11:38 p.m.
Anyone got a good recommendation for one less than $200 US? Might need
to get rid of this KDS CRT one.
--
Mike Chambers
Madisonville, KY
"Best lil town on Earth!"
3:37 p.m.
New subject: Flat Monitors [OT]
Robin Laing wrote:
Dean S. Messing wrote:
>
> : > The statement that LCDs "are crap" for serious graphics work is
> simply
> : > not true any more. High-end LC panels _far_ exceed CRTs in every
> : > category (e.g., brightness, colour gamut, tone scale, MTF, dynamic
> : > range) except response time, and with "overdrive" and the new
> : > "flashing backlight" techniques on the horizon, even that barrier
> will
> : > soon be gone. CRT technology, like the vacuum tube in general, is
> : > essentially dead.
> : : Where I work, in television, where they do buy horrendously expensive
> : monitors, they will not touch LCDs for anything other than monitors
> that
> : aren't paid close attention to.
>
> That's because studio people are notoriaously over-conservative. (I
> worked with them extensively at Tektronix. Trying to get them to use
> digital scopes in the beginning was like pulling teeth. At one point
> we had to put a circuit into one of our products to make the noise
> floor "look analogue". It was entirely artificial but it made the
> studio engineers happy.)
I will agree with you. They prefer tools that they are familiar with.
Don't like change. Heck, some would still be using U-matic recorders if
they could get a new portable one. :)
>
> : CRTs far exceed them in all the things
> : you just mentioned.
>
> This is simply false. You don't appear to have looked at
> the specs in a while.
I have looked at the specs as I am trying to purchase a new computer
system for my work. I have yet to see a LCD monitor that provides all
the specifications that meet the present CRT that I am using. The
killer is the static contrast. I have seen a few that promote 5000:1 or
8000:1 contrast but when you read the fine print, this is only for
dynamic contrast. Some of them have static contrasts in the 300:1 to
500:1 range. Pretty low for working on static images.
>
> : The contrast range of the LCD is inferior, and
> : that's the basis of all the other measurements. With a poor contrast
> : range, you can't get the full colour gamut.
>
> Again, you don't appear to have looked at the specs recently. At the
> last CES, I saw LC displays with contrast ratios exceeding 10000:1 made
> by every major manufacturer except Phillips.
I have yet to see one LCD monitor that provides a static contrast of
1000. The high contrasts specified are all dynamic contrasts done by
changing the intensity of the backlight. Can you provide one
manufacturer that makes a high contrast (Static) LCD monitor? I may be
interested in purchasing it.
> The best CRTs (measured in a dark room) don't usually don't exceed
> 6000:1. And a new generation of LCD is already being introduced by
> nearly every manufacturer that uses so-called dynamic backlight
> modulation. These have contrast ratios exceeding 100K:1
I need high contrast in static images for my work. This dynamic
backlight is useless when comparing individual frames from highspeed
cameras looking for a subtle change in the contrast to see shock fronts.
>
> Then there's brightness. Can you show me a CRT that has a
> brightnesses exceeding 12000 cd/m^2 ? Modern High Dynamic Range LCDs
> always do. (They use modulated LED backlights).
>
> Colour gamut? Are you kidding? With RGB LED backlights, or peaked
> phosphor fluorescent backlights, the LCD gamut completely engulfs the
> CRT gamut. Indeed LCDs in the laboratory are now competing with OLED.
> Are you going to claim that CRT gamut exceeds OLED? (And yes I'm
> aware of the relationship between gamut and max brightness.)
>
> MTF? CRTs have _never_ been close to LCDs.
>
> It's no accident that traditional CRT manufacturers
> (e.g. Sony, Sharp) have shut down their manufacturing lines.
>
> Since this has drifted entirely off of Fedora, let's continue the
> discussion off-line if you wish. I doubt anyone else is interested.
>
> Dean
I think it is useful to allow others to learn. There are some people
that can learn from these discussions. Marked OT is a good idea though.
In this thread I have learned about RGB LED backlights.
FWIW, I just read a forum post about laser driven monitors that are
supposed to be shown in January. Could be even better than OLED or SED.
I'm interested in this thread, too. How about a link the forum
referenced above?
FYI, google for "silicon light machine" for some info on a really
promising MEMS/laser based display technology, now owned by Sony.
Several prototypes were developed about 5 years ago that were superior
to anything else available then (or now). Then Sony bought the tech
and they've been sitting on it ever since. Maybe waiting for
solid-state laser technology to catch up?
Regards,
John
2:34 p.m.
New subject: Flat Monitors [OT]
Dean S. Messing wrote:
> : > The statement that LCDs "are crap" for serious graphics work is
simply
> : > not true any more. High-end LC panels _far_ exceed CRTs in every
> : > category (e.g., brightness, colour gamut, tone scale, MTF, dynamic
> : > range) except response time, and with "overdrive" and the new
> : > "flashing backlight" techniques on the horizon, even that barrier
will
> : > soon be gone. CRT technology, like the vacuum tube in general, is
> : > essentially dead.
> :
> : Where I work, in television, where they do buy horrendously expensive
> : monitors, they will not touch LCDs for anything other than monitors that
> : aren't paid close attention to.
> That's because studio people are notoriaously
over-conservative. (I
> worked with them extensively at Tektronix. Trying to get them to use
> digital scopes in the beginning was like pulling teeth. At one point
> we had to put a circuit into one of our products to make the noise
> floor "look analogue". It was entirely artificial but it made the
> studio engineers happy.)
I will agree with you. They prefer tools that they are familiar with.
Don't like change. Heck, some would still be using U-matic recorders if
they could get a new portable one. :)
> : CRTs far exceed them in all the things
> : you just mentioned.
> This is simply false. You don't appear to have
looked at
> the specs in a while.
I have looked at the specs as I am trying to purchase a new computer
system for my work. I have yet to see a LCD monitor that provides all
the specifications that meet the present CRT that I am using. The
killer is the static contrast. I have seen a few that promote 5000:1 or
8000:1 contrast but when you read the fine print, this is only for
dynamic contrast. Some of them have static contrasts in the 300:1 to
500:1 range. Pretty low for working on static images.
> : The contrast range of the LCD is inferior, and
> : that's the basis of all the other measurements. With a poor contrast
> : range, you can't get the full colour gamut.
> Again, you don't appear to have looked at the specs
recently. At the
> last CES, I saw LC displays with contrast ratios exceeding 10000:1 made
> by every major manufacturer except Phillips.
I have yet to see one LCD monitor that provides a static contrast of
1000. The high contrasts specified are all dynamic contrasts done by
changing the intensity of the backlight. Can you provide one
manufacturer that makes a high contrast (Static) LCD monitor? I may be
interested in purchasing it.
> Then there's brightness. Can you show me a CRT that
has a
> brightnesses exceeding 12000 cd/m^2 ? Modern High Dynamic Range LCDs
> always do. (They use modulated LED backlights).
> Colour gamut? Are you kidding? With RGB LED backlights,
or peaked
> phosphor fluorescent backlights, the LCD gamut completely engulfs the
> CRT gamut. Indeed LCDs in the laboratory are now competing with OLED.
> Are you going to claim that CRT gamut exceeds OLED? (And yes I'm
> aware of the relationship between gamut and max brightness.)
> MTF? CRTs have _never_ been close to LCDs.
> It's no accident that traditional CRT manufacturers
> (e.g. Sony, Sharp) have shut down their manufacturing lines.
> Since this has drifted entirely off of Fedora, let's
continue the
> discussion off-line if you wish. I doubt anyone else is interested.
> Dean
I think it is useful to allow others to learn. There are some people
that can learn from these discussions. Marked OT is a good idea though.
In this thread I have learned about RGB LED backlights.
FWIW, I just read a forum post about laser driven monitors that are
supposed to be shown in January. Could be even better than OLED or SED.
--
Robin Laing
The best CRTs (measured in a dark room) don't usually don't
exceed
6000:1. And a new generation of LCD is already being introduced by
nearly every manufacturer that uses so-called dynamic backlight
modulation. These have contrast ratios exceeding 100K:1
I need high contrast in static images for my work. This dynamic
backlight is useless when comparing individual frames from highspeed
cameras looking for a subtle change in the contrast to see shock fronts.
8:22 p.m.
New subject: Flat Monitors [OT]
Tim:
> Where I work, in television, where they do buy horrendously
expensive
> monitors, they will not touch LCDs for anything other than monitors that
> aren't paid close attention to.
Dean S. Messing:
That's because studio people are notoriaously over-conservative.
(I
worked with them extensively at Tektronix. Trying to get them to use
digital scopes in the beginning was like pulling teeth. At one point
we had to put a circuit into one of our products to make the noise
floor "look analogue". It was entirely artificial but it made the
studio engineers happy.)
It's blatantly obvious to everyone's eyes in an A/B comparison that the
LCDs are crap. The resolution is seriously inferior, as is the contrast
range.
> CRTs far exceed them in all the things you just mentioned.
This is simply false. You don't appear to have looked at
the specs in a while.
I have, and I've also seen the things in action. What I notice, quite
frequently, is that manufacturers of LCD and Plasma screens LIE about
the contrast, similar to manufacturers lies using PMPO for audio
systems. It's horrendously obvious that they're do dithering patterns
to try and fake a wider range of contrast than the device actually can.
Just about all LCDs end up looking like bad JPEG compression (and this
is from high quality uncompressed sources) or the use of Floyd Steinberg
dithering on the old inkjet printers.
When you take something like a broadcast camera, which has brilliant
image generation, and do A/B tests on CRTs versus LCDs, you notice that
a CRT has a very wide, and usable range, of contrast. LCDs, in
comparison, look like we're playing with less than eight-bit DACs.
You have to get ridiculously expensive LCD panels to compare to modest
priced CRTs, and that's hardly a realistic test. A realistic comparison
of vaguely similarly priced domestic sets shows, every time, that a $200
CRT set is vastly superior to a $700 LCD set. The same goes for
computer monitors - cheaper CRTs producing better pictures than even
more expensive LCDs than the CRT device.
The attempt to pretend that LCDs are better than CRTs is just another
case of the emperor's new clothes.
MTF? CRTs have _never_ been close to LCDs.
When we have twenty year old LCD displays still going strong, I might
believe that. Oh yes, CRT sets can have a long life.
It's no accident that traditional CRT manufacturers
(e.g. Sony, Sharp) have shut down their manufacturing lines.
It's called marketing. The current technology trends, LCDs, digital
video, etc., have been a step backwards in quality. For years the push
was to improve the quality of devices, in more recent times it's been to
see just how poorly things can be gotten away with (e.g. using the
heaviest compression and lowest resolutions possible to get acceptable
results).
It takes a really crap CRT (and there are examples of that) to look
worse than a LCD.
--
(This computer runs FC7, my others run FC4, FC5 & FC6, in case that's
important to the thread.)
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
6:30 p.m.
: Could you post some info (or just your opinion) about LED backlights?
: Also, what's up with OLED technology?
Short answer:
LED backlight: The way of the future.
Longer answer:
Whitelight LEDs (used in HDR displays) are very bright but do not
allow spatio-chromatic modulation. Individual RGB LEDs do, but their
quantum efficiency (roughly: ratio of luminance to power consumption)
is poor.
With an LED backlight, the thickness of the panels can (and will) be
reduced to 0.5 inches in the midterm future (just like Sony's OLED
panels).
LEDs are easier to "flash" than cold cathode fluorescents. Flashing
removes the problem of "hold-type" blur that has plagued LCDs. LCDs
are now coming out that run at 120 Hz and "flash" the frame on the
screen similar to a CRT so their temporal characteristics are
excellent.
The big win is LEDs ability to be spatio-temporally modulated. This
_dramatically_ increases the panel's dynamic range and contrast ratio,
which can exceed 100,000:1.
With RGB LEDs one can get colour purity that is stunning.
Here's a useful article on this:
<http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/nec-2180wg.shtml>
We have one of these in our lab and the colours (esp. green and red)
are, um, voluptuous.
It is somewhat dim compared to white light backlights but that problem
is going to be solved in the mid-term future. Also this is an "old"
product. The new NEC 2190 exceeds the specs of the 2180 and is
brighter.
OLED:
As for OLEDs, this is largely Sony's baby. I saw their 20" OLED
panels at CES in January and they are beautiful in every respect. But
they are still in the lab and Sony has not solved the aging problem
for the blue OLEDs. On the other hand, high-end LCD panel
manufacturers are actively working on LCDs that will make Sony very
sad sometime soon. :-)
Have a look at:
<http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/22/sharps-52-inch-lcd-tv-prototype-just-1...
Dean
2:27 a.m.
Tim:
>> If you do any graphic work, LCDs are crap. The
colours/shading/etc
>> change radically depending on your angle of view.
Dean S. Messing:
This is true of older Twisted Nematic LC panels but false for
many modern panels.
The viewing angle problem has been dramatically reduced in the past 3
years, esp. on high-end panels like (for example) Sharp Corp. makes.
For example, Multi-domain Vertically Aligned (MVA) technology has very
nice angle properties---at the expense of LC response time. (No free
lunch.)
Every LCD screen that I've seen, from the cheapies to the horrendously
expensive, has that issue. Just in differing amounts. The average LCD
screen someone buys from the local retailers are still bloody awful.
The $7,000 LCD TV set is about the time when things start to approach
being as good as other display types.
The statement that LCDs "are crap" for serious graphics
work is simply
not true any more. High-end LC panels _far_ exceed CRTs in every
category (e.g., brightness, colour gamut, tone scale, MTF, dynamic
range) except response time, and with "overdrive" and the new
"flashing backlight" techniques on the horizon, even that barrier will
soon be gone. CRT technology, like the vacuum tube in general, is
essentially dead.
Where I work, in television, where they do buy horrendously expensive
monitors, they will not touch LCDs for anything other than monitors that
aren't paid close attention to. CRTs far exceed them in all the things
you just mentioned. The contrast range of the LCD is inferior, and
that's the basis of all the other measurements. With a poor contrast
range, you can't get the full colour gamut.
--
(This computer runs FC7, my others run FC4, FC5 & FC6, in case that's
important to the thread.)
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
8:44 p.m.
Tim:
> If you do any graphic work, LCDs are crap. The
colours/shading/etc
> change radically depending on your angle of view.
Frank Cox:
You may want to clarify that a bit further.
LCDs work using the polarising effect (like the sunglasses). There's a
fixed mesh (to use a simple descriptive term for it) with one fixed
polarisation, and a variable one formed by the liquid crystals. The
crystals are charged to line up either parallel or 90 degrees to the
fixed mesh, and other angles between, where they block light, or let it
through in varying amounts.
This is also why they're quite dim (they block light), why
the contrast is poor (less than 90 degrees of the crystal
turning point is useful), and slow (the crystals have to
physically move).
The angle that you view the screen at pays a part in this, too. At
extreme angles, you can see some colours and grays turning negative. At
lesser angles you see some strange effects, where some things aren't
brighter or darker than they should be. The LCD was doing its tricks to
produce a picture for front-on viewing.
Also, the quality of the backlight affects how uniformly the entire
screen is illuminated.
If you can see some cheap LCDs on display, then try these sorts of
things: Look at it from the side, walk around to front on, keep going
until you're looking at it from the other side. You'll probably see
changes. Do the same vertically, stand up close and look down on it,
squat down and look directly at it, then keep going down lower until
you're looking up at the screen. Alternatively, stand in one spot and
move the screen around with your arms, if they'll let you.
Chances are that the horizontal issues aren't a problem for most people,
as they'll sit in one spot in front of their screen. But turn into an
issue if you try to show something to someone next to you. The vertical
changes are more of a problem, people do sit up, sit back, etc., and
that's enough of a change for some monitors.
--
[tim@bigblack ~]$ uname -ipr
2.6.22.9-91.fc7 i686 i386
Using FC 4, 5, 6 & 7, plus CentOS 5. Today, it's FC7.
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
4:46 p.m.
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:38:51 -0500
Mike Chambers <mike(a)miketc.com> wrote:
One I am looking at is Proview 19" Widescreen at Walmart.
I have 12", 17" and 22" monitors. All are various models of Acer LCD's
and, as
you can see, some of them are getting a bit older now.
None of them have ever given me any problems at all.
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
3:10 p.m.
Tim wrote:
Tim:
>> Wouldn't you be better off to find what's being demonstrated in stores
>> near you, and pick which looks best?
Mike Chambers:
> Probably, but was just checking anyway. I work part-time at walmart and
> they have Proview and HP ones, but due to budget and what not, the
> Proview will probably be it. Just rather find one for under 200 if
> possible, like 19/20" wide screen would prolly work.
Whilst it's probably good to ask about things to be avoided, and thing
to try and find, I really think you need to see things like monitors in
action. Specs are all very well and good, but if the thing's dim,
flimsy, needs viewing at precisely the right angle, doesn't have the
connectors you want, relies on windows to control brightness/contrast,
etc., you're going to be really annoyed.
If you do any graphic work, LCDs are crap. The colours/shading/etc
change radically depending on your angle of view. If you absolutely
must get an LCD and you do that sort of work, then you really need to
find one with a wide angle of view, both horizontally, and vertically,
but especially vertically. You'll mostly sit in front of a monitor,
rather that side on, but how close you sit, and the tilt angle, changes
very easily with just a slight change in body position.
The LCD on my laptop is really annoying. You have to sit way back,
further than you can with a laptop, before you get to the point that the
whole screen has the same shading. At normal distance, the top of the
screen is different than the bottom. It's about as bad as those old
rear-projection Kodak Carousel slide units with the fresnel screens.
You said everything I was, but missed that contrast is another issue
with LCD over CRT. The specifications for contrast are misleading.
There are two contrast ratings. One for static and one for dynamic. If
you are doing graphics work, you need a good static contrast or you can
miss details.
Another thing is if the monitor is going to be used for gaming, then you
will have to look at the refresh rates. If they are to slow, the
monitor will look like a blur with any games. Also you have to know if
the video card can work at the native resolution of the monitor.
I got rid of my LCD for a CRT monitor at work and home. I am waiting
for OLED or SED monitors.
--
Robin Laing
1:47 p.m.
New subject: Flat Monitors [OT]
: Tim:
: >>> If you do any graphic work, LCDs are crap. The colours/shading/etc
: >>> change radically depending on your angle of view.
:
: Dean S. Messing:
: > This is true of older Twisted Nematic LC panels but false for
: > many modern panels.
: >
: > The viewing angle problem has been dramatically reduced in the past 3
: > years, esp. on high-end panels like (for example) Sharp Corp. makes.
: > For example, Multi-domain Vertically Aligned (MVA) technology has very
: > nice angle properties---at the expense of LC response time. (No free
: > lunch.)
:
: Every LCD screen that I've seen, from the cheapies to the horrendously
: expensive, has that issue. Just in differing amounts. The average LCD
: screen someone buys from the local retailers are still bloody awful.
: The $7,000 LCD TV set is about the time when things start to approach
: being as good as other display types.
Tim, I'm not going to argue with you. LC flat panel displays (and
CRTs---I worked in Tektronix Laboratories for 15 years in Video
Research) are my expertise. Certainly LCD panels do not have a 180°
"no variation" viewing angle. But current high-end models using MVA or
In-Plane Switching cells are very good---perfectly acceptable for
graphics work.
We do demonstrations all the time for image and video processing
experts (who have golden eyes) standing at various angles around the
LCD panels. Very few problems.
: > The statement that LCDs "are crap" for serious graphics work is simply
: > not true any more. High-end LC panels _far_ exceed CRTs in every
: > category (e.g., brightness, colour gamut, tone scale, MTF, dynamic
: > range) except response time, and with "overdrive" and the new
: > "flashing backlight" techniques on the horizon, even that barrier will
: > soon be gone. CRT technology, like the vacuum tube in general, is
: > essentially dead.
:
: Where I work, in television, where they do buy horrendously expensive
: monitors, they will not touch LCDs for anything other than monitors that
: aren't paid close attention to.
That's because studio people are notoriaously over-conservative. (I
worked with them extensively at Tektronix. Trying to get them to use
digital scopes in the beginning was like pulling teeth. At one point
we had to put a circuit into one of our products to make the noise
floor "look analogue". It was entirely artificial but it made the
studio engineers happy.)
: CRTs far exceed them in all the things
: you just mentioned.
This is simply false. You don't appear to have looked at
the specs in a while.
: The contrast range of the LCD is inferior, and
: that's the basis of all the other measurements. With a poor contrast
: range, you can't get the full colour gamut.
Again, you don't appear to have looked at the specs recently. At the
last CES, I saw LC displays with contrast ratios exceeding 10000:1 made
by every major manufacturer except Phillips.
The best CRTs (measured in a dark room) don't usually don't exceed
6000:1. And a new generation of LCD is already being introduced by
nearly every manufacturer that uses so-called dynamic backlight
modulation. These have contrast ratios exceeding 100K:1
Then there's brightness. Can you show me a CRT that has a
brightnesses exceeding 12000 cd/m^2 ? Modern High Dynamic Range LCDs
always do. (They use modulated LED backlights).
Colour gamut? Are you kidding? With RGB LED backlights, or peaked
phosphor fluorescent backlights, the LCD gamut completely engulfs the
CRT gamut. Indeed LCDs in the laboratory are now competing with OLED.
Are you going to claim that CRT gamut exceeds OLED? (And yes I'm
aware of the relationship between gamut and max brightness.)
MTF? CRTs have _never_ been close to LCDs.
It's no accident that traditional CRT manufacturers
(e.g. Sony, Sharp) have shut down their manufacturing lines.
Since this has drifted entirely off of Fedora, let's continue the
discussion off-line if you wish. I doubt anyone else is interested.
Dean
12:34 a.m.
New subject: Flat Monitors [OT]
Robin Laing wrote:
: Dean S. Messing wrote:
: > Tim wrote:
: > : Where I work, in television, where they do buy horrendously expensive
: > : monitors, they will not touch LCDs for anything other than monitors that
: > : aren't paid close attention to.
: >
: > That's because studio people are notoriaously over-conservative. (I
: > worked with them extensively at Tektronix. Trying to get them to use
: > digital scopes in the beginning was like pulling teeth. At one point
: > we had to put a circuit into one of our products to make the noise
: > floor "look analogue". It was entirely artificial but it made the
: > studio engineers happy.)
:
: I will agree with you. They prefer tools that they are familiar with.
: Don't like change. Heck, some would still be using U-matic recorders if
: they could get a new portable one. :)
And claim that they have better recording charateristics in A/B tests than modern
digital recorders!
: >
: > : CRTs far exceed them in all the things
: > : you just mentioned.
: >
: > This is simply false. You don't appear to have looked at
: > the specs in a while.
:
: I have looked at the specs as I am trying to purchase a new computer
: system for my work. I have yet to see a LCD monitor that provides all
: the specifications that meet the present CRT that I am using. The
: killer is the static contrast. I have seen a few that promote 5000:1 or
: 8000:1 contrast but when you read the fine print, this is only for
: dynamic contrast. Some of them have static contrasts in the 300:1 to
: 500:1 range. Pretty low for working on static images.
For computer monitor grade panels this is correct. But for the next
generation modulated LED backlit displays the static contrast is very
large, as is the max cd/m^2. That's because in dark areas the
backlight is off so very dim so there's no leakage thru the pixels.
These won't be available as Joe Sixpack computer monitors for some
time, but for studio quality, or home theatre quality viewing they are
right around the corner. As I've said already, their specs (as
carefully measured by trained metrologists) exceed the best CRTs,
despite what certain people on this list want to believe. And we
are not talking about specsmanship and fooling around with special patterns
to get the best numbers. We are talking worst case static C.R.
But (again) these are for spendy applications, not the average desktop
monitor. (However even for reasonably priced LCDs, CRT specs are now
exceeded in several categories: gamut, brightness, and MTF (moducation
transfer function, not mean-time-to-failure) being three. That's why text
on an LCD with a given native resolution looks so much sharper than
on a CRT scanning at the same resolution.
It is important that the LCD be operated at the native resolution (so
called "dot-on-dot") or text and images will look poor.
: > : The contrast range of the LCD is inferior, and
: > : that's the basis of all the other measurements. With a poor contrast
: > : range, you can't get the full colour gamut.
: >
: > Again, you don't appear to have looked at the specs recently. At the
: > last CES, I saw LC displays with contrast ratios exceeding 10000:1 made
: > by every major manufacturer except Phillips.
:
: I have yet to see one LCD monitor that provides a static contrast of
: 1000.
I have three in our lab that spec out at 50000:1, one with max brightness
that approaches outdoor daylight. Have a look at:
<http://www.dolby.com/promo/hdr/technology.html>
: The high contrasts specified are all dynamic contrasts done by
: changing the intensity of the backlight.
On cheap panels that advertise 5000:1 you are correct.
For high-end stuff, with modulated backlight, it's static.
: Can you provide one
: manufacturer that makes a high contrast (Static) LCD monitor? I may be
: interested in purchasing it.
I gave you a link above. But you are not interested in purchasing it :-)
But in about three years they will be available.
On the other hand, the LCD has so many other advantages, like high brightness,
colour gamut, and MTF that I wouldn't live w/o one. I have a high quality
Panasonic CRT and high-end LCD with a KDE desktop spanning them. Whenever
I look at text on the (well-adjusted) CRT, I feel like squinting because it
is so blurred compared to the LCD. That's due to the Gaussian Spot profile of the
CRT
compared with the pixel profile of the LCD.
There's also a type of sampling that's called subpixel subsampling
that gives about 1.5 times more horizontal resolution on a striped
pattern LCD. This type of sampling will not work on any CRT.
Also, 1920x1080 (so-called "full HD") LCDs are now common and
relatively inexpensive. What's the current price of an HDTV CRT?
There's much more that I could say (about new sampling geometries,
multiprimary displays, white subpixel displays, etc).
:
: > The best CRTs (measured in a dark room) don't usually don't exceed
: > 6000:1. And a new generation of LCD is already being introduced by
: > nearly every manufacturer that uses so-called dynamic backlight
: > modulation. These have contrast ratios exceeding 100K:1
:
: I need high contrast in static images for my work. This dynamic
: backlight is useless when comparing individual frames from highspeed
: cameras looking for a subtle change in the contrast to see shock fronts.
Why don't you tell me more offline? Your application sounds
interesting. I'm happy to discuss it with you. You may be
misunderstanding "dynamic backlight." An old technology merely dimmed
the backlight as a function of the luminance histogram. That's not to
what I'm referring. Image an array of LEDs (and appropriate diffusion
screens) behind the LCD that is spatio-temporally modulated. In dark
areas of the image the LEDs are dimmed below their average, in
highlights, they are brightened above their average. If the LEDs are
RGB, this can be done in each colour plane to not only increase
luminance contrast but chrominance contrast as well. That's what is
now called "dynamic backlight" or "area active" backlight. With very
bright LEDs (as in the link above), 16 bits of dynamic range are
achievable.
: I think it is useful to allow others to learn. There are some people
: that can learn from these discussions. Marked OT is a good idea though.
:
: In this thread I have learned about RGB LED backlights.
:
: FWIW, I just read a forum post about laser driven monitors that are
: supposed to be shown in January. Could be even better than OLED or SED.
:
Ok. I'll wait to see if anyone screems about cluttering up the Fedora
list with irrelevant junk. :-)
Dean
2:41 p.m.
Mike Chambers wrote:
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 14:10 -0600, Robin Laing wrote:
> You said everything I was, but missed that contrast is another issue
> with LCD over CRT. The specifications for contrast are misleading.
> There are two contrast ratings. One for static and one for dynamic.
> If
> you are doing graphics work, you need a good static contrast or you
> can
> miss details.
>
> Another thing is if the monitor is going to be used for gaming, then
> you
> will have to look at the refresh rates. If they are to slow, the
> monitor will look like a blur with any games. Also you have to know
> if
> the video card can work at the native resolution of the monitor.
>
> I got rid of my LCD for a CRT monitor at work and home. I am waiting
> for OLED or SED monitors.
Well, this is just for home and no graphics work involved, as in for
emails, browsing, script type editing a little, that type stuff. So
would think it should be OK.
One I am looking at is Proview 19" Widescreen at Walmart.
For that stuff then I think any LCD would work.
Just check the viewing angles and contrast.
--
Robin Laing
11:58 a.m.
Dean S. Messing wrote:
Tim:
>> If you do any graphic work, LCDs are crap. The colours/shading/etc
>> change radically depending on your angle of view.
This is true of older Twisted Nematic LC panels but false for
many modern panels.
The viewing angle problem has been dramatically reduced in the past 3
years, esp. on high-end panels like (for example) Sharp Corp. makes.
For example, Multi-domain Vertically Aligned (MVA) technology has very
nice angle properties---at the expense of LC response time. (No free
lunch.)
The statement that LCDs "are crap" for serious graphics work is simply
not true any more. High-end LC panels _far_ exceed CRTs in every
category (e.g., brightness, colour gamut, tone scale, MTF, dynamic
range) except response time, and with "overdrive" and the new
"flashing backlight" techniques on the horizon, even that barrier will
soon be gone. CRT technology, like the vacuum tube in general, is
essentially dead.
Dean
----
Dean S. Messing
Sr. Scientist
Display Algorithms & Visual Optimization Lab
Sharp Laboratories of America
Dean,
Could you post some info (or just your opinion) about LED backlights?
Also, what's up with OLED technology?
Regards,
John
3:24 a.m.
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 16:38 -0500, Mike Chambers wrote:
One I am looking at is Proview 19" Widescreen at Walmart.
I found a slightly
used DELL CRT monster display that is so huge that my
computer desk is sagging, for $100. I think it is like 22 or 24 inches.
It's fast, and the really good 3D games you almost fall into. I'm just
not ready for LCD. I'll jam a 2X4 under the desk. <chuckles> Ric
--
================================================
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
Linux user# 44256 Sign up at: http://counter.li.org/
http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/oar
http://www.wayward4now.net <---down4now too
================================================
8:17 p.m.
Tim:
> If you do any graphic work, LCDs are crap. The
colours/shading/etc
> change radically depending on your angle of view.
This is true of older Twisted Nematic LC panels but false for
many modern panels.
The viewing angle problem has been dramatically reduced in the past 3
years, esp. on high-end panels like (for example) Sharp Corp. makes.
For example, Multi-domain Vertically Aligned (MVA) technology has very
nice angle properties---at the expense of LC response time. (No free
lunch.)
The statement that LCDs "are crap" for serious graphics work is simply
not true any more. High-end LC panels _far_ exceed CRTs in every
category (e.g., brightness, colour gamut, tone scale, MTF, dynamic
range) except response time, and with "overdrive" and the new
"flashing backlight" techniques on the horizon, even that barrier will
soon be gone. CRT technology, like the vacuum tube in general, is
essentially dead.
Dean
----
Dean S. Messing
Sr. Scientist
Display Algorithms & Visual Optimization Lab
Sharp Laboratories of America
4:38 p.m.
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 14:10 -0600, Robin Laing wrote:
You said everything I was, but missed that contrast is another issue
with LCD over CRT. The specifications for contrast are misleading.
There are two contrast ratings. One for static and one for dynamic.
If
you are doing graphics work, you need a good static contrast or you
can
miss details.
Another thing is if the monitor is going to be used for gaming, then
you
will have to look at the refresh rates. If they are to slow, the
monitor will look like a blur with any games. Also you have to know
if
the video card can work at the native resolution of the monitor.
I got rid of my LCD for a CRT monitor at work and home. I am waiting
for OLED or SED monitors.
Well, this is just for home and no graphics work involved, as in for
emails, browsing, script type editing a little, that type stuff. So
would think it should be OK.
One I am looking at is Proview 19" Widescreen at Walmart.
--
Mike Chambers
Madisonville, KY
"Best lil town on Earth!"
1:07 p.m.
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 00:46:55 +1030
Tim <ignored_mailbox(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
If you do any graphic work, LCDs are crap. The colours/shading/etc
change radically depending on your angle of view.
You may want to clarify that a bit further.
I do some desktop publishing and have found that my flat-screen monitors are
much nicer for that purpose than the old CRT's, no matter how big they are.
I find it much easier to get stuff lined up and see how it will ultimately look
on paper when I have a non-curved surface to view the work on.
On the other hand, my desktop publishing efforts are ultimately destined to be
printed on a press that can do single colours ("grey scale" and spot colours)
only. Perhaps if I had more involvement with full-colour printing my opinion
would be different.
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
10:23 a.m.
--- Mike Chambers <mike(a)miketc.com> wrote:
Anyone got a good recommendation for one less than
$200 US? Might need
to get rid of this KDS CRT one.
--
Mike Chambers
Madisonville, KY
"Best lil town on Earth!"
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Depending on chances and luck - which happened quite
frequent, try www.frys.com or www.mwave.com, I had
good experience
9:15 p.m.
New subject: Flat Monitors [OT]
Tim wrote:
You have to get ridiculously expensive LCD panels to compare to
modest
priced CRTs, and that's hardly a realistic test. A realistic comparison
of vaguely similarly priced domestic sets shows, every time, that a $200
CRT set is vastly superior to a $700 LCD set. The same goes for
computer monitors - cheaper CRTs producing better pictures than even
more expensive LCDs than the CRT device.
The attempt to pretend that LCDs are better than CRTs is just another
case of the emperor's new clothes.
> MTF? CRTs have _never_ been close to LCDs.
When we have twenty year old LCD displays still going strong, I might
believe that. Oh yes, CRT sets can have a long life.
> It's no accident that traditional CRT manufacturers
> (e.g. Sony, Sharp) have shut down their manufacturing lines.
It's called marketing. The current technology trends, LCDs, digital
video, etc., have been a step backwards in quality. For years the push
was to improve the quality of devices, in more recent times it's been to
see just how poorly things can be gotten away with (e.g. using the
heaviest compression and lowest resolutions possible to get acceptable
results).
It takes a really crap CRT (and there are examples of that) to look
worse than a LCD.
I have two 20" CRT Sun monitors, they're rated at 1600x1200 (but I
accidentally ran one much higher than that once). Sun sells damned find
screens, IMV, Mine were actually made by Sony, and others - HP and SGI
included, sold the same screens with their own branding.
More recently I ran them at 1280x1024, principally on account of my aged
eyes.
I also have a DELL 1800FP Ultrasharp which _I_ find easier to use
(albeit I'm limited to 1280x1024) than the bigger Sun Screens. I sit
fairly close: with my eyes level with the bottom I can easily read the
top of the screen, when I sit to the side where my eyes are level with
the edge, there is a bit of darkening - but I don't normally sit there.
I'm also pretty happy with this:
(II) RADEON(0): Panel ID string: Samsung LTN150P1-L02
(II) RADEON(0): Panel Size from BIOS: 1400x1050
It's in my Thinkpad.
Back to Sun: here are Sun's current screens:
http://www.sun.com/desktop/index.jsp?tab=2
If you were going to buy a Sun screen today, it would be LCD.
Same at HP: see
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/en/WF04a/382087-382087-64283-72270-4...
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
1aaaaaaa(a)coco.merseine.nu Z1aaaaaaa(a)coco.merseine.nu
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
Please do not reply off-list
4:04 a.m.
On Sun, 2007-10-28 at 23:38 -0500, Mike Chambers wrote:
Anyone got a good recommendation for one less than $200 US? Might
need to get rid of this KDS CRT one.
Wouldn't you be better off to find what's being demonstrated in stores
near you, and pick which looks best?
--
[tim@bigblack ~]$ uname -ipr
2.6.22.9-91.fc7 i686 i386
Using FC 4, 5, 6 & 7, plus CentOS 5. Today, it's FC7.
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
9:47 a.m.
On Sun, 2007-10-28 at 23:38 -0500, Mike Chambers wrote:
Anyone got a good recommendation for one less than $200 US? Might
need
to get rid of this KDS CRT one.
--
Mike Chambers
Madisonville, KY
"Best lil town on Earth!"
I love my Viewsonic VA1812wb it is wide screen, 1440x900 and looks good,
real whites, good contrast and nice pixel size. If you shop carefully,
the 20 inch is sometimes right at $200 right now.
Regards,
Les H
noon
New subject: Flat Monitors [OT]
On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 22:34 -0700, Dean S. Messing wrote:
Ok. I'll wait to see if anyone screems about cluttering up the
Fedora
list with irrelevant junk. :-)
Please continue! While I don't understand one half of what is being
posted, in due time whatever is relevant to me will slowly get absorbed!
That's how I learn nifty stuff. I also thank you both for an intelligent
discussion free of petty dogmas. It's very refreshing. Ric
--
================================================
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
Linux user# 44256 Sign up at: http://counter.li.org/
http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/oar
http://www.wayward4now.net <---down4now too
================================================
9:16 a.m.
Tim:
> Wouldn't you be better off to find what's being
demonstrated in stores
> near you, and pick which looks best?
Mike Chambers:
Probably, but was just checking anyway. I work part-time at walmart
and
they have Proview and HP ones, but due to budget and what not, the
Proview will probably be it. Just rather find one for under 200 if
possible, like 19/20" wide screen would prolly work.
Whilst it's probably good to ask about things to be avoided, and thing
to try and find, I really think you need to see things like monitors in
action. Specs are all very well and good, but if the thing's dim,
flimsy, needs viewing at precisely the right angle, doesn't have the
connectors you want, relies on windows to control brightness/contrast,
etc., you're going to be really annoyed.
If you do any graphic work, LCDs are crap. The colours/shading/etc
change radically depending on your angle of view. If you absolutely
must get an LCD and you do that sort of work, then you really need to
find one with a wide angle of view, both horizontally, and vertically,
but especially vertically. You'll mostly sit in front of a monitor,
rather that side on, but how close you sit, and the tilt angle, changes
very easily with just a slight change in body position.
The LCD on my laptop is really annoying. You have to sit way back,
further than you can with a laptop, before you get to the point that the
whole screen has the same shading. At normal distance, the top of the
screen is different than the bottom. It's about as bad as those old
rear-projection Kodak Carousel slide units with the fresnel screens.
--
(This box runs FC5, my others run FC4 & FC6, in case that's
important to the thread.)
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
8:15 a.m.
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 19:34 +1030, Tim wrote:
On Sun, 2007-10-28 at 23:38 -0500, Mike Chambers wrote:
> Anyone got a good recommendation for one less than $200 US? Might
> need to get rid of this KDS CRT one.
Wouldn't you be better off to find what's being demonstrated in stores
near you, and pick which looks best?
Probably, but was just checking anyway. I work part-time at walmart and
they have Proview and HP ones, but due to budget and what not, the
Proview will probably be it. Just rather find one for under 200 if
possible, like 19/20" wide screen would prolly work.
--
Mike Chambers
Madisonville, KY
"Best lil town on Earth!"
4:20 a.m.
Tim wrote:
On Sun, 2007-10-28 at 23:38 -0500, Mike Chambers wrote:
> Anyone got a good recommendation for one less than $200 US? Might
> need to get rid of this KDS CRT one.
Wouldn't you be better off to find what's being demonstrated in stores
near you, and pick which looks best?
fwiw I have a thinkpad r40 with a 15" screen that does 1440x1050 (the
panel's Samsung). I've not seen a desktop monitor advertised in any of
the usual places that comes close to my eyes, and that's a few years old.
I don't like widescreen, but you may differ. It makes no sense to me to
chop a 1280x1024 screen down to 1280x800. You may differ. I don't like
reflective screens, I can hardly see anything other than my white tee shirt.
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
1aaaaaaa(a)coco.merseine.nu Z1aaaaaaa(a)coco.merseine.nu
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
Please do not reply off-list
12:06 a.m.
Mike Chambers wrote:
Anyone got a good recommendation for one less than $200 US? Might
need
to get rid of this KDS CRT one.
Define "good". What matters to you? DVI input or Analog OK? Is viewing
angle of importance? Contrast ratio? Size?
FWIW, I think it would be best for you to simply find a site that compares
features of LCD screens and do a bit of research. Besides, I can probably
find a very good LCD screen here in Taiwan that is a "no name" brand but
won't be available in your area.
6017
days inactive
6022
days old
25 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
Barry Yu -
Dean S. Messing -
Ed Greshko -
Frank Cox -
Howard Howell -
John Summerfield -
John Wendel -
Mike Chambers -
Ric Moore -
Robin Laing -
Tim