What local retail stores still sell CRT monitors?

#91

"Bob Myers" <nospamplease (AT) address (DOT) invalid> wrote

Quote:

"DRS" <drs (AT) removethis (DOT) ihug.com.au> wrote in message
news:45d4a811$0$24707$5a62ac22 (AT) per-qv1-newsreader-01 (DOT) iinet.net.au...
of spec quoted (it is already, for some products), which is the
"motion picture" or "moving edge" response time - again, very
relevant to some applications, and only somewhat related to the
other two "response time" specifications.

How will that be measured?

That's still a bit up in the air, in terms of standardization.
Techniques used so far, and reflected in some proposals, involve
a "tracking" camera which follows a moving edge across the
screen and captures the characteristics of that edge as
displayed. The idea is to get something that correlates better
with the visual perception of motion blur.

Purely thinking out loud, I have problems with that notion.

The true problem with any sub-10ms average response time LCD monitor isn't
the response time. It's human visual perception. Human image persistence
(about 10 milliseconds) works for CRTs because it compensates for the
phospher excitement decay whilst the electron beam continues to scan the
rest of the screen. It works against LCDs because they store the image
between frames and the significantly slower image "decay" collides with the
"imprinted image" on the retina, hence the perception of motion blur. I
have serious doubts about the ability of a camera to accurately mimic this
phenomenon.

#92

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:56:11 GMT, Bob Myers wrote:

Quote:

OK, so it's not burn-in, but apparently it does result in some other
permanent effect, since it can "ruin your HDTV." So just what
IS it, then? It's hard to refute, or even comment on, something that
can't be clearly described beyond "I don't like it!"

Bob M.

Permanent vertical dark reddish lines down the edges of where the 4:3
window had displayed on a 16:9 screen. What sounds like the cause of that
to you?

#93

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 04:54:13 +1100, DRS wrote:

Quote:

The 16ms will be the average response time, which is the average of the BtW
(rising response time) and the WtB (falling response time). On the
contrary, pixels will far more commonly go from one intermediate state to
another intermediate state than they will go from BtW or WtB. If the GtG
spec has been measured properly, meaning it is the average of possible
intermediate transitions, then it is a far more useful spec than the
average.

Think about it. Does your monitor spend all day going
Black-White-Black-White-Black-White?

But that's not my point. They at first started using BtW as a standard
measurement and then they started using GtG becasue it makes the LCD's look
faster to the unsuspecting than they actualy are. What you just said backs
that up too.

#94

"DRS" <drs (AT) removethis (DOT) ihug.com.au> wrote

Quote:

of spec quoted (it is already, for some products), which is the
"motion picture" or "moving edge" response time - again, very
relevant to some applications, and only somewhat related to the other
two "response time" specifications.

How will that be measured?

That's still a bit up in the air, in terms of standardization.
Techniques used so far, and reflected in some proposals, involve
a "tracking" camera which follows a moving edge across the
screen and captures the characteristics of that edge as
displayed. The idea is to get something that correlates better
with the visual perception of motion blur.

Bob M.

#95

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:03:59 GMT, Bob Myers wrote:

Quote:

No, as was already explained to you, they're stating GtG IN ADDITION
TO the normal B-W-B response time spec because it IS faster from that
perspective, and because that IS a relevant spec in many real-world
applications
(i.e., those which involve very little in terms of full-white-to-black
transitions
- for instance, video). Soon you're going to see another "response time"
sort
of spec quoted (it is already, for some products), which is the "motion
picture" or "moving edge" response time - again, very relevant to some
applications, and only somewhat related to the other two "response time"
specifications.

Bob M.

OK, thanks for the explanations. Maybe it's time for me to try out another
LCD soon. That BenQ widescreen I linked to has me interesred but it is a
tad expansive and it's native resolution is too high to run many games at a
decent frame rate. That's the one are that CRT is so superior to LCD,
multiple resolutions that are always sharp.

#96

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:18:33 GMT, Bob Myers wrote:

Quote:

In that case, what you really have a problem with is comprehension -
I have said repeatedly that NEITHER technology is "superior overall,"
and that that notion is itself nonsensical. "Superior overall" is something
that is very dependent on individual preferences and the application in
question, and so there can never be a single, objective "superior overall."

Bob M.

Then why are some people calling you an LCD fanboy?

#97

"Pipboy" <no (AT) email (DOT) invalid> wrote

Quote:

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 04:54:13 +1100, DRS wrote:

[...]

Quote:

Think about it. Does your monitor spend all day going
Black-White-Black-White-Black-White?

But that's not my point. They at first started using BtW as a standard
measurement and then they started using GtG becasue it makes the
LCD's look faster to the unsuspecting than they actualy are. What you
just said backs that up too.

Until the advent of overdrive GtG made LCDs look *slower*, which is why
manufacturers were so reluctant to provide GtG specs.

#98

chrisv <chrisv (AT) nospam (DOT) invalid> wrote:

Quote:

jjnunes (AT) sonic (DOT) net wrote:

Now if I was serious gamer, I would have different preferences. What you
don't seem to recognize, despite it being pointed out to you over and over,
that each type has different strengths and weakness'. Why is that so hard
for you to understand?

I think everyone accepts that. What's making some of us rather
bitter, however, is the lack of quality choices in CRT's, due to the
market's radical shift. I think there's a big disconnect between what
people are buying and what device would really be "best" for them, if
not for the "newer flatter must be better" fashion-statement syndrome.

I agree with the increasingly evident lack of choices. And some people do
purchase things just to consume for consumptions sake. But it seems that
since LCD is generally superior for text, and that is what most people use a
computer for, which mostly explains them 'taking over' the market,

#99

"Pipboy" <no (AT) email (DOT) invalid> wrote

Quote:

Permanent vertical dark reddish lines down the edges of where the 4:3
window had displayed on a 16:9 screen. What sounds like the cause of that
to you?

Well, by golly, that DOES sound like "burn-in" or "image sticking"
to me. Which is by no means saying that it was the "overdrive"
drive method that caused it. Remember, no one (except for you)
was saying that you couldn't have seen this sort of problem - only
that if you had, it wasn't due to the simple fact that an overdrive drive
method had been used with this panel. There are a fair number of
other things which can lead to this problem, some of which have
nothing AT ALL to do with drive, and NONE of which are
specific to "overdrive."

Bob M.

#**100**

"Pipboy" <no (AT) email (DOT) invalid> wrote

Quote:

Then why are some people calling you an LCD fanboy?

You'd have to ask them; I am obviously not responsible for
the opinions, beliefs, and/or delusions of others.

Bob M.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

What local retail stores still sell CRT monitors?

Monitors / Videocards Video cards & monitors for the PC. (comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video)

Re: What local retail stores still sell CRT monitors? - 02-15-2007 , 04:09 PM

Re: What local retail stores still sell CRT monitors? - 02-15-2007 , 04:09 PM

Re: What local retail stores still sell CRT monitors? - 02-15-2007 , 04:14 PM

Re: What local retail stores still sell CRT monitors? - 02-15-2007 , 04:18 PM

Re: What local retail stores still sell CRT monitors? - 02-15-2007 , 04:21 PM

Re: What local retail stores still sell CRT monitors? - 02-15-2007 , 04:23 PM

Re: What local retail stores still sell CRT monitors? - 02-15-2007 , 04:40 PM

Re: What local retail stores still sell CRT monitors? - 02-15-2007 , 05:07 PM

Re: What local retail stores still sell CRT monitors? - 02-15-2007 , 05:13 PM

Re: What local retail stores still sell CRT monitors? - 02-15-2007 , 05:15 PM