Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (
More info?)
Arthur Entlich wrote:
> To be fair to Sleeperman, I believe it was I who made the statement
> about the flicker, not he. And you are correct, it isn't really
> flicker, but other aspects of the display that seem to cause fatigue.
>
> I still put up with it because, at this point, I cannot justify
> another CRT monitor, especially one of more cost, when the technology
> is so radically changing. And I do need the color accuracy.
>
> It's a hard choice for people who don't require absolute color
> accuracy. For most, especially if you do not play computer games
> with fast moving objects, an LCD screen will probably prove to be more
> enjoyable
> viewing, and prices are such now that it may make sense to switch over
> now if your old monitor is either becoming too old or too small for
> your needs.
>
> Assuming your monitor isn't drifting badly or so out of focus to make
> your eyes tear trying to use it and you are stuck with color mission
> critical, you might want to cope with your current monitor for another
> year and see if the next generation of LCD monitors has better
> resolved color accuracy issues.
>
> Each new version of LCD seems to be improved, with better angle of
> view, higher definition, higher speed and higher brightness and
> contrast ratios.
> Art
>
I believe i did write that LCD's doesn't have as realistic photo as CRT's.
Regarding fast games, my (pretty old) NEC has 16ms refresh rate and i don't
see any shadows or similar even at fastest games. It is seen at LCD's with
bigger rate, like 25ms...
>
> Jon O'Brien wrote:
>
>> In article <VHcEd.8157$F6.1395403@news.siol.net>,
>> SleeperMan@too.sleepy (SleeperMan) wrote:
>>
>>
>>> It's not so much about flicker...
>>
>>
>> My post was, because I was commenting to your statement: "...your
>> eyes will thank you for the lack of flicker...".
>>
>>
>>> Only after you're used to LCD you see that they have far more sharp
>>> picture than any CRT...
>>
>>
>> Each individual LC pixel may be sharp but that's not necessarily a
>> good thing for graphic work. The Gaussian nature of a CRT image is
>> very effective at smoothing out 'jaggies' and makes a CRT the best
>> bet for graphic work - unless you can afford one of the newer
>> >200ppi LCDs, as used in displays such as IBM's Big Bertha.
>>
>>
>>> Also CRT's do radiate, even if newer models (read expensive) have
>>> lower one, and this radiation causes eye pain.
>>
>>
>> Sorry, SleeperMan, but that's rubbish. No CRT currently on the market
>> (even the cheaper ones) have levels of non-visible radiation
>> sufficient to give you eye pain. Sitting too close to your CRT, or
>> an out of focus one, can cause eye strain* but that's a different
>> thing. * Being Gaussian (~blurred round the edges) in nature, a CRT image
>> can make the eyes 'hunt' for correct focus, constantly attempting to
>> get the sharpest image. This overuse strains the muscles used to
>> focus the eyes. The best way to avoid this is to use the largest,
>> highest-resolution monitor of the best quality you can afford and to
>> sit as far away from it as possible (at least 80-90cm).
>>
>> If you work exclusively with text, then an LCD is ideal; if you do
>> any serious graphic work then a good CRT-based display is still the
>> best bet for most users. By the time you need to replace the
>> good-quality CRT you buy this year, however, that might not be the
>> case. Jon.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram