Azureth
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2008
- Messages
- 5,323
The obsession some of you have with CRTs is pretty shocking.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Will CRT lovers ever be satisfied with LCDs?
- Thread starter Azureth
- Start date
- Status
serpretetsky
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 2,180
no (no is too short of a response for hardforum, so i am now typing this self referencing comment)
No. LCD is a heavily flawed technology, and I don't believe it will ever be an acceptable substitute for CRT. It looks like we're going to have to wait for a completely new technology (OLED?) for that.
I saw so many people saying that LCD is now comparable to CRT - I thought, 'they can't all be wrong'. Now that I have a 'good' LCD, I realise just how misguided you all are. Perhaps you have just not experienced a quality CRT for a while and have come to accept all LCD's flaws as normal.
There is just no denying the many drawbacks of the technology.
I saw so many people saying that LCD is now comparable to CRT - I thought, 'they can't all be wrong'. Now that I have a 'good' LCD, I realise just how misguided you all are. Perhaps you have just not experienced a quality CRT for a while and have come to accept all LCD's flaws as normal.
There is just no denying the many drawbacks of the technology.
I have considered IPS panels to replace my 20" CRTs, but the high price (1,200 Euro to replicate my current setup for no real gain?) keeps deterring me. I would also loathe to deal with a single native resolution.
In short, even the best LCD panels (IPS) are still inferior to CRTs in many respects. Advantages of IPS would include smaller physical size. Not power usage as the 24" H-IPS monitors I looked at sucked down as much juice as my current CRTs.
Call it inertia but I can find no compelling reason to switch to LCDs at this point, especially when I can get used CRTs in good condition for nearly free.
In short, even the best LCD panels (IPS) are still inferior to CRTs in many respects. Advantages of IPS would include smaller physical size. Not power usage as the 24" H-IPS monitors I looked at sucked down as much juice as my current CRTs.
Call it inertia but I can find no compelling reason to switch to LCDs at this point, especially when I can get used CRTs in good condition for nearly free.
Preacher0815
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2007
- Messages
- 66
SED or FED displays are basically flat CRTs, so these could replace CRT screens. I however could settle with a 120Hz IPS or VA display. You know, the ones that really take 120Hz on the input and don't mess up stuff by inserting black frames or the likes. I'm not really satisfied with my BenQ G2400WD anymore, mainly due to the color shifting. Not even a Zen master could sit that still.
Okay, that one made me giggle
And agreed on SED/FED. It'd be really nice to see some of those monitors/TVs appear on the market.
FED is dead. The backstory is that SED is a lot easier to mass-produce than FED, but FED got going when SED got pulled into a nightmarish litigation battle - which is finally over, so now there's no reason for FED to exist. But SED was dealt a near-fatal blow, and seems still to be on a back burner.
daveswantek
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,231
+1, I think this is very true. Not that many people bought high end CRTs, because they were very expensive. I paid about $1600 for both of my Sony GDM-F520s and LCDs still can not compete with the PQ. I have a Dell 2709W that I use as my primary display, because of its size and text readability, but the PQ and color acccuracy is much better on the Sony CRT.
I went so far as to buy and store a brand new GDM-F520 in its factory packing, because I knew that it would be many years until flat panal displays would be even close. My older unit has some minor issues, so when it dies I will whip out the new one and get another 5 years or so out of it.
Pictures, video and games all look best on a CRT.
Dave
SJetski71
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2002
- Messages
- 17,292
Ya, most people wouldn't have paid that sort of cash for a CRT. Back in the day people bought up all the $199 specials at Staples, CompUSA etc, and what sort of quality were they expecting for $200? Or even $400? that cash bought you a pretty shit CRT back then. And even many of those who had decent CRT's never bothered to calibrate them, nor tinker with the geometry at the very least. Little did some of these people realize that the problem was actually between their chair and keyboard
Not counting CRT manufacturing costs and upkeep, it's still easy to see why LCD's took over.
Edit: Brand new Sony GDM-F520 ?!, you lucky bastard !
An IPS LCD with an array of backlights, one for every pixel, and no input lag for cheap (say under $500 for 24") and maybe CRT lovers such as myself will be satisfied. Provide there is a zero dead/stuck pixel warranty and it is not wide gamut unless we ever get decent software support for it. Until then, no. I'll continue to hold my breathe for SED before I count on that being available. Not that I expect to see SED launch with the economy in bad shape and the incredibly competitive pricing of TN panels making it ever so hard to compete outside the small pro/prosumer market.
Well.... hard to comment this seriously. That's beyond anything.
I think PVA with colorshift and chemical colors of wide gamut is not good enough for your comparison.
Try 28" TN. It's larger, more readable, and CRT will look even better next to it.
Last edited:
Azureth
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2008
- Messages
- 5,323
If it's so flawed then why is it making CRTs go extinct?
Ya, most people wouldn't have paid that sort of cash for a CRT. Back in the day people bought up all the $199 specials at Staples, CompUSA etc, and what sort of quality were they expecting for $200? Or even $400? that cash bought you a pretty shit CRT back then. And even many of those who had decent CRT's never bothered to calibrate them, nor tinker with the geometry at the very least. Little did some of these people realize that the problem was actually between their chair and keyboard
Not counting CRT manufacturing costs and upkeep, it's still easy to see why LCD's took over.
Edit: Brand new Sony GDM-F520 ?!, you lucky bastard !
I have some 19" LG flatron that was only a few hundred dollars when I got it, couldn't tell you the exact model because its at my parents' house. It was vastly superior to any LCD I've used so far. Everytime I used to go home and play a game or watch a movie on it, then come back to my LCD and spend ages fiddling with settings trying to get it to look half as good as the cheap-ish CRT.
We actually had 3 of them, but 1 started getting problems holding its brightness (it'd be bright when you turn it on and get dark over time) and another had power problems (probably because it was pushed against the wall with its power cable forced into a 90 degree angle).
SJetski71
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2002
- Messages
- 17,292
If you don't know the answer(s) to that question then you haven't had a sincere look into the overall topic yet.
Unless of course you're taking advantage of Skakruk's rising to possible flamebait, which this thread reeks of
Words like "obsession" and "shocking" are pretty strong words to describe CRT enthusiasts.
ikarinokami
Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2006
- Messages
- 713
1.economics
2. the same reason why ak47 is more popular than the m16.
3. a $5 doller knife kills you as well as a $500 katana, its might not be as pretty, but it still gets the job done, and cheaper.
4 vhs vs. beta
of course there are exceptions and somtimes technoligically superior will be economically superior see blu-ray vs hd-dvd (of course the might have tilted the balance).
There are still people who swear that LP sounds better than CD, but the rest of the world simply do not give a ****. LCD offers many practical benefits to the masses:
- Lower weight (cf. CRT of the same screen size)
- Lower power consumption (cf. CRT of the same screen size)
- Perfect geometry
- Greater image clarity
- Greater resistence to EM interference
- Available in larger sizes
- Available in higher resolutions
- Greater resistence to permanent image burn-in
Last edited:
The only advantages I see of LCD versus CRT are smaller size, weight, and power consumption.
CRTs are most certainly susceptible to geometry flaws, convergence errors, and burn-in. However, I have never noticed any flaws on a perfect-working, high quality CRT, and have never experienced burn-in on a modern CRT monitor.
On the other hand, I notice the poor color and viewing angle dependency of a TN LCD every time i use it. TN LCDs to me are unacceptably flawed due to the poor vertical viewing angle. To me, even a cheap CRT with slight geometry flaws is less annoying than having the top of the display appear darker than the bottom, and cheap TN panels were never a suitable replacement for cheap CRTs.
Good quality IPS panels, with rich, 8-bit color and no noticeable color shifting, in my opinion are an acceptable replacement for CRTs. I personally would be happy with a good IPS panel, even though they will never 100% on par with a good aperture grille CRT.
If IPS LCD displays were the mainstream, instead of TN, I would be okay to see CRTs gone. But I feel like as it is now, you have to spend twice as much to get a decent IPS LCD display versus a decent CRT display years ago.
CRTs are most certainly susceptible to geometry flaws, convergence errors, and burn-in. However, I have never noticed any flaws on a perfect-working, high quality CRT, and have never experienced burn-in on a modern CRT monitor.
On the other hand, I notice the poor color and viewing angle dependency of a TN LCD every time i use it. TN LCDs to me are unacceptably flawed due to the poor vertical viewing angle. To me, even a cheap CRT with slight geometry flaws is less annoying than having the top of the display appear darker than the bottom, and cheap TN panels were never a suitable replacement for cheap CRTs.
Good quality IPS panels, with rich, 8-bit color and no noticeable color shifting, in my opinion are an acceptable replacement for CRTs. I personally would be happy with a good IPS panel, even though they will never 100% on par with a good aperture grille CRT.
If IPS LCD displays were the mainstream, instead of TN, I would be okay to see CRTs gone. But I feel like as it is now, you have to spend twice as much to get a decent IPS LCD display versus a decent CRT display years ago.
Probably not the hardcore crt guys...but most people could get used to it pretty quickly. The closest you'll get to a crt is a good IPS model (such as the AS-IPS NEC 20WMGX2 that I'm using) or a good P-MVA.. but you'll still find the colors/black level to be not as good. Blame bargain shoppers that passed right on by the much higher quality, yet not much more expensive (at the time) IPS models in favor of cheaper TN's that had a couple inches more screen real estate. This caused most makers to drop the more expensive to make IPS in favor of cheaper (and more profitable) TN models. If consumers had demanded the quality of IPS then today we would see more makers competing on price/features and the technology itself would have progressed faster. Instead we find the market saturated with TN panels of various sizes....and the IPS/MVA panels mostly for the professional models with pricetags to match.
motion blur is the only thing holding me back as far as lcd's are concerned. no matter how fast the pixels change they still can't reach the smoothness of an crt. i have 2 22 inch lcd's that are 2ms.
To be honest Icd's are clearer than any crt (but only in there native resolution) crt's are abit blurrier compared to lcd's in native but when you run the 2 in a diffrent resolution the crt is clearer. technicly a certain precent of people don't game in native because of ther video card so if they had a crt then it would be clearer for gameing. hence to me CRT's are clearer when gameing LCD's are clearer when typing.
as far as refresh rate. a 60 hertz lcd looks like a 100 hertz crt when you are not moveing anything. when you go to move something the mouse for example looks less granular on a 60 hz crt then the lcd because of pixel response time. so on a moveing image (game are movie the crt looks better. but on text lcd's look better still.
( although i need some repsonses on this one
anybody notice that lcd's look blurry when moveing are dragging an entire window across say for example an internet explorer window. but when playing a movie for example things smooth out a bit better although not a clear as a crt.
Also when haveing darker images open on a calibrated lcd and a calibrated crt. pictures look better on the lcd. because theres no movement. (ive honestly started to see the blacks on lcd's get so much better as well as the gamma to the point where super black doesn't bother me as much anymore. a highend lcd will kill a midrange crt in my opinoin on color as long as its a va or ips and calibrated. and its a picture and not moveing. i think this factor along is what highend lcd people compare to against crt's color wise.
and to be honest color on a lcd is just as good as a crt for all practical purposes(except dark gameing).
the thing that is holding lcds back from what i have seen is the blurryness in movement. I think it has to do with the scaler engine speed more then the panel(reason why i see the diffrence between a moveing window and the mouse being blurry moveing compared to a movie are game being played being blurry but less blurry. you can decrease the blurryness to an extinct by forecing a higher refresh if the scaler is programmed to send ti to the panel directly. but most lcd's don't do this and for all practical purposes want work on a wide sclae. I think that directx and opengl do something diffrent than whatever is running our gui. anybody?
To be honest Icd's are clearer than any crt (but only in there native resolution) crt's are abit blurrier compared to lcd's in native but when you run the 2 in a diffrent resolution the crt is clearer. technicly a certain precent of people don't game in native because of ther video card so if they had a crt then it would be clearer for gameing. hence to me CRT's are clearer when gameing LCD's are clearer when typing.
as far as refresh rate. a 60 hertz lcd looks like a 100 hertz crt when you are not moveing anything. when you go to move something the mouse for example looks less granular on a 60 hz crt then the lcd because of pixel response time. so on a moveing image (game are movie the crt looks better. but on text lcd's look better still.
( although i need some repsonses on this one
anybody notice that lcd's look blurry when moveing are dragging an entire window across say for example an internet explorer window. but when playing a movie for example things smooth out a bit better although not a clear as a crt.
Also when haveing darker images open on a calibrated lcd and a calibrated crt. pictures look better on the lcd. because theres no movement. (ive honestly started to see the blacks on lcd's get so much better as well as the gamma to the point where super black doesn't bother me as much anymore. a highend lcd will kill a midrange crt in my opinoin on color as long as its a va or ips and calibrated. and its a picture and not moveing. i think this factor along is what highend lcd people compare to against crt's color wise.
and to be honest color on a lcd is just as good as a crt for all practical purposes(except dark gameing).
the thing that is holding lcds back from what i have seen is the blurryness in movement. I think it has to do with the scaler engine speed more then the panel(reason why i see the diffrence between a moveing window and the mouse being blurry moveing compared to a movie are game being played being blurry but less blurry. you can decrease the blurryness to an extinct by forecing a higher refresh if the scaler is programmed to send ti to the panel directly. but most lcd's don't do this and for all practical purposes want work on a wide sclae. I think that directx and opengl do something diffrent than whatever is running our gui. anybody?
A decent IPS LCD display, such as the Dell 2209WA, is now available at a little over $200. My last CRT monitor, a Philips 109B55 (which uses shadow mask), cost me $202 in late 2003. It is smaller than the 2209WA (18" viewable area), and its screen is not even flat, so geometry changes as you move your head around.
Sorry, I don't buy that "you have to spend twice as much to get a decent IPS LCD display versus a decent CRT display years ago" argument. When CRTs ruled the day, any Trinitron monitor would cost you at least $500-$600.
To Gerry in the next post: if you consider a smaller screen whose display surface bulges out in the center "better than the 2209WA in every aspect", then we will have to agree to disagree.
Last edited:
The 2209WA is one of the only affordable IPS display on the market. I personally tried one but returned it due to the fact that color was uneven across the display, but it was otherwise excellent. I may try another one and see if I can get a better example. However it seems to me like E-IPS will never become mainstream, and 99% of affordable choices on the market will be TN for the foreseeable future.
Aperture Grilles, while amazing, were not the only decent CRTs. There were also affordable Shadow Mask CRTs that were decent, and certainly way better than any TN display. I can recall the Samsungs being well-known for their text crispness, and a friend of mine had a pair of 19" (18" viewable) Philips Shadow Mask CRTs that crisply displayed 1600x1200 @ 85hz. I would say that they are better than the 2209WA in every aspect, and cost about the same many years ago.
Aperture Grilles, while amazing, were not the only decent CRTs. There were also affordable Shadow Mask CRTs that were decent, and certainly way better than any TN display. I can recall the Samsungs being well-known for their text crispness, and a friend of mine had a pair of 19" (18" viewable) Philips Shadow Mask CRTs that crisply displayed 1600x1200 @ 85hz. I would say that they are better than the 2209WA in every aspect, and cost about the same many years ago.
I was waiting for someone to mention text.
Yes, CRTs are vastly better at image rendering. Yes, CRTs have better color.
But LCDs are better at something: text. ClearType text on a decent fixed-pixel LCD is superior to text on a CRT.
Unless you do a large amount of image or video editing, or spend most of your time playing games, an LCD is better. Cheaper, lighter, uses less power, no geometry problems, etc.
If you had ever picked up a 24" CRT monitor off the ground, you would know why.
A typical 24" LCD monitor weighs around 12 pounds. A 24" CRT (which is actually 22.5" viewable) weighs 88 pounds, which is the very limit of what I dare to pick up off the ground (I did it once, and avoided doing it again). What would a 26", 28" or 30" CRT monitor weigh? More than a single person could lift, certainly. 30" LCD monitors weigh around 30 pounds.
Yeah, that's a common issue with LCDs, their brightness levels seem to range from 'retina-searing' to 'very bright', with the contrast/colours also directly affected on many screens by the brightness used. Setting an LCD screen to a for me comfortable brightness setting often means that all colours turn a bit greyish. This sucks badly.
My laptop has a TN panel, as do my housemate's two 20" Samsung SyncMaster 204B displays. All of them suffer from gamma shift depending on the viewing angle. He is okay with it, and I tolerate my laptop's display, but for me it's always a relief to find myself sitting in front of my dual 20" CRT setup. I find that LCDs make my eyes hurt after a while, whereas I can look at CRTs for hours without any ill effects.
Don't see any mention of the radiation that CRT monitors emit.
Personally, I've had a great experience with IPS panel LCD's. The NEC 20wmgx2 in particular was an amazing monitor, and my current monitor, the Dell 2209WA isn't too far behind, and is undeniably fantastic for the price.
Personally, I've had a great experience with IPS panel LCD's. The NEC 20wmgx2 in particular was an amazing monitor, and my current monitor, the Dell 2209WA isn't too far behind, and is undeniably fantastic for the price.
I thought it was supposed to be the other way around? Either way I've sat in front of both for hours and never felt ill effects of either. I honestly haven't sat down and tried to really calibrate my lcd. I just set the brightness down and said "good enough." Now that I have my plasma I've rarely used my computer for gaming or long term use. I'm sure that'll change somewhat in the future as the TV is weeks old.
Acer_Sheep
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- May 18, 2007
- Messages
- 1,201
I had CRT for long, got 2 LCDs but I moved after year and half back to CRT. They made me very high eye strain and image of most LCD monitors is too way sharp and bright(even you decrease brightness and contrast, you only rotating the field of liquid crystals inside flat panel, but back cathode lamps are still emiting same brightness), I don't know why LCD monitors can't override brightness of their backlight lamps even this system exists on most laptops when running on battery brightness of backlight is automatically decreased. And decreased contrast on most LCD monitors is decreasing viewing angle, colors losing their saturation and image quality is pretty low.
What is that supposed to prove?
CRT fan reporting in. I currently have an NEC MultiSync FP2141SB (got it for 30$ on craigslist) and a Dell p991 (got it for free).
Frankly, I just don't like lcds, I work at a lot of different resolutions (using a monitor for framebuffer linux console and such) and I can't stand the shifting, it's incredibly hard to read. I have the fp2141sb as my main monitor (22") and find it extremely easy to read. I have never found an LCD at the same price point that offered the same clarity and screen real estate I've found off my CRTs. (granted, CRTs are going at incredibly low prices as joe sixpack picks up the 17/19" lcd)
Frankly, I just don't like lcds, I work at a lot of different resolutions (using a monitor for framebuffer linux console and such) and I can't stand the shifting, it's incredibly hard to read. I have the fp2141sb as my main monitor (22") and find it extremely easy to read. I have never found an LCD at the same price point that offered the same clarity and screen real estate I've found off my CRTs. (granted, CRTs are going at incredibly low prices as joe sixpack picks up the 17/19" lcd)
There may be some LCD displays that don't allow you to adjust the backlight but this is not the norm nor is it representative of a limitation of the technology. All desktop LCDs I have ever used had a backlight adjustment. On some the backlight is included with the "Brightness" setting. My Sony LCD has separate settings for Contrast (white level), Brightness (black level), and backlight. It is very easy to adjust to a comfortable level and goes even dim enough for night time viewing with no problem.
I personally don't notice any difference in the comfort of my eyes with LCD versus CRT. I am comfortable with an LCD as long as the backlight adjusts down to ~100 candela and fine with a CRT as long as the refresh rate is 85hz or above.
I personally don't notice any difference in the comfort of my eyes with LCD versus CRT. I am comfortable with an LCD as long as the backlight adjusts down to ~100 candela and fine with a CRT as long as the refresh rate is 85hz or above.
That's a long list of LCD benefits. But I nearly always find that those touting LCD benefits always seem to list things other than factors that contribute to display/image/picture quality.
My notes in red below.
What do you need to have a beautiful, gorgeous image on your screen?
So you guys can keep talking about weight and size. . . but after I put my monitor on my desk and let it hang off the back, I enjoy its superior picture and I don't really care how much it weighs nor how deep it is. How often are you moving your computer around, anyways?
I'm surprised so few people are mentioning contrast ratio and/or "black level". . . you can't have good shadow detail or watch/play a dark, moody game/movie without good contrast. At least, you can't do so with an LCD once you've seen a properly adjusted CRT.
Edit - Forgot: CRT = Never any input lag. I doubt I'd notice input lag much. I don't notice it on my work computers. But for people who take their twitch-gaming seriously, this is a drawback to LCDs that has yet to be mentioned (?).
My notes in red below.
What do you need to have a beautiful, gorgeous image on your screen?
- Reasonably sharp focus (advantage LCD)
- Accurate color reproduction (advantage CRT)
- Good contrast (huge advantage to CRT)
- Uniform color from edge to edge (advantage CRT)
So you guys can keep talking about weight and size. . . but after I put my monitor on my desk and let it hang off the back, I enjoy its superior picture and I don't really care how much it weighs nor how deep it is. How often are you moving your computer around, anyways?
I'm surprised so few people are mentioning contrast ratio and/or "black level". . . you can't have good shadow detail or watch/play a dark, moody game/movie without good contrast. At least, you can't do so with an LCD once you've seen a properly adjusted CRT.
Edit - Forgot: CRT = Never any input lag. I doubt I'd notice input lag much. I don't notice it on my work computers. But for people who take their twitch-gaming seriously, this is a drawback to LCDs that has yet to be mentioned (?).
Last edited:
Hurin speaks the truth.
And personally I think the only picture quality advantages (DIgital signal, perfect focus, and pixel-precise crispness) LCDs have are minor. I have never had difficulty reading text on a good CRT. As long as the tube is in good shape, text appears very crisp and legible from corner to corner.
And personally I think the only picture quality advantages (DIgital signal, perfect focus, and pixel-precise crispness) LCDs have are minor. I have never had difficulty reading text on a good CRT. As long as the tube is in good shape, text appears very crisp and legible from corner to corner.
visionviper
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,222
Some of us, yes. You could say I am satisfied, but it doesn't mean I wouldn't switch right back to a CRT if I could fit one on my tiny desk...
Size and resolution are two important factors of image quality. 24"-30" LCD monitors are commonly available, while computer CRT monitors of the same viewable size are practically inexistent. Maybe you are satisfied with 22.5", or even 19" viewable area, but many people consider that very inadequate. LCD monitors are available with 3840x2400 native resolution, and 2560x1600 is now commonly available.
Yes, your Sony does 2304x1440. I wonder if you actually find that resolution comfortable on your Sony, because many other factors come into play at high resolution.
At high resolution, viewable screen size becomes important. At high resolution, digital video signals become important, because high-frequency signals are more suspectible to loss and interference. At high resolution, a good video card becomes important, because not all video cards have DAC that can work well (emphasis on well) in extremely high frequencies. Remember the "2D quality test" in graphics card reviews in old computer magazines?
These, my friend, are all image-quality concerns. LCD lovers are not blind: they just have different image-quality priorities than you do.
Oh, on weight. In my old workplace, some people have dual 24" monitors, while others have a single 30". Do you trust your office furniture to hold up 200lbs of monitors, plus whatever other crap that happens to be on the desk?
Image size is not the same as image quality. If all you care about is big. . . that's fine. Feel free to go 30-inch LCD and have things big. . . but it's still going to look like an LCD.
I'd rather have 24" (23" viewable) @ 1920x1200 with vastly superior image quality to any comparable LCD. And, last I checked, 1920x1200 and 23-24" was still considered a premium size and resolution.
Regarding dual-monitors. Fair point. But as you said, that's an office environment. I assumed we were talking about the enthusiast environment and what provides the best image quality. . . not the most screen workspace.
Superior image quality at a given size remains superior image quality. If you're willing to give up quality for additional size, or dual-monitors, be my guest. But it seems a bit odd to assert that all such considerations are all equally "image-quality concerns."
I'd rather have 24" (23" viewable) @ 1920x1200 with vastly superior image quality to any comparable LCD. And, last I checked, 1920x1200 and 23-24" was still considered a premium size and resolution.
Regarding dual-monitors. Fair point. But as you said, that's an office environment. I assumed we were talking about the enthusiast environment and what provides the best image quality. . . not the most screen workspace.
Superior image quality at a given size remains superior image quality. If you're willing to give up quality for additional size, or dual-monitors, be my guest. But it seems a bit odd to assert that all such considerations are all equally "image-quality concerns."
- Status