"Bob Myers" <nospample... (AT) address (DOT) invalid> wrote:

With back-lit LCD panels, that's true. I'd guess that
the backlight itself changes/ages faster than the panel,
and that even moving from CCFL to LED backlight won't
change that relationship much.

But with LCD rear projection, there is a significant
degradation that occurs during normal useful life.
TI has updated their DLP-vs-LCD whitepaper on that:
<http://snipurl.com/19tvi> or
<http://www.dlp.com/dlp_technology/im.../white_papers/
170_performance_study.pdf>

I'm posting this on an LCD monitor that uses the LPL
LM230W02 panel. When I bring up an all-gray screen,
I see the "shadows" of the prior windows for up to
a full minute. Same thing? Or just that LCD response
time specs (16ms for this panel) are misleading?

--
Regards, Bob Niland mailto:name (AT) ispname (DOT) tld
http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.

"rjn" <email4rjn (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote


Right - but that's not a "burn-in" phenomenon as that
term is normally used, in that there's no potential for image
retention. CCFL backlights do slowly lose light output
over time (they're a phosphor-based light source as
well). LEDs change with time, too, although LED BLUs
should be longer-lived than CCFLs, and changes with
aging can be compensated for to a greater degree with
LED backlighting.

Yes, that's an interesting paper, and that's one of the reasons
that LCDs are among my personal least-favorite projection
technologies. Projection via a transmissive modulator means
that the panel is going to have to deal with a LOT of light
and heat, and degradation of the polarizer, the LC material
itself, and color filters (when used) is almost impossible to
avoid. The DLP has a very distinct advantage here. (There's
an analogous problem with CRT projectors - CRT projection
involves some very, very specialized tubes, that are driven
extremely hard in order to generate enough light - projection
systems in general being notoriously inefficient things. CRTs
in such duty have to be designed to handle extreme heating
in the faceplate, and can suffer phosphor degradation and
a problem in the faceplate glass known as "X-ray browning"
well in excess of what a conventional direct-view tube would
have to deal with.)


That's probably a milder form of the "image sticking"
problem, yes.

Bob M.

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

You seriously need to do a lot of homework as you obviously have no idea how
LCD monitors work. If I'm a twerp for saying GtG is a superior measure than
BtW then so are the engineers at sites like Anandtech and Tom's Hardware
Guide.

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

xbitlabs just published an overview, which I
have not completely read yet:
<http://snipurl.com/19vbb> or
<http://wwww.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/lcd-parameters.html>

I can't comment on Anand or THG, as they both
lost my respect years ago.

LCD has a way to go to fully replace CRT in
critical applications. It may not even finish
doing so before it's eclipsed by some other
tech, like SED or OLED. But for most users,
myself included, the benefits of LCD already
outweigh the hazards of CRT.

And expect a complaint-free LCD to require
dual-link DVI. The DVI spec was depressingly
short-sighted (when it came out, I was already
using a CRT above the max that DVI single-link
could reach, even with the later CVT hack).

--
Regards, Bob Niland mailto:name (AT) ispname (DOT) tld
http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.

<http://wwww.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/lcd-parameters.html>

Great quote from article:
"A comparison between UFO researchers and PC users
who are purchasing a monitor may seem strange,
yet the latter are prone to behave in the same
manner at a Web forum."

--
Regards, Bob Niland mailto:name (AT) ispname (DOT) tld
http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.

"rjn" <email4rjn (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote

Xbit quote GtG specs on the LCD monitor reviews I looked at. They must be
twerps too.

Hazards?

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

My former Sony GDM FW-900 was 92 pounds.
Not a safe single-person move - and if dropped
on my tile floor, would implode like a grenade.

And sooner or later, some legislator looking
for a windmill to tilt at is going to get CRTs
declared as hazardous waste, due to the
substantial amount of Pb in the bottle.
It may become very expensive to possess one
you've already paid for once.

When I sent the FW900 to Sony for refurb, then
again to the eBay buyer, it cost about $100 each
time. The 23" LCD that replaced it is much cheaper
to ship.

Below the hazard category, CRTs have other issues.
Did Sony ever offer a southern hemisphere version
of the W900 or FW900?

I noticed that xbit also has a review of an LCD
with LED backlight:
<http://snipurl.com/19vfx>
LCD is getting there.

--
Regards, Bob Niland mailto:name (AT) ispname (DOT) tld
http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.

"rjn" <email4rjn (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote


[...]

Yes.

chrisv wrote:




i agree with that.



bob will bury you with details, yet
you come away wondering what the
bottom line really is

to me, he has been and continues to
be a flat screen fan boy; but that's
no longer the bad thing that it was
3+ years ago. or maybe annoying
but not quite as bad?

bill

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 21:31:21 +1100, DRS wrote:


Ok, I admit it, I was wrong. OK? But that doesn't mean I don't know LCD's.
From a gamers perspective they look like shit and that is all I need to
know.