LCD - good enough for gaming?

[Blazkowicz]

ever watched a movie with friends on a laptop in the dark? (or a standalone LCD monitor)
black levels are bad enough, those big black letterboxes looklike ass and dark scenes are BAD.. but as not everyone's sight can be perfectly perpendicular to the screen, this gets worse due to the angles of vision.

as for the ghosting, it's not that bad in gaming (though, if you play Counterstrike or other multiplayer FPS, it's much better to have a display which can display 100fps).
On a LCD I get really disturbed by ghosting when I scroll a webpage. not really a major inconvenient but I wouldn't want to pay hundreds of dollars to get this silly behaviour.

 

[Blazkowicz]

One other very nice thing about LCD monitors that I personally like is the fact you can get widescreen LCDs very easily now. Of course this has little relation to the LCD technology vs CRT technology debate, but it's just another nice factor.

yes, nice to have more choice if you have a use for it.

but I for one wouldn't want to browse the web in a maxed window at 1680x1050.
or play 4/3 games and watch 4/3 anime on a 16/10 screen. so widescreen is a no go for me.

on the other hand, you can rotate LCD screens (but not all of them), the web should be cool in 1050x1680

 

[Moloch]

It's too bad wide screen lcds aren't wide enough.
16:10... :wtf:
they trying to continue to fuck things up like they did with 5:4 res(1280x1024)?

 

[darkblu]

Nah, I'd rather have this one.

http://www.techonweb.com/products/productdetail.aspx?id=C50849

1600:1 baby..can't touch that, built-in tv tuner and speakers too. You can get it at Buy.com for $725.

i really do hope nec haven't used a revved-up version of their gx2 panels for this one.. man, do those have viewangle issues at 17".. and it only gets worse with bigger view area (given view distance is preserved).

ps: to those considering an lcd purchase - i strongly suggest not to go for an LCD of 400+cd/m^2 - you can forget about any black whatsoever. now, if you can get a 350cd/m^2 but high contrast that may actually produce good low luma (i think some of those high-end samsungs refered to in this thread actually do that).

 

[NANOTEC]

but I for one wouldn't want to browse the web in a maxed window at 1680x1050.

With a 20" viewable screen and 1680x1050 resolution, I wouldn't use the whole screen for one single maximized browser window. That wouldn't make any sense. Instead, I would take advantage of the screen realstate and open multiple browser windows and maybe vertically tile them. It's analogous to having two 14" 800x600 LCDs tiled horizontally.

 

[NANOTEC]

i really do hope nec haven't used a revved-up version of their gx2 panels for this one.. man, do those have viewangle issues at 17".. and it only gets worse with bigger view area (given view distance is preserved).

ps: to those considering an lcd purchase - i strongly suggest not to go for an LCD of 400+cd/m^2 - you can forget about any black whatsoever. now, if you can get a 350cd/m^2 but high contrast that may actually produce good low luma (i think some of those high-end samsungs refered to in this thread actually do that).

AFAIK, the GX2 panels are even better than the GX1 panels both of which have received great reviews from many websites. Also there's nothing wrong with superbright >400 cd/m2 LCDs since you can turn down the brightness if you like. Finally the 20" model uses a different panel AS-IPS vs TN for the 17" and 19" GX2. The 20" also has dynamic CR which allows the 1600:1.

 

[randycat99]

Actually the differences of distortion and sharpness on an LCD and a CRT are quite noticable...

On a good, well-calibrated CRT, not that noticeable. Sorry, you're out of luck on that one.

...and an LCD emits no radiation aside from your typical amount that any electronic device emits; as opposed to a CRT which is a freaking electron ray gun pointed at your face.

Do you avoid walking under florescent lights, as well? That's a high voltage discharge exciting intense ultraviolet emission from a gas to excite luminescing a phosphor coating on the glass tubing. Given your simplified logic, it must then be capable of frying you alive, should you stand under it too long. The intensity is nothing to be concerned about, you say? Then why can you not make that same logical connection for CRT's? Could it be you have an irrational phobia of CRT's, or do you disingenuously disregard in your analysis that the electron gun is aimed/focused at the phosphor screen, not your face? You are no more likely to be "shot" by an X-ray from a CRT (it doesn't even operate at X-ray frequencies- did you even know that?) than being fried by UV while standing under a florescent light. Get a clue, already. The only thing you are being showered in is photons- just like [gasp] an LCD panel. Science is kewl when you can get a grasp over it, but seems to be dangerous for those who don't quite bother to fully understand it before waving it around.

Are you still looking forward to LED-backed LCD panels? Just how do you think LED's generate light? Would it shock you if it involved electrons jumping across a junction to set off photon emissions? Now what if you had an entire panel of LED's to create a backlight? That's a lot of electrons jumping around. By your simplified logic, this could only mean you are staring into a rather sizable planar array of electron emitters! Surely that could not be healthy by your stringent standards, no? Do you still think the future of LCD panels is very cool now? It appears we find ourselves painted in a corner.

 

[Moloch]

On a good, well-calibrated CRT, not that noticeable. Sorry, you're out of luck on that one.



Do you avoid walking under florescent lights, as well? That's a high voltage discharge exciting intense ultraviolet emission from a gas to excite luminescing a phosphor coating on the glass tubing. Given your simplified logic, it must then be capable of frying you alive, should you stand under it too long. The intensity is nothing to be concerned about, you say? Then why can you not make that same logical connection for CRT's? Could it be you have an irrational phobia of CRT's, or do you disingenuously disregard in your analysis that the electron gun is aimed/focused at the phosphor screen, not your face? You are no more likely to be "shot" by an X-ray from a CRT (it doesn't even operate at X-ray frequencies- did you even know that?) than being fried by UV while standing under a florescent light. Get a clue, already. The only thing you are being showered in is photons- just like [gasp] an LCD panel. Science is kewl when you can get a grasp over it, but seems to be dangerous for those who don't quite bother to fully understand it before waving it around.

Are you still looking forward to LED-backed LCD panels? Just how do you think LED's generate light? Would it shock you if it involved electrons jumping across a junction to set off photon emissions? Now what if you had an entire panel of LED's to create a backlight? That's a lot of electrons jumping around. By your simplified logic, this could only mean you are staring into a rather sizable planar array of electron emitters! :hock: Surely that could not be healthy by your stringent standards, no? Do you still think the future of LCD panels is very cool now? It appears we find ourselves painted in a corner.

Nice :smile:

 

[NANOTEC]

CRTs emit EMR while LCDs don't. X-rays do occur inside the CRT, but there is sheidling. You cannot escape the EMR from CRTs unless you view it from a sizable distance.

 

[randycat99]

Light isn't electromagnetic radiation, as well, now? Is "EMR" such a mysterious, loaded term now? Once you figure what it really stands for, you will also realize that LCD's do indeed emit "EMR", just like any other light-oriented device. Once you figure the extent of EMR that comes off the sun, maybe you won't go outside anymore, too. Do you have any idea of the EMR you are bombarded with just to hear your favorite station on your radio??? Oh, the humanity!!! My doctor said I have to get on the Lipitor cuz my EMR came out high. You better slow down, lest you be shot with EMR by a traffic cop! That damn EMR!!! Just heard on the news EMR was behind another cafe bombing in Iraq. Why isn't Bush hunting down EMR?!

 

[NANOTEC]

Light isn't electromagnetic radiation, as well, now? Is "EMR" such a mysterious, loaded term now? Once you figure what it really stands for, you will also realize that LCD's do indeed emit "EMR", just like any other light-oriented device. Once you figure the extent of EMR that comes off the sun, maybe you won't go outside anymore, too.

LCDs don't emit electro magnetic radiation. Sure light is a form of radiation just like heat is a form of radiation, but that's not what I'm talking about. LCDs don't require a magnetic field to focus an electron beam.

 

[randycat99]

Your use of "EMR" has no bearing on whether or not a CRT uses a magnetic field or not. That really goes to show how little you understand of the nature of "EMR" before setting it up as such the boogyman. (That you think the magnetic field in a CRT is what turns "radiation" into official "EMR" is a riot... ) Nevertheless, EMR is most assuredly present for LCD as they are for CRT's. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to see the purdy pictures, period. Could this mean that EMR is actually a "good thing" in certain cases?! No, no- that can't be! EMR is bad, bad, bad!!! That is what we have set in our minds, hence it is now the gospel...

 

[NANOTEC]

Your use of "EMR" has no bearing on whether or not a CRT uses a magnetic field or not. That really goes to show how little you understand of the nature of "EMR" before setting it up as such the boogyman.

EMR stands for electromagnetic radiation. It seems you have found yourself painted into a corner and the only straw remaining is this emoticon-->

 

[randycat99]

Oooh, good comeback! You really know what electromagnetic radiation is, boyeeee!

What do you consider lightning? Electrostatic radiation? Who woulda thunk it is as easy as breaking the word into 2 pieces to create a meaning! What kind of radiation is melting the butter in your microwave? Electro-cuisinart radiation? ECR sounds pretty dangerous, so I wrap my head in aluminum foil when I melt my butta!

Do I dare identify the type of radiation emitted from ANova? EBSR?

It just dawned on me- perhaps all this time you are confusing EMF for EMR, which is even more humorous. That would no longer be "radiation", per se, but it is said there are a few people who blame EMF for giving them cancer after living under a powerline. Someone should make a law that requires "E" to stay away from "M", because it sure seems there is trouble when the 2 are together. ...but seriously, I'm here all week, and tip your servers!

 

[NANOTEC]

Oooh, good comeback! You really know what electromagnetic radiation is, boyeeee!

What do you consider lightning? Electrostatic radiation? Who woulda thunk it is as easy as breaking the word into 2 pieces to create a meaning! What kind of radiation is melting the butter in your microwave? Electro-cuisinart radiation? ECR sounds pretty dangerous, so I wrap my head in aluminum foil when I melt my butta!

Read below-->

Just as it took decades to develop a scientific consensus that smoking was dangerous, CRT radiation problems will be disputed for a long time. Many people smoke for years before they develop undeniable problems, but this delay does not prove smoking is safe.
Not everyone is or will be affected by CRT radiation in the same way. Depending on many factors, including health, some people are very sensitive to radiation, while some remain seemingly unaffected. Furthermore there are periods when people are more vulnerable than others.
Laboratory tests appear to indicate that living matter is most sensitive to EMF radiation during periods of rapid cell-splitting. [2] Pulsed EMF radiation is used in hospitals to stimulate rapid bone growth in people based on techniques developed with animals. [3] This positive use of EMF radiation is consistent with the view that people may be more vulnerable during rapid cell-splitting periods like healing, pregnancy/gestation, birth through puberty, reproduction related cycles (e.g. sperm development and menstrual cycles), etc.
When exposed to CRT radiation, different living matter may be affected in different ways, both as groups and individuals. For example, white rats exposed to CRT radiation all experienced loss of fertility and reduced weight gain. None of the rats died during the test, while fruit flies, which have a much shorter life cycle, experienced a significant increase in mortality rates. And while the mortality rate for fruit flies increased, not all fruit flies died. Similarly, people as a group should react differently than other biological groups, and people as individuals may exhibit differing reactions to EMF radiation. [4]
Many professional CRT users (4 to 8 hours daily) report improved productivity, lower fatigue, less sleeplessness, reduced skin problems, fewer headaches, more normal hormonal balance, etc, a few days, weeks or months after beginning using EMF-Bioshield® protection (depending on the health of the users and the amount of radiation to which they are exposed).
Government and industry entities like the World Health Organization (WHO) and the American Medical Association (AMA) are conservative by design and therefore are often slow to acknowledge problems. This is likely to remain the case as long as there are no measuring device capable of detecting these harmful radiation.[5]

Sniffing the very same paint used to paint yourself into a corner can't be too healthy.

 

[randycat99]

Source and context? Something tells me it is a pretty far removed scenario than the average guy sitting in front of a CRT.

 

[Basic]

"...after beginning using EMF-Bioshield® protection..."

That ® made me a bit suspicious. So a quick googling tells that this is from a site that sells this EMF-Bioshield®. And how does it work?

"[font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,Sans]The EMF-Bioshield® protection system is made of two small spheres (or mini-bulbs) of 25 mm in diameter in neutral plastic. They contain solutions of rare earths salts with specific electromagnetic properties. [/font] [font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,Sans]

The EMF-Bioshield® mini-bulbs are self-sticking and are to be placed respectively on the upper left and lower right corners of the screen frame (see below)." [/font]
[font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,Sans]
[/font]

You've quoted a certified tinfoil-hat-site.

[Edit]
Linky: http://www.emf-bioshield.com/emf/faqs2.html

 

[NANOTEC]

"...after beginning using EMF-Bioshield® protection..."

That ® made me a bit suspicious. So a quick googling tells that this is from a site that sells this EMF-Bioshield®. And how does it work?

"[font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,Sans]The EMF-Bioshield® protection system is made of two small spheres (or mini-bulbs) of 25 mm in diameter in neutral plastic. They contain solutions of rare earths salts with specific electromagnetic properties. [/font] [font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,Sans]

The EMF-Bioshield® mini-bulbs are self-sticking and are to be placed respectively on the upper left and lower right corners of the screen frame (see below)." [/font]
[font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,Sans]
[/font]

You've quoted a certified tin-foil-hat-site.

That doesn't have any relation to the fact CRTs emit electromagnetic radiation while LCDs do not. I could as easily quote any number of sites about ELF/VLF radiation emissions from CRTs. It doesn't change the facts. Whether or not it actually works isn't the point. However just because it sounds silly because one doesn't have a degree in physics doesn't prove it doesn't work. Just for sh*ts and giggles, doing some further reading, it says.

How does it work?
The EMF-Bioshield® system does not need to be plugged into any power source. Its protective action is based on the A_NOX® (“Avoid [VDT] NOXiousness”) technology, which uses the resonance properties of rare earths elements (elements 58 to 71 of Mendeleyev's Periodic Table of the Elements) to create a passive counter-phase resonance. Triggered by the electron beams the VDT uses to refresh its images (at a rate of 60 to 75 times a second) in a linear fashion (starting in the upper left screen corner and ending in the lower right corner), the content of the mini-bulbs creates an electromagnetic barrier around the protected screen. EMF-Bioshield® thus eliminates the harmful biological effects of residual radiation emitted by computer and TV sets cathode ray tubes.

And further:

The EMF-Bioshield® bulbs contain some of elements 58 to 71 of Mendeleyev's Periodic Table of Elements, which are combined at various temperatures and in a specific sequence. The exact formula is a trade secret.
All biological tests prove that EMF-Bioshield® works. Because existing radiation meters are not as sensitive to EMF as living matter, [2] only biological models are sensitive enough to allow measuring with certainty the causes of the problem and the way EMF-Bioshield® works. This is not surprising because "... scientists know enough to say that emissions may be hazardous but not enough to explain how or why."

The EMF-Bioshield® bulbs do not originate any ELF waves and can only help, not harm, living matter. They resonate passively in counter-phase with portions of the EMF (both VLF and ELF) generated by CRTs (as long as their positioning on the frame of the screen is done in accordance with the instructions for use). Tests have consistently demonstrated that EMF-Bioshield® virtually eliminates the negative impacts of PEMF on all biological matters, without creating in turn any harmful effect for the living beings exposed to it.

To be safe EMF-Bioshield® should be replaced after 24 months, regardless of CRT operating hours. Manufacturer research shows EMF-Bioshield® works perfectly until it loses its ability to resonate. It does not wear down gradually like a battery. This same research shows that some EMF-Bioshield® fail after 28 months, but most have functioned longer. Because there is usually some PEMF present even when CRTs are off, EMF-Bioshield® is resonating, generating counterphase waves and therefore in use whenever the bulbs are outside their original aluminum container.

EMF-Bioshield® was developed by a S.E.I.C. team after ten years of research and experiments. SEIC's laboratory is qualified ISO 9001 for reseaarch, development and production.

http://www.emf-bioshield.com/emf/historique.html

http://www.emf-bioshield.com/emf/publications.html

http://www.emf-bioshield.com/emf/faqs2.html#1

Personally I found this experiment quite interesting.

http://www.emf-bioshield.com/emf/experimenttesticular.html

It's your balls that are on the line, so if you prefer CRTs that's your business.

It just dawned on me- perhaps all this time you are confusing EMF for EMR, which is even more humorous.

Nope, there is no confusion..I'm using EMR to describe EMF radiation. What people are concerned about is the ELF electromagnetic radiation that's emitted from CRTs not visible/nonvisible light radiation.

 

[ANova]

On a good, well-calibrated CRT, not that noticeable. Sorry, you're out of luck on that one.

I'm sorry but you're grasping at straws. Just because you claim a "good, well-calibrated CRT" has the sharpness of an LCD does not make it so.

Do you avoid walking under florescent lights, as well? That's a high voltage discharge exciting intense ultraviolet emission from a gas to excite luminescing a phosphor coating on the glass tubing. Given your simplified logic, it must then be capable of frying you alive, should you stand under it too long. The intensity is nothing to be concerned about, you say? Then why can you not make that same logical connection for CRT's? Could it be you have an irrational phobia of CRT's, or do you disingenuously disregard in your analysis that the electron gun is aimed/focused at the phosphor screen, not your face? You are no more likely to be "shot" by an X-ray from a CRT (it doesn't even operate at X-ray frequencies- did you even know that?) than being fried by UV while standing under a florescent light. Get a clue, already. The only thing you are being showered in is photons- just like [gasp] an LCD panel. Science is kewl when you can get a grasp over it, but seems to be dangerous for those who don't quite bother to fully understand it before waving it around.

Are you still looking forward to LED-backed LCD panels? Just how do you think LED's generate light? Would it shock you if it involved electrons jumping across a junction to set off photon emissions? Now what if you had an entire panel of LED's to create a backlight? That's a lot of electrons jumping around. By your simplified logic, this could only mean you are staring into a rather sizable planar array of electron emitters! Surely that could not be healthy by your stringent standards, no? Do you still think the future of LCD panels is very cool now? It appears we find ourselves painted in a corner.

Thanks for the laugh, really. You're constant attempts at twisting my words around to come up with something I never said is still getting you nowhere. There is a reason for that thick glass on the front of a CRT, called x-radiation shielding.

Yes, all light emits radiation called radient radiation but as you may not be aware, there are different types of radiation, some harmful and some not so much; flourescent lights emit UV radiation. LCDs do not emit the same type of radiation as CRTs. You can in fact turn your average CRT into a potent x-ray device by bypassing the voltage regulator on the VDT power supply. While it is low voltage by default, if you honestly believe that some is no worse than none you've brainwashed yourself, or let someone brainwash you. That shielding does not block 100% of it and long term use can be detrimental, especially for your eyes.

The rest of your argument doesn't even warrent a response.

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

None of his argument warrents a response.
I just ignore him completely. He's a zealot.

http://www.answers.com/zealot&r=67

1. A fanatically committed person.

He doesn't care what current LCDs offer, in his eyes they are unholy and soiled.

The rest of your argument doesn't even warrent a response.