due to the rainbow issue - like single-chip DLP). There's also QDEF backlight technology already being tested (Quantom Dot Enhancement Film) which produces greater than 100% NTSC color gamut in an LCD without needing expensive deep-color LCD filters that gobble up so much light. Shine blue light into it, and the QDEF emits a very customizable spectra that has a perfect red peak, perfect green peak, and a perfect blue peak (set during manufacture), films manufactured at finely tunable wavelengths (in 1nm increments) and at an exact color temp (preferably 6500K, baby!). It's a drop-in replacement film for the existing diffuser sheet in a common LCD. They can even be tuned at manufacture to essentially match CRT phosphor spectra. Maybe none of these won't come out. But OLED's still also cooking in the oven too. Regardless, which direction the industry goes in, it's pretty clear LCD has lots of legs, apparently -- for better or for worse -- so who knows about the future, for IPS and other future LCD's.
My estimate -- ETA of 2-3 years for an IPS-based computer monitor with a stroboscopic backlight.
Ideally, OLED would be better/preferred (I am sure we can agree on that); but I'd be betting the house OLED isn't going to be ready just yet then (at three-digit price league).
Last edited:
Too bad samsung haven't implemented this with their PLS monitors for lightboost. I'm not sure if you've viewed one, but PLS definitely does have better and deeper black levels than IPS. The contrast ratio is not as good as VA, but black levels are very, very, good from what i've seen. I've used the S27B970 and S27A850 and they're both beautiful screens - definitely improved in terms of black levels compared to IPS. The only issue is, IPS has better maximum brightness. So I tend to prefer IPS for productivity work since nothing else compares to IPS in that respect. My IPS screens are nearly blindingly bright at max brightness, it's pretty great for doing work.
Anyway, here's hoping that we'll get lightboost on something other than TN.
Anyway, here's hoping that we'll get lightboost on something other than TN.
livefastdieyoung
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2012
- Messages
- 307
how so? contrast ratios for pls are about the same as for ips, which means that when adjusted to the same brightness, their black levels are about the same.
Contrast ratio doesn't indicate true black levels, it indicates the difference between maximum and minimum brightness.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105...tio-or-how-every-tv-manufacturer-lies-to-you/
What this means is essentially contrast ratio indicates the difference between the darkest blacks and the brightest whites. The ratio is roughly the same with PLS but the blacks are much much deeper than IPS. IPS on the other hand, has higher maximum brightness. I actually mentioned this a few posts ago - I prefer IPS for productivity because the maximum brightness is blindingly bright. Which I like - when I use my u3011/u2713 for spreadsheets the whites are so ridiculously bright it hurts my eyes. For me personally, I like this - but the black levels are absolutely worse than PLS.
Trust me. I've used many IPS panels and have also had the pleasure of using both the Samsung S27A850D and S27B970D PLS panels. The PLS panels have much better blacks - if I could make a rough analogy, I would state that PLS is the "Trinitron" of IPS panels. It is a very similar technology but the black levels of PLS are very much better. On the other hand, IPS panels have better maximum brightness. In all other areas they are roughly equal (eg viewing angles, etc). Now, if lightboost could somehow be implemented with PLS technology I think it would be a great thing indeed. But it doesn't appear to be happening, sadly.
Last edited:
livefastdieyoung
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2012
- Messages
- 307
if at a given brightness setting, a panel's brightest white is measured at 200 cd/m2 and its black level is measured at .20 cd/m2, its contrast ratio is 1000:1, do you agree?
so if two panels, a pls and ips, both have a contrast ratio of 1000:1, and the brightnesses of both are set such that both panels' brightest white is measured at 200 cd/m2, are you claiming that the black level of the pls is somehow lower than that of the ips?
now, if you're comparing the pls at 200 cd/m2 with an ips at 300 cd/m2, both with the same 1000:1 contrast ratio, of course the ips will have a higher black level (0.30 vs 0.20), because the backlight is set brighter.
this confirms what i thought above - you're comparing them at maximum brightnesses, and making the observation that the ips which has a higher maximum brightness has worse black levels than the pls which isn't as bright. well, of course, because the backlight of the ips is brighter! if you turned the brightness of the ips down to the level of the pls, it would have the same black level. if you could somehow crank the brightness of the pls up to the ips's level, you'd see the black level become just as bad.
So you've not used a PLS panel I see. Those who have used both will attest that PLS has deeper blacks than IPS, while PLS cannot come close to attaining the brightness of IPS panels. Similarly, IPS cannot even come close to the black levels of PLS. And yes, this is regardless of contrast/brightness setting. Blacks appear grey or cloudy on IPS. PLS has true blacks, or very close to it.
Also, I am not an idiot. I am well aware of the effects of brightness and contrast on output, and I certainly use that as a point of reference in comparison. I did try a wide variety of settings. You cannot attain PLS black levels on an IPS. You also cannot attain IPS brightness on a PLS. Overall, PLS has better color output than IPS, while IPS has higher maximum brightness.
Also, I am not an idiot. I am well aware of the effects of brightness and contrast on output, and I certainly use that as a point of reference in comparison. I did try a wide variety of settings. You cannot attain PLS black levels on an IPS. You also cannot attain IPS brightness on a PLS. Overall, PLS has better color output than IPS, while IPS has higher maximum brightness.
Last edited:
livefastdieyoung
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2012
- Messages
- 307
actually, i have. pb278q and the dell xps one 27. their black levels were no better or worse than a typical 1440 ips at the same brightness.
panel coating affects the way we perceive colors, including black. a glossy pls like the s27b970 or dell xps one 27 will appear to have deeper blacks and 'poppier' colors than a typical ips panel with its heavyish ag coating, even if they have the same contrast ratios. but this has got nothing to do with pls vs. ips, it's got to do with glossy vs. ag.
tftcentral measured a maximum brightness of 344 cd/m2 on their s27a850d. that's as bright as the u3014.
ultimate brightness is just a function of how bright the backlighting is. with today's superbright led's, they can make lcd panels an order of magnitude brighter than they already are, if they really wanted to. it's got nothing to do with the type of lcd technology used.
sure it can, you just need to turn down the backlight of the ips so that its whitest white is the same brightness as the whitest white on the pls. if they have comparable contrast ratios, their black levels will then also be comparable.
this isn't 'arguing for the sake of arguing', it's discussion for the sake of accurate information.
Last edited:
@xoleras
did you compare PLS with newer variants of IPS or just old stuff?
Dell U2412M has almost twice contrast ratio of monitors like U2711/u3011 and like PLS they aren't as bright. U2412M have better blacks than any PLS monitor
of course you have to factor blacks glow from nonperfect angles and it's destructive effect on contrast ratio. Most monitors have measured contrast ratio in one spot and it get worse away from it and that effect make all those fancy 3000:1 VA panels perform rather weak... Back to PLS vs IPS both technologies are prone IPS/PLS glow so PLS are no better here, not a bit
ps. A-TW IPS monitors like mine is much closer to "Trinitron" of IPS panels than those PLS of yours Overal black level is much better on my LG than I had on 3000:1 C-PVA and 3000:1 A-MVA due to blacks being truly 1000:1 across all angles
did you compare PLS with newer variants of IPS or just old stuff?
Dell U2412M has almost twice contrast ratio of monitors like U2711/u3011 and like PLS they aren't as bright. U2412M have better blacks than any PLS monitor
of course you have to factor blacks glow from nonperfect angles and it's destructive effect on contrast ratio. Most monitors have measured contrast ratio in one spot and it get worse away from it and that effect make all those fancy 3000:1 VA panels perform rather weak... Back to PLS vs IPS both technologies are prone IPS/PLS glow so PLS are no better here, not a bit
ps. A-TW IPS monitors like mine is much closer to "Trinitron" of IPS panels than those PLS of yours
Overal black level is much better on my LG than I had on 3000:1 C-PVA and 3000:1 A-MVA due to blacks being truly 1000:1 across all angles We all know what kind of attitude some manufacturers have, and how they include what they need to pay for what they've done in their budget just like is not a punishment for avoiding the law, and is just another thing they need to pay monthly. Yet they still don't want to stop doing it. We all know how some manufacturers don't want to invest in finding new technology, but instead, they invest in finding alternate solutions in avoiding current patents, and trying to make it half cheaper yet fairly close in performance with the real thing, cheating the customer doing so. So you can judge for yourself who are doing this thing, cause is fairly obvious.
How can anyone convince me that a technology that was invented to avoid a current patent, to give similar results to the one that is patented and to allow much lower manufacturing costs, can be better then the current patent performance wise? I have yet to see that happen.
When LCD first came on the market, I was shocked. Very very many things were worse. But what shocked me the most was the fact that I understood that will take quite a long time before we will have good view-ing angles(and good means perfect in my book, see TN which shifts vertically for every cm that you move your head up and down), before motion blur will be removed and the fact that we use backlight will never allow for perfect results.
I obviously agree with Mark's informed points about LCDs being so much better at the moment then what they were, and all the differences over time between the 2 technologies. However, I do not agree with the fact that we lived for so many years with sub par technology, and the fact that manufacturers stepped over gamers with such ease, just like we didn't exist. Congratulations for Asus as it brings this problem up front. But we all know it wasn't a something they didn't know before, is just that they figured out a way to take advantage of it. However, my congratulations stand since we so badly need this news to be spread around the world, so that more people understand what can be done and what manufacturers need to adjust to.
I didn't bother much about it as I used a CRT just up to the moment when I was able to buy a good quality IPS, which honestly I can only complain about motion blur being worse then my good old 21 inch CRT, and nothing else.
But what really does concerns me is that even the slightest thought about having a combination of LED with OLED makes me feel like we are in the boat of risking of having another 10 years of technology that is poor. Whatever anyone will tell me, BACKLIGHT SHOULD HAVE NOT BEEN USED as a technology solution for displays. I am not denying the fact that in its current state is just fine being used with an IPS LCD. I am perfectly aware that is far from perfect, but is acceptable. And I can live with it. What I don't want to happen though, is that I know for certain, that the current power of big manufacturers will allow them to take advantage of any small thing and will step again over us and most likely ending up with 5 years back into backlight problems, just to adjust them to work with OLED.
So yes, as you notice, OLED is a scarry thing for me now, and the only way will stop being such is by knowing that they will stop using backlight.
How can anyone convince me that a technology that was invented to avoid a current patent, to give similar results to the one that is patented and to allow much lower manufacturing costs, can be better then the current patent performance wise? I have yet to see that happen.
When LCD first came on the market, I was shocked. Very very many things were worse. But what shocked me the most was the fact that I understood that will take quite a long time before we will have good view-ing angles(and good means perfect in my book, see TN which shifts vertically for every cm that you move your head up and down), before motion blur will be removed and the fact that we use backlight will never allow for perfect results.
I obviously agree with Mark's informed points about LCDs being so much better at the moment then what they were, and all the differences over time between the 2 technologies. However, I do not agree with the fact that we lived for so many years with sub par technology, and the fact that manufacturers stepped over gamers with such ease, just like we didn't exist. Congratulations for Asus as it brings this problem up front. But we all know it wasn't a something they didn't know before, is just that they figured out a way to take advantage of it. However, my congratulations stand since we so badly need this news to be spread around the world, so that more people understand what can be done and what manufacturers need to adjust to.
I didn't bother much about it as I used a CRT just up to the moment when I was able to buy a good quality IPS, which honestly I can only complain about motion blur being worse then my good old 21 inch CRT, and nothing else.
But what really does concerns me is that even the slightest thought about having a combination of LED with OLED makes me feel like we are in the boat of risking of having another 10 years of technology that is poor. Whatever anyone will tell me, BACKLIGHT SHOULD HAVE NOT BEEN USED as a technology solution for displays. I am not denying the fact that in its current state is just fine being used with an IPS LCD. I am perfectly aware that is far from perfect, but is acceptable. And I can live with it. What I don't want to happen though, is that I know for certain, that the current power of big manufacturers will allow them to take advantage of any small thing and will step again over us and most likely ending up with 5 years back into backlight problems, just to adjust them to work with OLED.
So yes, as you notice, OLED is a scarry thing for me now, and the only way will stop being such is by knowing that they will stop using backlight.
Last edited: