tft monitor - which one should I choose?

[Guest]

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

Hello,

I am currently thinking of buying a TFT monitor. What properties should
I take into account when deciding which one to buy? Obviously, the
physical size. I am doubting between 17" and 19". But I've heard a 17"
TFT monitor displays more than a 17" CRT monitor. Is this correct?

What is the difference between TFT and LCD?

At [0], different monitors are offered. Prices for 17" 1280x1024 25ms range
from €429 to €650. The difference I see is that the latter has "700:1,
270cd dvi, zilver". When do I notice this?

I use my computer to watch television, and read and write texts. What
should I choose?

yours,
Gerrit.

[0] http://www.utwente.nl/itshop/prijslijsten/Prijslijst%20accessoires/index.html#monitoren_flatpanel

--
Ervaringen met het Syndroom van Asperger:
http://topjaklont.student.utwente.nl
Socialistische Partij:
http://www.sp.nl/

 

[Guest]

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

"Gerrit Holl" <Gerrit@nl.linux.org> wrote in message
news:slrnc7slnk.sr7.Gerrit@topjaklont.student.utwente.nl...
> Hello,
>
> I am currently thinking of buying a TFT monitor. What properties should
> I take into account when deciding which one to buy? Obviously, the
> physical size. I am doubting between 17" and 19". But I've heard a 17"
> TFT monitor displays more than a 17" CRT monitor. Is this correct?
>
> What is the difference between TFT and LCD?

"TFT" means "thin-film transistor," which is the technology used
to create the active-matrix array on modern monitor LCDs. Virtually
all current monitors are of the active-matrix TFT type, so within this
market there is no difference.

A 17" LCD monitor DOES provide a larger active area than a 17"
CRT, as it has been traditional in the LCD industry to base the diagonal
size measurement on the active area, while CRT diagonals give the
overall CRT size. A "17 inch CRT" will typically have an active area
that's about 15.5" or so in diagonal size.

>
> At [0], different monitors are offered. Prices for 17" 1280x1024 25ms
range
> from â,¬429 to â,¬650. The difference I see is that the latter has "700:1,
> 270cd dvi, zilver". When do I notice this?

700:1 is the contrast ratio; within reason, higher is better, although
in recent years these specs have become almost meaningless due to
the tendency to quote only "dark ambient" numbers. Anything over
300:1 in actual delivered contrast would be outstanding, but very,
very few products actually provide this level of performance in normal
office or home lighting conditions (contrast in these situations is
dominated by the reflection of ambient light from the screen, not
from the inherent white/black contrast of the display device itself).
270 cd/m^2 (read "candelas per square meter", also sometimes referred
to by the older term, "nits") is the measure of the luminance or
"brightness" of the display (i.e., how bright white areas are at
maximum). This is actually a fairly average level; higher specs may
be found, but again take any published specs with a grain of salt - it's
far better to actually SEE the display, and go with what YOU like in terms
of the overall appearance. "DVI" is the current digital interface standard;
it may be useful for you, but only if you have a video source providing a
DVI output. I don't know what "zilver" means, unless this is a typo and
it meant that the case color was "silver."

>
> I use my computer to watch television, and read and write texts. What
> should I choose?

The best advice is to try out the monitor with the sort of images you
commonly use, and choose the one that YOU think looks the best.
For TV use, you'll want a fairly fast response time - 25 ms or better should
be the absolute minimum, and you'll see a distinct improvement if you can
get to 16 ms or less. TV viewing also generally calls for high brightness
(over 300 cd/m^2 would be good), and good color performance - if you
want accurate color in your TV images, the monitor should be able to
be set to a white point of 6500K (it will be listed in this form as "color
temperature"), and the larger the color gamut (expressed as a percentage
of the standard NTSC or EBU gamuts) the better.

Bob M.

 

[Guest]

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

"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote in message news:<SZyfc.3186$c94.723@news.cpqcorp.net>...
> "Gerrit Holl" <Gerrit@nl.linux.org> wrote in message
> news:slrnc7slnk.sr7.Gerrit@topjaklont.student.utwente.nl...
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am currently thinking of buying a TFT monitor. What properties should
> > I take into account when deciding which one to buy? Obviously, the
> > physical size. I am doubting between 17" and 19". But I've heard a 17"
> > TFT monitor displays more than a 17" CRT monitor. Is this correct?
> >
> > What is the difference between TFT and LCD?
>
> "TFT" means "thin-film transistor," which is the technology used
> to create the active-matrix array on modern monitor LCDs. Virtually
> all current monitors are of the active-matrix TFT type, so within this
> market there is no difference.
>
> A 17" LCD monitor DOES provide a larger active area than a 17"
> CRT, as it has been traditional in the LCD industry to base the diagonal
> size measurement on the active area, while CRT diagonals give the
> overall CRT size. A "17 inch CRT" will typically have an active area
> that's about 15.5" or so in diagonal size.
>
> >
> > At [0], different monitors are offered. Prices for 17" 1280x1024 25ms
> range
> > from â,¬429 to â,¬650. The difference I see is that the latter has "700:1,
> > 270cd dvi, zilver". When do I notice this?
>
> 700:1 is the contrast ratio; within reason, higher is better, although
> in recent years these specs have become almost meaningless due to
> the tendency to quote only "dark ambient" numbers. Anything over
> 300:1 in actual delivered contrast would be outstanding, but very,
> very few products actually provide this level of performance in normal
> office or home lighting conditions (contrast in these situations is
> dominated by the reflection of ambient light from the screen, not
> from the inherent white/black contrast of the display device itself).
> 270 cd/m^2 (read "candelas per square meter", also sometimes referred
> to by the older term, "nits") is the measure of the luminance or
> "brightness" of the display (i.e., how bright white areas are at
> maximum). This is actually a fairly average level; higher specs may
> be found, but again take any published specs with a grain of salt - it's
> far better to actually SEE the display, and go with what YOU like in terms
> of the overall appearance. "DVI" is the current digital interface standard;
> it may be useful for you, but only if you have a video source providing a
> DVI output. I don't know what "zilver" means, unless this is a typo and
> it meant that the case color was "silver."
>
> >
> > I use my computer to watch television, and read and write texts. What
> > should I choose?
>
> The best advice is to try out the monitor with the sort of images you
> commonly use, and choose the one that YOU think looks the best.
> For TV use, you'll want a fairly fast response time - 25 ms or better should
> be the absolute minimum, and you'll see a distinct improvement if you can
> get to 16 ms or less. TV viewing also generally calls for high brightness
> (over 300 cd/m^2 would be good), and good color performance - if you
> want accurate color in your TV images, the monitor should be able to
> be set to a white point of 6500K (it will be listed in this form as "color
> temperature"), and the larger the color gamut (expressed as a percentage
> of the standard NTSC or EBU gamuts) the better.
>
> Bob M.

I can't add much to Bob M's excellent response, but here goes. You
might want to consider a TFT with dual CPU option. That's a TFT with
both analogue and digital inputs and you can connected and display 2
computers on 1 monitor. Also, a swivel screen may be useful. This
means you can position the monitor vertically to display more
information without using scrollbars. Be careful of dead pixels.
These are pixels that stay on or off all the time. Sometimes you need
at least 5 dead pixels to get a refund/replacement. I guess the
cheaper monitors will have more chance of dead pixels. You might want
to consider pixel pitch and resolution. Most TFTs only work best at
their native resolution.

 

[user]

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

Gerrit Holl <Gerrit@nl.linux.org> wrote in message news:<slrnc7slnk.sr7.Gerrit@topjaklont.student.utwente.nl>...
> Hello,
>
> I am currently thinking of buying a TFT monitor. What properties should
> I take into account when deciding which one to buy? Obviously, the
> physical size. I am doubting between 17" and 19". But I've heard a 17"
> TFT monitor displays more than a 17" CRT monitor. Is this correct?
>
> What is the difference between TFT and LCD?
>
> At [0], different monitors are offered. Prices for 17" 1280x1024 25ms range
> from €429 to €650. The difference I see is that the latter has "700:1,
> 270cd dvi, zilver". When do I notice this?
>
> I use my computer to watch television, and read and write texts. What
> should I choose?
>
> yours,
> Gerrit.
>
> [0] http://www.utwente.nl/itshop/prijslijsten/Prijslijst%20accessoires/index.html#monitoren_flatpanel

I've just purchased my first TFT today. I went through the headache
of visiting numerous computer stores to examine monitors and also read
dozens of reviews. In the end, I bought an 19" LG L1920P.

It has 2 USB ports called upstream and downstream. I'm not quite sure
what the possibilities are with these ports as the manual is very
brief. If anyone can inform me, please do?

It has 2 video inputs, analogue and digital. I have it connected to
the digital input as my graphics card has a digital output. Viewing
high resolutions images on this monitor is a real pleasure. Browsing
text or surfing the net is also a pleasure due to the sharp text. I
tried a dvd on the monitor when I was in the store and it looked
really impressive. My only disappointment so far is playing 3D
snooker. The monitor ghosts a lot when the snooker balls are rolling
across the table. I don't know if switching to analogue, which uses
75hz, may improve this. Digital runs at 60hz.

I had a look at some other monitors before buying the LG L1920P. For
example, I looked at a couple of LG 17" monitors, the L1710S and the
L1720B, but the text on those looked really small and difficult to
read. They were priced at £299 and £349. When compared to the
L1920P, they look terrible, so it makes sense to dump the extra coin
and get the one with the nicest display. Another thing, I checked the
L1920P for dead pixels using LCDTest and not a single dead pixel was
found. I've seen dead pixels on cheaper models.

 

[redbrick]

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

I just ordered the SDM-P232W/B!!! I can't wait. I saw it on display at
Frys, played a few games with it(shooters) and fell in love with it.

I saw not ghosting whats-so-ever....very bright/sharp pictures....

Redbrick...who loves his CLK

In article <30ad41a9.0405061434.ac35dc3@posting.google.com>,
spam_eliminator@lycos.com says...
>
>Gerrit Holl <Gerrit@nl.linux.org> wrote in message
news:<slrnc7slnk.sr7.Gerrit@topjaklont.student.utwente.nl>...
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am currently thinking of buying a TFT monitor. What properties should
>> I take into account when deciding which one to buy? Obviously, the
>> physical size. I am doubting between 17" and 19". But I've heard a 17"
>> TFT monitor displays more than a 17" CRT monitor. Is this correct?
>>
>> What is the difference between TFT and LCD?
>>
>> At [0], different monitors are offered. Prices for 17" 1280x1024 25ms range
>> from €429 to €650. The difference I see is that the latter has
"700:1,
>> 270cd dvi, zilver". When do I notice this?
>>
>> I use my computer to watch television, and read and write texts. What
>> should I choose?
>>
>> yours,
>> Gerrit.
>>
>> [0]
http://www.utwente.nl/itshop/prijslijsten/Prijslijst%20accessoires/index.html#
monitoren_flatpanel
>
>I've just purchased my first TFT today. I went through the headache
>of visiting numerous computer stores to examine monitors and also read
>dozens of reviews. In the end, I bought an 19" LG L1920P.
>
>It has 2 USB ports called upstream and downstream. I'm not quite sure
>what the possibilities are with these ports as the manual is very
>brief. If anyone can inform me, please do?
>
>It has 2 video inputs, analogue and digital. I have it connected to
>the digital input as my graphics card has a digital output. Viewing
>high resolutions images on this monitor is a real pleasure. Browsing
>text or surfing the net is also a pleasure due to the sharp text. I
>tried a dvd on the monitor when I was in the store and it looked
>really impressive. My only disappointment so far is playing 3D
>snooker. The monitor ghosts a lot when the snooker balls are rolling
>across the table. I don't know if switching to analogue, which uses
>75hz, may improve this. Digital runs at 60hz.
>
>I had a look at some other monitors before buying the LG L1920P. For
>example, I looked at a couple of LG 17" monitors, the L1710S and the
>L1720B, but the text on those looked really small and difficult to
>read. They were priced at £299 and £349. When compared to the
>L1920P, they look terrible, so it makes sense to dump the extra coin
>and get the one with the nicest display. Another thing, I checked the
>L1920P for dead pixels using LCDTest and not a single dead pixel was
>found. I've seen dead pixels on cheaper models.

 

[user]

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

redbrick@fastermail.com (Redbrick) wrote in message news:<76iqc.858$Wm.666@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>...
> I just ordered the SDM-P232W/B!!! I can't wait. I saw it on display at
> Frys, played a few games with it(shooters) and fell in love with it.
>
> I saw not ghosting whats-so-ever....very bright/sharp pictures....
>
> Redbrick...who loves his CLK
>
so, how is the sdm-p232w/b?

 

[redbrick]

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

In article <30ad41a9.0406061047.78fd6249@posting.google.com>,
spam_eliminator@lycos.com says...
>
>redbrick@fastermail.com (Redbrick) wrote in message
news:<76iqc.858$Wm.666@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>...
>> I just ordered the SDM-P232W/B!!! I can't wait. I saw it on display at
>> Frys, played a few games with it(shooters) and fell in love with it.
>>
>> I saw not ghosting whats-so-ever....very bright/sharp pictures....
>>
>> Redbrick...who loves his CLK
>>
>so, how is the sdm-p232w/b?

It's an incredible monitor. I've been playing Far Cry, Homeworld, FS2004..
incredible experience. The size of the image really draws you into the
environment...if that even makes sense....

Redbrick...who Loves his CLK

 

[user]

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

redbrick@fastermail.com (Redbrick) wrote in message news:<ymxyc.197$rl2.107@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>...
> In article <30ad41a9.0406061047.78fd6249@posting.google.com>,
> spam_eliminator@lycos.com says...
> >
> >redbrick@fastermail.com (Redbrick) wrote in message
> news:<76iqc.858$Wm.666@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>...
> >> I just ordered the SDM-P232W/B!!! I can't wait. I saw it on display at
> >> Frys, played a few games with it(shooters) and fell in love with it.
> >>
> >> I saw not ghosting whats-so-ever....very bright/sharp pictures....
> >>
> >> Redbrick...who loves his CLK
> >>
> >so, how is the sdm-p232w/b?
>
> It's an incredible monitor. I've been playing Far Cry, Homeworld, FS2004..
> incredible experience. The size of the image really draws you into the
> environment...if that even makes sense....
>
> Redbrick...who Loves his CLK
Yes, it makes a lot of sense. Unlike a CRT, an LCD doesn't have thick
piece of glass between you and the graphics, and that makes a big
difference.

 

[Guest]

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

spam_eliminator@lycos.com (.) wrote:

>Unlike a CRT, an LCD doesn't have thick
>piece of glass between you and the graphics, and that makes a big
>difference.

Oh. Glass. How horrible.

Unlike an LCD, a CRT doesn't have a polarizing filter between you and
the graphics, and that makes a big difference.

 

[user]

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

chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:<09jld01dkf102nftnbsu4b1tc8pia4tvi6@4ax.com>...
> spam_eliminator@lycos.com (.) wrote:
>
> >Unlike a CRT, an LCD doesn't have thick
> >piece of glass between you and the graphics, and that makes a big
> >difference.
>
> Oh. Glass. How horrible.
>
> Unlike an LCD, a CRT doesn't have a polarizing filter between you and
> the graphics, and that makes a big difference.

A die hard CRT-er.

Number of LCD monitors at my local electronics store: 20
Number of CRT monitors at my local electronics store: 1

Go figure.

 

[Hactar]

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

In article <09jld01dkf102nftnbsu4b1tc8pia4tvi6@4ax.com>,
chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> spam_eliminator@lycos.com (.) wrote:
>
> >Unlike a CRT, an LCD doesn't have thick
> >piece of glass between you and the graphics, and that makes a big
> >difference.
>
> Oh. Glass. How horrible.
>
> Unlike an LCD, a CRT doesn't have a polarizing filter between you and
> the graphics, and that makes a big difference.

Many CRTs have polarizing filters? I have an add-on one, and AFAIK there's
no warning about not using it with certain monitors (they might all be
aligned the same say).

--
-eben ebQenW1@EtaRmpTabYayU.rIr.OcoPm home.tampabay.rr.com/hactar
PISCES: Try to avoid any Virgos or Leos with the Ebola virus.
You are the Lord of the Dance, no matter what those idiots at
work say. -- Weird Al, _Your Horoscope for Today_

 

[Guest]

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

ebenONE@tampabay.ARE-ARE.com.unmunge (Hactar) wrote:

>In article <09jld01dkf102nftnbsu4b1tc8pia4tvi6@4ax.com>,
>chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> spam_eliminator@lycos.com (.) wrote:
>>
>> >Unlike a CRT, an LCD doesn't have thick
>> >piece of glass between you and the graphics, and that makes a big
>> >difference.
>>
>> Oh. Glass. How horrible.
>>
>> Unlike an LCD, a CRT doesn't have a polarizing filter between you and
>> the graphics, and that makes a big difference.
>
>Many CRTs have polarizing filters?

Of course not.

>I have an add-on one, and AFAIK there's
>no warning about not using it with certain monitors (they might all be
>aligned the same say).

It wouldn't make much sense to place an add-on one in front of an LCD
monitor. If you do, you'll know right away if it's not aligned with
the monitor's filter, as you wouldn't be able to see anything.

 

[Hactar]

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

In article <6k4md09psfn0o4dd5lhhsiileqpqchvghe@4ax.com>,
chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> ebenONE@tampabay.ARE-ARE.com.unmunge (Hactar) wrote:
>
> >In article <09jld01dkf102nftnbsu4b1tc8pia4tvi6@4ax.com>,
> >chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >> spam_eliminator@lycos.com (.) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Unlike a CRT, an LCD doesn't have thick
> >> >piece of glass between you and the graphics, and that makes a big
> >> >difference.
> >>
> >> Oh. Glass. How horrible.
> >>
> >> Unlike an LCD, a CRT doesn't have a polarizing filter between you and
> >> the graphics, and that makes a big difference.
> >
> >Many CRTs have polarizing filters?
>
> Of course not.

Ah, I misread that the other way. Carry on.

> >I have an add-on one, and AFAIK there's
> >no warning about not using it with certain monitors (they might all be
> >aligned the same say).
>
> It wouldn't make much sense to place an add-on one in front of an LCD
> monitor. If you do, you'll know right away if it's not aligned with
> the monitor's filter, as you wouldn't be able to see anything.

It's older than LCD monitors; that's why there's no warning against using
it with one.

You can get some interesting effects with that and a digital watch, though.

--
-eben ebQenW1@EtaRmpTabYayU.rIr.OcoPm home.tampabay.rr.com/hactar

Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be
adequately explained by stupidity." Derived from Robert Heinlein

 

[Guest]

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

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:09jld01dkf102nftnbsu4b1tc8pia4tvi6@4ax.com...
> Unlike an LCD, a CRT doesn't have a polarizing filter between you and
> the graphics, and that makes a big difference.

Well, let's see - this means that you won't be able to
use an LCD monitor with certain polarizing sunglasses.
Outside of that, what "big difference" did you have in
mind?

Bob M.

 

[Guest]

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

"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote:

(Dishonestly-snipped context restored)

>"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>spam_eliminator@lycos.com wrote:
>>>
>>>Unlike a CRT, an LCD doesn't have thick
>>>piece of glass between you and the graphics, and that
>>> makes a big difference.
>>
>> Unlike an LCD, a CRT doesn't have a polarizing filter between you and
>> the graphics, and that makes a big difference.
>
>Well, let's see - this means that you won't be able to
>use an LCD monitor with certain polarizing sunglasses.
>Outside of that, what "big difference" did you have in
>mind?

I'll tell you, Bob, right after you tell me what "big difference" the
thick glass on the front of a CRT makes.

Doesn't surprise me at all, Bob, that you'd intentionally ignore the
point I was making (that spam_eliminator's statement was ridiculous),
and hypocritically attack it, with no mention of what spam_eliminator
said.

 

[Guest]

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

spam_eliminator@lycos.com (.) wrote:

>chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> spam_eliminator@lycos.com (.) wrote:
>>
>> >Unlike a CRT, an LCD doesn't have thick
>> >piece of glass between you and the graphics, and that makes a big
>> >difference.
>>
>> Oh. Glass. How horrible.
>>
>> Unlike an LCD, a CRT doesn't have a polarizing filter between you and
>> the graphics, and that makes a big difference.
>
>A die hard CRT-er.

A typical LCD snob.

I notice you ignored my point, i.e. your statement was stupid.

>Number of LCD monitors at my local electronics store: 20
>Number of CRT monitors at my local electronics store: 1

Well, that's proof that they're better right there! Not.

 

[Guest]

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

spam_eliminator@lycos.com (.) wrote:

I should have given this a better answer. 8)

>Number of LCD monitors at my local electronics store: 20
>Number of CRT monitors at my local electronics store: 1

Oh, I know they're pushing them. More revenue for them, you know.
Why sell a $100 monitor when you can sell a $300 monitor? Open up a
Dell flyer, and there's no hint that such a thing as a CRT monitor
exists!

>Go figure.

That's how I feel about a lot of human behavior. Have you ever
noticed that most people will actually accelerate toward a red light,
up until the moment they have to apply the brakes? 8)

 

[Guest]

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

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
newsefod053s0rmnegnu4gcuvuh42fr8660uk@4ax.com...
> I'll tell you, Bob, right after you tell me what "big difference" the
> thick glass on the front of a CRT makes.

That one's pretty easy - the thick glass (required by the fact
that the CRT faceplate has to resist a considerable amount of
air pressure, and made thicker when you go to "flat-face"
CRTs) has a couple of very objectionable optical effects -
especially troublesome in desktop monitor use, since the
typical viewing distance is on the same order as the screen
diagonal. The first is the very obvious impact the glass has
on the visual uniformity of the image - since you ARE using
the thing with your eye relatively close to the glass, you're
looking through a good deal more glass when you view the
sides and corners of the image than you are in the center.
Monitor CRT glass is pretty much always tinted - with a
transmission generally in the range of 50-90% - as a
contrast-enhancement technique. So, you wind up with the
outside of the image looking quite a bit dimmer than the inside.
(And since the tint is never perfectly neutral, there are similar
impacts on the color uniformity.)

The second effect is refractive; since you are looking at the
outer extremes of the image through the glass at an angle, the
light from this portion is refracted differently (as you see it)
than the center. This leads to a number of distortion effects -
most notably, the appearance of a concave ("bowed inward")
image when truly flat faceplate glass (which was very thick) was
first tried a number of years ago (as in the old Zenith "FTM" tube
design).


> Doesn't surprise me at all, Bob, that you'd intentionally ignore the
> point I was making (that spam_eliminator's statement was ridiculous),
> and hypocritically attack it, with no mention of what spam_eliminator
> said.

I didn't ignore the point you were making - it was simply wrong,
and spam_eliminator was right. Thick faceplate glass is NOT
desirable, for the reasons I gave above. And I would have thought
that a CRT expert such as yourself would have already been quite
aware of such concerns, so they didn't need to be repeated here.
Guess I was wrong about that, huh?

Bob M.

 

[Guest]

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

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:q1kod0dsnjghg223f64g6bd3ukruiq7d7h@4ax.com...
> Oh, I know they're pushing them. More revenue for them, you know.
> Why sell a $100 monitor when you can sell a $300 monitor? Open up a
> Dell flyer, and there's no hint that such a thing as a CRT monitor
> exists!
>


Chris' standard response - CRTs are losing the market just
because the big bad monitor and system makers pushed a
clearly inferior product on an ignorant and easily-duped
public.

Ho-hum....

Bob M.

 

[dizzy]

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

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 19:23:35 +0000, Bob Myers wrote:

> "chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> newsefod053s0rmnegnu4gcuvuh42fr8660uk@4ax.com...
>> I'll tell you, Bob, right after you tell me what "big difference" the
>> thick glass on the front of a CRT makes.
>
> That one's pretty easy - the thick glass (required by the fact that the
> CRT faceplate has to resist a considerable amount of air pressure, and
> made thicker when you go to "flat-face" CRTs) has a couple of very
> objectionable optical effects - especially troublesome in desktop
> monitor use, since the typical viewing distance is on the same order as
> the screen diagonal. The first is the very obvious impact the glass has
> on the visual uniformity of the image - since you ARE using the thing
> with your eye relatively close to the glass, you're looking through a
> good deal more glass when you view the sides and corners of the image
> than you are in the center.

I calculate the difference due to this angle at 12% more glass at the
corners than in the middle, assuming viewing distance = diagonal. This
small difference in absolute brightness is compressed by the logarithmic
response of human vision. It's generally not noticeable. No "big
difference", Bob.

> Monitor CRT glass is pretty much always tinted - with a transmission
> generally in the range of 50-90% - as a contrast-enhancement technique.

LCD's have tint too, Bob.

> So, you wind up with the
> outside of the image looking quite a bit dimmer than the inside.

Bull. "Quite a bit dimmer" indeed.

> (And since the tint is never perfectly neutral, there are similar
> impacts on the color uniformity.)

Yet CRT's are still better than LCD's in this regard. From
http://website.lineone.net/~del.palmer/lacie.html

<quote>
It is also true that CRT monitors are at least 2 to 3 times more accurate
when it comes to displaying color than LCD screens even when both are
displaying 24-bit color and both are measured and calibrated with a
colorimeter. CRT is able to maintain color uniformity across the screen 2
to 3 times better than an LCD as well. </quote>

No "big difference" in favor of the LCD, Bob.

> The second effect is refractive; since you are looking at the outer
> extremes of the image through the glass at an angle, the light from this
> portion is refracted differently (as you see it) than the center. This
> leads to a number of distortion effects - most notably, the appearance
> of a concave ("bowed inward") image when truly flat faceplate glass
> (which was very thick) was first tried a number of years ago (as in the
> old Zenith "FTM" tube design).

Using 15-year-old CRT designs to support your case, Bob? On my (modern)
CRT's, there is NOT any refractive distortion that any reasonable person
would describe as a "big difference". I can't notice any at all. The
geometric distortions that I CAN notice are not caused by the "thick
glass".

>> Doesn't surprise me at all, Bob, that you'd intentionally ignore the
>> point I was making (that spam_eliminator's statement was ridiculous),
>> and hypocritically attack it, with no mention of what spam_eliminator
>> said.
>
> I didn't ignore the point you were making - it was simply wrong, and
> spam_eliminator was right.

His point is technically correct in that an "ideal" monitor would have
nothing in-between the graphics and your eyes. However, I maintain that
his claim that the glass makes a "big" (presumably negative) difference in
the image quality vs. a LCD is ridiculous, since LCD's are also non-ideal
in this regard. Sorry, Bob, but my point is quite valid.

> Thick faceplate glass is NOT
> desirable, for the reasons I gave above.

Will you now be fair and admit that LCD's are also imperfect in their
transmission of the graphics to your eyes, Bob? I'd like to see you
demonstrate your impartiality by posting a similar critique of the LCD's
light-transmission compromises.

> And I would have thought that a CRT expert such as yourself would have
> already been quite aware of such concerns, so they didn't need to be
> repeated here.

I know enough to have recognized spam_eliminator's biased, unfair remark,
Bob.

> Guess I was wrong about that, huh?

Once again, you (intentionally, I think) missed the point, Bob.

 

[dizzy]

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

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 19:25:18 +0000, Bob Myers wrote:

> "chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:q1kod0dsnjghg223f64g6bd3ukruiq7d7h@4ax.com...
>>
>> Oh, I know they're pushing them. More revenue for them, you know. Why
>> sell a $100 monitor when you can sell a $300 monitor? Open up a Dell
>> flyer, and there's no hint that such a thing as a CRT monitor exists!
>
> Chris' standard response - CRTs are losing the market just because the
> big bad monitor and system makers pushed

I've never claimed CRT's are losing market share "just because" LCD's are
being pushed. You're being dishonest, Bob.

> a clearly inferior product on an ignorant and easily-duped public.

More dishonesty. I don't claim LCD monitors are "clearly inferior". In
many applications, they are the best choice. If they were the same price
as CRT monitors, they would be, IMO, the best choice in the majority of
applications.

As for my response being "standard", when someone illogically implies that
"LCD's are what the stores are promoting, therefore they must be better",
I will counter with what I believe is the real reason for the heavy
promotion of LCD monitors.

> Ho-hum....

Indeed.

 

[Rob]

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

dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.06.27.22.01.08.351824@nospam.invalid>...
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 19:25:18 +0000, Bob Myers wrote:
>
> > "chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:q1kod0dsnjghg223f64g6bd3ukruiq7d7h@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> Oh, I know they're pushing them. More revenue for them, you know. Why
> >> sell a $100 monitor when you can sell a $300 monitor? Open up a Dell
> >> flyer, and there's no hint that such a thing as a CRT monitor exists!
> >
> > Chris' standard response - CRTs are losing the market just because the
> > big bad monitor and system makers pushed
>
> I've never claimed CRT's are losing market share "just because" LCD's are
> being pushed. You're being dishonest, Bob.
>
> > a clearly inferior product on an ignorant and easily-duped public.
>
> More dishonesty. I don't claim LCD monitors are "clearly inferior". In
> many applications, they are the best choice. If they were the same price
> as CRT monitors, they would be, IMO, the best choice in the majority of
> applications.
>
> As for my response being "standard", when someone illogically implies that
> "LCD's are what the stores are promoting, therefore they must be better",
> I will counter with what I believe is the real reason for the heavy
> promotion of LCD monitors.
>
> > Ho-hum....
>
> Indeed.





In my opinion the best thing to do is to buy an LCD TV - This way you
get the best of both worlds!! You need only buy one unit!! I myself
have just bought a RELISYS 17" LCD TV - its gr8! - seeing as my
bedroom is only small it means I dont need to have both a monitor (for
PC) & a TV! - fantastic - happy days!
Check out the selection where i bought it:

http://www.epinx.com/Audio_Visual/Plasma_and_LCD/LCD_TVs/

 

[Rob]

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

dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.06.27.22.01.08.351824@nospam.invalid>...
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 19:25:18 +0000, Bob Myers wrote:
>
> > "chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:q1kod0dsnjghg223f64g6bd3ukruiq7d7h@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> Oh, I know they're pushing them. More revenue for them, you know. Why
> >> sell a $100 monitor when you can sell a $300 monitor? Open up a Dell
> >> flyer, and there's no hint that such a thing as a CRT monitor exists!
> >
> > Chris' standard response - CRTs are losing the market just because the
> > big bad monitor and system makers pushed
>
> I've never claimed CRT's are losing market share "just because" LCD's are
> being pushed. You're being dishonest, Bob.
>
> > a clearly inferior product on an ignorant and easily-duped public.
>
> More dishonesty. I don't claim LCD monitors are "clearly inferior". In
> many applications, they are the best choice. If they were the same price
> as CRT monitors, they would be, IMO, the best choice in the majority of
> applications.
>
> As for my response being "standard", when someone illogically implies that
> "LCD's are what the stores are promoting, therefore they must be better",
> I will counter with what I believe is the real reason for the heavy
> promotion of LCD monitors.
>
> > Ho-hum....
>
> Indeed.




..............but why lie - CRT's are a thing of the past! they are big
& ugly!! Get a phat LCD like mine!!!!!

http://www.epinx.com/Personal_Computing/Monitors/21inch_plus_TFT_and_LCD/NMD60000810.html

 

[Guest]

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

> I've never claimed CRT's are losing market share "just because" LCD's are
> being pushed. You're being dishonest, Bob.

Chris, that is a very honest assessment of what your opinion
APPEARS to be here, based on what you've said. There's no
"dishonesty" involved - I do not believe one thing and state another
- and I will thank you to choose your words more carefully in the
future.

There appear to be only two broad possibilities, here - either
CRTs are losing marketing share because the LCD IS "being
pushed," or they're losing market share because the LCD is the
superior product. It clearly cannot be that CRTs are losing
share because they are more costly than the alternative, because
they aren't. Now, you have already discounted (repeatedly!) the
possibility that the CRT market share loss is due to the superiority
of the LCD - so what ELSE could we conclude, other than that
you believe the LCD is "being pushed"? Please offer another
alternative, if you have one.

> More dishonesty. I don't claim LCD monitors are "clearly inferior". In
> many applications, they are the best choice. If they were the same price
> as CRT monitors, they would be, IMO, the best choice in the majority of
> applications.

More naivete on your part, then - it seems pretty clear from the
market response that the cost advantages of the CRT do not
outweigh its shortcomings in the minds of the buying public.
The CRT, admittedly, will remain the display of choice in the most
cost-conscious markets and applications - but outside of there, it
seems pretty clear that its time is just about past.

Or are you thinking that LCD monitors, for some reason, "should"
be the same price as their CRT equivalents?


> As for my response being "standard", when someone illogically implies that
> "LCD's are what the stores are promoting, therefore they must be better",
> I will counter with what I believe is the real reason for the heavy
> promotion of LCD monitors.

And if only you would be clear that this IS just your belief,
that would be one thing. It would be very nice, though, if
that expression of belief were backed up with some actual
evidence or experience.

Speaking of "dishonesty," by the way - I would certainly
hope that you are not thinking of me as the "someone"
making the above illogical implication...

Bob M.

 

[Guest]

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

"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote:

(context restored)

>chrisv wrote:
>>
>>Bob Myers wrote:
>>>
>>>Chris' standard response - CRTs are losing the market just
>>>because the big bad monitor and system makers pushed a
>>>clearly inferior product on an ignorant and easily-duped
>>>public.
>>
>> I've never claimed CRT's are losing market share "just because" LCD's are
>> being pushed. You're being dishonest, Bob.
>
>Chris, that is a very honest assessment of what your opinion
>APPEARS to be here, based on what you've said. There's no
>"dishonesty" involved - I do not believe one thing and state another
>- and I will thank you to choose your words more carefully in the
>future.

Sorry, Bob, but there's no way that anyone could have logically
concluded that my position is what you claimed it is. This is not the
first time I've had this problem with you. I will thank you to use
your words more carefully in the future.

>There appear to be only two broad possibilities, here - either
>CRTs are losing marketing share because the LCD IS "being
>pushed," or they're losing market share because the LCD is the
>superior product.

There are other factors, Bob, and none of them, including the two
above, are mutually exclusive.

>It clearly cannot be that CRTs are losing
>share because they are more costly than the alternative, because
>they aren't.

Correct.

>Now, you have already discounted (repeatedly!) the
>possibility that the CRT market share loss is due to the superiority
>of the LCD

You pretend to not understand that this is not as simple as one being
"superior" to the other, Bob. Why?

>- so what ELSE could we conclude, other than that
>you believe the LCD is "being pushed"? Please offer another
>alternative, if you have one.

As we've already discussed, Bob, the "coolness" factor, and the
"newer/flatter must be better" factor, are huge. The above factors
are, in general, NOT tempered by consumer knowledge of the performance
trade-offs involved.

I've never claimed that the CRT's are losing market share "just
because" LCD's are being pushed, Bob. Period.

>> More dishonesty. I don't claim LCD monitors are "clearly inferior". In
>> many applications, they are the best choice. If they were the same price
>> as CRT monitors, they would be, IMO, the best choice in the majority of
>> applications.
>
>More naivete on your part, then

Incorrect, and another completely unsupported charge from you, Bob.
What I wrote is entirely reasonable and hardly evidence of any alleged
"naivete" on my part.

Before you start with the insults, I think you should at least
point-out what was incorrect or naive in what I said, because your
response below does NOT dispute what I wrote above.

> - it seems pretty clear from the
>market response that the cost advantages of the CRT do not
>outweigh its shortcomings in the minds of the buying public.

More illogic from you. What's more popular is not a measure of
goodness. GM sells more cars than Honda, for example. FWD cars
outsell RWD cars by orders of magnitude - am I "naive" when I claim
the RWD is better?

>The CRT, admittedly, will remain the display of choice in the most
>cost-conscious markets and applications - but outside of there, it
>seems pretty clear that its time is just about past.

For various reasons, some of which are valid, others of which are
related to extracting more money from our wallets.

I'll try to make it simple for you, Bob:

# of reasons > 1

>Or are you thinking that LCD monitors, for some reason, "should"
>be the same price as their CRT equivalents?

My mind reels from the illogic, and the veiled insult that I could be
foolish-enough to think any such thing. Do you think I'm an idiot,
Bob?

>> As for my response being "standard", when someone illogically implies that
>> "LCD's are what the stores are promoting, therefore they must be better",
>> I will counter with what I believe is the real reason for the heavy
>> promotion of LCD monitors.
>
>And if only you would be clear that this IS just your belief,
>that would be one thing. It would be very nice, though, if
>that expression of belief were backed up with some actual
>evidence or experience.

Look at a Dell flyer, Bob. This has already been discussed at length.

>Speaking of "dishonesty," by the way - I would certainly
>hope that you are not thinking of me as the "someone"
>making the above illogical implication...

Having difficulties following the thread, Bob? Spam_eliminator (.) is
the person who made that implication, to which I then objected.
However, I find it rather ironic that you would object, even if I was
thinking of you, since you've made similar errors of logic.