LCD - good enough for gaming?

Status
Not open for further replies.
radeonic2 said:
See above about subpixels.
Err, you didn't explain anything about subpixels there. Just that you like the "non-perfect sharpness" of CRTs. Which is fine by me. But you could get the same on an LCD with a good scaler using a non-native resolution.

Well actually I can because lcds themselves have imperfect gamma curves.
Crts are far better in this respect.
No monitor has a "perfect gamma curve". That's why graphics cards have color correction settings. The monitor response doesn't even have to be close to a gamma function since GPUs use a color correction LUT that can take arbitrary values.

radeonic2 said:
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)?
Most aspect ratios have their uses.
 
NANOTEC said:
AFAIK, the GX2 panels are even better than the GX1 panels both of which have received great reviews from many websites.

reviews are irrelevant when one has sufficient first hand experience. i know what i'm talking about. my day passes 70% in front of a samsung 940bf, 20% infront of a nec 70gx2 and 10% infront of a samsung 793df (crt).

Also there's nothing wrong with superbright >400 cd/m2 LCDs since you can turn down the brightness if you like.

or you can switch off the monitor if you like. we talking about meeting advertised features though, a constrast of 700:1 is achieved how you think? yes, you guessed it right - at 100% brightness. now, let's get back to the original point of showing black at those brightness levels, thanks for the detour.

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.

these extremes are fine and dandy for a marketing brochure. in practice one should be more than happy if that 20" panel can achieve 700-800:1 contrast at normal luma levels, i.e. while keeping its blacks.
 
darkblu said:
reviews are irrelevant when one has sufficient first hand experience. i know what i'm talking about. my day passes 70% in front of a samsung 940bf, 20% infront of a nec 70gx2 and 10% infront of a samsung 793df (crt).

or you can switch off the monitor if you like. we talking about meeting advertised features though, a constrast of 700:1 is achieved how you think? yes, you guessed it right - at 100% brightness. now, let's get back to the original point of showing black at those brightness levels, thanks for the detour.

these extremes are fine and dandy for a marketing brochure. in practice one should be more than happy if that 20" panel can achieve 700-800:1 contrast at normal luma levels, i.e. while keeping its blacks.

You were complaining about horibble viewing angles. Now you jump to contrast ratios? The reviews I've read on the 19GX2 are not based on measured CR or viewing angles. It's based on what the reviewer sees compared to the competing monitors. If the viewing angle sucks then the reviewer will mention it, if the blacks suck then the reviewer will mention it.

Anyway we'll find out how the 20 incher performs next week when Alan from FS reviews it.:smile:;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Xmas said:
Err, you didn't explain anything about subpixels there. Just that you like the "non-perfect sharpness" of CRTs. Which is fine by me. But you could get the same on an LCD with a good scaler using a non-native resolution.


No monitor has a "perfect gamma curve". That's why graphics cards have color correction settings. The monitor response doesn't even have to be close to a gamma function since GPUs use a color correction LUT that can take arbitrary values.


Most aspect ratios have their uses.
While no monitor have a perfect gamma curve, you can get far better results with crts.
 
ANova said:
There is a reason for that thick glass on the front of a CRT, called x-radiation shielding

X-rays cannot penetrate thick glass??? I don't think glass would protect you from that. The reason the glass is thick is to prevent incidental implosion. It needs to be rugged and remain structurally rigid, even if the chassis is slightly twisted or flexed while transporting the monitor.

Perhaps the straw you were reaching for is that it is leaded glass?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
radeonic2 said:
While no monitor have a perfect gamma curve, you can get far better results with crts.
If you're talking about color gamut or black levels, that may be correct, but I don't see how it applies to the response curve.
 
this thread deserves the 'thread of the month' stamp, the amount of humor in it is overwhelming. ..what, no 'thread of the month' stamp?!
 
darkblu said:
this thread deserves the 'thread of the month' stamp, the amount of humor in it is overwhelming. ..what, no 'thread of the month' stamp?!
You can thank me later ;)
 
Definitely, PC-engine...I recognize that style.

You have no credibility here, "nanotec", after posting that Bioshield baloney. :LOL: I'm sure you even bought a few at a firesale deal of $50 per pingpong.
 
NANOTEC said:
Find me something you encounter in everyday life that emits strong ELF EMR that sits in front of your face hours at a time.

Given that you are referring to Extremely Low Frequency ElectroMagnetic Radiation, that would discount CRT's, since there is not much in the way of infrared emission to speak of in that scenario, nor is the entity you reference particularly "strong", where you would find a steel fork stuck to the screen if you held it close to the glass. You still seem to be confusing EMF and EMR, and are unsure of which term is the appropriate one at any given time for the particular point you are making. Your argument has simply reached a deadend, as a result. You don't know what you are talking about, other than what you read on a tin-foil website. Don't expect people to suddenly jump to attention just because you have a link.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
randycat99 said:
Given that you are referring to Extremely Low Frequency ElectroMagnetic Radiation, that would discount CRT's, since there is not much in the way of infrared emission to speak of in that scenario, nor is the entity you reference particularly "strong", where you would find a steel fork stuck to the screen if you held it close to the glass. You still seem to be confusing EMF and EMR, and are unsure of which term is the appropriate one at any given time for the particular point you are making. Your argument has simply reached a deadend, as a result. You don't know what you are talking about, other than what you read on a tin-foil website. Don't expect people to suddenly jump to attention just because you have a link.

What I've bolded above is the equivalent to claiming the sky is green. Have you no shame? :LOL:

Actually I do know what I'm talking about, but since you've painted yourself into a corner with no IEEE papers to keep you afloat, you've retorted to semantics. Isn't that the first rule of retreating from a debate? Oh wait the first rule is to start using a bunch of emoticons without actually providing any valid evidence to support your hollow argument. Can you play me a song Mr. Hanky rockstar?

For your reading pleasure.

INTRODUCTION
It is now well-known that PEMR emitted by cathode ray tubes (Television - TV - or Video Display Terminal - VDT) can exert possible action on living organisms. Among these radiation, the weak Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) were considered for a long time as innocuous to human health. Recently, some experiments related to the possible impact of ELF on living organisms were reported. In chick embryos exposed to well calibrated ELF, a significant increase in the proportion of developmental abnormalities was observed [1, 2].
Considering the worldwide proliferation of TV and VDT units, experiments were conducted to test their impact. In exposed chick embryos, an increase in the percentage of abnormal developments was observed, as well as an increase in the fetal mortality accompanied by a decrease of immunoglobulin G and corticosterone serum levels in the young chicks after porcine thyroglobulin immunization. In white rats exposed during their fetal life, a decrease in body mass was observed as well as some important behavioral changes in adult males and females. In mice fetus injected with a cytosine arabinoside (a teratogen), a high incident of mortality took place after exposure to ELF [5]. In humans, the most important epidemiological studies are related to the risk of miscarriage and birth defects in workers exposed [3, 4, 5]. In the responses addressed to the authors, critics asked for an exact measurement of the VDT weak EFL intensity. Unfortunately, in many biological systems, the actual intensities are at or below the noise limit. Consequently, it was recommended to accept the well standardized biological response to ELF [6].
&nb sp; All these reports are related to whole organisms. In brain tissue cultivated in vitro,pulsed ELF fields brought a frequency-dependent, field-induced enhancement of calcium-ion efflux. In human keraticocyres culativated in vitro, and exposed to ELF, an advanced differentiation at the expense of cell migration and proliferation was demonstrated.
These unexhaustive results indicate that ELF emitted by VDT or TV can impact biological material. Recently, it was shown that superimposing spatially coherent electromagnetic noise inhibits field-induced abnormalities in developing chick embryos [7, 8]. So it is possible to test materials designed to protect living organisms.
The intrinsic and extrinsic temperature alterations play a major role in testis physiology and male fertility [9] and their implication for genetic alterations were recently demonstrated [10]. Zorgniotti also evoked the role of environmental factors on spermatogenesis and human male fertility.
These works and those on the role of biological material led us to study the possible effect of ELF on human male spermatogenesis.

Final nail in the coffin.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would not think an IEEE paper is required to refute your Bioshield article. Just common sense is enough to distinguish you have linked to a quack-site. I can't believe you have the gaw to persist with this folly pursuit, as if you have "evidence" on your side.

What is the date of your study? Why did they not extend upon the study to effects on grown humans (the kind that would be staring into a CRT). Is it really a surprise that critically developmental embrionic and fetal stage organisms are susceptible to atypical exposures? You should be keen to note that any number of things are potentially dangerous to the development of embryos or fetuses. Why do you think they take such precautions with medications, foods, and activities for pregnant women??? Do you have a guess why pregnant women are discouraged from being near gas pumps and pool chemicals? ...to avoid eating fish? ...to lay off the liquor and relaxer pills? That does not automatically mean the same exposure will be detrimental to full grown adults. It's an entirely different development scenario. Were you actually oblivious to this distinction? So unless you plan to be gestating chicken embryos or fetuses or holding your nads up against your CRT screen for long periods of time, the study is really of limited conclusion wrt the assertion you are attempting to bolster.

Case Closed! :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
randycat99 said:
I would not think an IEEE paper is required to refute your Bioshield article. Just common sense is enough to distinguish you have linked to a quack-site. I can't believe you have the gaw to persist with this folly pursuit, as if you have "evidence" on your side.

I see you're still grasping at straws from a sunken ship. Let me know when you understand the concept of ELF radiation being emitted by VDTs and the papers describing its effects on living organisms. Until then, your retorts will continue to sound like a madman's rambling.
 
It's already been shot down in my post above yours. You have just yet to acknowledge the reality of it.

Also, do note that you are still confusing EMF leakage from a CRT vs. EMR. There really is no addressing you on the matter until you can at least make that mental leap in your head.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
randycat99 said:
It's already been shot down in my post above yours. You have just yet to acknowledge the reality of it.

Also, do note that you are still confusing EMF leakage from a CRT vs. EMR radiation. There really is no addressing you on the matter until you can at least make that mental leap in your head.

Actually you might want to re-analyze the test results with and without EMF Bioshield. ;) Didn't think it would be that easy did you?:LOL:

Also, do note that you are still confusing EMF leakage from a CRT vs. EMR. There really is no addressing you on the matter until you can at least make that mental leap in your head.

Do you purposely ignore what's been presented to you? Go back and REREAD what that paper describes-->PEMR, ELF, EMF. For all intents and purposes, they're all describing the same thing. Why is this concept so difficult for you to grasp??? Maybe you don't want to admit I'm right and you're wrong? That's the only explanation.

That does not automatically mean the same exposure will be detrimental to full grown adults.

That wasn't the point. The point is CRTs emit VLF and ELF radiation while LCDs don't. You actually think this little debate of ours has the answer to whether or not fully grown adults will be affected by years of exposure to ELF from CRTs when researchers with years of experiments still don't know? You think us armchair experts have the answer to whether or not radiation from cellphones are harmful? Hello?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So you DO believe those pingpong balls stuck to your monitor do something? :eek: Absolutely incredible! Well, I suppose if your being told it is a quack site is not enough to shake you to your senses, nothing will. Suit yourself. :LOL:

I just got to know one last thing- Do you, ANova, believe or not believe the legitimacy of the "Bioshield" product???
 
Last edited by a moderator:
randycat99 said:
So you DO believe those pingpong balls stuck to your monitor do something? :eek: Absolutely incredible! Well, I suppose if your being told it is a quack site is not enough to shake you to your senses, nothing will. Suit yourself. :LOL:

I just got to know one last thing- Do you, ANova, believe or not believe the legitimacy of the "Bioshield" product???

I'm not saying Bioshield works. All I'm saying is that PEMR has an effect on living organisms during development. This is not a good thing just like Anova's assertion that more radiation is NOT better. As for Bioshield, well I'm not a biophysics expert, so I'm not going to be ignorant and say it works or doesn't work..however the experimental evidence is fairly convincing which is understandable because it is widely known that some forms of radiation do have a detrimental effect on developing organisms.
 
randycat99 said:
I just got to know one last thing- Do you, ANova, believe or not believe the legitimacy of the "Bioshield" product???
I don't know nearly enough about it to make a decision either way. From the little that I did read, it sounds like it uses a specific combination of elements that counteract the EM reasonance waves associated with CRT emissions, similar to the way in which the cancellation of sound waves is achieved.

I wouldn't be so quick to judge. Maybe you should take a look at the site's extensive list of publications.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top