Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

LCD monitor resolution question

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
July 23, 2004 2:50:41 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

I am considering buying a new monitor, perhaps a 17" lcd, mostly for text
use, with some pictures, still and video; no games.

I note that most 17" LCD monitors have a native resolution of 1280x1024.
But Staples has a Norcent 17" lcd on sale that has a resolution of
1024x768, native resolution. This brings up two questions: 1) anybody
have an opinion of the Norcent LM-730?

And, perhaps more importantly, why are most 17" lcd monitors 1280x1024? I
would prefer 1024x768 at 17", it should be more readable I think, as long
as we're dealing with different *native* resolutions. Again, let me
emphasize I'm talking about the maximum, native resolution.

So why do most manufacturers market the higher resolution 1280x1024 17"
displays? Is there an inherent advantage to one resolution over the
other, and would the optimum for text be different for graphics or games?

Thanks for any helpful responses.

Andy
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
July 23, 2004 9:23:07 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"Andy Axnot" <Andy@mepis1.invalid> wrote in message
news:p an.2004.07.22.22.51.58.203772@mepis1.invalid...
> And, perhaps more importantly, why are most 17" lcd monitors 1280x1024? I
> would prefer 1024x768 at 17", it should be more readable I think, as long
> as we're dealing with different *native* resolutions. Again, let me
> emphasize I'm talking about the maximum, native resolution.

The answer to this question in large part has to do with the common
confusion between "resolution" and "pixel format" (or "addressibility").
A 17" diagonal panel providing 1280 x 1024 pixels has a RESOLUTION
which is slightly higher than that of a 15", 1024 x 768 - the 15" XGA
product has a resolution of 85 pixels/inch, while the 17" SXGA is about
96 pixels/inch. A 17" XGA panel would provide about 75 PPI, a notably
coarser image than either of the others. Most monitor customers
expect more screen area to translate into more pixels (the ability to
display more information on the screen), and an image quality (resolution,
in the proper sense of the word) at least as good as the smaller, less
expensive
option. A good place for desktop displays to be in that regard is somewhere
in the 85-110 pixels per inch range, a very usable and visually pleasing
range
of resolution without getting too expensive to manufacture at an acceptable
cost.

Bob M.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
July 24, 2004 3:10:52 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 17:23:07 +0000, Bob Myers wrote:


> "Andy Axnot" <Andy@mepis1.invalid> wrote in message
> news:p an.2004.07.22.22.51.58.203772@mepis1.invalid...
>> And, perhaps more importantly, why are most 17" lcd monitors 1280x1024?
>> I would prefer 1024x768 at 17", it should be more readable I think, as
>> long as we're dealing with different *native* resolutions. Again, let
>> me emphasize I'm talking about the maximum, native resolution.
>
> The answer to this question in large part has to do with the common
> confusion between "resolution" and "pixel format" (or "addressibility").
> A 17" diagonal panel providing 1280 x 1024 pixels has a RESOLUTION which
> is slightly higher than that of a 15", 1024 x 768 - the 15" XGA product
> has a resolution of 85 pixels/inch, while the 17" SXGA is about 96
> pixels/inch. A 17" XGA panel would provide about 75 PPI, a notably
> coarser image than either of the others. Most monitor customers expect
> more screen area to translate into more pixels (the ability to display
> more information on the screen), and an image quality (resolution, in
> the proper sense of the word) at least as good as the smaller, less
> expensive option. A good place for desktop displays to be in that
> regard is somewhere in the 85-110 pixels per inch range, a very usable
> and visually pleasing range of resolution without getting too expensive
> to manufacture at an acceptable cost.
>
> Bob M.

Bob, thanks for your response.

So the SXGA display is finer, less coarse. But aren't elements rendered
smaller, too? I wonder how this affects readability, and if the ideal
reading distance would be different for the two displays.

I guess I better get myself off to some place where I can compare some
monitors side by side, and get some assistance from the friendly, patient,
and knowledgeable sales staff. Oh, wait! That was just a dream...

Andy
Related resources
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
July 26, 2004 7:13:01 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"Andy Axnot" <Andy@mepis1.invalid> wrote in message
news:p an.2004.07.23.23.07.51.506207@mepis1.invalid...

> So the SXGA display is finer, less coarse. But aren't elements rendered
> smaller, too?

Exactly - higher resolution, in the technically correct sense of the word,
means finer picture elements ("pixels"), for more pixels per inch (or
whatever unit you'd care to use).

> I wonder how this affects readability, and if the ideal
> reading distance would be different for the two displays.

A lot of that depends on just what you're using the display for, and
to some degree on how well the OS and/or application software
handles displays of differing resolutions. Windows, for example, has
pretty much always assumed that it will be dealing with a display of
about 90-100 ppi, and so does not yet do all that well with higher
resolution displays since it doesn't do that great a job of matching
its text size to the display in use. (The extreme case of this is a
system in which a given character is ALWAYS the same size
in pixels, rather than being scaled so as to be the same physical size
on the screen regardless of resolution.) Ergonomic standards typically
say that you don't want to have to deal with characters shorter than
about 2.6 mm (a bit more than 0.1"), assuming typical "desktop"
viewing distances, and most people will be most comfortable with
characters displayed such that they're a bit larger than that.

As far as readibility, that's a question of both the character size and
other factors - the font design, the spacing between characters
and lines, the colors used, and so forth. And most people will
generally want the image to be a little "visually sharper" for text
work than they will for photgraphic images (where very sharp
edges on the pixels, if the pixels are large enough to be visible,
will be objectionable). So, as usual, everything's a tradeoff.

Bob M.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
July 28, 2004 12:40:36 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

Andy Axnot <Andy@mepis1.invalid> wrote:

>So why do most manufacturers market the higher resolution 1280x1024 17"
>displays?

Because that's the "sweet spot", given the current manufacturing
technology (read: cost) and customer expectations regarding
resolution.

Although many (including myself) agree with you that 1280x1024 is too
many pixels for a 17" LCD monitor, the manufacturer has to shoot for
the middle of the market to maximize profits. It would be nice if
someone would produce, say, an 1152x864 17" monitor. This would be,
IMO, a more comfortable resolution for this size, but then the poor
manufacturer would then be seen as "inferior" to his competitors and
their 1280x1024 displays. So, the poor manufacturer would be forced
to sell at a lower price point, even though his manufacturing costs,
heavily dependant on size, wouldn't be hardly any different.

IMO, if you're commited to LCD, you should get a 15" 1024x768, or, if
you need more resolution, step up to a 19" 1280x1024.

>Is there an inherent advantage to one resolution over the
>other, and would the optimum for text be different for graphics or games?

That's a very personal question, depending on how you use your
computer. Personally, I think most home users are well served by the
venerable CRT monitor, which has no issues switching resolutions as
needed. If I need 1600x1200 to see a speadsheet, no problem. If Doom
III runs too slow at 1280x960, I'll drop to 1024x768.
August 10, 2004 4:28:41 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

I work 8 hours a day on a PC and want a LCD because all people say
that will be easier for my eyes, and better for my health.
Is It really better to use a LCD than CRT for long time works or those
are only subjective opinions.
Thanks.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
August 11, 2004 1:38:39 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"Ricardo" <x4vier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:80362ef.0408101128.78312e0f@posting.google.com...
> I work 8 hours a day on a PC and want a LCD because all people say
> that will be easier for my eyes, and better for my health.
> Is It really better to use a LCD than CRT for long time works or those
> are only subjective opinions.

First, ANY display (or for that matter, any visual task at all) viewed
for an extended period of time will result in tired eyes, etc.. So
my first word of advice here is that you shouldn't do any work
involving close-up, fine-detail work (whether it's working with a
computer display, tying flies, or whatever!) for a long time without
taking a break. Get up from the desk. Focus on something in the
distance for a while. Hey, get out and take a walk already, it's a
nice day out...:-)

Having said THAT...LCDs are easier on the eyes than CRTs
primarily in two areas. First, and most obvious, they do not
suffer from the "flicker" problem usually associated with the
CRT. The other primary advantage is that an LCD (or really,
any fixed-format display type, which would include plasma
panels, OLEDs, etc.) will not, when operated at its native
format, suffer from "focus" problems, nor any of the CRT
behaviors that can appear as "poor focus" (e.g., misconvergence).
This is a benefit, since your eyes won't be constantly trying to
correct what it sees as a problem in what THEY are doing.

Bob M.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
August 11, 2004 1:38:40 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 21:38:39 GMT, "Bob Myers"
<nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote:

>
>"Ricardo" <x4vier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:80362ef.0408101128.78312e0f@posting.google.com...
>> I work 8 hours a day on a PC and want a LCD because all people say
>> that will be easier for my eyes, and better for my health.
>> Is It really better to use a LCD than CRT for long time works or those
>> are only subjective opinions.
>
>First, ANY display (or for that matter, any visual task at all) viewed
>for an extended period of time will result in tired eyes, etc.. So
>my first word of advice here is that you shouldn't do any work
>involving close-up, fine-detail work (whether it's working with a
>computer display, tying flies, or whatever!) for a long time without
>taking a break. Get up from the desk. Focus on something in the
>distance for a while. Hey, get out and take a walk already, it's a
>nice day out...:-)
>
>Having said THAT...LCDs are easier on the eyes than CRTs
>primarily in two areas. First, and most obvious, they do not
>suffer from the "flicker" problem usually associated with the
>CRT. The other primary advantage is that an LCD (or really,
>any fixed-format display type, which would include plasma
>panels, OLEDs, etc.) will not, when operated at its native
>format, suffer from "focus" problems, nor any of the CRT
>behaviors that can appear as "poor focus" (e.g., misconvergence).
>This is a benefit, since your eyes won't be constantly trying to
>correct what it sees as a problem in what THEY are doing.
>
>Bob M.
>

As a PC user who has had some extensive eye surgeries (my vision is
fine now), I find that my new LCD display *is* easier on the eyes. And
I think you're right, Bob -- the great geometry and focus on my
monitor keep my eyes from having to work too hard.

Kevin Miller

"Either way, it is bad for Zathras."
September 27, 2004 3:46:12 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

In article <zfbSc.7659$mL2.5270@news.cpqcorp.net>,
nospamplease@address.invalid says...
>
> "Ricardo" <x4vier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:80362ef.0408101128.78312e0f@posting.google.com...
> > I work 8 hours a day on a PC and want a LCD because all people say
> > that will be easier for my eyes, and better for my health.
> > Is It really better to use a LCD than CRT for long time works or those
> > are only subjective opinions.
>
> First, ANY display (or for that matter, any visual task at all) viewed
> for an extended period of time will result in tired eyes, etc.. So
> my first word of advice here is that you shouldn't do any work
> involving close-up, fine-detail work (whether it's working with a
> computer display, tying flies, or whatever!) for a long time without
> taking a break. Get up from the desk. Focus on something in the
> distance for a while. Hey, get out and take a walk already, it's a
> nice day out...:-)
>
> Having said THAT...LCDs are easier on the eyes than CRTs
> primarily in two areas. First, and most obvious, they do not
> suffer from the "flicker" problem usually associated with the
> CRT. The other primary advantage is that an LCD (or really,
> any fixed-format display type, which would include plasma
> panels, OLEDs, etc.) will not, when operated at its native
> format, suffer from "focus" problems, nor any of the CRT
> behaviors that can appear as "poor focus" (e.g., misconvergence).
> This is a benefit, since your eyes won't be constantly trying to
> correct what it sees as a problem in what THEY are doing.
>
> Bob M.
>
>
>
Adding a slightly OT comment to this:

I found that getting eyeglasses specically prescribed for the distance
between me and my monitor, and have the glasses anti-glare coated,
reduced my eyestrain a lot.

Louise
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
October 10, 2004 4:52:39 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

LCD's are NOT FLICKER FREE.

I actually am sensitive to LCD's and have always thought I perceived
some type of flickering or shimmering. Perhaps not for the reasons I
will enumerate, for I don't have all the answers. But I recently came
across the following site which I found quite enlightening:

http://www.techmind.org/lcd/

It has information on:
Clock/phasing for Analog inputs
Pixel Inversion
Cross-talk
Color, contrast and viewing angle

These can all cause flickering and other visual noise which can be
distracting to sensitive individuals.

Pixel-inversion flicker is particularly nasty because it operates at a
lower frequency, about 30-40Hz on most displays. Compared with over
100Hz on a quality CRT. I've seen these effects and thought I was
just crazy. In many cases, "insanity" is an explanation of things we
cannot directly observe or fall outside of the scope of our
understanding. Just because something is difficult to notice or
explain, doesn't mean it isn't real.

LCD's also require greater brightness to produce a high-contrast
image. This can mean more direct glare issues, especially for
spectacle wearers.

I appreciate the many advantages of LCD's, but I have used many
high-rated displays and they haven't been the panacea that many people
claim. In ways I prefer a quality CRT, and I'm know I'm not alone.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
October 10, 2004 5:33:58 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

LCD's are NOT FLICKER FREE.

I actually am sensitive to LCD's and have always thought I perceived
some type of flickering or shimmering. Perhaps not for the reasons I
will enumerate, for I don't have all the answers. But I recently came
across the following site which I found quite enlightening:

http://www.techmind.org/lcd/

It has information on:
Clock/phasing for Analog inputs
Pixel Inversion
Cross-talk
Color, contrast and viewing angle

These can all cause flickering and other visual noise which can be
distracting to sensitive individuals.

Pixel-inversion flicker is particularly nasty because it operates at a
lower frequency, about 30-40Hz on most displays. Compared with over
100Hz on a quality CRT. I've seen these effects and thought I was
just crazy. In many cases, "insanity" is an explanation of things we
cannot directly observe or fall outside of the scope of our
understanding. Just because something is difficult to notice or
explain, doesn't mean it isn't real.

LCD's also require greater brightness to produce a high-contrast
image. This can mean more direct glare issues, especially for
spectacle wearers.

I appreciate the many advantages of LCD's, but I have used many
high-rated displays and they haven't been the panacea that many people
claim. In ways I prefer a quality CRT, and I'm know I'm not alone.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
October 10, 2004 10:07:35 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

Jonathan Westbay wrote:

> LCD's are NOT FLICKER FREE.
>
> I actually am sensitive to LCD's and have always thought I perceived
> some type of flickering or shimmering. Perhaps not for the reasons I
> will enumerate, for I don't have all the answers. But I recently came
> across the following site which I found quite enlightening:
>
> http://www.techmind.org/lcd/
>
> It has information on:
> Clock/phasing for Analog inputs
> Pixel Inversion
> Cross-talk
> Color, contrast and viewing angle
>
> These can all cause flickering and other visual noise which can be
> distracting to sensitive individuals.
>
> Pixel-inversion flicker is particularly nasty because it operates at a
> lower frequency, about 30-40Hz on most displays. Compared with over
> 100Hz on a quality CRT. I've seen these effects and thought I was
> just crazy. In many cases, "insanity" is an explanation of things we
> cannot directly observe or fall outside of the scope of our
> understanding. Just because something is difficult to notice or
> explain, doesn't mean it isn't real.
>
> LCD's also require greater brightness to produce a high-contrast
> image. This can mean more direct glare issues, especially for
> spectacle wearers.
>
> I appreciate the many advantages of LCD's, but I have used many
> high-rated displays and they haven't been the panacea that many people
> claim. In ways I prefer a quality CRT, and I'm know I'm not alone.

Those tests were purposely created to produce the appearance of
flicker--it's not the same phenomenon that CRTs exhibit, which is constant
and not an artifact of particular data patterns. If you're experiencing
flicker routinely with LCDs the most likely explanation is that you're
picking up the frequency of the backlight.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
October 11, 2004 9:56:24 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:ckb2vs01puj@news4.newsguy.com...

> > These can all cause flickering and other visual noise which can be
> > distracting to sensitive individuals.

> Those tests were purposely created to produce the appearance of
> flicker--it's not the same phenomenon that CRTs exhibit, which is constant
> and not an artifact of particular data patterns. If you're experiencing
> flicker routinely with LCDs the most likely explanation is that you're
> picking up the frequency of the backlight.

Very unlikely, as the backlight isn't operated at a frequency even
remotely likely of being perceived as flickering.

The site referenced does give some valid information, but unfortunately
not the whole story - and it's mixed in with some claims that are
basically wrong. The drive inversion mentioned, for instance, does
occur, but unless it's being done completely wrong is very unlikely to
result in perceivable flicker.

Bob M.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
October 20, 2004 6:15:10 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

Whether flicker is conciously perceivable, does not affect its
potential to cause eyestrain in sensitive individuals.

The tests were designed to purposely excite the whole screen, but I
see no reason why it wouldn't cause the same type of flicker in
certain isolated areas of the screen.

At any rate, if there is any type of inversion scheme going on, then
the pixels are not in fact static. I had always been led to believe
that the pixels were completely static until their value is updated by
the graphics card. There IS flicker. It is simply different in
nature.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
October 21, 2004 3:56:23 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"Jonathan Westbay" <JonathanWestbay@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f809b1c3.0410200115.21295ea9@posting.google.com...
> Whether flicker is conciously perceivable, does not affect its
> potential to cause eyestrain in sensitive individuals.

More accurately, there are sources of eyestrain when using
any display (or, broadly, when doing any sort of visual
work) which have nothing to do with flicker. In other words,
simply suffering from "eyestrain" is no indication that the display
in use is flickering.


> At any rate, if there is any type of inversion scheme going on, then
> the pixels are not in fact static.

This is actually incorrect. A pixel which is set to a given state
is in fact static in terms of its light output, a fact which can be
verified with any sufficiently fast-responding photometer. The
drive inversion places a net zero DC voltage across the LC
cell (which is the intention, to prevent "image sticking" and other
long-term problems with the LC), but conventional TN mode
LCDs (and others using basically similar schemes, including
IPS and VA) are not senstive to the polarity of the field across
the material, only to its intensity. The molecules, in other words,
do NOT change state on successive frames of the image, even
though the polarity of the drive is changing.

> I had always been led to believe
> that the pixels were completely static until their value is updated by
> the graphics card. There IS flicker. It is simply different in
> nature.

The pixels, at least in an active-matrix LCD, ARE stable. There
is no significant flicker. What's being ignored here is that there
are other sources of eyestrain - such as simply doing ANY sort
of detailed, close-up work for an extended period of time -
besides display flicker.

Bob M.
!