LCD for Photoshop

[Jon O'Brien]

Maybe eye pain does come because of lack of sharpness. But, all CRT's
do radiate...

Of course they do. Mostly light but also some heat!

But note that many people still buy expensive PC and cheapest CRT
available...

Tell me about it! People will specify a system down to the last component
in great detail and then settle for any cheap display, even though that's
the one part of a PC that they will use more than any other and the one
that can have the greatest effect on their health. Crazy!

...and those CAN cause eye pain, since (i guess) they are still of older
technology.

Not old enough to produce the kind of radiation that would cause eye pain
within two minutes. Some of the early Braun tubes may have put out that
much radiation (I don't know) but no CRT that would work with any PC, even
early ones, puts out enough non-visible radiation to cause eye pain. If
they did: a) people would get suntanned sitting in front of them b) the
monitor manufacturers would be fighting massive group-action lawsuits all
over the world.

End of all, my eyes did pain, whether of radiation of non-sharpness, no
matter...

Big matter! It's really not a good idea to tell people that CRTs produce
enough radiation to cause eye pain. It just isn't true and some people
will worry unnecessarily that their CRT is damaging their eyesight. The
way they're using their CRT /might/ not be to their best advantage but CRT
radiation isn't a problem.

Jon.

 

[Jon O'Brien]

To be fair to Sleeperman, I believe it was I who made the statement
about the flicker, not he.

Ah, so it was! Sorry.

I still put up with it because, at this point, I cannot justify another
CRT monitor, especially one of more cost, when the technology is so
radically changing. And I do need the color accuracy.

I think you'd probably have time to wear out another CRT before an
alternative technology (maybe FED, rather than LCD) becomes as cheap/good
as a CRT at what you want.

Assuming your monitor isn't drifting badly or so out of focus to make
your eyes tear trying to use it and you are stuck with color mission
critical, you might want to cope with your current monitor for another
year and see if the next generation of LCD monitors has better resolved
color accuracy issues.

Or you could get it serviced! If it's just focus that's the problem, you
could do it yourself (if not of a nervous disposition).

Each new version of LCD seems to be improved, with better angle of
view, higher definition, higher speed and higher brightness and
contrast ratios.

And higher prices!

Jon.

 

[SleeperMan]

Of course they do. Mostly light but also some heat!


Tell me about it! People will specify a system down to the last
component in great detail and then settle for any cheap display, even
though that's the one part of a PC that they will use more than any
other and the one that can have the greatest effect on their health.
Crazy!


Not old enough to produce the kind of radiation that would cause eye
pain within two minutes. Some of the early Braun tubes may have put
out that much radiation (I don't know) but no CRT that would work
with any PC, even early ones, puts out enough non-visible radiation
to cause eye pain. If they did: a) people would get suntanned sitting
in front of them b) the monitor manufacturers would be fighting
massive group-action lawsuits all over the world.


Big matter! It's really not a good idea to tell people that CRTs
produce enough radiation to cause eye pain. It just isn't true and
some people will worry unnecessarily that their CRT is damaging their
eyesight. The way they're using their CRT /might/ not be to their
best advantage but CRT radiation isn't a problem.

Jon.

You could be right about last...
So, i guess only thing it matters in CRT's is good focus...but, if you want
to get really good (read sharp) CRT, it costs more or less same as LCD or
even more. And only true experts and some (to note but a few) who really
knows what's good for their eyes buy those, all others...like i
said...crazy, but true, right

 

[Arthur Entlich]

I was just looking at a demo of CNT-FED and I'd say they have a way to
go yet to make it a consumer product.

What's ironic, is the article on CNT-FED is printed in some unbelievably
small font (I'm guessing 6 point, if that on my monitor set to 1280 x
1024, I can recall the pitch, but it was somewhere in the .24-.26
range), in fact, it is just about the smallest font I have ever seen
used on a web page. other than for captions. I could read it on my
current monitor and it was mainly a matter of finding a good focus
distance for my eyes and glasses, but I found it pretty humorous that
this article about a new display technology, written by the CEO of one
of the companies developing it would be presented in such a microscopic
font size (it's not their website however).

For anyone so inclined, (and a good test for your monitor's resolution)
the URL is:

http://www.vxm.com/CNT_FED_Display.html

Here's another good test for your monitor. This text seems easier to
read. It's a few points larger.

http://www.necmitsubishi.com/support/css/monitortechguide/index03.htm

What is it about these display websites and their small font sizes?


I believe OLED, however, looks very promising, and will probably arrive
first and at a better price.

In the case of my CRT monitor I believe the focus is accurate, with some
slight softening at the very center (it's an "almost flat" screen, with
some distortion geometrically even after adjustments. I have seen much
worse in CRTs.).

I do wonder how fonts as small as the one at the above URL appear on an
LCD monitor, whoever.

Art

 

[Jon O'Brien]

I was just looking at a demo of CNT-FED and I'd say they have a way to
go yet to make it a consumer product.

There are other FED technologies which are much closer to market than CNT.
However, I spent five years as a display industry journalist trying to
second-guess which new technology would win the race to market, during
which time I learned that you can't second-guess the future!

What's ironic, is the article on CNT-FED is printed in some
unbelievably small font (I'm guessing 6 point, if that on my monitor
set to 1280 x 1024...

Imagine how it looks on my 22" display at 1600x1200! Fortunately, Opera
can magnify page elements and at 200% it is legible.

I believe OLED, however, looks very promising, and will probably arrive
first and at a better price.

The problem with OLED is that the polymers are quite short lived, so I
think it will be quite a while before we see an OLED with a useful
lifetime on the market.

Jon.

 

[puss]

I was just looking at a demo of CNT-FED and I'd say they have a way to
go yet to make it a consumer product.

What's ironic, is the article on CNT-FED is printed in some unbelievably
small font (I'm guessing 6 point, if that on my monitor set to 1280 x
1024, I can recall the pitch, but it was somewhere in the .24-.26
range), in fact, it is just about the smallest font I have ever seen
used on a web page. other than for captions. I could read it on my
current monitor and it was mainly a matter of finding a good focus
distance for my eyes and glasses, but I found it pretty humorous that
this article about a new display technology, written by the CEO of one
of the companies developing it would be presented in such a microscopic
font size (it's not their website however).

For anyone so inclined, (and a good test for your monitor's resolution)
the URL is:

http://www.vxm.com/CNT_FED_Display.html

Here's another good test for your monitor. This text seems easier to
read. It's a few points larger.

http://www.necmitsubishi.com/support/css/monitortechguide/index03.htm

What is it about these display websites and their small font sizes?


I believe OLED, however, looks very promising, and will probably arrive
first and at a better price.

OLED is utter CRAP had only a 2 year life span..

 

[GP]

I was just looking at a demo of CNT-FED and I'd say they have a way to
go yet to make it a consumer product.

What's ironic, is the article on CNT-FED is printed in some unbelievably
small font (I'm guessing 6 point, if that on my monitor set to 1280 x
1024, I can recall the pitch, but it was somewhere in the .24-.26
range), in fact, it is just about the smallest font I have ever seen
used on a web page. other than for captions. I could read it on my
current monitor and it was mainly a matter of finding a good focus
distance for my eyes and glasses, but I found it pretty humorous that
this article about a new display technology, written by the CEO of one
of the companies developing it would be presented in such a microscopic
font size (it's not their website however).

For anyone so inclined, (and a good test for your monitor's resolution) the
URL is:

http://www.vxm.com/CNT_FED_Display.html

Yes, quite humorous indeed! But, you know, this is a wild world. There are all
sorts of weird people init.

Some are top posters, some are bottom posters. Before there's any power
outage, some save their text every 5 minutes, some others, after 4 power
outages, loose their text for the fourth time and decide what they really need
is a UPS. And then, some have small monitors with coarse definition and some
have huge monitors with fine definition, which is the matter at hand here, I
believe.

Of course, at 1280 x 1024, the fonts appear too small on the page you
reference, at 1024 x 768 they're perfect and at 800 x 600, they're rather big.
So how should the fonts be set on a web page? If the fonts are perfect for
1280 x 1024, they'll be much too big at 800 x 600. What's the solution?

What? Buy a UPS? Nah, nah, you don't buy a damned UPS! Shit!

If you check the settings of your browser under Appearance, Fonts (Mozilla),
you'll see there's a minimum size definition for the fonts. That's where you
set your fonts so that they're /all/ readable to you. Then, you go to
www.vxm.com/CNT_FED_Display.html and, abracadabra, it looks just perfect!

Now, if you check the settings in the Appearance section, you'll see there's
no maximum for fonts. So that people who own a monitor with a 800 x 600
definition cannot make their fonts any smaller should they be set too big in
the specifications of the page. That's why people who know about monitors set
their fonts smaller in the hope that people have just enough brains to set
their fonts correctly.

But it's weird world. Some...

GP

 

[Arthur Entlich]

Perhaps you might wish to expand on this... why is it "utter crap"?
Contrast ratio, color accuracy, resolution? What exactly?

And as to the lifespan, that may be very much secondary, depending upon
when and how it fails. If cost gets low enough, and the failure is
relatively sharply defined, it may just be a matter of changing the
screen surface for a replacement every few years.

Further, longevity and your other concerns (if one knew what they were
besides "utter crap" may be getting addressed. CRTs were "utter crap"
and didn't last in their early stages also. Now they seem to be moving
that way again to keep costs down. ;-)

Color CRT technology has been around for over 40 years, in consumer
production, and who knows how long in prototype. OLED is a babe in the
woods.

Finally, are you stating that the OLED screens being used in some
digital camera displays are designed for only 2 years use? I'm not
challanging that, but it seems like a law suit waiting to happen.

Art

 

[puss]

Perhaps you might wish to expand on this... why is it "utter crap"?
Contrast ratio, color accuracy, resolution? What exactly?

And as to the lifespan, that may be very much secondary, depending upon
when and how it fails. If cost gets low enough, and the failure is
relatively sharply defined, it may just be a matter of changing the
screen surface for a replacement every few years.

Further, longevity and your other concerns (if one knew what they were
besides "utter crap" may be getting addressed. CRTs were "utter crap"
and didn't last in their early stages also. Now they seem to be moving
that way again to keep costs down. ;-)

Color CRT technology has been around for over 40 years, in consumer
production, and who knows how long in prototype. OLED is a babe in the
woods.

Finally, are you stating that the OLED screens being used in some
digital camera displays are designed for only 2 years use? I'm not
challanging that, but it seems like a law suit waiting to happen.

Art

Go Read the Articles on OLED you will find out like I did, 2 years only and
stated that why a Cell phone was going to use them as people tossed there
phones away after 2 years.


Well the noise now is Carbon for Screens..