When will traditional monitors come to a point where they are infeasible?

[Graham]

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..

 

[Moloch]

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]

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)

 

[Graham]

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

 

[Moloch]

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.

 

[KimB]

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.

 

[JeffK]

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.

 

[KimB]

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.

 

[Xmas]

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.

 

[MfA]

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.

 

[Moloch]

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.

 

[KimB]

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.

 

[Xmas]

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.

 

[Moloch]

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.

 

[MfA]

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.

 

[Xmas]

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.

 

[KimB]

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.

 

[Graham]

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, 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. Ever.

 

[Moloch]

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, 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. 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.

 

[skazz]

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.