P
Pipboy
They didn't choose them. LCD's have been shoved down their throats wether
they want them or not. People who do choose LCD choose them mostly as a
fashion statement.
They didn't choose them. LCD's have been shoved down their throats wether
they want them or not. People who do choose LCD choose them mostly as a
fashion statement.
J
jjnunes
Oh, burn. For my purposes, LCD causes a LOT less eye strain, since I use
mostly text. Ever since I got my LCD, I haven't needed a new prescription
for my glasses, where I was needing a new one almost every year before.
And I had pretty good CRT monitor. (Illyama 510) Still have it as a matter
of fact, and I don't intend to sell it.
Now if I was serious gamer, I would have different preferences. What you
don't seem to recognize, despite it being pointed out to you over and over,
that each type has different strengths and weakness'. Why is that so hard
for you to understand?
C
chrisv
I think everyone accepts that. What's making some of us rather
bitter, however, is the lack of quality choices in CRT's, due to the
market's radical shift. I think there's a big disconnect between what
people are buying and what device would really be "best" for them, if
not for the "newer flatter must be better" fashion-statement syndrome.
B
Bob Myers
chrisv said:
Maybe - again, it depends on just what you mean by "best for them."
Cost, reliability, and other factors also enter into "best." And it's
hardly
been due primarily to a "fashion-statement syndrome"; fully half of the
monitor purchases in the market are to commercial customers, and those
folks do NOT buy new technology just because of some sense of it
being "cool" or "fashionable."
The notion that LCDs were "shoved down our throats," to paraphrase
an earlier poster, also doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Think about this
from a manufacturer's perspective - on the one hand, you have a
technology which you've been making for years, which is fully developed,
and (most importantly) for which signifcant capital investment on your
part has already been made. On the other hand, you have a technology
which will require literally billions of dollars of investment in both
development and fabrication facilities and equipment. If there were no
market demand for the latter technology, why would you ever sink your
company's money into it? (It's hardly because LCDs have been hugely
profitable for their makers - monitor and notebook panels especially
are today little more than commodity products, selling at barely above
their manufacturing cost.)
This situation is very reminiscent, to me, of the LP vinyl record vs. CD
debates of the late 1980s and 1990s - people desperately trying to
convince everyone else that their personal preferences were somehow
laws of nature, and that the market would clearly be going in a
different direction if only the majority of people could see how "wrong"
their buying decisions were.
I do agree with Chris' comment about a "lack of quality choices in
CRTs," or perhaps just a growing lack of quality CRTs in general.
This HAS left some customers with very legitimate needs for this
technology in a bad situation, one which is only now being addressed
by non-CRT technologies. But it has been awfully hard, on the other
hand, to go to the past manufacturers of these sorts of CRTs and to
try to convince them to keep an expensive production line running for
what was only going to be a relative handful of units. (Or the flip
side of that one - sure, someone could make that handful of CRTs,
but then the cost would be at a point where no one would want to
buy them.) Sorry, been there, done that, and I am here to tell you
that the CRT makers just weren't going to be moved from that
decision.
Bob M.
P
Pipboy
What other areas? Nice of you to make a claim and then neglect to back it
up with data or even say what those performance advantages are. BTW,
perhaps you can explain this spec to me. If you go to the below url you
will see this LCD has 16ms response time and then in brackets it says 6ms
GtG. I'm assuming 16ms is BtW. This backs up what I say in that they use
GtG because it makes the LCD appear faster than it actually is in real
world usage.
http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=19235&vpn=FP241W&manufacture=BENQ
P
Pipboy
Well, if you bothered to read my very first post to this thread you will
see I agreed with that satement. Still, the benefits of CRT outweighs LCD
and overall the CRT is superior. I have a problem with Bob Myers trying to
make it look like LCD is superior overall because I know it is just not
true.
P
Pipboy
Numerosu websites have stated it in the past. When one reads something
numerous times it is easier to fall for the BS. I'm sure you've done it
yourself many times.
..
I don't need to explain how it works because it is my experience that
proves it is shit and not my knowledge of the tech. Besides, I've already
backed up my comment with evidence. I suppose now you are going to tell me
that article is wrong too and I am a fool for believing everything I read
on the internet.
And I've already said it wasn't burn in that I was trying to describre but
it looks similar to burn in. Bottom line is that it can ruin your HDTV, as
it did mine. And you've got no data to refute it either. Duh!
D
DRS
Pipboy said:
The 16ms will be the average response time, which is the average of the BtW
(rising response time) and the WtB (falling response time). On the
contrary, pixels will far more commonly go from one intermediate state to
another intermediate state than they will go from BtW or WtB. If the GtG
spec has been measured properly, meaning it is the average of possible
intermediate transitions, then it is a far more useful spec than the
average.
Think about it. Does your monitor spend all day going
Black-White-Black-White-Black-White?
D
DRS
[...]
How will that be measured?
How will that be measured?
B
Bob Myers
No, you've backed it up with references to online sources which
are all repeating the same nonsense. "Evidence" would at the
very LEAST include some notion of just what was happening to
cause the supposed effect.
OK, so it's not burn-in, but apparently it does result in some other
permanent effect, since it can "ruin your HDTV." So just what
IS it, then? It's hard to refute, or even comment on, something that
can't be clearly described beyond "I don't like it!"
Bob M.
B
Bob Myers
Already posted earlier in this thread - apparently you missed it. But
once again:
CRT advantages: Response time (although it's a completely different
image-creation method in the first place), black level (and therefore
dark-room contrast ratio). In some cases, a better match to CRT-centric
color space specs (e.g., sRGB, Rec. 709). Inherently correct "gamma"
response.
LCD advantages: Brightness, contrast ratio at typical ambients, image
geometry, "focus" (well, duh, it's a fixed-pixel display...), total color
gamut (with advanced CCFL or LED backlighting), lack of flicker,
overall size (but especially thickness), weight, power consumption,
reliability (esp. with LED BLUs), environmental compatibility (i.e..,
immunity from external fields, etc.).
No, as was already explained to you, they're stating GtG IN ADDITION
TO the normal B-W-B response time spec because it IS faster from that
perspective, and because that IS a relevant spec in many real-world
applications
(i.e., those which involve very little in terms of full-white-to-black
transitions
- for instance, video). Soon you're going to see another "response time"
sort
of spec quoted (it is already, for some products), which is the "motion
picture" or "moving edge" response time - again, very relevant to some
applications, and only somewhat related to the other two "response time"
specifications.
Bob M.
B
Bob Myers
It MAY be the average - more commonly, it is actually the sum of
the time required for these two transitions, at least if it is being
measured and reported per established standards.
See, for instance, the VESA Flat Panel Display Measurements
standard, vers. 2.0, section 305-1.
Yes, and with modern drive methods the GtG response often IS the
smaller number. But we should also keep in mind that for some
LCD types, or with simple drive methods (i.e., no overdrive) the GtG
response is often SLOWER than the full transitions, for reasons discussed
earlier in this thread. In fact, "GtG" measurements were first required of
the various LCD panel makers for this very reason - the "full-scale"
response time measurements weren't telling the whole story, and you
could see some very serious artifacts resulting from the much slower
response that would occur between certain intermediate steps.
The only way to really see the whole picture in this regard is via
tables or "3-D" charts, which are typically included these days in the
detailed LCD specifications. But the average user (as opposed to the
monitor or system integrator) will almost never see these.
Bob M.
B
Bob Myers
In that case, what you really have a problem with is comprehension -
I have said repeatedly that NEITHER technology is "superior overall,"
and that that notion is itself nonsensical. "Superior overall" is something
that is very dependent on individual preferences and the application in
question, and so there can never be a single, objective "superior overall."
Bob M.
D
DRS
Bob Myers said:
Purely thinking out loud, I have problems with that notion.
The true problem with any sub-10ms average response time LCD monitor isn't
the response time. It's human visual perception. Human image persistence
(about 10 milliseconds) works for CRTs because it compensates for the
phospher excitement decay whilst the electron beam continues to scan the
rest of the screen. It works against LCDs because they store the image
between frames and the significantly slower image "decay" collides with the
"imprinted image" on the retina, hence the perception of motion blur. I
have serious doubts about the ability of a camera to accurately mimic this
phenomenon.
P
Pipboy
Permanent vertical dark reddish lines down the edges of where the 4:3
window had displayed on a 16:9 screen. What sounds like the cause of that
to you?
P
Pipboy
But that's not my point. They at first started using BtW as a standard
measurement and then they started using GtG becasue it makes the LCD's look
faster to the unsuspecting than they actualy are. What you just said backs
that up too.
B
Bob Myers
DRS said:
That's still a bit up in the air, in terms of standardization.
Techniques used so far, and reflected in some proposals, involve
a "tracking" camera which follows a moving edge across the
screen and captures the characteristics of that edge as
displayed. The idea is to get something that correlates better
with the visual perception of motion blur.
Bob M.
P
Pipboy
OK, thanks for the explanations. Maybe it's time for me to try out another
LCD soon. That BenQ widescreen I linked to has me interesred but it is a
tad expansive and it's native resolution is too high to run many games at a
decent frame rate. That's the one are that CRT is so superior to LCD,
multiple resolutions that are always sharp.
P
Pipboy
Then why are some people calling you an LCD fanboy?
D
DRS
Pipboy said:
Until the advent of overdrive GtG made LCDs look *slower*, which is why
manufacturers were so reluctant to provide GtG specs.