"Frank McCoy" <mccoyf (AT) millcomm (DOT) com> wrote

IOW, that's your opinion. You stated it previously as if it were fact.
Thanks for clearing that up.

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "Mr.E Solved!" <Iamsingle (AT) askme (DOT) out>
wrote:

However, think of it this way: On an LCD, a pixel is a pixel is a pixel.
Each has *NO* effect on the one next to it.
On a CRT, each pixel is a blurry dot. HOW blurry, depends on the native
resolution of the monitor, or "dot-pitch", along with overall monitor
size. Usually people pay no attention to dot-pitch; only the number
lines or dots it can take in as supposed "resolution". However, the
resolution of a CRT monitor mean nothing if the dot-pitch is large
enough that several pixel bleed over into each other as one dot to the
eye.
VERY few CRT monitors, except some very expensive 21" types can actually
get any benefit of much higher resolution than 1280x1024. The dot-pitch
and monitor-size work together to determine the largest *practical*
resolution for that particular monitor; even if it will *accept* much
higher resolutions as input; and the video-card will output those modes.

Thus each colored pixel on the CRT monitor "bleeds" over onto the next
one; modifying it's color unless the two adjacent pixels are nearly the
same color anyway. The overall effect is slight out-of-focus fuzziness
on higher resolutions; when the effect *should* be increased sharpness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot_pitch

Note that focus, type of screen, and a bunch of other parameters all
effect dot-pitch; and the screen-size also has lots to do with the
maximum density displayable. Divide the screen size by the dot pitch
(using the same type of measurements. Screens are measured in inches
while dot-pitch is measured in millimeters) and get the *possible*
resolution of the monitor. However, due to various CRT defects, along
with things like misalignment, and very few CRT monitors live up to
their promises.

On the other hand, EVERY pixel in an LCD monitor is separate from every
other, there's NO bleed-over, no pincushion effect, no misalignment of
three different colors even at the extreme corners, etc. Each pixel is
alone, separately addressed, and as clear and distinct from all others
at the corners as it is in the center. NO CRT monitor can make that
claim; not even those costing several thousand dollars.

Sometime LOOK at a CRT monitor with a magnifying glass, or better-yet, a
jeweler's loupe. Especially look in the corners.

Then do the same thing with an LCD panel at native resolution.

Finally, do the same thing with an LCD panel emulating some *other*
resolution than native.

The LCD panel at native resolution will outshine either of the others;
while likely the CRT will FAR outshine the LCD panel when running at
reduced resolution.

That's both the plus and the minus of LCD or plasma panels. At their
native resolution (if decently high enough) they FAR outstrip CRT
displays at similar resolutions. However, if your job requires changing
resolutions often, then you'd usually be far better off with a CRT
monitor of decent size and dot-pitch.

I really don't recommend anything less than a full 21" CRT Monitor these
days; nor an LCD panel with less than 1680x1050 (if wide-screen) or
1600x1200 (if "standard" shape).

Even a *good* 21" CRT monitor is usually being pushed past it's
dot-pitch when you select resolutions above 1600x1200; so I don't
recommend that, even though most such monitors support far higher input
resolutions. They just don't do a decent job of actually *displaying*
such stuff.

I've worked with CRT displays since long before most people here were
even born.

Like I say, LOOK at the various displays under magnification.
It's a real eye-opener.

THEN look at the two in side-by-side comparisons.
Again, if your eyes are any good, the difference is astounding.
MOST people just stand back and look at the total picture-size and think
that's what actually counts. It isn't. Dot-pitch, versus screen-size
does. Or, in an LCD panel, the equivalent is native resolution.

--
_____
/ ' / â„¢
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "KCB" <kcbairdREMOVE (AT) THIScomcast (DOT) net>
wrote:

Look at both side-by-side, and you'll SEE the difference!
Especially if you use magnification.

I know ... I've got two side-by-side right here and now.
The 21" CRT looks crappy by comparison at 1600x1200 and the LCD at
1680x1050; and that's one damned *EXPENSIVE* CRT monitor!

Actually, I have *three* fairly expensive 21" monitors, all darned good
ones; and all three look crappy next to the LCD if you examine each
closely. Stand back about four feet, and you can't see any difference,
of course.

Don't believe me.
Don't take my word for it.
Go somewhere and LOOK at the two side-by-side.
There's a damned good reason for the LCD looking better by far, *IF* you
have any real knowledge of how each technology works.

I've explained it several times in this thread.
All I can say now is go *LOOK* and see for yourself.
I'm not lying; and I'm NOT exaggerating!

The CRT monitors look fuzzy and out-of-focus next to the LCD panels at
similar resolutions. Most especially so at the corners. The LCD panels
also EXACTLY fill out the screen; while with good adjustment of a CRT
you can only get *close* to doing so without either not displaying the
whole thing, or leaving black borders in some parts of the screen.

Don't believe me?
Try it yourself and see!
Geesh.

Hell, come over to my house and I'll *SHOW* you the difference,
side-by-side with the same card driving both monitors.

--
_____
/ ' / â„¢
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

Frank McCoy wrote:
And then move your head a bit around.
And enjoy the horrible color depth of the LCD.

Wow, looks like I started an Über debate of native resolution.

I got my answers though.

You kids be safe playing the 'cowboys and indians' resolution games.


People with IQ's above 120 will get the last line ;-)

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Sjouke Burry
<burrynulnulfour (AT) ppllaanneett (DOT) nnlll> wrote:

Do/did.
When moving the head, the CRT flickers a bit because of it's refresh.
The LCD panel doesn't.

As to color-depth; I can't see any difference.
Don't know what LCD panels *you* look at; but modern ones are pretty
good for color display. At least *mine* is anyway.

The one place the LCD panel loses out a bit is full-motion video from
the TV. It's not *quite* up to snuff in comparison. The response time
is a tad slow. They both look about the same playing MPG files or
decoding DVD movies; but then *those* are compressed and made for
digital displays.

Looked at close up with a static display though, the LCD panel wins
hands down. Yes, with both showing full 32-bit color, side-by-side.
(I never run at anything but full 32-bit color anyway.)
Full color pictures are my normal wallpaper.
Pictures I took myself with a digital camera.
Most pictures on the net are crap in comparison, unless you want to
spend a half hour or so downloading even at high rates. Take up *lots*
of my usable memory though. But with 1 gig main memory, what's a few
extra megabytes for wallpaper?

Don't know what crappy displays *you* have been looking at ... Obviously
nothing modern though.

Oh yeah ... In truth, the CRT monitor DOES have a blacker black ... But
it looks way too dark when I set it that way; so that's not a real
advantage. When I set both to the contrast and brightness I prefer,
they look pretty much identical except:
A. The CRT looks crappy at edges and corners.
B. The CRT purity shows up worse across the screen.
(The LCD purity isn't perfect either.)
C. The CRT has a background flicker.
The LCD doesn't.
D. The LCD fills the screen edge-to-edge and side-to-side.
The CRT doesn't.
E. The CRT has color fringes around the edges of things, caused
by misalignment of the three color guns at the corners.
The LCD doesn't.
F. The characters in the corners look out of focus on the CRT.
The same characters are as sharp at the edges as in the center
on the LCD panel.
F. The brightness is *slightly* more even on the CRT from edge to edge.
But it's not noticeably so unless you look *really* close.
G. Looked at under magnification, the pixels on the CRT "squirm"
slightly. The LCD panels pixels don't.
F: Looked at under magnification you wonder how you even SEE characters
in small fonts in the corners of the CRT. Blown up, they sometimes
are unrecognizable. For some reason though, the eye compensates
when you pull back. I suspect that's because different colors focus
in different spots on the retina anyway; and the brain is used to
automatically compensating for close differences in such things.
The LCD characters though, are *much* easier on the eye.

Now most of these differences are NOT very noticeable taken one-by-one;
but when side-by-side and especially looking close at both; the LCD
panel wins hands down in almost every test except speed of response.

It's also FAR easier on the eye; because the LCD panel doesn't flicker
*AT ALL*; even though the refresh-rate is only 60Hz. That's because the
LCD panel is *digital*; and each pixel remains on or off or whatever at
the same level from frame to frame; while the phosphors on a CRT
constantly fade from frame to frame and have to be refreshed; thus
making higher refresh-rates "better" for a CRT. In contrast, LCD panels
only HAVE on "rate" because they don't get better with faster ... In
fact, they aren't designed for any other rate.

That does cause problems with Windows ... At least XP anyway; when you
go to "Safe Mode". Micro$hit wrote XP in days when everything was going
CRT; and assumed (we all know what ass-u-me does) that any modern
monitor when going minimal resolution or VGA mode, would easily handle
85Hz as a refresh-rate. Well, LCD panels *don't*. They don't need it,
don't WANT it, and can't handle it. They run at 60Hz *only*.

Thus to run "Safe Mode" with an LCD panel and Windows-XP, you have to
set /BASEVIDEO with msconfig in the BOOT.INI file. An annoyance.
I expect Vista corrects that; since wide-screen digital displays are the
"coming thing".
However, Vista *breaks* about everything else, so ....

--
_____
/ ' / â„¢
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

On Mon, 21 May 2007 17:32:01 -0400, "Mr.E Solved!"
<Iamsingle (AT) askme (DOT) out> wrote:


No he's right.

On Mon, 21 May 2007 21:03:19 -0400, "KCB"
<kcbairdREMOVE (AT) THIScomcast (DOT) net> wrote:

It may be his opinion as to why it's better for any certain
use but it is not opinion that the pixels are substantially
better defined, that this necessarily makes clearer icons
and text.

On Tue, 22 May 2007 04:19:37 +0200, Sjouke Burry
<burrynulnulfour (AT) ppllaanneett (DOT) nnlll> wrote:



If you find your head can't stay still while using a
computer, you might consider a head brace or some stronger
medication?

Frank McCoy wrote:

Absurd nonsense. I would methodically go over each and every point with
you, even the subjective ones, but when you boldly mis-state technical
capabilities to try and make your point, you end up taking all the fun
out of having a discussion of the merits.

A 21" monitor, even the 'good' ones can and do display resolutions
higher than 1600x1200, in fact they are recommended to run the desktop
higher than 1600x1200.

Perhaps you do not know what a BNC cable is, you use that when you are
running high resolutions on CRTs, it provides for a superior image than
that provided by the more common Dsub15 cable. Of course, in your side
by side offer to compare, you have BNC cables on those monitors, right?



Then you have wasted a lot of time not really understanding how these
displays function, but as I closely read your posts it is clear to me
you actually do understand how they function and that you actually do
agree with me in that CRTs are superior in almost every single
measurable criteria, far far superior in many criteria when, as you
mention 'good', 21" CRTs are used. Which are all that are left in the
current sparse CRT market, as they are still viable products and will be
until a better technology takes their place such as SED, which has the
advantages of a digital display and the advantages of a CRT all rolled
into one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface...mitter_display


Why look at a display under magnification? You look at a display in the
conditions you would likely be using it in. You get the right display
that will best suit your purposes and budget. LCDs have advantages, one
if them is not superior image quality. They can display text with
greater contrast in some circumstances and static images with greater
vividness and more brightness than CRTs. They also have a smaller form
factor and can do widescreen more easily than CRTs, not to mention their
seemingly endless currently cheap supply. Their greatest advantage is
their ability to scale to very large sizes (40+ inches), which CRTs can
not do.

That said, color depth on LCDs is comically bad resulting in ever
present banding, moving images are subject to a host of noticeable
artifacts (such as over shoot and ghosting) inherent to the chosen
electronics and are deal breakers for many gamers. Blacks aren't black
enough, never will be. Refresh rates are fixed and native resolutions
must be adhered to or (more) scaling artifacts are added.

Not to mention, input lag is an issue with LCD panels, further
complicating the gamers position. The one true advantage, widescreen, is
also not unique to LCDs, Sony makes a stunning 24" widescreen CRT, and
it plays Oblivion with a richness and visual quality impossible to match
with any digital panel. Care to see that for yourself?

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=952788

Take a look at some of those screen shots of widescreen Oblivion (and
WOW and Far Cry) on a 24" CRT that can be had for about $500, about the
cost of a new 21" CRT. I challenge you to provide a screen shot of a
game on a widescreen LCD that has the same color reproduction, dynamic
range of light to dark, no input lag, a non fixed refresh rate, no
motion artifacts...you can't so don't bother.

LCD engineers have been struggling desperately to make LCD panels
attractive to gamers, the latest BenQ LCD with fancy 'shutter'
technology, to minimize the in motion artifacts I just mentioned, by
getting the LCD panel to appear more like a CRT. Want to see what the
smart guys are doing to make LCDs more like CRTs, but failing? Here's a
link:

http://www.benq.us/products/LCD/?product=671


Dot pitch is no longer relevant as they are all so incredibly small
(.22mm/.25mm) on modern invar masks used in current CRTs. Also the masks
have dual pitch measurements now for additional image quality, one for
horizontal dot pitch and one for vertical.

http://www.viewsonic.com/products/de...series/g225fb/

Here's Viewsonic's current G225FB it has a combined dot pitch of .20MM
horizontal .25 diagonal. I speak from experience, you have to stick your
eyeball right up to the screen to see individual elements on a .20DP
masked CRT. Have you ever even seen one? They sell for $499, about $200+
dollars cheaper than a 24" BenQ LCD.

Not to mention, DP is completely irrelevant on Trinitron CRT's which are
preferred by a sub group of CRT users for their superior ability to
display text, some say better than the best LCD. I don't have an opinion
on that comparison, they both look the same to me when cleartype is enabled.

Convergence, pincushion, moire, any and all of the raster errors a CRT
can have are easily adjusted, typically automatically by the controls,
and not a concern after you set them and forget them.

I'll say it again, CRTs are superior in many ways to LCD panels, and
mostly in the single most important way, the final image. Many of the
disadvantages of CRTs have nothing to do with the image.

Of course, I have a feeling that was all in one ear and out the other
with you, but hey, I'm not writing this for you. Cheers!