D
DRS
[...]
Yes.
Yes.
W
willbill
chrisv said:
i agree with that.
bob will bury you with details, yet
you come away wondering what the
bottom line really is
to me, he has been and continues to
be a flat screen fan boy; but that's
no longer the bad thing that it was
3+ years ago. or maybe annoying
but not quite as bad?
bill
P
Pipboy
Ok, I admit it, I was wrong. OK? But that doesn't mean I don't know LCD's.
From a gamers perspective they look like shit and that is all I need to
know.
P
Pipboy
No, I'm going retro and starting up a factory to make CRT monitors for
gmaer's. Why would I build LCD's when I think they are inferior for my
usage?
P
Pipboy
No it's not, look it up if you don't believe me. Big problem for public
display LCD's too. As I said, I had an LCD with burn in and it was an
overdrive monitor too. You people that make these LCD's even bother to test
them over extended time? I know the manufacturer's are aware of this issue
because some won't warranty the LCD from it. You can look that up too if
you don't believe me.
P
Pipboy
Yea, that is what I was talking about and not the image itself. I got lines
down my LCD from using a 4:3 window instead of full screen and they
wouldn'nt go away no matter what I tired to get rid of them. I also had
what you describe from the sides of the PIP window but that would go away
after it not dispalying for a few minutes. If you diplayed the PIP window
for months though it would be permemently burn into the screen. I can't
stand 4:3 content stretched to 16:9 so won't even buy an HDTV LCD now
because of my esperience with the last one. Thing is this could happen on
plasma and crt so what am I to do? Now I just watch TV on my 4:3 computer
monitor. I have a friend with a 16:9 plasma and he watches all 4:3 content
stretched to full screen since he saw what happend to my LCD. Stretching
the image looks like utter crap. HDTV is fine for 16:9 content but 4:3 is
horrible on them and most of the content is still 4:3 and lots of it always
will be.
P
Pipboy
It wasn't mild in my case, it became a permanent issue.
C
chrisv
Pipboy said:
Hmm... But if the "over" drive is never greater than full-white or
full-black, how could it hurt anything?
B
Bob Myers
Pipboy said:
Where, exactly, do you think the information that one would
"look up" is going to come from? Handed down by the Display
Gods on Mt.Sinai?
You made the claim that "burn-in" and overdrive are related, i.e,
that overdrive CAUSES burn-in. That's flat wrong, and
anyone who understands the operating principles of both LCDs
themselves and the "overdrive" driving method can tell you why.
That doesn't say that there's no such thing as "burn-in" - just
that you're wrong about what causes it.
Did it have a black case? Maybe THAT causes burn-in!
Bob M.
W
willbill
rjn said:
actually, my very recent experience with both
LCD (decent 20" 1600x1200 Samsung 204B), and
19" Philips CRT (109B6) and 22" Philips CRT
(202P7) (both shadow mask CRTs) is that CRT
is still better for everyday applications,
let alone "critical applications"
that i can believe.
meaning less weight and less power?
agreed
but even the miserable CRTs that are left
are still better than the best recent LCDs
bill
B
Bob Myers
willbill said:
Again, it depends entirely on just what you mean by "better."
Not everyone has the exact same set of criteria.
that i can believe.
Actually, I tend to doubt that we are going to see
significant inroads into the market share currently held
by LCDs by either of those technologies, at least in the
large-screen direct-view (TV and monitor) markets for
the foreseeable future. There are a number of reasons
for this that I won't bore anyone with here - you can
find out more from a good variety of sources.
Bob M.
W
willbill
Bob said:
bob, get real
with regard to my 22" Philips CRT 202P7,
better means that i can run it at much
higher res than 1600x1200 with 75Hz refresh.
my 20" flatscreen 204B maxes out at 1600x1200
with regard to my 19" Philips CRT 109B6, it
runs better than my flatscreen 204B at 1600x1200
(which is the best of the 204B, lower freqs
are somewhat more fuzzy for the 204B, and
clearly more strongly favor the CRT 109B6)
i'm only left wondering why you were such
a clear flatscreen fan boy 3+ years ago,
not to mention why you clearly continue
to be a flatscreen fan boy now
then there is a continuing market
for PC CRT monitors; miserable as the
current CRT dregs are, the remaining
CRTs are still clearly better than
current LCD flatscreen
bill
P
Pipboy
I don't know. I just know that a tech article I read about burn in on LCD
said LCD's with overdrive technology are more pronet to burn in. They have
inferior image quality too. I wish I could find the article(s) I read but
it was some time ago and it will take me ages to find them again. There are
numerous article sout there about burn in issues on LCD though.
P
Pipboy
If it is wrong then it is the tech article that is wrong and not me. It's
not my fault if all you tech heads are always feeding us BS. The reason I
thought BtW took longer is becauase that is what I have read on numerous
websites in the past. Does that make me wrong? No, it makes them wrong if
what you say is true. But who knows? Maybe you are wrong for all I know.
Find the article I refer to about oversrive causing burn in and you can
take it up with the author if you are certain he is wrong. Well, I just did
a quick search and this is the first hit on google and it's not even the
article I'm talking about. As I said, overdrive technology is shit.
http://www.answers.com/topic/liquid-crystal-display
Overdrive technology on some panels can produce artifacts across regions of
rapidly transitioning pixels (eg. video images) that looks like increased
image noise or halos. This is a side effect of the pixels being driven past
their intended brightness value (or rather the intended voltage necessary
to produce this necessary brightness/colour) and then allowed to fall back
to the target brightness in order to enhance response times.
W
willbill
Bob said:
fwiw, i've come to seriously doubt that
that is very true
the title of this thread is:
"What local retail stores still sell CRT monitors?"
to my mind, questioning if CRTs are still better than LCD
less space (flatscreen), and lower
power, carry huge weight over
being better
correct me if i'm wrong.
see above
odds are huge that you know what a fanboy is
bill
P
Pipboy
It's not really image burn in but I didn't know what else to call the
effect. The below explains it better. My Viewsonic had X-Brite technology
and besides it burning out my 'effing eyes I think that is the cause of the
burn in I got on the HDTV. Viewsonics default setting for contrast was 50
and I had to set it way down to 10 because the whites where so badly burned
out. Yea, people who build these things may know the tech but they sure
don't know image quality. A monkey could have set it up better than they
had it.
http://www.answers.com/topic/liquid-crystal-display
Overdrive technology on some panels can produce artifacts across regions of
rapidly transitioning pixels (eg. video images) that looks like increased
image noise or halos. This is a side effect of the pixels being driven past
their intended brightness value (or rather the intended voltage necessary
to produce this necessary brightness/colour) and then allowed to fall back
to the target brightness in order to enhance response times.
B
Bob Myers
willbill said:
I'm very real, and very serious. A hell of a lot of people
have chosen LCDs over CRTs, even during those periods
when comparable examples of both technologies were
available. Are you saying these people didn't know
what they were doing, or what?
OK, so you have a need for more pixels, and at least
a belief that you need faster refresh rates (with a CRT,
you may, for that matter). Others may have different
priorities.
You continue to confuse reporting on current market
realities with being a "fanboy," whatever THAT may
mean.
Bob M.
C
chrisv
willbill said:less space (flatscreen), and lower
power, carry huge weight over
being better
correct me if i'm wrong.
Don't forget "newer flatter must be better" fashion.
B
Bob Myers
willbill said:less space (flatscreen), and lower
power, carry huge weight over
being better
correct me if i'm wrong.
Well, I'd put it a different way - less space, lower power,
etc., are all part of BEING "better" for the applications
in question. You seem to think that all that should matter in
a decision about which is "better" are those parameters which
are most important to YOU, and that simply isn't so. Again,
THERE IS NO one, clear, agreed-to-by-everyone definition
of "better," simply because different people and different
applications have different requirements.
CRTs have performance advantages in terms of response time
and a certain overall "look"; LCDs have performance advantages
in other areas. None of this makes either "better" except as they
relate to the specific needs of a given customer.
Bob M.
B
Bob Myers
Pipboy said:
OK, so the article is wrong - and you're also wrong for thinking
that everything you read, whether it makes sense or not, should
be taken as the unquestionable truth.
Of course it does. If you believe something that isn't right,
then you're wrong. What's so difficult about that? You simply
learn more and move on.
Funny, you won't take any responsibility for being wrong OR
right, and supposedly have this "who knows?" attitude about the
whole thing - but then per your last sentence, you just KNOW that
"overdrive technology is shit." If you know enough to be certain of
that, perhaps YOU can explain to us exactly how it works, and
exactly what the mechanism is through which overdrive would be
harmful to the panel.
From this, all we can conclude is that you don't read very carefully.
There's nothing in the above regarding overdrive causing burn-in,
which was your original assertion, and it's not even an indictment
of the overdrive approach in general - see there where it says
"overdrive technology ON SOME PANELS can produce artifacts..."
That means that if you don't implement overdrive very well, it
doesn't work very well. Excuse me, but DUH.....
Bob M.