View Full Version : When will traditional monitors come to a point where they are infeasible?
K.I.L.E.R
09-Sep-2005, 10:40
When will current generation monitors need to be replaced?
What limitations do they currently have in relation to 3D graphics?
Is the range of colours of traditional CRTs and LCDs posing as a future problem?
What could eventually replace traditional monitors?
chavvdarrr
09-Sep-2005, 14:27
When will current generation monitors need to be replaced?
What limitations do they currently have in relation to 3D graphics?
Is the range of colours of traditional CRTs and LCDs posing as a future problem?
What could eventually replace traditional monitors?
seeing that people buy LCD's that can't display milions of colours, it seems these do not care about "quality" so much... maybe Nvidia was right after all - 16bpp is enough ...
:evil:
akira888
09-Sep-2005, 14:51
Wouldn't that be 3DFX? On the other hand Nvidia had one of the first architectures - TNT(2) - that gave decent performance with 32 bit color.
JHoxley
09-Sep-2005, 14:56
Just as a thought...
If I can take a decent shot using my digital camera - lots of crisp details and vibrant colours, then upload it to my PC, look at it on my TFT monitor and, minor errors ignored, have it appear the same as when I looked through the optical viewfinder to take the picture - surely there isn't a problem :)
I think, if anything, the limiting factor is still internal - the linear 8bit scale doesn't really do images justice these days. Various tricks (such as gamma ramps) get around a lot of the limitations, but things like the FP32 and HDRI technologies are the important ones as I see it.
hth
Jack
Everyone who buys your average TN-Panel "gamer" TFT obviously doesn't give a shit about image quality. It's interessting to see that some people seem to be unable to perceive the lack of color fidelity, rough gray scale gradient and shitty black display of TN-Panel TFTs. These damn things, that are usually recommended by hardware test websites and magazines, are a huge step back from an CRT in terms of image quality.
TFTs with MVA/PVA Panels are quite a lot better but they aren't competitive with TN-Panel displays when it comes to switch time. The new-ish Overdrive tech made things a lot better, getting almost entirely rid of ghosting, but you still have a somewhat more pronounced motion blurriness than you have with TN-Panels. Still, buying a TN-Panel display is no feasible alternative, considering the utter shit picture quality.
Also, there is no way you can get rid of the inherent motion blurriness that comes with the LCD technology. You will always have that, no matter how low the switching time of your LCD monitor is. It's even there with the latest and greatest in TN-panel displays, e.g. Viewsonic's 3ms TFT. I can easily be perceived in games with high contrast textures like World of Warcraft. Just face a house front from a distance and then slowly move your view port left and right... the textures will appear slightly out of focus. This is and will always be a problem with LCD panels. Another worst-case are games like the EA Sports FIFA series.
CRTs have problems with geometry, low luminescence, unstable pictures and of course flickering. Plus, they are bulky and need a lot of energy. LCDs don't have that problem but they introduce a whole new slew of problems. And going TN-panel (which most people probably do, especially gamers) is a significant downgrade in terms of image quality.
I'm currently using a Fujitsu-Siemens P19-2 19" TFT with a 8ms Overdrive MVA panel. It's probably one of the best 19" TFTs currently out there, offering a very good compromise between image quality, view angle and response time. Still, I am very aware of its shortcomings.
As of yet, there is no display technology that I would consider completely satisfactory. I feel that neither CRT nor LCD have much of a future... something entirely different is needed.
There seems to be a new CRT tech by Samsung IIRC where every pixel has it's own electron ray or something weird like that. Supposedly, this tech enables really flat CRTs with much higher luminescence and no geometric distortions. Maybe this will be a good compromise for computer displays. I don't know. Maybe OLEDs will be the next big thing.
All I know is that I want something better than traditional CRTs and LCDs because, frankly, they both suck ass.
I think, if anything, the limiting factor is still internal - the linear 8bit scale doesn't really do images justice these days.
Hell, if it even was 8bit. Most TN-panel displays only feature 6bit per channel, a total of 262144 colours.
Wasn't some company (Philips?) developing LCD monitors which turn off backlighting during switching to get rid of blur?
That still leaves blacklevel as a problem, but the LED based backlighting from the HDR displays can help quite a bit there ... not cheap though.
Yes, I have read something about that a few months ago. Of course, it's questionable whether this will every make it to the market. Who wants a TFT that, to some degree, flickers like a CRT? Anyway, it's an interesting idea and it at least shows that there are some companies that are looking into these issues.
Still, I kinda have the feeling that LCD is a dead end for computer displays.
There seems to be a new CRT tech by Samsung IIRC where every pixel has it's own electron ray or something weird like that. Supposedly, this tech enables really flat CRTs with much higher luminescence and no geometric distortions. Maybe this will be a good compromise for computer displays.
Surface-conduction electron-emitter displays (SED), developed by Toshiba and Canon. IIRC they recently started production of 50" panels for TVs, but it's still years away from mass availability.
Surface-conduction electron-emitter displays (SED), developed by Toshiba and Canon. IIRC they recently started production of 50" panels for TVs, but it's still years away from mass availability.
Do you know more about this technology? I just read a short blurb about it a few months ago and I thought it sounded interesting but I don't really know what it's all about.
Basically a refinement of FED ... for which the main problem has always been longevity (it's ancient technology). Here (http://www.canon.com/technology/display/)'s some PR from Canon. Motorola is also working on something simular, using carbon nanotubes as emitters ... but they havent had a full sized prototype AFAIK.
Maybe Canon will really pull it off, it seems they have been working on it for a long time ... perhaps they just held back from commercialization because of patent issues (they bought Candescent, a company which was going to commercialize FEDs within 1 or 2 years for a decade ... but which did hold a lot of patents, and as always those patents will cover working products even if you can't manage to get it working).
Some more info on SED in German: http://www.forum-3dcenter.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=246615
Neither CRT or TFT/LCD variants will be a dead tech over the next 20 years or more.
Just face it, open your eyes, forget the criticism. Currently there ins't a better technology avaiable, or neither will be so soon. So CRTs will still be used for who's interested in the best image quality (Mainly Multimedia studios, Engineering etc) and some everyday people who are aware of technology nowadays.
TFTs will have no problems either with future industry. Despite of all the problems it faces described before, there isnt any better portable screen technology with low power requirements that surpasses their current image quality.
And the only tft i own is from my laptop.
For desktop/workstation environments i still use CRTs. And most certanly will, untill something better shows up.
IFire (http://www.ifire.com/) should have a pilot manufacturing facility completed "soon" for their flat display as well BTW.
CRTs can still get thinner of course ... have any monitors based on Samsung's Vixlim shown up yet?
Neither CRT or TFT/LCD variants will be a dead tech over the next 20 years or more.
Commercially, they won't. You're right. Technologically, they have been a dead end for quite some time.
Wunderchu
10-Sep-2005, 00:11
NVIDIA's Davik Kirk made the following comment related to this topic:David Kirk: I think that High Dynamic Range Lighting is going to be the single most significant change in the visual quality over the next couple of years. It's almost as big as shading.
The reason for this is that games without HDR look flat. They should, since they are only using a range of 256:1 in brightness—a small fraction of what our eyes can see. Consequently, low-dynamic-range imagery looks flat and featureless, no highs, and no detail in the shadows, the lows. If you game using a DFP (LCD display), you probably can't tell the difference anyway, since most LCD displays only have 5 or 6 bits of brightness resolution—an even narrower 32:1 or 64:1 range of brightness. On a CRT, you can see a lot more detail, and on the newer high-resolution displays, you can see not only the full 8 bits, but even more. There are new HDR displays that can display a full 16-bit dynamic range, and I can tell you that the difference is stunning. When these displays become more affordable in the next year or two, I don't know how we'll ever go back to the old way.
I wonder what those HDR displays will do when you display very bright scenes ... I wouldnt be surprised if they overheat something mighty (they are able to output much more light than a CRT ... if they couldnt we wouldnt need them, because it is relatively straightforward to increase the dynamic range of CRTs).
This has convinced me that I'd stop lurking and finally register:
At siggraph this year, the company BrightSide (http://www.brightsidetech.com/products/display.php) were showing off their HDR-HD displays. full 1080P resolution, 16bit/channel. They claim 300,000:1 contrast ratio, and I believe it. Of everything I saw there, this by far was the tech that I wanted the most. The images were simply stunning (dispite most of the content they were showing was filtered 8bit)
They did have some 12bit content to show, where were impressive. Interestingly, they were showing a 12bit movie from EA's fightnight round 3 (ps3/xbox360 game). I asked a few questions, and it turned out that it wasn't actually an in-game movie running in HDR, as they had rendered the background in HDR seperatly then compositied it with the 8bit foreground for the movie.
Perhaps the most impressive aspect of this, was that you got naturally occuring image bloom. No more post processing needed :) - in fact the blooming used in the EA demo actually made it look bad
Of all the videos they showed, one in perticular was impressive. It was still 8-bit, but had a filter running in the TV's hardware to convert it to 16bit depedning on the gradients in the image (I would guess). Anyway, at one point in this video, a 3D genie fired some magic spell at you. There is a brief, but *incredibly bright* flash. It was amazing.
The company were also talking about their HDR-JPEG and HDR-MPEG formats, which sound promising as they are apparently backwards compatible.
Wunderchu
10-Sep-2005, 01:44
This has convinced me that I'd stop lurking and finally register:
At siggraph this year, the company BrightSide (http://www.brightsidetech.com/products/display.php) were showing off their HDR-HD displays. full 1080P resolution, 16bit/channel. They claim 300,000:1 contrast ratio, and I believe it. Of everything I saw there, this by far was the tech that I wanted the most. The images were simply stunning (dispite most of the content they were showing was filtered 8bit)
They did have some 12bit content to show, where were impressive. Interestingly, they were showing a 12bit movie from EA's fightnight round 3 (ps3/xbox360 game). I asked a few questions, and it turned out that it wasn't actually an in-game movie running in HDR, as they had rendered the background in HDR seperatly then compositied it with the 8bit foreground for the movie.
Perhaps the most impressive aspect of this, was that you got naturally occuring image bloom. No more post processing needed :) - in fact the blooming used in the EA demo actually made it look bad
Of all the videos they showed, one in perticular was impressive. It was still 8-bit, but had a filter running in the TV's hardware to convert it to 16bit depedning on the gradients in the image (I would guess). Anyway, at one point in this video, a 3D genie fired some magic spell at you. There is a brief, but *incredibly bright* flash. It was amazing.
The company were also talking about their HDR-JPEG and HDR-MPEG formats, which sound promising as they are apparently backwards compatible.sounds cool :)
..and, welcome to the Beyond3D forums :)
fallguy
10-Sep-2005, 02:23
Here comes more of the anti-lcd ignorance again...
thanks for the welcome :)
I wouldnt be surprised if they overheat something mighty
After looking up, you are probably right. The closest equivalent to the brightside lcd I mentioned would be the 40" samsungs, they use around 200W max. The brightside uses max 1600W. So yes, it might get a tad warm :)
Although I wonder how dense the LED grid is compared to the lcd's resolution. Somehow I doubt there are ~2 million leds in behind the screen.. :)
Here comes more of the anti-lcd ignorance again...
Meh.
Having spent time with a 2001FP, I def see why people dont like lcds other than the size of them, although Ive used other lcds in the past, I expected this one to be better.
Same old greyish blacks and wierd color as always.
I heard the 2405FP has beter blacks but that's damn expensive and still isn't as good as a crt.
As long as crts offer better quality at lower prices, that's what I, and many others who value quality will be sticking too.
Lcds are great for space savings for the general public and people who dont care about quality, but for true enthusiasts they are unacceptable.
I'd figure a website dedicated to videos cards (mostly) would take the side of quality or size.
while crt's have their problems (geometry and some have shitty brightness), overall they're a better solution for those that have room to spare for superior quality :smile:
soylent
10-Sep-2005, 04:48
http://www.hitl.washington.edu/projects/vrd/
*drool*(probably far from cheap and ubiquitous implementation, but not having a display is an awesome advantage. No need for bulky power hogs that illuminate the entire room when you can use a few mW directly into your eye. And best of all, there is no aspect ratio in actual pixels because there is no actual screen or pixels. It's perfectly suited for stereoscopic 3d right from the start and it's portable, and private)
hmmm. funny you should mention the VRD.....
I actually contract work for both the new zealand and seattle hitlab's (I'm currently in the seattle hitlab completing a project). I havn't had a chance to try the VRD unfortunatly, and havn't seen it about the lab, so I can't comment on how effective it is. When I go in on monday I'll see if tom is about so maybe I can change that :)
I can definitly say though that the promise of high-field of view see-through vector-based displays would be bliss. Having worked a fair bit with lcd/oled based hmds I can tell you it's something that is severly needed, and needed now.
Overall the hitlabs are something of an oddity really. Even though I've been involved with both for a couple of years I'm still not sure what to believe. It's basically equal parts technical proficiency and self marketing clout, not that the latter is a bad thing, it's a requirement in the US - it's just sometimes I can't tell which I'm hearing, if you get what I mean.
hmph. ohh well at least I get to screw about with graphics and HI.
As for lcd vs crt, a year ago I upgraded from a philips 19" crt to a viewsonic 20" lcd. The difference is night and day. I would never go back. (it's 8bit/channel lcd so it's good :) )
horray
Actually you downgraded, but anyway.
Facts don't lie I'm afraid.
Lcds just dont offer the quality crts do, as of now, that is a plain and simple fact.
Chalnoth
10-Sep-2005, 20:24
Wasn't some company (Philips?) developing LCD monitors which turn off backlighting during switching to get rid of blur?
That doesn't make any sense at all. Simply making the screen black when switching won't make the pixels change their color any faster.
I believe there was a panel discussion on next generation displays at SIGGRAPH this year. I didnt attend the session so I dont know if its relevant but it might be worth checking out if you have access to the proceedings.
Chalnoth
10-Sep-2005, 20:37
And best of all, there is no aspect ratio in actual pixels because there is no actual screen or pixels.
Er, this isn't true. You need to have a rectangular "screen" for optimal computer display output (The output needn't necessarily be rectangular, but the data will be), and you're going to need to have pixels to represent the digital content the computer produces. And thus, there will be an aspect ratio in actual pixels.
Actually you downgraded, but anyway.
Facts don't lie I'm afraid.
Lcds just dont offer the quality crts do, as of now, that is a plain and simple fact.
Just like CRTs don't offer the qualities TFTs offer. ;)
That doesn't make any sense at all. Simply making the screen black when switching won't make the pixels change their color any faster.It's not about making them change faster, it is about not seeing the display as it is settling (ie. during the time there are 2 superimposed frames on it). If the screen settles within 1/fps then it will help.
Just like CRTs don't offer the qualities TFTs offer. ;)
Like poor contrast ratios, innaccurate color and high dot pitches?
TFT's have a few things going for them: size, power consumption and they dont flicker.
The up sides of crts outweighs the downsides of them.
But I guess not all of us prefer quality over size.
Chalnoth
10-Sep-2005, 21:32
It's not about making them change faster, it is about not seeing the display as it is settling (ie. during the time there are 2 superimposed frames on it). If the screen settles within 1/fps then it will help.
That still doesn't make any sense, because our eyes will superimpose the images anyway at 60Hz.
Like poor contrast ratios, innaccurate color and high dot pitches?
TFT's have a few things going for them: size, power consumption and they dont flicker.
The up sides of crts outweighs the downsides of them.
But I guess not all of us prefer quality over size.
I'd take a 17" TFT over a 20" CRT any day - because of its superior image quality for my purposes. High dot pitches? Do you know CRTs beyond 130 dpi?
I use my computer mostly for work, therefore I prefer a crisp, flicker-free image at a high resolution with perfect geometry over a slightly blurred, flickering one, even if the colors are worse. If I had more time to devote for gaming and watching DVDs, maybe I'd buy a CRT as third monitor.
I'd take a 17" TFT over a 20" CRT any day - because of its superior image quality for my purposes. High dot pitches? Do you know CRTs beyond 130 dpi?
I use my computer mostly for work, therefore I prefer a crisp, flicker-free image at a high resolution with perfect geometry over a slightly blurred, flickering one, even if the colors are worse. If I had more time to devote for gaming and watching DVDs, maybe I'd buy a CRT as third monitor.
Crts dont flicker at high enough refresh rates (75 for me) and you know that.
A dell 2001fp has a dot pitch of .264mm, a viewsonic P95F has a dot pitch of .25mm- slightly better.
A 2005fp has a dot pitch of .27.
As for blurring, I'll leave that alone since you left your self right open with that.
Our visual system is used to it's own response time, and it can get a sharp image by tracking motion if it wants. Dont forget, we dont actually look at the whole screen as such ... our eyes just kinda hop all across it.
Strobe updating displays will always be better for motion.
Crts dont flicker at high enough refresh rates (75 for me) and you know that.
A dell 2001fp has a dot pitch of .264mm, a viewsonic P95F has a dot pitch of .25mm- slightly better.
A 2005fp has a dot pitch of .27.
As for blurring, I'll leave that alone since you left your self right open with that.
I do notice flicker on CRTs at 85Hz (peripheral vision is much more sensitive to flicker, and I'm not constantly staring at the middle of the screen). And I do notice eye strain after hours of work on a CRT even at 100 Hz. With a TFT, I don't. That's enough reason to prefer TFTs over CRTs for me. But there are others.
My notebook display has a resolution of 130 dpi. It's really a shame you can hardly get monitors with that resolution. The font quality is just awesome.
As for the blurring: as I said, I rarely play games or watch DVDs on my computer lately. So I don't care much about ghosting in motion, but I care a lot about the slight blur every CRT exhibits, even the good ones, because you can't hit its native resolution.
Chalnoth
11-Sep-2005, 00:54
And for those of us that do game a lot, we also change resolution frequently, meaning that the blurring would be worse for a TFT.
Actually you downgraded, but anyway.
Facts don't lie I'm afraid.
Lcds just dont offer the quality crts do, as of now, that is a plain and simple fact.
Well considering I did not mention model names for either, I'm not sure how you can say that. It's a bit arrogant really.
To answer that,
I've used a large variety of crt monitors in my time, from horrible 14"s to 22" profesional ones capable of 1920x1400. I personally have a 1600x1200 viewsonic 20" lcd (http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=vp201b&page=1), and can say with absolute certainty it's the best monitor I have ever used. It's colours in perticular absolutly blow every crt I've used away. I'm not saying there arn't better CRTs that what I've used, of course there are, but then again there are better LCDs than mine.
Also do not underestimate the value of a portrait capable display (http://legion.gibbering.net/projectx/random/1200.jpg). Ever.
And for those of us that do game a lot, we also change resolution frequently, meaning that the blurring would be worse for a TFT.
Ya, you really have unless you have a 7800.
Since i have a lowly 6600GT I play older (or less demanding) games at 1600x1200 and other games like doom 3 at 1280x960.
Well considering I did not mention model names for either, I'm not sure how you can say that. It's a bit arrogant really.
To answer that,
I've used a large variety of crt monitors in my time, from horrible 14"s to 22" profesional ones capable of 1920x1400. I personally have a 1600x1200 viewsonic 20" lcd (http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=vp201b&page=1), and can say with absolute certainty it's the best monitor I have ever used. It's colours in perticular absolutly blow every crt I've used away. I'm not saying there arn't better CRTs that what I've used, of course there are, but then again there are better LCDs than mine.
Also do not underestimate the value of a portrait capable display (http://legion.gibbering.net/projectx/random/1200.jpg). Ever.
It may seem so to you, but really from a technical standpoint, crts are superior, I was just giving some examples of popular lcds.
Lcds are small and for text and such they can be quite nice.
Lcd colors may look good to you, and that's fine but go read some lcds reviews that include measurements of contrast ratio, color reproduction and of course pixel responce time and with those hard facts, lcds do not look so impressive.
I'm not misunderestimating (intended) anything.
Don't misunderstand me, when lcds get to the point where they have no ghosting, deep blacks and accurate colors as well as affordable, I'll hop right on the bandwagon.
The point isn't that LCDs are "better" than CRTs, but that the compromises of modern LCDs are more acceptable to the full PC buying audience than CRTs. The simple difference in size (i.e. depth) is enough to sell LCDs no matter what the compromises are, and anyone who has used LCDs in the last few years is aware of how small the other compromises are getting, and the various points where LCDs outperform CRTs.
This is of course only true for users with no specialised needs (such as exact colour calibration or particular resolutions). But such users are at most a few % of the market. CRTs are no longer being made by most manufacturers for good reason.
My own experience of having moved to a dual screen LCD setup in the last year is that I have definitely made a considerable improvement to my viewing pleasure. For my average needs (internet, email, various other 2d apps, occasional gaming, WoW addiction) I simply don't find myself suffering from any of the "compromises". (note, I have a dell 2005FPW IPS panel as main screen).
edit: note that reading reviews simply doesn't tell you if you can live with the compromises. You really have to use an LCD for a few months and then decide if the experience was positive or negative.
Luminescent
11-Sep-2005, 13:43
Let's not forget the lack of stereoscopic technology in reasonably priced, mainstream monitors.
edit: note that reading reviews simply doesn't tell you if you can live with the compromises. You really have to use an LCD for a few months and then decide if the experience was positive or negative.Depends on how rich you are, if the price of a large LCD monitor is real money to you the fact you spend that much is always going to colour your vision ;)
Joe DeFuria
11-Sep-2005, 14:56
Depends on how rich you are, if the price of a large LCD monitor is real money to you the fact you spend that much is always going to colour your vision ;)
On the other hand, if the price of a large LCD monitor is real money to you such that you can't afford it..that might color your vision as well. :)
Chalnoth
11-Sep-2005, 16:58
On the other hand, if the price of a large LCD monitor is real money to you such that you can't afford it..that might color your vision as well. :)
LCD's have been getting dramatically cheaper this year, such that large LCD's these days are typically not much more expensive than similar-size CRT's (remember that an LCD's size is the full size of the screen, and thus more comparable to a CRT's "viewable" size spec).
When will current generation monitors need to be replaced?
Assuming a responsible end user, I'd say it all depends on the quality of the monitor...;) My wife is using a 21" Panasonic E21 bought in 1998, manufactured in 1997--still running flawlessly. I'm using a 21" Sony E540 bought and manufactured in 2002 and running perfectly today.
What limitations do they currently have in relation to 3D graphics?
Limitations in comparison to what? If compared to TFTs/LCDs--I can't think of any at all...;) The Sony is better than the Panasonic, if that's what you mean. I'd trade neither for an LCD.
Is the range of colours of traditional CRTs and LCDs posing as a future problem?
It's the range of colors most 3d game engines can display that's the current problem, I think. Even so, I wouldn't swap out my CRTs except for better CRTs.
What could eventually replace traditional monitors?
Better, newer and improved traditional monitors?...;) Some progress is being made as I read on reducing the depth required for beam-gun focus in traditional CRT designs.
It's also nice not having to worry over "dead pixels" and so on. Nice not having to worry over resolutions, either, as CRTs can support them all full screen.
IMO, the only advantage to LCDs that I can think of is depth and weight. If you want IQ stick with quality CRTs. But even with CRTs never forget that you get what you pay for...;)
WhiningKhan
11-Sep-2005, 20:02
I do notice flicker on CRTs at 85Hz (peripheral vision is much more sensitive to flicker, and I'm not constantly staring at the middle of the screen). And I do notice eye strain after hours of work on a CRT even at 100 Hz. With a TFT, I don't. That's enough reason to prefer TFTs over CRTs for me. But there are others.
My notebook display has a resolution of 130 dpi. It's really a shame you can hardly get monitors with that resolution. The font quality is just awesome.
As for the blurring: as I said, I rarely play games or watch DVDs on my computer lately. So I don't care much about ghosting in motion, but I care a lot about the slight blur every CRT exhibits, even the good ones, because you can't hit its native resolution.
I agree completely. For the last years I've been working with a laptop, and after a normal work day (coding, writing spec, using EDA tools, occasional surfing...) there's no eye strain. But at home I have a 19" Hitachi CRT, and a few intensive hours in front of it brings tears in my eyes even at 100Hz.
I still have a CRT around, which I used for accurate color reproduction. It's not that LCD can't have good color reproduction, but LCDs tend to have weird effects on the viewing angle, such as color changes when you move around. I use LCD for almost all other purposes, including gaming.
The point isn't that LCDs are "better" than CRTs, but that the compromises of modern LCDs are more acceptable to the full PC buying audience than CRTs. The simple difference in size (i.e. depth) is enough to sell LCDs no matter what the compromises are, and anyone who has used LCDs in the last few years is aware of how small the other compromises are getting, and the various points where LCDs outperform CRTs.
This is of course only true for users with no specialised needs (such as exact colour calibration or particular resolutions). But such users are at most a few % of the market. CRTs are no longer being made by most manufacturers for good reason.
My own experience of having moved to a dual screen LCD setup in the last year is that I have definitely made a considerable improvement to my viewing pleasure. For my average needs (internet, email, various other 2d apps, occasional gaming, WoW addiction) I simply don't find myself suffering from any of the "compromises". (note, I have a dell 2005FPW IPS panel as main screen).
edit: note that reading reviews simply doesn't tell you if you can live with the compromises. You really have to use an LCD for a few months and then decide if the experience was positive or negative.
Built in video is fine for most users, but you dont see me with it now do you?
Who needs high res gaming, who needs fsaa etc.
Show me an lcd that has better color reproduction, better blacks and minimal ghosting vs a crt of the same price range.
soylent
12-Sep-2005, 03:24
Er, this isn't true. You need to have a rectangular "screen" for optimal computer display output (The output needn't necessarily be rectangular, but the data will be), and you're going to need to have pixels to represent the digital content the computer produces. And thus, there will be an aspect ratio in actual pixels.
There is an aspect ratio when you have _chosen_ one, and there is a resolution when you _choose_ one, but there is no reason that this choice can't be left up to the user(within limits of course). With an actual screen using an aspect ratio of x:y of hardware based actual physical pixel elements, you are locked into this and displaying any media with a different aspect ratio is a pain because you either stretch content, crop content, don't use the full area of your screen or a combination of these.
Changing resolutions is also a bit of a pain with many monitors, LCDs in particular, where the image is digitally scaled to fit the screen which often looks really ugly.
There is no reason this device shouldn't equally well handle 2.35:1 just as well as it handles 4:3 without chaning anything in the hardware, just set it to a different display mode and off you go. There is no display device capable of this today that I am aware of.
K.I.L.E.R
12-Sep-2005, 06:33
What do you mean by this?
Are you saying that if I had a refresh rate of 61Hz, it would be no better than having it at 60Hz?
That still doesn't make any sense, because our eyes will superimpose the images anyway at 60Hz.
I agree completely. For the last years I've been working with a laptop, and after a normal work day (coding, writing spec, using EDA tools, occasional surfing...) there's no eye strain. But at home I have a 19" Hitachi CRT, and a few intensive hours in front of it brings tears in my eyes even at 100Hz.
Sounds resolution-related to me...I use LCDs at work, too, and notice I have little eye strain mainly because I'm either running in 800x600 or 1024x768. At home with my 21" CRT I run only at 1152x864 and higher, and do notice a bit of eye strain at 1280x1024 and up--which I think is mainly caused by the smaller pixels and text, but easily remedied by shifting resoution down to 1152x864 when text is involved. With LCDs the pixels are always the same size (relatively big on 1024x768 LCDs) regardless of resolution, but with CRTs the pixel size changes with resolution. Eye-strain on CRTs caused by refresh rate is generally due to flicker and flicker is rare on quality CRTs at 100Hz (I don't see any); eye strain on CRTs caused by high-res, smaller pixels and text is much more common, imo.
IE, one should not use a CRT for text displays the way one uses an LCD for text displays--because of the CRT capability of changing the pixel size with resolution that is not possible with an LCD.
Chalnoth
13-Sep-2005, 03:59
Eye strain can also be caused by blur, which comes with higher resolutions on CRT's (to varying degrees depending on the dot pitch....I do well with 1280x960 on mine).
I've found that my Dell 2405FPW and 2005FPW screens are far superior in clarity and contrast to my previow Samsung Syncmaster 950P 19". And that was one of the best CRTs I've seen over the years. I simply can not get over how bright these LCDs are. If I put my CRT next to them it looks dull and dark. I was considering dual head with the 2005FPW and the 19" CRT until I put them side by side. The CRT is just plain awful in comparison. On the LCD Letters are incredibly sharp and crisp, images bright and vibrant. DVI is superior to analog but it's not a huge huge difference. Even analog can be good if you have a good video card (many vid cards are not good for analog at high res). I run analog all the time with some old comps here and even at 1920x1200 some are pretty good.
I've messed around with gamma correcting these two screens and they are surprisingly close to correct by default. DVI must help with that. The 2405FPW and 2005FPW have different color I've noticed, but it's not a huge difference. Whites on both are very good IMO. And yes, I've read the complaints about grayscale issues, but honestly I really don't see any disadvantages to the color of these screens in what I do (which is not serious graphic arts or photography, etc). I have never personally seen a CRT which is superior, that's is certain. Other than for black point of course. In that area LCDs are terrible.
To put it simply, playing Doom3 on a LCD sucks. Black point is AWFUL on ALL LCDs. I also don't like to have to deal with the limited number of pixels and widescreen for many games. Old DOS games look like shit on a LCD because of the upscaling they must do. The Dell LCDs have an aspect setting to prevent stretching, but you obviously lose about 1/3 of the screen then. If you can't run the LCD's default res, it will look terrible no matter how amazing the LCD may be. With respect to power usage, LCDs are pretty amazing. This 2405FPW uses like 80W, the 2005FPW 55W. My 19" CRT used over 100W. Then there's the sheer size savings. I can fit two huge LCDs on my tiny desk! And the near lack of weight!
I started with just the 2005FPW which I only bought after seeing one after a friend of mine bought one. It was sharp and bright, and looked great. Watching him play EQ2 on a 20.5" widescreen really caught my eye lol. Accepting the black point issue, I bought one too. I liked that screen so much that I convinced myself to blow $800 on a 2405FPW (Dell coupons!). I do not regret it at all. You haven't seen anything until you rotate at 24" widescreen to portrait and view websites. :) It's like a wall of image! And even with the black point issue, which honestly is only a problem for Doom3 and other black games lol (Quake?), gaming on a 24" LCD is a totally new experience. It is just amazing how much it draws you in.... BTW these Dell screens have very little light leakage.
So I guess I stand by LCDs in many ways. They aren't perfect, but both CRTs and LCDs are certainly not perfect. There are caveats to both. And this is from someone who was very strongly against LCD tech a year ago. I couldn't stand Doom3 on the things, and the limited pixels really bothered me. But I've seen their advantages now and have been blown away by them.
With regards to eye strain, I have some opinions on that. CRTs may be hard on the eyes. LCDs are too. I've been working on a laptop for almost two years now at work. It's a big one, 17" LCD. But I think the brightness of LCDs, especially these Dells, actually can hurt your eyes if you do not light your environment suitably. And since these screens are so bright you really need to brighten up your room.
I've found that my Dell 2405FPW and 2005FPW screens are far superior in clarity and contrast to my previow Samsung Syncmaster 950P 19". And that was one of the best CRTs I've seen over the years. I simply can not get over how bright these LCDs are. If I put my CRT next to them it looks dull and dark. I was considering dual head with the 2005FPW and the 19" CRT until I put them side by side. The CRT is just plain awful in comparison. On the LCD Letters are incredibly sharp and crisp, images bright and vibrant. DVI is superior to analog but it's not a huge huge difference. Even analog can be good if you have a good video card (many vid cards are not good for analog at high res). I run analog all the time with some old comps here and even at 1920x1200 some are pretty good.
I've messed around with gamma correcting these two screens and they are surprisingly close to correct by default. DVI must help with that. The 2405FPW and 2005FPW have different color I've noticed, but it's not a huge difference. Whites on both are very good IMO. And yes, I've read the complaints about grayscale issues, but honestly I really don't see any disadvantages to the color of these screens in what I do (which is not serious graphic arts or photography, etc). I have never personally seen a CRT which is superior, that's is certain. Other than for black point of course. In that area LCDs are terrible.
To put it simply, playing Doom3 on a LCD sucks. Black point is AWFUL on ALL LCDs. I also don't like to have to deal with the limited number of pixels and widescreen for many games. Old DOS games look like shit on a LCD because of the upscaling they must do. The Dell LCDs have an aspect setting to prevent stretching, but you obviously lose about 1/3 of the screen then. If you can't run the LCD's default res, it will look terrible no matter how amazing the LCD may be. With respect to power usage, LCDs are pretty amazing. This 2405FPW uses like 80W, the 2005FPW 55W. My 19" CRT used over 100W. Then there's the sheer size savings. I can fit two huge LCDs on my tiny desk! And the near lack of weight!
I started with just the 2005FPW which I only bought after seeing one after a friend of mine bought one. It was sharp and bright, and looked great. Watching him play EQ2 on a 20.5" widescreen really caught my eye lol. Accepting the black point issue, I bought one too. I liked that screen so much that I convinced myself to blow $800 on a 2405FPW (Dell coupons!). I do not regret it at all. You haven't seen anything until you rotate at 24" widescreen to portrait and view websites. :) It's like a wall of image! And even with the black point issue, which honestly is only a problem for Doom3 and other black games lol (Quake?), gaming on a 24" LCD is a totally new experience. It is just amazing how much it draws you in.... BTW these Dell screens have very little light leakage.
So I guess I stand by LCDs in many ways. They aren't perfect, but both CRTs and LCDs are certainly not perfect. There are caveats to both. And this is from someone who was very strongly against LCD tech a year ago. I couldn't stand Doom3 on the things, and the limited pixels really bothered me. But I've seen their advantages now and have been blown away by them.
With regards to eye strain, I have some opinions on that. CRTs may be hard on the eyes. LCDs are too. I've been working on a laptop for almost two years now at work. It's a big one, 17" LCD. But I think the brightness of LCDs, especially these Dells, actually can hurt your eyes if you do not light your environment suitably. And since these screens are so bright you really need to brighten up your room.
I pretty much agree.
There's no disputing lcds are bright, but it comes at a cost.
If you can accept it, cool.
If I didn't use my pc for watching movies and gaming I'd have a lcd, but since I do both, I use crt.
Wunderchu
18-Nov-2005, 02:59
HDR display:
http://www.brightsidetech.com
I just dislike how you cannot change the font size in windows and have everything work out. If I do then menus and stuff don't fit right.
The reason I say is that I like to sit decently far away and I like 1600x1200 but then I cannot read text so I have to ctrl+roll constantly or try to read half menu text or squint at small text, it is a crappy situation all around. Therefore I run at 1280x1024 for text...
way to revive this topic from the grave...
I do notice flicker on CRTs at 85Hz (peripheral vision is much more sensitive to flicker, and I'm not constantly staring at the middle of the screen). And I do notice eye strain after hours of work on a CRT even at 100 Hz. With a TFT, I don't. That's enough reason to prefer TFTs over CRTs for me. But there are others.
My notebook display has a resolution of 130 dpi. It's really a shame you can hardly get monitors with that resolution. The font quality is just awesome.
As for the blurring: as I said, I rarely play games or watch DVDs on my computer lately. So I don't care much about ghosting in motion, but I care a lot about the slight blur every CRT exhibits, even the good ones, because you can't hit its native resolution.
I think you nailed it on the spot here: For work (esp. programming and the like, i.e. text based working) a TFT usually is the better choice nowadays. There the TFTs' advantages (resolution, perfect geometry and sharpness) can shine the most, while the disadvantages (poor color reproduction, shitty black levels, ghosting etc.) don't matter that much.
OTOH - I wouldn't dream of going TFT (or at least TFT-only) at home (for playing games etc.).
Chalnoth
18-Nov-2005, 09:23
I think you nailed it on the spot here: For work (esp. programming and the like, i.e. text based working) a TFT usually is the better choice nowadays. There the TFTs' advantages (resolution, perfect geometry and sharpness) can shine the most,
Not to mention desk space. That can be a big deal, depending upon where and how you work.
I know that I often look in envy at my fellow graduate students with newer flatpanel displays, whereas I happen to be stuck with an old 21" CRT that takes up a huge portion of my desk. Granted, it's not as bad as it used to be, as I have much more desk space now. But it'd still be nice to have more.
ClyssaN
18-Nov-2005, 10:15
Thats my opinon to, i program a lot and a tft is just great, but for gaming my 21º CRT is the best :)
Chalnoth
18-Nov-2005, 11:02
Thats my opinon to, i program a lot and a tft is just great, but for gaming my 21º CRT is the best :)
Of course :) There's no way I would give up my excellent 19" CRT at home for an LCD display.
When will traditional monitors come to a point where they are infeasible?
As soon as we have something better, which is still not the case.
thanks for the welcome :)
After looking up, you are probably right. The closest equivalent to the brightside lcd I mentioned would be the 40" samsungs, they use around 200W max. The brightside uses max 1600W. So yes, it might get a tad warm :)
Although I wonder how dense the LED grid is compared to the lcd's resolution. Somehow I doubt there are ~2 million leds in behind the screen.. :)
1600W! Might cause the wiring in some older houses to catch fire when plugged in...
BTW, I prefer my LCD to the humoungous CRT I used to have.
It runs much cooler, which makes a noticable difference in room temperature.
Geometry is correct.
There's no 'shadows' on the image. The CRT I used to have had a vague outline around anything high contrast which looked like crap.
And not to mention, the image isn't blurry. True, I lost my max res of 1856x1398 or whatever my CRT could do, but the image got so blurry at that resolution, or even 1600x1200.
Sure, I might lose color accuracy, but I haven't seen any current games (most of which are still using 8 bit or 16 bit textures) where this affects the image quality severely.
Not to mention there's no way I would have ever brought a 90lb CRT with me to college, heck, I don't even think it would fit on the desks they give us, not with a keyboard and a comfortable viewing distance anyhow.
I'm not sure if I can say the CRT flickering was better or worse though. My CRT had a 100hz refresh rate, and I never noticed flickering, but when I got my LCD I could have sworn the back light was flickering. (is there some natural flicker induced from the 60hz power used?) It was such an eye strain, and I couldn't even turn the brightness down to make it barable as the image quality went to complete crap when I did that, so I had to leave it overbright until I got used to it.
I do prefer an image that is much easier to see with ambient light, LCDs have no glare and don't fade as easily as a CRT image.
{Sniping}Waste
18-Nov-2005, 16:07
When will current generation monitors need to be replaced?
What limitations do they currently have in relation to 3D graphics?
Is the range of colours of traditional CRTs and LCDs posing as a future problem?
What could eventually replace traditional monitors?
TIs DLP is what im waiting for. The price is the problem, but when the price drops, we will see some DLP monitors.
TIs DLP is what im waiting for. The price is the problem, but when the price drops, we will see some DLP monitors.
Second that. Looks very promising.
{Sniping}Waste
18-Nov-2005, 17:21
For more info about DLPs, go here.
http://www.dlp.com/Default.asp?DCMP=TIHomeTracking&HQS=Other+OT+home_p_dlp&bhcp=1
The max res is 1920X1080 for now and that would be great for a 24" monitor when the prices drop on the DLPs.
Slightly off-topic, but relevant to migrating away from CRTs:
Had I the spare cash, I would punt about four old CRTs out of my computer room and replace them with LCD displays. Not because of image quality, or space, or any of the traditional arguments... but because I need to reduce the amount of heat that is generated in that room.
The one LCD I have produces a small fraction of the heat that CRTs do.
Himself
18-Nov-2005, 17:51
Nobody mentioned HDCP yet, that might be a reason for having to switch monitors for some people. Or it will be a selling point that will lure people to displays with dvi inputs with hdcp, just so they won't be limited in what they can do on their computers, everything else being equal.
Crts vs Lcds, I've never seen two crts with the same colours, no doubt they are capable of it, but there is too much analog involved for you to see it much in the wild. You design a nice looking gui for an application and someone else looks at it and are like WTF? Not dark enough, too dark, colours look off, blah blah blah. :) I like lcds because you just plug them in, you aren't spending hours fiddling with settings and then refiddling with settings when you come across a new application that doesn't look right, and so on.
Eye strain is more about focusing intently at a fixed distance for hours at a time, less about refresh rates unless they affect the focus.
I'm pretty happy with my gateway 21" widescreen lcd (fpd2185W).
Nobody mentioned HDCP yet, that might be a reason for having to switch monitors for some people. Or it will be a selling point that will lure people to displays with dvi inputs with hdcp, just so they won't be limited in what they can do on their computers, everything else being equal.
Crts vs Lcds, I've never seen two crts with the same colours, no doubt they are capable of it, but there is too much analog involved for you to see it much in the wild. You design a nice looking gui for an application and someone else looks at it and are like WTF? Not dark enough, too dark, colours look off, blah blah blah. :) I like lcds because you just plug them in, you aren't spending hours fiddling with settings and then refiddling with settings when you come across a new application that doesn't look right, and so on.
Eye strain is more about focusing intently at a fixed distance for hours at a time, less about refresh rates unless they affect the focus.
I'm pretty happy with my gateway 21" widescreen lcd (fpd2185W).
Er there are applications where you can setup your crt... Not that you need to.
You set a crt up with the brightness/contrast you like and the geometry and thats it.
I dont know wtf you're smokin...
it takes all of 5 minutes.
Naturally different makes and models look different (I came from a impression 7 to a HP M70) but you get used to the differences in color.
There are also huge difference in brightness/black levels with lcds so you really need to put some thought into your rants.
lcds all look equally bad:razz:
Except of course the non consumer LED backlit ones...
Until there are consumer Led backlit lcds with good colors, lcds have few advantages over crts.
Himself
18-Nov-2005, 19:42
Er there are applications where you can setup your crt... Not that you need to.
You set a crt up with the brightness/contrast you like and the geometry and thats it.
I dont know wtf you're smokin...
it takes all of 5 minutes.
Naturally different makes and models look different (I came from a impression 7 to a HP M70) but you get used to the differences in color.
There are also huge difference in brightness/black levels with lcds so you really need to put some thought into your rants.
lcds all look equally bad:razz:
Except of course the non consumer LED backlit ones...
Until there are consumer Led backlit lcds with good colors, lcds have few advantages over crts.
You can't even get equivalent contrast and brightness between crts, let alone colours, and I've used various software, I've even opened up monitors and adjusted the trim pots for driving levels and bias, analog is a bitch, there is no getting around it. And no you can't get used to differences in color, especially in a multimonitor environment where you drag a window from one monitor to the next and it looks totally different. There is no such thing as perfect geometry and focus all across the screen either, it's maddening. :)
Given two lcds of the same model and two crts of the same model, the lcds will have the same colour and the crts won't. Try it yourself. So long as there are things like trim pots involved, nobody will get identical colours on crts.
You can't even get equivalent contrast and brightness between crts, let alone colours, and I've used various software, I've even opened up monitors and adjusted the trim pots for driving levels and bias, analog is a bitch, there is no getting around it. And no you can't get used to differences in color, especially in a multimonitor environment where you drag a window from one monitor to the next and it looks totally different. There is no such thing as perfect geometry and focus all across the screen either, it's maddening. :)
Given two lcds of the same model and two crts of the same model, the lcds will have the same colour and the crts won't. Try it yourself. So long as there are things like trim pots involved, nobody will get identical colours on crts.
Uh duh.. I said that already but if you take averages between crts and lcds you will find a crt has a more correct gamma curve and obviously the contrast will be miles better and different brand lcds also look totally different.
One note about that- I've noticed several LCD fanatics who are unsure what us crt fanantics are talking about when we talk about the lack of deep black levels on lcds and I've found they use them in well lit rooms so naturally you'll have a hard time getting black levels out of either so you really need to look at the differences with the lights out at night or put a blanket or something over the window.
The differences is huge there.
However if you ever see something small and bright running across a crt you can see how it makes the surround area glow :p
I never got on the dual display craze.. even though I have 2 crts (with vasty different color.. but different brands...) I lost the dvi-vga dongles that came with my 6600GT so I had to use the one that came with my radeon :lol:
if you have two different lcds you can also have huge differences in the way they look so it's not limiied to crts ya know- you should be running the same model so you should be able to get them look atleast close.
Chalnoth
18-Nov-2005, 20:38
The differences aren't so much in the analog nature, but rather in the phosphors used. Different CRT's use different phosphors, which in turn have different color responses. This can partially be managed by gamma correction.
But the real benefit of CRT's over LCD's is excellent resolution in the dark end of the spectrum.
The differences aren't so much in the analog nature, but rather in the phosphors used. Different CRT's use different phosphors, which in turn have different color responses. This can partially be managed by gamma correction.
But the real benefit of CRT's over LCD's is excellent resolution in the dark end of the spectrum.
...abd the ability to use more than 1 res!
Very important for "gaming" monitors since not all of us have 600+ worth of graphics cards.
caboosemoose
19-Nov-2005, 00:07
Well, I must confess to being a devout member of the church of LCD. I do appreciate the advantages of CRTs in term of colour fidelity, black levels, resolution scaling and motion rendering. However, LCDs are closing the gap in those areas bit by bit, day by day (except the res scaling which will have to wait until panels hit crazy, pixels-too-small-to-see resolutions).
The best of the current crop of panels offers enough in those departments to satisfy the vast majority of users. Then there's the clear benefits of LCDs. Firstly, obviously, there's perfect geometry. Related to that and probably more important is perfect pixel focus. This is a major benefit for those using their screens day in day out and along with reduced electromagnetic emmissions and surface reflectivity (except those glossy panels, of course) results in much less eye fatigue in my view.
Of course, the best of the current crop of LCDs is also much brighter than any CRT monitor. I'm currently running an HP 2335 23-inch widescreen panel with a native of 1,920 x 1,200 and I very much doubt anyone who had experience of a panel such as that would choose to go back to a CRT unless they had extraordinarily exacting needs. To be honest, the CRT vs LCD argument is pretty much dead for most PC users, it's flat panels all the way, regardless of the pros and cons. My only complaint is that you have to go to 20-inches or more to get a decent amount of desktop real estate.
The first 19-inch monitor to offer a higher native than 1,280 x 1,280 will clean up, I reckon (though from what hear none of the actul panel makers have plans in this area). Overall, I'd say a monitor like Dell's 20-inch widescreen 2005 fpw is pretty tough to beat in the sensible money space and will give most users an experience that they thoroughly enjoy. As for the future, I suspect the combination of a fine grid LED array backlight delivering high dynamic range with improved LCD siwthcing tech will be the next step and when that arrives there'll be no contest.
...abd the ability to use more than 1 res!
Very important for "gaming" monitors since not all of us have 600+ worth of graphics cards.
umm.. while I own mid-end graphics card (6600GT) I am ready to drop quality levels to get native resolution of my TFT. of course this is personal choice of everyone. Still, in most DVI / TFT displays you can still set so that the panel does not upscale the signal, but places it to panel as centered. This again makes image smaller, but at least you get superior sharpnes.
Plus, there's quite huge difference in display side scalers. in my old 15" TFT, it's pretty much bad, but again in my new 26" WXGA TV with DVI, it looks ok.
umm.. while I own mid-end graphics card (6600GT) I am ready to drop quality levels to get native resolution of my TFT. of course this is personal choice of everyone. Still, in most DVI / TFT displays you can still set so that the panel does not upscale the signal, but places it to panel as centered. This again makes image smaller, but at least you get superior sharpnes.
Plus, there's quite huge difference in display side scalers. in my old 15" TFT, it's pretty much bad, but again in my new 26" WXGA TV with DVI, it looks ok.
Well it's a choice you have to make because of the limitations of the technology.
Since I have a crt I'm content to drop the res down to 1024 before dropping detail considerally.
I useally like to atleast get try to keep texture quality up and lower the fancy stuff.
So how long until TFT's can scale an image good to where you have to look really closely to notice and untill they have some kind of a tech to have good black levels (comparable to crts).
I only use a CRT because it was free and I'm a bit of a videophile.
I only use a CRT because it was free and I'm a bit of a videophile.
...and I am a bit of Animationholic, in which case the vibrant colors and crisp sharpness can easily give you same amount as what you lose in black levels in dark scenes. :)
Basically, I don't think it matters much which display you use, as long as you are happy with it and it fits on your needs.
ChronoReverse
21-Nov-2005, 18:03
Speaking of the scaling problems with LCDs. Is there any reason why there hasn't been a hardware scaler that utilizes something like a Bicubic or Lanczos Resize? I'm pretty sure the scaling wouldn't be nearly as blurry if something like that was available.
...and I am a bit of Animationholic, in which case the vibrant colors and crisp sharpness can easily give you same amount as what you lose in black levels in dark scenes. :)
Basically, I don't think it matters much which display you use, as long as you are happy with it and it fits on your needs.
Vibrant colors don't mean accurate...
If you go into a home theater place a trick to sell more expensive tvs is to crank up the saturation as most people know.
I find my crt sharp enough, not totally sharp but I rather like it since I watch movies on it and it's just plain better suited for watching moves than any traditional lcd.
it fits my needs:smile:
Vibrant colors don't mean accurate....
Of Course I tuned it with Nokia Monitor Tester. (suprisingly the auto setup did splendid job for contrast / brightness setup. Brightness was correct to start with and contrast needed on 2 notches down.)
After watching The Lion King and Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron, there's huge difference to CRT in animation color reproduction. (these two movies especially, because both still have several different drawing techniques applied. CG animations look really synthetic compared to these. (Not that it would mean those being worse, but more like different.))
Also, I was positively supprised the effect that active backlight gives. TV has detector for Ambient light in room and it changes brightness of backlight acording to room light conditions. (more expensive version has even color temperature adjust, but I am happy with this already. :) and of course, you can turn it off, if you don't like it.)
If you go into a home theater place a trick to sell more expensive tvs is to crank up the saturation as most people know.
yeah, plus using ONE image source to all tvs and SCART splitter does not help the image quality either.
Hypnotik
22-Nov-2005, 12:16
There was an article recently on hardware.fr about SED:
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/593-1/rencontre-avec-troisieme-type-sed.html
Wasn't some company (Philips?) developing LCD monitors which turn off backlighting during switching to get rid of blur?
That still leaves blacklevel as a problem, but the LED based backlighting from the HDR displays can help quite a bit there ... not cheap though.
Samsung has a new LED backlight for mass production in the second half of 2006: http://www.samsung.com/us/Products/Semiconductor/USNews/TFTLCD/TFTLCD_20051012_0000200301.asp
Mass production of 32-inch panels without color filters is scheduled to begin in the second half of 2006.
Specifications
Resolution: 1366X768
Color Saturation: 110% (NTSC)
Contrast: 1000:1
Response Time: 5ms
Power Consumption: 82W
Brightness: 500nits
Aperture Ratio: 78%
It doesn't sound like the backlight can adapt to the image though, they'd probably need a patent license to do that.
Of Course I tuned it with Nokia Monitor Tester. (suprisingly the auto setup did splendid job for contrast / brightness setup. Brightness was correct to start with and contrast needed on 2 notches down.)
After watching The Lion King and Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron, there's huge difference to CRT in animation color reproduction. (these two movies especially, because both still have several different drawing techniques applied. CG animations look really synthetic compared to these. (Not that it would mean those being worse, but more like different.))
Also, I was positively supprised the effect that active backlight gives. TV has detector for Ambient light in room and it changes brightness of backlight acording to room light conditions. (more expensive version has even color temperature adjust, but I am happy with this already. :) and of course, you can turn it off, if you don't like it.)
yeah, plus using ONE image source to all tvs and SCART splitter does not help the image quality either.
That light detector i prettt spiffy:grin:
squarewithin
23-Nov-2005, 02:18
Speaking of the scaling problems with LCDs. Is there any reason why there hasn't been a hardware scaler that utilizes something like a Bicubic or Lanczos Resize? I'm pretty sure the scaling wouldn't be nearly as blurry if something like that was available.
There are quite a few on the market. Most are bundled in a signal format converter. Only problem is that most target videophiles and cost 10x more than your monitor.
friskyolive
03-Dec-2005, 05:20
I use my computer on and off for the entire morn/day/evening. I have a CRT monitor, and I will not give up multiple resolutions, 10 bit depth- which leads to more precise colour accuracy, and end result; is how graphics are displayed; IE: RGB/Alpha, strong/luminent gamma, whiter whites, blacker blacks, gray scales, etc..CRT has way less dithering than LCD, to acheive same colour output..
This is why I choose ati (matrox is the best, though 3d performance sucks) and my CRT. I guess it's difficult to vary colour reproduction on LCD technology..
My Viewsonic 19" CRT is 6yrs old and still plugging away; and once 0 response time LCDs or newer/thinner/better CRT comes out, I'll hold on to this behemoth..
Everyone who buys your average TN-Panel "gamer" TFT obviously doesn't give a shit about image quality. It's interessting to see that some people seem to be unable to perceive the lack of color fidelity, rough gray scale gradient and shitty black display of TN-Panel TFTs. These damn things, that are usually recommended by hardware test websites and magazines, are a huge step back from an CRT in terms of image quality.
i didn't know about the difference between 6bit and 8bit panels when i bought my samsung 172x. believe me, lesson learned... :sad:
Chalnoth
03-Dec-2005, 07:03
You're not getting 10-bit color, friskyolive.
There are quite a few on the market. Most are bundled in a signal format converter. Only problem is that most target videophiles and cost 10x more than your monitor.
What does the Viewsonic N6 have? It seems to fair worse than the built in scalar in my monitor.
i didn't know about the difference between 6bit and 8bit panels when i bought my samsung 172x. believe me, lesson learned...
I can tell the difference, if the software is capable of displaying it. The Xbox ports that have made up PC games for the last several years do not show the limitations of a 6 bit display.
You're not getting 10-bit color, friskyolive.
Why not? Surely if you have a 10bpc framebuffer, through a good DAC, any CRT will display that analogue signal properly? I ask that in all seriousness, my knowledge of displays is pretty thin in places. If the DAC is capable and preserves the colour data, why isn't it 10bpc?
friskyolive
03-Dec-2005, 23:28
You're not getting 10-bit color, friskyolive.
Enlighten me, then, please. ?? :) Tell me it is not ATI drivers and RAMDAC; or God forbid, my monitor? :(
squarewithin
04-Dec-2005, 02:10
What does the Viewsonic N6 have? It seems to fair worse than the built in scalar in my monitor.
No idea, I've never used it. I'm not very familiar with them myself, but I generally know that the good ones cost.
Why not? Surely if you have a 10bpc framebuffer, through a good DAC, any CRT will display that analogue signal properly? I ask that in all seriousness, my knowledge of displays is pretty thin in places. If the DAC is capable and preserves the colour data, why isn't it 10bpc?
Numerous reasons. First, while Windows supports 10 bit framebuffers, it only does so in fullscreen mode. None of the native GUI elements make use of it. Because it steals the extra 6 bits from the alpha channel, you can't use it for games, and no games I know of implement it. Unless you are running some very specialty applications, you aren't using 10 bits. Assuming you are, and you have a magical DAC that does 10 bit conversion properly (which is probably untrue for a consumer-level card), you still have everything down the line. Signal noise in the cable, noise on the other end, power fluctuations all contribute to loss of quality. The circuitry in your monitor probably isn't exact enough to preserve all 1024 discretizations. Generally, 10 bits implies "we aren't using circuitry that quantizes to 8 bits" not "we've tested everything to make certain you get 10 bits end to end". There's a lot of loss along the way. From my discussions with various people in film production and the medical display community, you end up with something like 80% of the bits in the end using analog. Guys at (I think) Disney said they measured their end to end setup and got somewhere between 5 and 6 bits out of 8 in, though they had more intermediate steps. So, at best, given 10 bits starting you could realistically expect 8 bits from a top-end ($100k) system, and I'm pretty sure you're getting less.
Numerous reasons.
Excellent info, cheers. Chalnoth, is what squarewithin says what you were getting at?
YeuEmMaiMai
04-Dec-2005, 02:39
the main reason I switched to an LCD is that it is
1. lighter
2. better geometry
3. they have reached a point where the quality is acceptable in terms of PQ.
ViewSonic VX924 is not a bad display at all.
This is why I choose ati (matrox is the best, though 3d performance sucks) and my CRT. I guess it's difficult to vary colour reproduction on LCD technology..
I don't think it is clear that an ati based card is best (excluding matrox) anymore. I think it is really more a matter of who put together your card. My powercolor x800 was not really that good and my leadtek 6200 is actually much clearer :p that is a sad truth for me since one was $420, and the other was $50.00
Chalnoth
04-Dec-2005, 04:58
Enlighten me, then, please. ?? :) Tell me it is not ATI drivers and RAMDAC; or God forbid, my monitor? :(
Because there is no support or a 10 bit per channel framebuffer. Basically, it's a software issue.
friskyolive
04-Dec-2005, 06:31
I don't think it is clear that an ati based card is best (excluding matrox) anymore. I think it is really more a matter of who put together your card. My powercolor x800 was not really that good and my leadtek 6200 is actually much clearer :p that is a sad truth for me since one was $420, and the other was $50.00
heheh, I've just remembered, when purchasing my 8500, there were comparisons of each radeon, in terms of IQ, FPS and overall function; blast it, I do not recall which board and/or website-t'was a loong time ago. In a nutshell, it depends on the company, I suppose, though, I don't think that there is much deviation from spec today? I've had my sapphire x800xtpe for, approximately, a year. I've chosen, either ati or sapphire..Well, atleast power color is out of the question. :D
Because there is no support or a 10 bit per channel framebuffer. Basically, it's a software issue. Are you suggesting that it is game code and/or driver? Bah, all I know, is that, in direct comparison, I am able to see the difference, and can see the ghosting/blur when in motion-similar to a wave/rolling effect, and texture discrepancies/anamolies. It's very difficult to detect, though, I can; yet, for the life of me, I couldn't tell the difference between 40 and 60 fps/hz. Whom ever feels happy with their purchase, is all that matters.
What does the Viewsonic N6 have? It seems to fair worse than the built in scalar in my monitor.
I can tell the difference, if the software is capable of displaying it. The Xbox ports that have made up PC games for the last several years do not show the limitations of a 6 bit display.
well believe me now that i use one i can tell the difference. the dithering artifacts drive me insane! :mad: i ordered my 172x based just on word of mouth without much research. i didn't know about different panel types, tn and pva,mva. i thought an lcd was just an lcd...
squarewithin
06-Dec-2005, 04:04
Are you suggesting that it is game code and/or driver? Bah, all I know, is that, in direct comparison, I am able to see the difference, and can see the ghosting/blur when in motion-similar to a wave/rolling effect, and texture discrepancies/anamolies. It's very difficult to detect, though, I can; yet, for the life of me, I couldn't tell the difference between 40 and 60 fps/hz. Whom ever feels happy with their purchase, is all that matters.
That's just the CRT acting as a low-pass filter since it's pixel boundaries aren't discrete. It can look smoother, since it's ever so slightly blurry, but that's hardly evidence of 10 bits.
Wunderchu
09-Dec-2005, 07:30
an article on Bright Side Technologies ' display: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2005/10/04/brightside_hdr_edr
randycat99
17-Dec-2005, 20:34
...
Thowllly
19-Dec-2005, 14:38
First; turning on and off backlight stuff:
That still doesn't make any sense, because our eyes will superimpose the images anyway at 60Hz.
But you'll still get less blur. Why turning of backlight during the pixels switching time is a good thing:
1. You'll only get the blur from your eyes instead of blur from your eyes+blur from changing pixel.
2. Less blur while tracking fast moving objects. (note: this is not a good thing, in RL a object will look sharp no matter how fast it moves as long as your eyes are able to track it) Your eyes will track the object in a continuous motion while the object will stay stationary for a 16ms. If object is moving at 10 degrees per second you'll get 0.16 degree wide blur. If the backlight is only on for 1ms you'll only get a 0.01 degree wide blur. You can see this effect on CRTs too, if refreshrate is higher than framerate. On a CRT, if you track a fast moving object drawn at 60fps with 60hz refresh, the object will look sharp. If the refreshrate is 120hz but framerate is still 60hz then the object will look like to superimposed objects (blurred).
3. With constant on backlight, scrolling objects can end up with the wrong color. Example: If you slowly scroll black text over a white background, and the black to white transition is faster than the white to black transition, the text will look lighter than it should while scrolling. If the white to black transition is faster, it will look darker. If the backlight is only on when the pixels have correct color you avoid this problem.
Why turning of backlight during the pixels switching time is a bad thing:
1 Low refreshrates will start flickering just like CRTs
And now; 10bit color stuff:
Because it steals the extra 6 bits from the alpha channel, you can't use it for games
It only steals alpha bits from the framebuffer, and most games don't use destination alpha. So, most games could use it.
fromfrom
19-Dec-2005, 17:15
I'm not sure if I can say the CRT flickering was better or worse though. My CRT had a 100hz refresh rate, and I never noticed flickering, but when I got my LCD I could have sworn the back light was flickering. (is there some natural flicker induced from the 60hz power used?) It was such an eye strain, and I couldn't even turn the brightness down to make it barable as the image quality went to complete crap when I did that, so I had to leave it overbright until I got used to it.
I do prefer an image that is much easier to see with ambient light, LCDs have no glare and don't fade as easily as a CRT image.
LCD's do flicker, nice tests are at http://www.techmind.org/lcd/index.html
Chalnoth
20-Dec-2005, 05:04
First; turning on and off backlight stuff:
But you'll still get less blur. Why turning of backlight during the pixels switching time is a good thing:
1. You'll only get the blur from your eyes instead of blur from your eyes+blur from changing pixel.
I'm not seeing it. When the backlight comes back on, you still have to contend with the response time of the pixel.
2. Less blur while tracking fast moving objects.
Not at all. You're still rendering discrete frames: there is zero blur, regardless of what the display is doing. What you may be seeing is some persistence in the display, which is entirely different, and replicated in the eye anyway if response times are fast enough (~20ms or so for high-contrast).
And now; 10bit color stuff:
It only steals alpha bits from the framebuffer, and most games don't use destination alpha. So, most games could use it.
Could, but don't. It'd be fantastic as a rendertarget for HDR rendering, but I have yet to see anybody do that.
Could, but don't. It'd be fantastic as a rendertarget for HDR rendering, but I have yet to see anybody do that.What would be? 10-10-10-2? Hardly, and only the X1800 support it anyway. 8-8-16 is what we need (all integer), with a more programmable blending pipeline, but by the time that's mainstream - if it ever is - there'll be a better alternative out there already, I'm sure. heh.
Uttar
Chalnoth
20-Dec-2005, 07:37
Sure, 10-10-10-2 would be great for the output of tonemapping, at least for CRT's (if there's a 10-bit DAC and the range on the 10-10-10-2 format is [1,0], which I'm not certain ATI's is). Why in the world would you want 8-8-16??
Thowllly
20-Dec-2005, 15:29
I'm not seeing it. When the backlight comes back on, you still have to contend with the response time of the pixel.The point is, the backlight only comes on after the pixels are done changing, and turns off when they're about to start changing again.
Not at all. You're still rendering discrete frames: there is zero blur, regardless of what the display is doing. What you may be seeing is some persistence in the display, which is entirely different, and replicated in the eye anyway if response times are fast enough (~20ms or so for high-contrast).Yes there is zero blur in the rendered image, the blur is added by your eye. Because the eye is tracking in a continuous motion while the object is standing still before jumping to its next location, the object is moving relative to the eye and you get blur, even though the object is on average moving at the same speed as the eye tracks and there shouldn't actually be any blur. In RL, as long as the eye is capable of tracking an object, it will not blur no matter how fast it's moving.
Also, could you actually bother to read my explanation for the phenomenon? I actually backed up my statement, but you cut that away when you responded. It's of course OK to do that to save space, but you apparently have responded to your cutdown version of my statement, totally ignoring the explanation i gave. This phenomenon is not something I've made up, it's well known among film directors among others...
Could, but don't. It'd be fantastic as a rendertarget for HDR rendering, but I have yet to see anybody do that.Yes, I know they don't, I was only correcting his statement that it would not be possible because of the lost destination alpha bits. And I disagree that it'd be a fantastic as a rendertarget for HDR rendering, the format being discussed here is only fx10.
Chalnoth
20-Dec-2005, 16:42
First of all, I misspoke, I meant that 10-10-10-2 would be fantastic as a rendertarget for the tonemapping pass for HDR rendering (i.e. use FP16 for normal rendering, then 10-10-10-2 for output to the display). Sorry about that.
Secondly, I did read your explaination, and I contest it. Besides, I have another counter argument:
In order for the blanking to work in an LCD, you'd need to have refresh rates higher than the 60Hz they currently operate at (at least 85Hz), which is not only technically challenging to do in terms of display reponse time, but there may also be issues with DVI bandwidth.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.