Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Monitors Easiest on the Eyes

Last response: in Components
Share
January 22, 2003 1:04:31 AM

Hello folks.

Maybe you can help me with this one...

What computer monitors are easiest on the eyes? (CRT vs. LCD, Brands, Models, specs)

Thanks much!
DuckTape

More about : monitors easiest eyes

January 22, 2003 1:14:23 PM

I would recommend LCD from Eizo.
January 23, 2003 2:06:05 AM

I have to agree with upec. Besides Eizo, Philips and Samsung also make good LCD monitors.
Related resources
January 23, 2003 5:19:37 AM

CRT's are extremely fast, LCD's are probably 100 times slower (the amount of time it takes to charge and discharge a pixel). So if you have your CRT set at 60Hz under a florecent light, which flahes at 60Hz, you'll see lines, shakyness, etc. That's why CRT's should be turned up to at least 75Hz.

Well, LCD's don't have that problem. The pixels chage and discharge so slowely that even at 60Hz, they don't completely discharge before getting hit with a new signal. What that means is that they don't flash at 60Hz like CRT's and flourecent lights do, when set to 60Hz refresh. It's like the comparing flourecent lights to old fashioned incandecents, the incandecent heats up and cools off so slowly that it doesn't really "flash" at line frequency.

So that's one reason LCD's are easy on your eyes, the fact that they respond slowely. What this means to gamers is a problem, many see the slow refresh as a blur when they make a sudden movement in games. Which is why most gamers prefer CRT's.

LCD's also project lower levels of light (from the backlight) than CRT's (from the guns), because less light is needed to make their white pixels look white, etc. So your putting less light strain on your eyes with an LCD as well as removing the flashing present in CRT's

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
February 4, 2003 1:30:48 AM

Erm, don't exactly agree with that. Your standard user will run their crt @ 60-120Hz (cause if ur a b!tch like me and can see flicker @ 85Hz and 100Hz sometimes, ya need a sick crt). Anyway, what happens is that CRT's have a flashing image and it is updated x amount of times per second. LCD never turn off however, as they can't- they do not have phosphors which lose energy. Rather they shift the form and position of a liquid crystal to block light accordingly. When liquid crystal is set at a certain position and form, it stays there until updated again. This is why an LCD cannot flicker. Additionally, the backlight(s) of an LCD are slow decaying decaying so despite voltage is supplied @ 60Hz and often lamps have a "doubler" that makes it 120Hz, the lights will not ever turn off.
With CRT's the "response" time of each phosphor is in the nanoseconds (so for all practical purposes we can say there isn't a response time). Now on an LCD this is a different case; LCD's have response times like 40ms, 50ms, 25ms, and the newest 16ms (and technology is being currently developed that is 12ms or less). Generally this 16ms or even 25ms response time would be fine, I mean w/ 25ms u can display 40fps sharply on a screen and with a 16ms screen 62.5 fps which is enough. The issue is that this response time is for black to white and white to black (rise + fall time) but when dealing with intermediary greys, less voltage is applied to the crystals so they have a higher response time. On a 25ms panel, the response time can go up to over 50 ms for rise only, which is unnacceptable for games and creates a blurry image. 16ms on the other hand doesn't go up significantly so that there is noticeable blur so it's fine for gaming.
In terms of light being emitted, LCD's actually emit more light. The human eye is most comfortable at 40cd/m^2, and CRT's max out at 100 or 120 cd/m^s- past that point considerably greater amounts of energy is used and the lifetime of the phosphors is greatly shortened. LCD's on the other had generally emit over 200CD/m^s and go up to 300 (and there is one with a blinding 800cd/m^s!!). This is really uncomfortable for the eye and due to the nature of lcd's, they cannot physically block all light so even when displaying black or setting brightness to lower, there still is light leakage and this often causes more eystrain than on a CRT. This factor alone can make ur eyes hurt like hell after even 2 hours in front of the comp! (and the reason manufacturers keep upping light emission is marketing- bigger number sounds better, right?, and that in order to have higher contrast ratio one needs higher brightness).
With that said, it depends on what you prefer, but imho, a flat CRT set at 100hz or higher will give little eyestrain. I currently use an NEC FE791SB and at 116Hz, I don't feel it when I sit in front of it for 10 hours straight.

"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."
- Mario Andretti
February 4, 2003 1:48:54 AM

I know how you feel. I walk around our school computer lab and cringe at all of the monitors set at 60. I try my best to keep them all at at least 75, but I'm only human

It's all good ^_^
February 4, 2003 2:35:11 AM

75 pisses me off, so does 85 cause ur hoping there won't be flicker but there is!

"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."
- Mario Andretti
February 5, 2003 2:49:24 AM

im not quite as picky...
60hz is goddamn aweful... and thats what many work PC's are running at... under fluro's too!

70 and 75 are still flickery
85 is what i usually run, though i really should go for 115 which is the max my monitor can churn out at 1024x768

i still ahve a few games that are annoying though... Return to castle Wolfenstein keeps defaulting back to 60hz goddammit.
maybe you can help me.

<b>My Computer is so powerful Sauron Desires it and mortal men Covet it, <i>My Precioussssssss</i></b>
February 5, 2003 3:17:02 AM

I use powerstrip. Try it out, it hasn't failed me yet in games.

"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."
- Mario Andretti
February 5, 2003 8:30:22 AM

Whenever I change my screen resolution the refresh rate would default to 60Hz. I'm using GF4 Ti4200, Philips CRT and Win2000. Why couldn't windows remembers the current refresh rate? Also, why 60Hz? Anything magic about this value?
February 6, 2003 7:50:09 PM

I think it's some VESA standard that all CRT's muct be capable of doing 640x480 @ 60Hz so when the os is unsure, it switches to that to avoid messing up the monitor. Does windows recognize the monitor and have you installed the refresh rate definitions and all for that specific monitor?

"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."
- Mario Andretti
February 7, 2003 1:18:14 AM

Thanks for your reply. Win2000 recognizes my monitor without additional drivers. I didn't install the driver from the disk that came with the monitor. And maybe you're right as I haven't installed the refresh rate definitions. I'll look into that later.
!