Son of a ------

Contrast is the difference between the brightest light and the darkest black.
A common misconception amongst video neophytes is that contrast is simply brightness.
To add to the confusion, when you turn up the brightness setting, you are infact setting the black level, and contrast setting sets the difference between the black and the light, in short, contrast sets your light level.
Play around with the settings in a video player.
So if you think a dark scene is actually too dark, you set the black level higher with the brightness and the inverse if it's too bright and if the bright scenes aren't dark enough you turn up the contrast.
Basically brightness setting= setting up your darks and contrast= setting up your light scenes.
Since you likely have a dual out video card, hook up a decent crt to one port and an lcd on the other and watch some movies on them and note the lack of deep blacks on the lcd.
If you think I'm just trying to put you down for having a display worth more than all my computer, simply read up on lcds.
As I've said, lcds are bright but they can't reach the black level of a decent crt.
This is the last post I'm going to make that explaining this to you.
Everything I said should be mostly true, some stuff is kinda hard to explain so I might have mixed up there, but lcds simply cant hold a candle to crts when it comes to deep blacks, which in turn makes the contrast lower since the difference between the lights and the darks is smaller.
Having a backlight always on which cannot be totally blocked takes away any chance you had at a good black level.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
K.I.L.E.R said:
"[...]decent CRT[...]"
That's an oxymoron. :LOL:
You are truly inept.
Ignorance certainly is bliss.
It is painfully obvious you aren't interested in actually learning why people like crt sover lcds.
 
People like CRTs over LCDs is because they can't afford them.

radeonic2 said:
You are truly inept.
Ignorance certainly is bliss.
It is painfully obvious you aren't interested in actually learning why people like crt sover lcds.
 
K.I.L.E.R said:
People like CRTs over LCDs is because they can't afford them.
yes, I prefer a display that distorts colors and is not capable of displaying deep blacks:rolleyes:
Are you upset that the things I say are true and are resorting to childish remarks to try to make your self feel better?
You can't afford a tft, you need your mother to get it for you, and it quite obvious you don't deserve it.
 
What I see and what you say seem to be completely different.
You said I should see some ghosting by moving my mouse cursor on my desktop, I did it and there was none. I even got the opinions of 2 other people on this.
I've watched a DVD movie on my LCD and I've played games and overall it's far better than the most expensive CRT I've seen and it murders my previous CRT monitor in terms fo quality.
 
Actually what I was referring to has nothing to do with ATI's AA. Rather there's the new SED tech, which I guess is more a per-pixel CRT then LCD, but whatever. There's also the brightside HDR LCD http://www.brightsidetech.com/ Also, there was something from Sony about removing the backlight filter to the actual LCDs allowing true 5ms response and much improved backlighting. Then there is E-Ink, which operates the same as print, via light reflecting off a die. Then there is O-LEDs, which because they produce their light themselves can't have a backlighting problem, and thus have excellent contrast. Problem is the blue O-LEDs have a relatively short lifespan. However with the recent inventions with using quantum dots as light sources, which has led to the creation of the first true white LED, we could be seeing some real heavy hitting LED techs. Especially considering that quantum dots are measured in nanometers, lol. 100MPixel, HDR screen with perfect gamut and contrast here we come!
 
Sounds really sweet.
I heard about the white light LED, could it also be used to make photon electronics?
A CPU which uses light instead of electrons would be super.

When do you think we'll see HDR LCDs?
 
K.I.L.E.R said:
The comment wasn't directed at you.
doesnt matter.
The fact of the matter is that crts still have a use with their superior contrast, accurate colors and lack of ghosting.
You just need to admit it.
 
Then why didn't I just buy a CRT monitor?
The fact of the matter is that CRTs are sub par in all circumstances.
There is no reason to use a CRT anymore.
LCDs have a use with their superior contrast, accurate colours, lack of ghosting, image distortion and very sharp images.

radeonic2 said:
doesnt matter.
The fact of the matter is that crts still have a use with their superior contrast, accurate colors and lack of ghosting.
You just need to admit it.
 
K.I.L.E.R said:
Then why didn't I just buy a CRT monitor?

That's up to you.

The fact of the matter is that CRTs are sub par in all circumstances.
There is no reason to use a CRT anymore.

No, and no.

CRT has many drawbacks, that's why they are disappearing quickly as computer monitors (and why I have four LCD and one CRT, not one LCD and four CRT). But that does not mean LCD are superior in every way. There's simply nothing that good.

As many people has stated, CRT has much better contrast. That's because the black on LCD is done by blocking light, while on CRT it simply has no light (or very little lights) on black pixels. Of course, high contrast LCD is coming, but they are not here yet.

Furthermore, CRT simply has better color. Of course, that depends on the quality of the CRT. But I can say that the best CRT is better than the best LCD in color. Many "quick response" LCD has fewer colors (such as about 60 shades per component). Others have more (about 100 shades or more). CRT typically has more than 400 shades. Of course, many display cards can't take advantage of this, but when you factor in the gamma correction, CRT are simply better.

Another issue is the "native resolution" thing. That is, LCD have their native resolution. In other resolutions, the images have to be scaled and created slightly blurry images. CRT also have native resolution (sort of) but it's much better. Newer LCD have better scaling algorithms which make this problem less visible, but still not perfect.

I don't need to say more about LCD's strength because obviously you know them quite well :) but I think it should be stated that LCD is not the solution to all problems, at least not for now.
 
PCCHEN my argument isn't with LCD vs CRT but with that other guy giving me false/misleading information for God only knows what reason.

I was simply stating that I can't see the issues he's stating.
I am also aware that the disadvantages of LCDs are almost incredibly diminished in these newer monitors.
I've used older LCD models a fair bit.

I've seen the more expensive CRT monitors perform and initially I was going to buy one.
The only reason I didn't was because I also seen an LCD perform and it looked far better than the CRT under gaming and video situations.
I certainly do not regret my purchase, if I did I would have taken it back on the same day after all my testing and bought something better however there is nothing better as far as I could see.
The interpolation business on lower resolutions isn't a problem for me because they still look sharp under gaming situations and I always run the native resolution under desktop conditions.
On top of that my eyes are no longer getting tired after very long hours of use. This is a big gain for me.

In the end it came down to technical specs vs pure eye-candy.
I obviously went in the way of eye candy. :)

PS: As I was typing this my room is almost pitch black. What were those backlighting problems everyone's talking about?

PPS: I also want to say that I made my decision back when I bought my 320GB HD.
 
I don't think anyone is telling you that you should by a CRT instead :)
Actually I agree that for normal gaming and video usage, LCD are generally good enough. No need to buy a CRT just for them. On web browing or other text based opeartions LCD are obviously much superior than CRT. If a normal computer user wants to buy a monitor, I'll suggest a LCD. That's also why all three computers in my home all have LCD monitors.

But CRT still have their use in some places. People who need accurate colors still prefer CRT (although calibrated LCD can also perform quite well, but some issues are still there). Of course, the market is shrinking since most people don't really need very accurate colors.
 
K.I.L.E.R said:
PCCHEN my argument isn't with LCD vs CRT but with that other guy giving me false/misleading information for God only knows what reason.

I was simply stating that I can't see the issues he's stating.
I am also aware that the disadvantages of LCDs are almost incredibly diminished in these newer monitors.
I've used older LCD models a fair bit.

I've seen the more expensive CRT monitors perform and initially I was going to buy one.
The only reason I didn't was because I also seen an LCD perform and it looked far better than the CRT under gaming and video situations.
I certainly do not regret my purchase, if I did I would have taken it back on the same day after all my testing and bought something better however there is nothing better as far as I could see.
The interpolation business on lower resolutions isn't a problem for me because they still look sharp under gaming situations and I always run the native resolution under desktop conditions.
On top of that my eyes are no longer getting tired after very long hours of use. This is a big gain for me.

In the end it came down to technical specs vs pure eye-candy.
I obviously went in the way of eye candy. :)

PS: As I was typing this my room is almost pitch black. What were those backlighting problems everyone's talking about?

PPS: I also want to say that I made my decision back when I bought my 320GB HD.
What misleading info?
I said the same thing he did- crts have better contrast, better colors and no ghosting.
Your panal may be considered a quick panal, but ol' tom shows its no where near it's rated specs for pixel response time.
So having deeper blacks isn't eye candy?
I mean it's easy to see if you know what you're looking for.
You simply aren't a videophile.
L233 said:
Clearly proves that the VX924 is an overpriced POS compared to the VP191b. People prefer TN-panels to the vastly superior VA-panels because of supposedly better response times - turns out even this advantage doesn't exist anymore.
[teal'c]Indeed[/teal'c]
I had to look at that graph a few times to be sure it wasn't mislabed or something.
 
Some of you guys are way too into this. I feel like posting that LCDs have superior contrast ratios to any CRT just to watch people get in an uproar. ;)

P.S. The new LED backlit LCDs do indeed have a better contrast ratio than any consumer level CRT on the market.

Nite_Hawk
 
Nite_Hawk said:
Some of you guys are way too into this. I feel like posting that LCDs have superior contrast ratios to any CRT just to watch people get in an uproar. ;)

P.S. The new LED backlit LCDs do indeed have a better contrast ratio than any consumer level CRT on the market.

Nite_Hawk
Well I've already explained to kiler the technical aspects of the debate said I wouldnt go into such great detail again, so there will be no uproar from me, just a few choice words.
Seriously, it is obivous kiler doesn't know anything about display tech and is not interested in learning.
Ya.. I know about led.. you do know the cost right?
http://www.necdisplay.com/products/ProductDetail.cfm?Product=412
Estimated Street Price(US) : $6999.99
For a 21.3" display?
I dun think so.
why bring up such high end displays?
That's not a consumer product...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top