In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Coffee Lover
<DontSendMeEmail (AT) Never (DOT) ok> wrote:

Perhaps the Aborigines in Australia might get the point if they
walkabout the subject far enough away to avoid conflict-of-interest.
;-}

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

kony wrote:
and decent contrast, and I dont find that on an LCD.

Sjouke Burry wrote:

Ignore his abandoning the topic with an idiotic comment and instead
check out SED displays:

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

All the advantages of CRTs plus the advantages of TFT LCDs! Just think,
high quality images on a big flat glass screen...something LCDs
currently do not provide.

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

Count the actual dot-pitch, convert to inches, and divide into the
actual screen-size. You'll be surprised at where the actual resolution
limits actually ARE.

Yes, they *recommend* higher resolutions.
Yes they SUPPORT higher resolutions.
Neither one means a damned thing.
I have a 16" monitor out in the garage that "supports" resolutions up to
1600x1200 and beyond even!
However, it doesn't do a shit bit better looking past 800x600; and it's
dot-pitch is .28
A 21" monitor with .26 dot-pitch means it *should* support higher
resolutions. In fact, multiplying out:
..28 / .26 = 1.08
21" / 16" = 1.31
1.32*1.08 = 1.41

Even if that fairly-good 16 inch monitor CAN handle 1024x768 resolution,
multiplying that by 1.41 and you get (for the finer grained and larger
CRT) 1444x1085. Thus my expectation of getting much better pictures on
the 21" CRT of much higher quality fails the math test. 1600x1200 is
already pushing things.

DON'T be fooled by manufacturer's specifications of what a supposed
monitor *will handle*. Yes, it *will* handle even higher resolutions
than that. Whether they will LOOK better or not ... Well, count the
inches and divide by the dot-pitch; and ignore the "recommended"
settings by the manufacturer, which in this case is just sales-hype
telling what input the monitor will TAKE, not what it will actually
*display* worth a damn.

Having been in the business of working with CRT displays more years than
you've likely been alive (I started as a TV technician in 1960) and been
*designing* circuits for such probably most of that time (Was Chief
Engineer and R&D engineer out in Calif. in 1972.) I know whereof I
speak.

CRT displays are *wonderful* creatures. They also are very susceptible
to sales-hype, especially about resolutions supported. Just because a
CRT monitor supports *input* for a specific resolution, doesn't mean the
actual *display* will be a bit sharper when you choose that method.

increase using RBG cables was minor compared to standard VGA cables.
That's why those monitors even bothered to come with both.

Oh yeah: That 16" monitor out in the garage has BNC connectors too.
Yes, I've run with them ... Until I got tired of the horrible clutter
and switched back to VGA adapter, which looked just about as good.

It still runs fine ... Want to buy it?

I had FAR more improvement between monitor clarity when I changed video
cards to a better brand than I ever did changing the input method.

Having used more that two hundred monitors in my time ... Well, thinking
about it, probably several thousand, I know whereof I speak.

These days you get best results from using the High-definition cables
supplied on many monitors intended to be used as High-def TV ports ...
and also on many video-cards for use with high-def monitors.

My LCD panel recommends using the high-def inputs if available; but I
didn't notice any difference when using same. I do, when using a CRT
monitor with both types. Frequency-response is better. However, the
LCD display runs at a lower frame-rate; which more than compensates. It
doesn't flicker though at the same lower frame-rate; just because of the
way LCD panels work.

Sometime try waving your hand in front of a CRT monitor while the lights
are off ... Then do the same thing with an LCD panel.

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

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

All I can say is: You must have not looked at LCD displays recently.
They're NOT the same as they were two years ago.
Hell, they're not the same as LCD panels from even one year ago.
The improvements in the last two years alone, have been about the same
as CRTs did in the previous ten years.

I have only one complaint:
They seem to be completely STALLED at the equivalent of 1080P television
resolution; as that (full resolution HDTV) seems to be the main driving
force for flat panel displays right now, not computers; which seem to be
only incidental.

I guess the full switchover to digital TV, due by next year, is pushing
flat-panel displays more than anything else. That, of course, means LCD
panels *will* get faster, just for TV use if nothing else ... the main
drawback now to LCDs.

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

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

*damned* good. Better, in fact, than the plasma-panels and certainly
far better than any of the projection sets I've seen. The plasma-panels
are marginally better; but they're supposed to burn in or burn out a lot
easier. Brings back the old original reason for "screensavers".

BTW: Cold Conduction displays have been "in the works" for too many
years for me to get real excited about another type. They've had
point-contact emitters, diamond emitters, and all sorts. Each has turned
out to have problems that the designers keep saying, "will be solved
next month".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_emission_display
http://news.com.com/Carbon+TVs+to+ed...3-5512225.html
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Pr...102/index.html

Of course, so were both LCD and Plasma Panel displays, for the longest
time. Still, I'll start expecting large flat-panel FED displays the day
I see the first 12" TV set based on the process in the stores.

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

On Mon, 21 May 2007 23:46:01 -0400, "Mr.E Solved!"
<Iamsingle (AT) askme (DOT) out> wrote:

Actually it's shades of grey.

The inherant problem with CRT is that the borders of each
pixel blur into each other. At a low resolution, this is an
acceptibly low % of the total pixel area and can even be
perceived as a desirable softening of a low (compared to
real life, the human eye's perception of real world imagry)
resolution pixelated image. At higher resolution the pixels
become smaller yet at same time the % of pixel border
blurring to total pixel area is substantially larger onto
the point where the entire pixel becomes more /wrong/ than
right at highest resolutions any particular monitor
supports. DVI is slightly better but alone it can't counter
this effect and likewise an LCD can be compared with both
analog and DVI.

When it comes to resolution vs. quality, so long as the LCD
stays at it's native resoution it wins every time when
considering preservation of resolutional detail, any factor
relating to resolution.

Where the LCD falls short is areas _not_ related to
resolution, particularly contrast. Viewing angle we can
ignore, this is not a cinema theatre where broad rows of
seating are trying to look at a computer monitor.




"Can do" doesn't mean "does well".



BNC or DVI, and still CRT falls short when there is any
consideration of resolution as stated above.

There are only two areas of any significant user
perceptibility where CRT better LCD.

On Tue, 22 May 2007 05:50:23 +0200, Sjouke Burry
<burrynulnulfour (AT) ppllaanneett (DOT) nnlll> wrote:


Then why are you introducing irrelevant arguments like
whether you can sit still, whether it would matter what the
viewing angle is for a purposefully one-operator,
adjustable, stationary display unit?

Yes CRT have better contrast. Colors is not necessarily
true, if looking at one with good contrast and 8 bit
adjusted properly you will not find enough difference
between LCD and CRT to pick one over the other. This does
not mean all LCD are good. Neither were cheap CRT,
especially when trying to run the high resolutions much
modern software or webpages demand.

On Mon, 21 May 2007 23:59:16 -0400, "Mr.E Solved!"
<Iamsingle (AT) askme (DOT) out> wrote:


You purposefully seek out a screen with high reflectivity?
LOL. No wonder you have a terrible enough experience to
think CRT are better.

kony wrote:
I did not complain about being unable to sit still.
That was the guy promoting lcds.
I just dont like to be forced to stay in one location,
just to have the right brightness/contrast/color.
A CRT gives me that and an lcd does not.