Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (
More info?)
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 09:33:14 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> Leythos wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 22:54:37 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>> Color depth in LCD displays:
>>>>
http://compreviews.about.com/od/multimedia/a/LCDColor.htm
>>>
>>> What does color depth have to do with sharpness? I'm sorry, but you are
>>> confusing two separate issues.
>>
>> No, I'm not, it's about layers, alignment, and other factors that make a
>> "color" clear and such.
>
> I see, so you're talking about some quality of color when you say "clear"
> and not about the ability to discern objects displayed on the screen.
You're off track now - to be able to discern objects on a screen does not
mean they are clear or sharp, it just means you can tell what they are -
which has nothing to do with the quality of the image verses that on a CRT.
>>>> CRT vs LCD:
>>>>
http://compreviews.about.com/od/multimedia/a/CRTvsLCD.htm
>>>
>>> Which, even if you grant that "about.com" is authoritative which I do
>>> not, does not address sharpness at all except to say that LCDs can be
>>> less sharp at resolutions other than native, which I believe that I have
>>> already stipulated.
>>
>> If I purchase a LCD that does a native 1280x1024 and give it to most
>> people, they will run it at 1024x768 or 800x600
>
> They will, will they? Now why would they do that? Most people I know who
> use LCDs run them at their native resolution unless they're playing games
> that don't support that resolution.
Most people, businesses, I work with, purchase a top of the line LCD
display and never come close to running it at it's highest resolution,
most stick with 1024x768 as do many home users. Gamers and other people
that make up the minority of LCD owners do run at the limits, but, they
are in the minority.
>> which means that, as I
>> think you agree, the image will not be of optimal quality. Sure, if they
>> run it at 1280x1024 it will look clear and sharp, but that doesn't mean
>> it's as good as traditional monitors.
>
> So now you admit that at the native resolution it's "clear and sharp"? Are
> you changing your story now?
You are reading into what I said as what you want me to have said - What
part of "but that doesn't mean it's as good as traditional monitors" did
you miss? I never said they can't be clear and sharp, I specifically said
they are NOT as clear/sharp as CRT's.
>>> It seems to me that there is some characteristic of monitors that is
>>> important to you that you are calling "sharpness" while the rest of the
>>> world calls it by something else.
>>
>> When I look at a monitor I want to see the following:
>>
>> 1) Very high contrast between black/white - the screen should be perfectly
>> black when the video is off and when black is selected.
>
> OK, that's a legitimate complaint against most LCDs--they don't have a good
> black level. It's not really an issue unless you use it in a darkened room
> though--in most offices you get a darker black out of an LCD than you do
> out of a CRT whose gray matrix is illuminated by the overhead lights.
Wrong, if you use it at all you can see the difference, lighted room or
not. The contrast ratio of many LCD units is around 400:1 or 600:1, some
are approaching 1000:1, but a typical monitor already exceeds those ranges.
>> 2) Colors are the same or very close to color cards for matching
>
> It doesn't matter what kind of monitor you're using, you need to run a color
> calibration to get even close, and even then there will never be an exact
> match between additive RGB and subtractive CMYK, let alone dyes or pigments
> with intrinsic color.
And a LCD monitor, a typical one, doesn't have the color spread that a CRT
does. They also don't have the brightness that a CRT does.
>> 3) Refresh rates are high enough to prevent flicker (85hz) or higher
>
> Flicker is not an issue with any LCD unless it's broken.
Flicker can be a big problem in some areas. In one control room there was
enough RFI/EMI that the LCD's could not be used for some reason, CRT's
could only be used in the sub-60hz settings. At the same time, even though
LCD's have a slower update, they sometimes present eye-strain issues due
to only running at 60hz (some models).
>> 4) redraw rates are fast enough to not leave any artifacts
>
> While doing what? I've never noticed any "artifacts" "left" on any monitor
> of any kind that were the result of a deficiency in the monitor--I've seen
> some video boards that were defective or had misconfigured drivers that did
> this but they did it on any kind of monitor. Are you talking about the
> "ghosting" that some gamers seem to complain about or are you talking about
> something else?
Ghosting is also called artifacts, and it's seen on LCD units that have
slower re-draw rates when doing high-speed imaging and in some games. The
issues have not been seen on CRT's for more than a decade.
>> 5) Color contrast is very high, more than 700:1 for LCD's
>
> What do you want it to be for CRTs? Many LCDs are available with 700:1
> contrast, however I've not noticed any lack of contrast at 500:1. Perhaps
> you have some specialized application?
I would not expect you to notice, heck, you don't notice any quality
difference in images. It's a simple fact, the contrast ration can make or
break the quality of an image as it relates to viewing, even crispness of
text is related to contrast.
>> 6) Clear/sharp image at all resolutions used by the user.
>
> What resolutions does the user use? Match the display to the user if he
> _must_ use some specific resolution.
Sorry, you want me to buy LCD screens based on what a user MIGHT run at -
we buy volume for corporate clients, most of the units do 1280x1024, most
users don't run at that res, but it's a issue of
maintenance/redundancy/cost, and would never be a problem with a CRT.
>> 7) No distortion of font edges at any resolution
>
> Unachievable with any current monitor technology. I've seen far worse
> artifacting in fonts with CRTs than with LCDs. For that matter you get
> some distortion of font edges with 4800 dpi typesetters. Takes a
> microscope to see it but it's there. At best you'll get it below a certain
> threshold.
I see you're reaching again - the fuzz around a font when not using the
highest resolution on a LCD is no where near as bad at any resolution that
a typical CRT supports.
>> While many LCD's can get most of the above, there are often problems with
>> redraw rates, contrast, and distortion of fonts/lines at non-highest
>> resolutions. I don't see these issues with any $250+ CRT.
>
> Then you don't look for them very hard. As for distortion of lines, one of
> the advantages of an LCD is near-perfect geometry, since the geometry is
> established by the manufacturing process and not by an electron optical
> system--CRTs distort lines at _all_ resolutions. The only people who
> routinely report problems with "redraw rates" on LCDs are a few hardcore
> gamers.
Distortion of lines is always present in LCD's, I'm not talking about
BENDING, I'm talking about FUZZ around fonts and lines when not running at
the highest resolution supported - you don't see that in CRT's.
> It sounds to me like you got used to the way things "look" on a CRT and
> anything that is different from that you regard to be an image defect even
> when it is actually an improvement.
Actually, it sounds like you want me to do the following:
1) Purchase a LCD that supports the most common resolution I will run at,
and not use any other resolutions with that LCD.
2) Accept that the contrast ration of the LCD panel is not as high as the
CRT that I use today.
3) Accept that if I do change resolutions that I should also accept that
the text is no longer as crips.
4) Accept that if I have a 19" Viewsonic A90f+ at my desk and a Viewsonic
VX900-2 sitting side by side, both running at 1280x1024, that I should
ignore that the image on the LCD is not as clear/crisp as the one on the
CRT? (I do have those sitting side by side, using a dual monitor output
card, setup just so I could prove the differences).
5) Accept that what I see on a daily basis, with varied customer base, is
not what I'm really seeing and that I should accept your view, even if the
physical evidence contradicts everything you say.
>> I don't think we're ever going to agree, I've never seen (and I've seen
>> about every LCD on the market)
>
> Somehow I doubt that.
Nope, I'm sure we're not going to agree. And I'm sure I've seen most of
the Major players displays, it's part of the business I own to know
hardware among other things.
>> a LCD that provides the same quality image
>> as a CRT, and I'm not about to change that opinion until I do see one.
>
> Well, I've never seen an LCD that provides the same poor-quality image as a
> CRT either, and I'm not about to change my opinion until I do see one.
>
> The only legitimate complaints on your list are the black level, possibly
> the response time, and image quality degradion when off design resolution,
> however even there it degrades to about CRT level on the latest LCDs I've
> looked at and at 800x600 a 1600x1200 LCD is as sharp as at its native
> resolution, only with pixels 4 times larger.
So, again, you're suggesting that I only purchase LCD units that will be
run at their native resolution, and then only run them at the native
resolution no matter what? Come on, people switch resolutions, people
share workstations, people do all sorts of things - even kids run at a
higher res than their parents and the res gets switched hi/low as each
user likes it - you're suggesting that people should accept those and
ignore than a cheap monitor doesn't have any of those issues.
Here's one for you - I just switched to 1600x1200 and the CRT works fine,
the LCD went to sleep mode as it doesn't support it - the cost of the CRT
was under HALF the cost of the LCD, and the images/text are
clearer/sharper at all resolutions on the CRT than the LCD - you can't
dispute it, it's a fact, I'm seeing it right here.
You are really coming across as someone that seems to NEED to justify
their purchase as being worthwhile for some reason, when in reality there
is no contest in quality of image/text between the display types - CRT's
are currently better than LCD's. Now, before you distort when I'm about to
say, read all of it - Many of the high-end LCD's have very nice pictures
and images/text, BUT THEY ARE STILL LOWER QUALITY THAN THE IMAGE OF A CRT
AT HALF THE PRICE OF THE LCD.
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
. Seems NEC 
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram