P
Pipboy
Ah, now the truth comes out. You have a vested interest in LCD technology.
Yep, it was definately you who fed me the BS way back.
Ah, now the truth comes out. You have a vested interest in LCD technology.
Yep, it was definately you who fed me the BS way back.
P
Pipboy
BtW is the standsard and not GtG. They use GtG because it makes it look
faster than it really is. Look, another twerp trying to feed me BS.
P
Pipboy
That's not what I read when I researched it on the internet. Still, some
use GtG and others use BtW. That means they use whatever makes their LCD
look the fastest.
P
Pipboy
Overdrive technology causes burnin. I should know because I had a POS
Viewsonic LCD HDTV that got burn in from usimng overdrive technology. Look
it up if you don't believe me. I took that sick puppy back for a refund
even though I had owned it for 9 montyhs already.
P
Pipboy
You didn't clear up anything. Just more BS to try and prove your stance
that LCD is superiro when it is not. You may know a lot about the
technology but I bet you are as blind as a bat and have no concept of what
good image quality is. It's just like those camera geeks who can't take a
good phot to save their lives.
P
Pipboy
Yea, and burn in too. Overdrive is shit and I will never buy another LCD
that has it.
P
Pipboy
Yea, it is him and I see he is still touting the same BS.
D
Davy
One CRT manufacturer designed a 'Flat Pack' CRT ~ without delving I
think it was Philips & LG Goldstar, would have to check to be
honest.
This is no thicker than your Plasma or LCD... the technology did'nt
use a heater electrode as used in CRTs but used the Cold Cathode
principle, this was in a edition of 'Television Servicing' magazine a
while back.
I much prefer CRT's myself.... at least the viewing angle ain't
restricted and..... they last a wee bit longer than CCFL back light
tube's.
Whatever happened to the Sinclair TV.... that used a flat CRT with the
electrodes mounted on the side of the display as opposed to the 'long
neck' variety.
Davy
think it was Philips & LG Goldstar, would have to check to be
honest.
This is no thicker than your Plasma or LCD... the technology did'nt
use a heater electrode as used in CRTs but used the Cold Cathode
principle, this was in a edition of 'Television Servicing' magazine a
while back.
I much prefer CRT's myself.... at least the viewing angle ain't
restricted and..... they last a wee bit longer than CCFL back light
tube's.
Whatever happened to the Sinclair TV.... that used a flat CRT with the
electrodes mounted on the side of the display as opposed to the 'long
neck' variety.
Davy
P
Pipboy
I read those had issues with focus.
B
Bob Myers
That's a laugh - since I was also still working on CRT monitors
through the 1990s, microdisplays in the late 90s, and other
technologies today, I suppose I have a "vested interest" in
ALL of those, then, right?
Bob M.
B
Bob Myers
And, of course, (1) everything on the internet is the unvarnished
truth, and (2) everything there is to know on a given subject has
been published on the net. Right. I assume you'll be applying
for a job with one of the major LCD makers any day now, based
on this educational background.
Bob M.
B
Bob Myers
Pipboy said:
Sorry, but that's also wrong. Overdrive technology does not
cause "burnin." There's not really a "burnin" phenomenon with
LCDs that's of the same nature as what CRTs or other
phosphor-based (PDP, FED) types experience. There IS a
potential problem known as "image sticking," but it can occur
with both overdrive and non-overdrive types, and in terms of the
drive condtions that can cause it has much more to do with the
presence of a net DC voltage across the LC material.
Bob M.
B
Bob Myers
Davy said:
There were a couple of "flat" CRT designs - the one you're
describing sounds like it might have been Matsushita's, which was
perhaps a couple of inches thick and used multiple hot-wire
cathodes. LG wound up with the old Zenith "Flat Tension Mask"
technology, in which a flat sheet of etched metal foil, held under
tension on both directions, took the place of the conventional
shadow mask - but they never were able to make much of a
success of it, either. (Outside of the mask and a flat, "plate-glass"
sort of faceplate, it looked much like a conventional CRT.)
There was also some "flat" designs that were essentially "folded"
CRTs, with the neck and electron gun placed off to the side and
an extra deflection element added to "bend" the beam toward the
screen. Sony tried this route about 20 years ago or so, trying to
produce a CRT that would be usable in portable devices.
The very thin types that have been sometimes called "cold-cathode
CRTs" are actually of a different class called the field-emission
display, or FED. These have been made by a number of companies
but to date haven't seen much commercial success, primarily due
to manufacturing difficulties. Their peformance is very CRT-like,
with the exception of being fixed-pixel displays like the LCD or
PDP.
Bob M.
R
rjn
Bob Myers said:
With back-lit LCD panels, that's true. I'd guess that
the backlight itself changes/ages faster than the panel,
and that even moving from CCFL to LED backlight won't
change that relationship much.
But with LCD rear projection, there is a significant
degradation that occurs during normal useful life.
TI has updated their DLP-vs-LCD whitepaper on that:
<http://snipurl.com/19tvi> or
<http://www.dlp.com/dlp_technology/images/dynamic/white_papers/
170_performance_study.pdf>
I'm posting this on an LCD monitor that uses the LPL
LM230W02 panel. When I bring up an all-gray screen,
I see the "shadows" of the prior windows for up to
a full minute. Same thing? Or just that LCD response
time specs (16ms for this panel) are misleading?
B
Bob Myers
Right - but that's not a "burn-in" phenomenon as that
term is normally used, in that there's no potential for image
retention. CCFL backlights do slowly lose light output
over time (they're a phosphor-based light source as
well). LEDs change with time, too, although LED BLUs
should be longer-lived than CCFLs, and changes with
aging can be compensated for to a greater degree with
LED backlighting.
Yes, that's an interesting paper, and that's one of the reasons
that LCDs are among my personal least-favorite projection
technologies. Projection via a transmissive modulator means
that the panel is going to have to deal with a LOT of light
and heat, and degradation of the polarizer, the LC material
itself, and color filters (when used) is almost impossible to
avoid. The DLP has a very distinct advantage here. (There's
an analogous problem with CRT projectors - CRT projection
involves some very, very specialized tubes, that are driven
extremely hard in order to generate enough light - projection
systems in general being notoriously inefficient things. CRTs
in such duty have to be designed to handle extreme heating
in the faceplate, and can suffer phosphor degradation and
a problem in the faceplate glass known as "X-ray browning"
well in excess of what a conventional direct-view tube would
have to deal with.)
That's probably a milder form of the "image sticking"
problem, yes.
Bob M.
D
DRS
Pipboy said:
You seriously need to do a lot of homework as you obviously have no idea how
LCD monitors work. If I'm a twerp for saying GtG is a superior measure than
BtW then so are the engineers at sites like Anandtech and Tom's Hardware
Guide.
R
rjn
DRS said:
xbitlabs just published an overview, which I
have not completely read yet:
<http://snipurl.com/19vbb> or
<http://wwww.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/lcd-parameters.html>
I can't comment on Anand or THG, as they both
lost my respect years ago.
LCD has a way to go to fully replace CRT in
critical applications. It may not even finish
doing so before it's eclipsed by some other
tech, like SED or OLED. But for most users,
myself included, the benefits of LCD already
outweigh the hazards of CRT.
And expect a complaint-free LCD to require
dual-link DVI. The DVI spec was depressingly
short-sighted (when it came out, I was already
using a CRT above the max that DVI single-link
could reach, even with the later CVT hack).
R
rjn
<http://wwww.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/lcd-parameters.html>
Great quote from article:
"A comparison between UFO researchers and PC users
who are purchasing a monitor may seem strange,
yet the latter are prone to behave in the same
manner at a Web forum."
Great quote from article:
"A comparison between UFO researchers and PC users
who are purchasing a monitor may seem strange,
yet the latter are prone to behave in the same
manner at a Web forum."
D
DRS
rjn said:
Xbit quote GtG specs on the LCD monitor reviews I looked at. They must be
twerps too.
Hazards?
R
rjn
My former Sony GDM FW-900 was 92 pounds.
Not a safe single-person move - and if dropped
on my tile floor, would implode like a grenade.
And sooner or later, some legislator looking
for a windmill to tilt at is going to get CRTs
declared as hazardous waste, due to the
substantial amount of Pb in the bottle.
It may become very expensive to possess one
you've already paid for once.
When I sent the FW900 to Sony for refurb, then
again to the eBay buyer, it cost about $100 each
time. The 23" LCD that replaced it is much cheaper
to ship.
Below the hazard category, CRTs have other issues.
Did Sony ever offer a southern hemisphere version
of the W900 or FW900?
I noticed that xbit also has a review of an LCD
with LED backlight:
<http://snipurl.com/19vfx>
LCD is getting there.