Prev: Looking for a good, cheap keyboard.
Next: Dual Monitor Hardware Information
From: kony on 1 Feb 2010 20:37
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:21:26 +0100, "I.C. Koets"
<Nospam(a)please.com> wrote:

>Thank you all for your contributions, I reply to this one because it
>seems the most useful.
>
>I am interested in repairing the old 30-kg machine because thus far I
>have not seen a single LCD that gets close to it in picture quality
>and motion representation. People say that LCD's have come a long way,
>but they still don't match the performance of these old machines. I am
>frankly surprised that people accept the image quality in exchange for
>a bit of desk space.

I find the image quality of even the cheapest LCD you can
buy today, vastly superior to the best CRTs. The reason is
I am not looking for ultimate contrast or color hue, I want
per-pixel precision (especially at high resolution where any
CRT blurs pixels together AND does so ununiformly the
further away from the center of the tube you look), and no
flickering (I notice it even at 100Hz refresh and above to
some extent).

I can't even bare to use CRTs anymore as they seem such a
huge step backwards, and mostly I was buying Trinitron or
Diamondtube based CRTs, not the cheapies.
From: I.C. Koets on 2 Feb 2010 12:23
kony wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:21:26 +0100, "I.C. Koets"
> <Nospam(a)please.com> wrote:
>
>> Thank you all for your contributions, I reply to this one because it
>> seems the most useful.
>>
>> I am interested in repairing the old 30-kg machine because thus far I
>> have not seen a single LCD that gets close to it in picture quality
>> and motion representation. People say that LCD's have come a long way,
>> but they still don't match the performance of these old machines. I am
>> frankly surprised that people accept the image quality in exchange for
>> a bit of desk space.
>
> I find the image quality of even the cheapest LCD you can
> buy today, vastly superior to the best CRTs. The reason is
> I am not looking for ultimate contrast or color hue, I want
> per-pixel precision (especially at high resolution where any
> CRT blurs pixels together AND does so ununiformly the
> further away from the center of the tube you look), and no
> flickering (I notice it even at 100Hz refresh and above to
> some extent).
>
> I can't even bare to use CRTs anymore as they seem such a
> huge step backwards, and mostly I was buying Trinitron or
> Diamondtube based CRTs, not the cheapies.

I (obviously) disagree. There is more pixel bleed at the edges of
CRT's, that much is true. It just does not bother me. They are still
defined well enough to show a coherent picture, unless the tube is
badly out of trim. You might value this differently.

What I look for in a screen is good solid black, which LCD all fail
at, to differing degrees; proper pixel brightness control, which they
either fail at completely or try to cover by dithering (if you're
lucky at 85 Hz, if you're unlucky at 60); quick motion (not just
ghosting, but the slow pixel response makes scrolling look like you're
smearing the image across the screen, especially in a darkened room);
and finally I want the continuous areas of picture to look continuous,
not like it's a mosaic of pixel-sized buttons I'm looking at through
barely transparent plastic.

It is partly an esthetic choice, but also a matter of practicality.
LCD's, even the good ones, give me tired eyes.
From: Brian Cryer on 3 Feb 2010 04:37
"I.C. Koets" <Nospam(a)please.com> wrote in message
news:ee621$4b685f83$915e5cb0$25135(a)news1.tudelft.nl...
> kony wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:21:26 +0100, "I.C. Koets"
>> <Nospam(a)please.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you all for your contributions, I reply to this one because it
>>> seems the most useful.
>>>
>>> I am interested in repairing the old 30-kg machine because thus far I
>>> have not seen a single LCD that gets close to it in picture quality
>>> and motion representation. People say that LCD's have come a long way,
>>> but they still don't match the performance of these old machines. I am
>>> frankly surprised that people accept the image quality in exchange for
>>> a bit of desk space.
>>
>> I find the image quality of even the cheapest LCD you can
>> buy today, vastly superior to the best CRTs. The reason is
>> I am not looking for ultimate contrast or color hue, I want
>> per-pixel precision (especially at high resolution where any
>> CRT blurs pixels together AND does so ununiformly the
>> further away from the center of the tube you look), and no
>> flickering (I notice it even at 100Hz refresh and above to
>> some extent).
>>
>> I can't even bare to use CRTs anymore as they seem such a
>> huge step backwards, and mostly I was buying Trinitron or
>> Diamondtube based CRTs, not the cheapies.
>
> I (obviously) disagree. There is more pixel bleed at the edges of CRT's,
> that much is true. It just does not bother me. They are still defined well
> enough to show a coherent picture, unless the tube is badly out of trim.
> You might value this differently.
>
> What I look for in a screen is good solid black, which LCD all fail at, to
> differing degrees; proper pixel brightness control, which they either fail
> at completely or try to cover by dithering (if you're lucky at 85 Hz, if
> you're unlucky at 60); quick motion (not just ghosting, but the slow pixel
> response makes scrolling look like you're smearing the image across the
> screen, especially in a darkened room); and finally I want the continuous
> areas of picture to look continuous, not like it's a mosaic of pixel-sized
> buttons I'm looking at through barely transparent plastic.

LCDs in this respect are like CRTs, you get what you pay for. A cheap LCD
will have a low response rate and low contrast so black might not be as
black as you want. I don't recall even cheap CRTs having a low response rate
(due to the nature of how they work), but I do recalla good dark black being
more difficult to come by. I admit that I've not tried any of my LCD
monitors in the dark, but if you look for one with a high contrast ratio
then its more likley to give you what you want.

> It is partly an esthetic choice, but also a matter of practicality. LCD's,
> even the good ones, give me tired eyes.

For me it was the other way round, but this does sound like a good reason
for YOU to stick with your CRT so I can understand your desire to get it
fixed. Best of luck with it - keep safe.
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian

From: Kyle on 3 Feb 2010 18:53
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 20:37:19 -0500, kony <spam(a)spam.com> wrote:

>I find the image quality of even the cheapest LCD you can
>buy today, vastly superior to the best CRTs. The reason is
>I am not looking for ultimate contrast or color hue, I want
>per-pixel precision (especially at high resolution where any
>CRT blurs pixels together AND does so ununiformly the
>further away from the center of the tube you look), and no
>flickering (I notice it even at 100Hz refresh and above to
>some extent).

I'm not sure of what you are saying. I've seen that focus is not
always good with LCD.

When buying CRTs, I've always been very careful to buy monitors with
totally perfect focus.

So, since I'm accustomed to this kind of quality, I'm been not
satisfied with many LCDs for years.

Until today, I can say there are very good products, but of course
cheap LCDs have bad focus.

--
http://shop-for-computer.com - Best Pc Deals, Refurbished Deals

http://shop-for-clothes.com - Shoes, Handbags, Shirts, Coats

http://shop-for-car.com - Huge Car Deals, Auto Parts
From: Brian Cryer on 4 Feb 2010 05:15
"Kyle" <ThisIsPrivate(a)NoAddress.com> wrote in message
news:8o2km55uq3ia7p3u59723e9cck82cbboqm(a)4ax.com...
> On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 20:37:19 -0500, kony <spam(a)spam.com> wrote:
>
>>I find the image quality of even the cheapest LCD you can
>>buy today, vastly superior to the best CRTs. The reason is
>>I am not looking for ultimate contrast or color hue, I want
>>per-pixel precision (especially at high resolution where any
>>CRT blurs pixels together AND does so ununiformly the
>>further away from the center of the tube you look), and no
>>flickering (I notice it even at 100Hz refresh and above to
>>some extent).
>
> I'm not sure of what you are saying. I've seen that focus is not
> always good with LCD.
>
> When buying CRTs, I've always been very careful to buy monitors with
> totally perfect focus.
>
> So, since I'm accustomed to this kind of quality, I'm been not
> satisfied with many LCDs for years.
>
> Until today, I can say there are very good products, but of course
> cheap LCDs have bad focus.

Perhaps you should try a different brand or different retail outlet, because
like Kony indicated, LCDs should give pixel precision and not suffer from
any focus issues.

The only times I've seen an LCD monitor with what could be described as "bad
focus" has been when:
1. its being run at a resolution other than its native resolution - and
then typically when its being run at a higher resolution than its native.
or
2. when its being run with an inappropriate refresh rate.
I suppose logically ghosting/bad-focus effects could also be caused by poor
quality cabling, but I've only experienced that with CRTs.

Cheaper LCDs (like CRTs) may have poor contrast or poor colours, but in my
experience to date, focus is only a problem if the PC graphics has been
incorrectly configured. That said, I don't buy or use the cheapest of the
cheap, but neither do I use high end monitors.
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Looking for a good, cheap keyboard.
Next: Dual Monitor Hardware Information