PDA

View Full Version : HIGH Screen resolution kills performance in WIN/XP?


Coffee Lover
May 20th 07, 08:48 PM
I got my resolution AS high as possible right now.
I read/heard the higher the resolution, you get a drop in performance?
1280 X 1024 right now, what's a good one for performance?

Or does it matter????????

Frank McCoy
May 20th 07, 09:31 PM
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Coffee Lover
> wrote:

>I got my resolution AS high as possible right now.
>I read/heard the higher the resolution, you get a drop in performance?
>1280 X 1024 right now, what's a good one for performance?
>
>Or does it matter????????

Depends on your CPU speed and your card capability.
For most even reasonably recent boards I usually use 1600x1200 for the
desktop.
Higher resolution makes most things too small.
Even with that resolution, I pick large icons and adjust the font sizes.
By doing that, things look a lot better.
Large scaled fonts on a higher resolution machine are just easier on the
eye than small fonts on a lower resolution machine scaled to the same
size. They're just finer grained; and the eye sees them better.

The bigger the monitor, the more resolution you need.
On a 17" monitor, 1024x768 is probably enough.
For a 19", I'd go with what you got.
For something bigger, go higher.
For an LCD monitor, go with "native resolution".
(My LCD, for example, is 1680x1050 ... just a tad better than a 21" CRT
at 1600x1200.)

Games are different.
There you keep raising the resolution until you see the response-time of
the game drop. Once that happens, you drop down one step. Each game
will likely be different in this. Choose as much hardware acceleration
as your board and game will permit. Sometimes there's a trade-off
between hardware techniques like shading and resolution. That you have
to experiment with to see which looks best to you.

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

Franky
May 20th 07, 09:41 PM
"Coffee Lover" > wrote in message
...
>I got my resolution AS high as possible right now.
> I read/heard the higher the resolution, you get a drop in performance?
> 1280 X 1024 right now, what's a good one for performance?
>
> Or does it matter????????
>

Its desktop resolution, not game resolution ..which could be different. Then
it depends on what card and system you have.

kony
May 20th 07, 11:40 PM
On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:48:25 -0400, Coffee Lover
> wrote:

>I got my resolution AS high as possible right now.
>I read/heard the higher the resolution, you get a drop in performance?

Usually no, sometimes yes.

Try being specific with hardware details and use, and you
might get a specific answer.



>1280 X 1024 right now, what's a good one for performance?
>
>Or does it matter????????

Not normally. Old integrated video or gaming matters more.

hummingbird[_2_]
May 21st 07, 12:27 AM
On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:48:25 -0400 'Coffee Lover'
posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:

>I got my resolution AS high as possible right now.
>I read/heard the higher the resolution, you get a drop in performance?
>1280 X 1024 right now, what's a good one for performance?
>
>Or does it matter????????

I use 800 x 600 on my 17" LCD and it displays at lightning speed
with excellent sharpness etc. I'm at a loss to know why so many
people use higher res on similar monitors.

Frank McCoy
May 21st 07, 01:13 AM
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt hummingbird >
wrote:

>On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:48:25 -0400 'Coffee Lover'
>posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:
>
>>I got my resolution AS high as possible right now.
>>I read/heard the higher the resolution, you get a drop in performance?
>>1280 X 1024 right now, what's a good one for performance?
>>
>>Or does it matter????????
>
>I use 800 x 600 on my 17" LCD and it displays at lightning speed
>with excellent sharpness etc. I'm at a loss to know why so many
>people use higher res on similar monitors.

If you have an LCD monitor, you should really really *REALLY* use
"native resolution" on the thing. Anything else is crappy and a fairly
bad compromise in quality. That's completely *unlike* CRT monitors that
can change resolutions without compromising any quality except the
difference in resolution itself ... which depends a lot more on the
dot-pitch capabilities of the monitor than actual resolution selected.

An LCD or plasma-panel have exactly so many pixels; no more, and no
less. If you pick a lower resolution; then the screen has to juggle
things and sometimes smear one line across two, and others one-for-one;
often making fine details look really crappy. Rarely indeed do the
resolutions come out *exactly* two-to-one; which is the best compromise
possible.

A CRT, on the other hand, just changes the sweep speeds to *exactly*
match whatever display resolution you set ... Presuming the monitor does
support that mode.

Setting any other resolution for desktop or games than native resolution
on an LCD panel is really a BIG mistake ... and hard on the eyes, too.

Oh, some games *won't* work in full native resolution (800x600 being the
limit for some older types); but that's becoming quite rare these days.

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

BobR
May 21st 07, 01:34 AM
Coffee Lover > wrote in message
...
> I got my resolution AS high as possible right now.
> I read/heard the higher the resolution, you get a drop in performance?
> 1280 X 1024 right now, what's a good one for performance?
>
> Or does it matter????????
>

I see there are (as of yet) no programmers in this thread!
[ assume byte == 8 bits ]

Think about what the poor ol' CPU has to do (assuming your video card/MB has
no extra performance features).

640x480x4(bytes (32bits)) == 307200 x4 == 1228800.
..... and it has to do that 60 times a second to be flicker free:
times 60Hz == 73728000 bytes per second.

1280x1024 == 1310720x4 == 5242880
times 60Hz == 314572800 bytes per second.

How could it not affect preformance?

Now, the hardware guys in this NG know that newer video cards/MBs have some
special features that speed things up. That's why thay say, "it depends".

That help any?
--
Bob R
POVrookie

Frank McCoy
May 21st 07, 02:40 AM
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "BobR"
> wrote:

>
>Coffee Lover > wrote in message
...
>> I got my resolution AS high as possible right now.
>> I read/heard the higher the resolution, you get a drop in performance?
>> 1280 X 1024 right now, what's a good one for performance?
>>
>> Or does it matter????????
>>
>
>I see there are (as of yet) no programmers in this thread!
>[ assume byte == 8 bits ]
>
>Think about what the poor ol' CPU has to do (assuming your video card/MB has
>no extra performance features).
>
>640x480x4(bytes (32bits)) == 307200 x4 == 1228800.
>.... and it has to do that 60 times a second to be flicker free:
>times 60Hz == 73728000 bytes per second.
>
>1280x1024 == 1310720x4 == 5242880
>times 60Hz == 314572800 bytes per second.
>
>How could it not affect preformance?
>
Easy.
You're assuming (and we all know what ass-u-me does) that the processor
has to update every pixel on every display-cycle.

Even with full-motion full-scree video, that's not true.
Most of the load is handled by special hardware on the video-board;
specially designed to do just such things.

When nothing or very little changes on the screen, there's essentially
NO load on the processor at all!

Your desktop can be two-billion by two-billion pixels; and as long as
the display and video-card are rated to that resolution, it puts *NO*
load on the processor at all during most things that happen. Filling
out screens of data with text or the graphics available on websites
takes about nothing of the processors capabilities.

About the only thing that DOES heavily use both a processor and
video-card at higher resolutions, are video-games.

THERE, (in games) you pretty much have to TRY your board/card
combination and find out how much resolution you can set the card to and
still have reasonably decent response-time or without the movements
getting jerky. The higher the resolution you can pick, the better the
game generally looks.

That's WHY ultimate gamers pick both high-end or even multiple
processors, and video boards with multi-megapixel throughput, along with
heavy on-board processor power to do the fancy shading and stuff so the
main motherboard processor doesn't have to.

THERE, it's usually far more the video-board abilities that determine
whether a game runs smoothly at high resolution than anything else.

That, of course, makes the high price of such boards worth it to those
people who spend large portions of their time playing such games.

But for the *desktop*, it don't take **** essentially from the processor
at the highest resolution you can set the board/display combination.

What makes the difference *there* is clarity.

>Now, the hardware guys in this NG know that newer video cards/MBs have some
>special features that speed things up. That's why thay say, "it depends".
>
It more than "just depends"; in *gaming* that makes all the difference
in the world, which board and processor and memory you have.

For the desktop though, high and low resolution run at about the same
speed. Low resolution looks crappy though; and High resolution can make
some things too small to see easily. So, you sometimes have to change
font-sizes and icon sizes if you go high-resolution on the desktop. But
doing-so DOES make a big difference in how easy things are on the eye.

Geesh.

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

Coffee Lover
May 21st 07, 05:18 AM
On Sun, 20 May 2007 18:40:34 -0400, kony > , A non
coffee lover Said:

>On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:48:25 -0400, Coffee Lover
> wrote:
>
>>I got my resolution AS high as possible right now.
>>I read/heard the higher the resolution, you get a drop in performance?
>
>Usually no, sometimes yes.
>
>Try being specific with hardware details and use, and you
>might get a specific answer.

OS-Windows XP.Home SP2 5.1.2600
Motherboard-Asus A8S-X BIOS 08/26/05 VER: 08.00.10 SiS 756 AMD Hammer
CPU-AMD Athlon 64 3500+ Venice S939 Step DH-E6
Monitor- LG L1933TR-SF LCD 19"
Video Card-NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GS(256 MB) NV41GS
Memory-Corsair VS1GB400C3 1GB(PC3200 DDR SDRAM)
Hard Drive-Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3320620AS Perpendicular
Recording Technology 320GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s
DVD-SAMSUNG IDE Model SH-S182M/BEBE 18X DVDR DVD Burner 12X DVD-RAM
Write, LightScribe

FKS
May 21st 07, 06:43 AM
"hummingbird" > wrote in message
...
>
> I use 800 x 600 on my 17" LCD and it displays at lightning speed
> with excellent sharpness etc. I'm at a loss to know why so many
> people use higher res on similar monitors.

Run the monitor at its native resolution and see what you've been missing.

kony
May 21st 07, 07:49 AM
On Mon, 21 May 2007 00:18:01 -0400, Coffee Lover
> wrote:

>On Sun, 20 May 2007 18:40:34 -0400, kony > , A non
>coffee lover Said:
>
>>On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:48:25 -0400, Coffee Lover
> wrote:
>>
>>>I got my resolution AS high as possible right now.
>>>I read/heard the higher the resolution, you get a drop in performance?
>>
>>Usually no, sometimes yes.
>>
>>Try being specific with hardware details and use, and you
>>might get a specific answer.
>
>OS-Windows XP.Home SP2 5.1.2600
>Motherboard-Asus A8S-X BIOS 08/26/05 VER: 08.00.10 SiS 756 AMD Hammer
>CPU-AMD Athlon 64 3500+ Venice S939 Step DH-E6
>Monitor- LG L1933TR-SF LCD 19"
>Video Card-NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GS(256 MB) NV41GS
>Memory-Corsair VS1GB400C3 1GB(PC3200 DDR SDRAM)
>Hard Drive-Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3320620AS Perpendicular
>Recording Technology 320GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s
>DVD-SAMSUNG IDE Model SH-S182M/BEBE 18X DVDR DVD Burner 12X DVD-RAM
>Write, LightScribe


In typical 2D uses, you have no bottleneck from the
resolution. In modern 3D gaming, you will begin to see some
framerate reductions with moderate to higher eyecandy, but
depending on the game it may still be an acceptible
compromise.

In general, use the resolution you desire without concern
until you see obvious choppiness on-screen.

hummingbird[_2_]
May 21st 07, 11:06 AM
On Mon, 21 May 2007 00:27:50 +0100 'hummingbird'
posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:

>On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:48:25 -0400 'Coffee Lover'
>posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:
>
>>I got my resolution AS high as possible right now.
>>I read/heard the higher the resolution, you get a drop in performance?
>>1280 X 1024 right now, what's a good one for performance?
>>
>>Or does it matter????????
>
>I use 800 x 600 on my 17" LCD and it displays at lightning speed
>with excellent sharpness etc. I'm at a loss to know why so many
>people use higher res on similar monitors.

Frank & FKS:
I can see no reference to 'native resolution' in any of the utils
which display monitor specs. The max resolution of my monitor is
reported as being 1280 x 1024 ...is this what you mean by native?
Native resolution may be referenced in the small user manual which
I can't locate right now.

Whether upgrading to 1280 x 1024 would improve the image on the
screen, I don't know. My current 800 x 600 @32bit colour & 75Hz
refresh rate already produces excellent image/colour quality when
viewing my digital camera pix etc and possibly generates images faster
than a higher resolution. I know there's some debate about that.

Although I'm interested in this I'm unlikely to change the resolution
settings because I have large numbers of scanned documents and
thousands of images which I have sized to display on screen in the way
I want. Using a higher resolution would make them appear smaller on
the screen.

hummingbird[_2_]
May 21st 07, 11:09 AM
On Mon, 21 May 2007 11:06:06 +0100 'hummingbird'
posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:

>On Mon, 21 May 2007 00:27:50 +0100 'hummingbird'
>posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:
>
>>On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:48:25 -0400 'Coffee Lover'
>>posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:
>>
>>>I got my resolution AS high as possible right now.
>>>I read/heard the higher the resolution, you get a drop in performance?
>>>1280 X 1024 right now, what's a good one for performance?
>>>
>>>Or does it matter????????
>>
>>I use 800 x 600 on my 17" LCD and it displays at lightning speed
>>with excellent sharpness etc. I'm at a loss to know why so many
>>people use higher res on similar monitors.
>
>Frank & FKS:
>I can see no reference to 'native resolution' in any of the utils
>which display monitor specs. The max resolution of my monitor is
>reported as being 1280 x 1024 ...is this what you mean by native?
>Native resolution may be referenced in the small user manual which
>I can't locate right now.
>
>Whether upgrading to 1280 x 1024 would improve the image on the
>screen, I don't know. My current 800 x 600 @32bit colour & 75Hz
>refresh rate already produces excellent image/colour quality when
>viewing my digital camera pix etc and possibly generates images faster
>than a higher resolution. I know there's some debate about that.
>
>Although I'm interested in this I'm unlikely to change the resolution
>settings because I have large numbers of scanned documents and
>thousands of images which I have sized to display on screen in the way
>I want. Using a higher resolution would make them appear smaller on
>the screen.

I would add that I never use my PC for gaming etc ... just regular
stuff + TV card viewing.

Frank McCoy
May 21st 07, 04:05 PM
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt hummingbird >
wrote:

>On Mon, 21 May 2007 00:27:50 +0100 'hummingbird'
>posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:
>
>>On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:48:25 -0400 'Coffee Lover'
>>posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:
>>
>>>I got my resolution AS high as possible right now.
>>>I read/heard the higher the resolution, you get a drop in performance?
>>>1280 X 1024 right now, what's a good one for performance?
>>>
>>>Or does it matter????????
>>
>>I use 800 x 600 on my 17" LCD and it displays at lightning speed
>>with excellent sharpness etc. I'm at a loss to know why so many
>>people use higher res on similar monitors.
>
>Frank & FKS:
>I can see no reference to 'native resolution' in any of the utils
>which display monitor specs. The max resolution of my monitor is
>reported as being 1280 x 1024 ...is this what you mean by native?
>Native resolution may be referenced in the small user manual which
>I can't locate right now.
>
Most likely, if it's shown as max, that's your native resolution.
Most modern LCD panel displays report to the OS what resolutions they
support (as do most modern CRTs). I'm not sure exactly how they do; but
am pretty sure it's part of the VESA spec for monitors.

>Whether upgrading to 1280 x 1024 would improve the image on the
>screen, I don't know. My current 800 x 600 @32bit colour & 75Hz
>refresh rate already produces excellent image/colour quality when
>viewing my digital camera pix etc and possibly generates images faster
>than a higher resolution. I know there's some debate about that.
>
Actually, going "native" in this case *could* actually make things
faster ... but most likely the images would be generated at the same
rate. And as for image/colour quality ... You don't know what you're
missing by not running at native resolution. I think you'll find the
difference is about the same as shifting from EGA resolution to 800x600.

Yes, THAT much.

>Although I'm interested in this I'm unlikely to change the resolution
>settings because I have large numbers of scanned documents and
>thousands of images which I have sized to display on screen in the way
>I want. Using a higher resolution would make them appear smaller on
>the screen.

Actually, I'd say TRY IT!!!
I think you'd find the difference in size minimal between 800x600 and
1280x1024; being not much of a (only 60%) difference, while the
improvement in *clarity* could be tremendous!

IOW: Even though *smaller*, with native resolution the images would be
*so much sharper*, they'd be far easier on the eye to look at and grasp.

I don't think you fully realize what a compromise it is when downgrading
resolution on an LCD panel. On a CRT monitor, not much is lost, if any.
On an LCD, the things done to make lower resolutions work at all is
really CRAPPY.

Try it: You'll never go back; and wonder why you ever ran in that mode
on an LCD panel in the first place.

If it doesn't work, you can always shift back.
It only takes a few SECONDS to shift resolutions, you know.
And, a few more to shift back.
Run a few of your favorite programs.
Look at some of your favorite pictures.
Shift between modes, and see the astounding difference.
Geesh.

An LCD panel is pretty much CRIPPLED except at native resolution.
Especially one below 1680x1050 native.
Even there, the compromises are bad.

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

Frank McCoy
May 21st 07, 04:11 PM
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt hummingbird >
wrote:

>On Mon, 21 May 2007 11:06:06 +0100 'hummingbird'
>posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:
>
>>On Mon, 21 May 2007 00:27:50 +0100 'hummingbird'
>>posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:
>>
>>>On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:48:25 -0400 'Coffee Lover'
>>>posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:
>>>
>>>>I got my resolution AS high as possible right now.
>>>>I read/heard the higher the resolution, you get a drop in performance?
>>>>1280 X 1024 right now, what's a good one for performance?
>>>>
>>>>Or does it matter????????
>>>
>>>I use 800 x 600 on my 17" LCD and it displays at lightning speed
>>>with excellent sharpness etc. I'm at a loss to know why so many
>>>people use higher res on similar monitors.
>>
>>Frank & FKS:
>>I can see no reference to 'native resolution' in any of the utils
>>which display monitor specs. The max resolution of my monitor is
>>reported as being 1280 x 1024 ...is this what you mean by native?
>>Native resolution may be referenced in the small user manual which
>>I can't locate right now.
>>
>>Whether upgrading to 1280 x 1024 would improve the image on the
>>screen, I don't know. My current 800 x 600 @32bit colour & 75Hz
>>refresh rate already produces excellent image/colour quality when
>>viewing my digital camera pix etc and possibly generates images faster
>>than a higher resolution. I know there's some debate about that.
>>
>>Although I'm interested in this I'm unlikely to change the resolution
>>settings because I have large numbers of scanned documents and
>>thousands of images which I have sized to display on screen in the way
>>I want. Using a higher resolution would make them appear smaller on
>>the screen.
>
>I would add that I never use my PC for gaming etc ... just regular
>stuff + TV card viewing.

All the more reason to go with native resolution.
GAMES generally switch resolutions to what the game thinks it needs with
a particular card. Often you're forced to downgrade resolutions to get
decent speed on a particular game.

With a normal desktop however, you don't have that problem.
And, since there's *no* speed penalty (the subject of the thread) on
just about any desktop use, why make your eyes bleed by looking at a bad
compromise for an LCD panel? It's about like deliberately taking
out-of-focus pictures on a good camera that you bought for it's quality.

Worse actually, if you knew what the software actually does to even
display a downgraded resolution on an LCD panel.

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

hummingbird[_2_]
May 21st 07, 06:49 PM
On Mon, 21 May 2007 10:05:50 -0500 'Frank McCoy'
posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:

>In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt hummingbird >
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 21 May 2007 00:27:50 +0100 'hummingbird'
>>posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:
>>
>>>On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:48:25 -0400 'Coffee Lover'
>>>posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:
>>>
>>>>I got my resolution AS high as possible right now.
>>>>I read/heard the higher the resolution, you get a drop in performance?
>>>>1280 X 1024 right now, what's a good one for performance?
>>>>
>>>>Or does it matter????????
>>>
>>>I use 800 x 600 on my 17" LCD and it displays at lightning speed
>>>with excellent sharpness etc. I'm at a loss to know why so many
>>>people use higher res on similar monitors.
>>
>>Frank & FKS:
>>I can see no reference to 'native resolution' in any of the utils
>>which display monitor specs. The max resolution of my monitor is
>>reported as being 1280 x 1024 ...is this what you mean by native?
>>Native resolution may be referenced in the small user manual which
>>I can't locate right now.
>>
>Most likely, if it's shown as max, that's your native resolution.
>Most modern LCD panel displays report to the OS what resolutions they
>support (as do most modern CRTs). I'm not sure exactly how they do; but
>am pretty sure it's part of the VESA spec for monitors.
>
>>Whether upgrading to 1280 x 1024 would improve the image on the
>>screen, I don't know. My current 800 x 600 @32bit colour & 75Hz
>>refresh rate already produces excellent image/colour quality when
>>viewing my digital camera pix etc and possibly generates images faster
>>than a higher resolution. I know there's some debate about that.
>>
>Actually, going "native" in this case *could* actually make things
>faster ... but most likely the images would be generated at the same
>rate. And as for image/colour quality ... You don't know what you're
>missing by not running at native resolution. I think you'll find the
>difference is about the same as shifting from EGA resolution to 800x600.
>
>Yes, THAT much.
>
>>Although I'm interested in this I'm unlikely to change the resolution
>>settings because I have large numbers of scanned documents and
>>thousands of images which I have sized to display on screen in the way
>>I want. Using a higher resolution would make them appear smaller on
>>the screen.
>
>Actually, I'd say TRY IT!!!
>I think you'd find the difference in size minimal between 800x600 and
>1280x1024; being not much of a (only 60%) difference, while the
>improvement in *clarity* could be tremendous!
>
>IOW: Even though *smaller*, with native resolution the images would be
>*so much sharper*, they'd be far easier on the eye to look at and grasp.
>
>I don't think you fully realize what a compromise it is when downgrading
>resolution on an LCD panel. On a CRT monitor, not much is lost, if any.
>On an LCD, the things done to make lower resolutions work at all is
>really CRAPPY.
>
>Try it: You'll never go back; and wonder why you ever ran in that mode
>on an LCD panel in the first place.
>
>If it doesn't work, you can always shift back.
>It only takes a few SECONDS to shift resolutions, you know.
>And, a few more to shift back.
>Run a few of your favorite programs.
>Look at some of your favorite pictures.
>Shift between modes, and see the astounding difference.
>Geesh.
>
>An LCD panel is pretty much CRIPPLED except at native resolution.
>Especially one below 1680x1050 native.
>Even there, the compromises are bad.

Right!!!!!!!! I'm going to give it a try overnight UK time and report
back here tomorrow. I predict that the difference will be minimal
but will openly admit the truth of whatever it does.
Watch this space!.................

KCB
May 21st 07, 09:02 PM
"Frank McCoy" > wrote in message
...
> In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Coffee Lover
> > wrote:
>
>>I got my resolution AS high as possible right now.
>>I read/heard the higher the resolution, you get a drop in performance?
>>1280 X 1024 right now, what's a good one for performance?
>>
>>Or does it matter????????
>
> Depends on your CPU speed and your card capability.
> For most even reasonably recent boards I usually use 1600x1200 for the
> desktop.
> Higher resolution makes most things too small.
> Even with that resolution, I pick large icons and adjust the font
> sizes.
> By doing that, things look a lot better.
> Large scaled fonts on a higher resolution machine are just easier on
> the
> eye than small fonts on a lower resolution machine scaled to the same
> size. They're just finer grained; and the eye sees them better.
>
> The bigger the monitor, the more resolution you need.
> On a 17" monitor, 1024x768 is probably enough.
> For a 19", I'd go with what you got.
> For something bigger, go higher.
> For an LCD monitor, go with "native resolution".
> (My LCD, for example, is 1680x1050 ... just a tad better than a 21"
> CRT
> at 1600x1200.)
>
> Games are different.
> There you keep raising the resolution until you see the response-time
> of
> the game drop. Once that happens, you drop down one step. Each game
> will likely be different in this. Choose as much hardware
> acceleration
> as your board and game will permit. Sometimes there's a trade-off
> between hardware techniques like shading and resolution. That you
> have
> to experiment with to see which looks best to you.
>
> --
> _____
> / ' / T
> ,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
> (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

Frank, 1600*1200 has 156,000 more pixels than your 1680*1050. Other
than being wide-screen, how is yours a tad better?

Frank McCoy
May 21st 07, 09:46 PM
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "KCB" >
wrote:

>Frank, 1600*1200 has 156,000 more pixels than your 1680*1050. Other
>than being wide-screen, how is yours a tad better?

Because the pixels on the LCD screen are *much* better defined; and
don't bleed into each other like those on a CRT do. This makes
(viewing-wise) much clearer Icons and even text; almost like going up
the next step in resolution to 2400x1800, without having to change sizes
of everything to match. Each pixel is more *distinct* from the next
one. Also, the screen is *always* filled out to the edges, perfectly
square, with no tilt, keystone, pincushion, or other defect like purity
and misalignment that you get in CRT screens at similar definitions.

So the LCD panel at close to the same number of pixels *greatly*
outshines the CRT at the a similar resolution.

That's why I bought it ... That and the CRT getting a tad jittery.

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

Mr.E Solved!
May 21st 07, 10:32 PM
Frank McCoy wrote:


> So the LCD panel at close to the same number of pixels *greatly*
> outshines the CRT at the a similar resolution.

Can you say that again for the audience at home having a hard time
trying to understand what you are saying?

> That's why I bought it ... That and the CRT getting a tad jittery.

You were quite right about LCD panels being at their best at their
native resolution, you should quit while you are ahead, fair warning! :)

DaveW[_4_]
May 21st 07, 11:50 PM
You did not say what type of monitor you have: CRT or LCD? It matters. If
you have an LCD then you HAVE to set the monitor to it's Native Resolution,
which is the ONLY resolution that will cause images and text to appear with
maximum detail.
Check you owner's manual.

--
---------------------
DaveW
"Coffee Lover" > wrote in message
...
>I got my resolution AS high as possible right now.
> I read/heard the higher the resolution, you get a drop in performance?
> 1280 X 1024 right now, what's a good one for performance?
>
> Or does it matter????????
>

KCB
May 22nd 07, 02:03 AM
"Frank McCoy" > wrote in message
...
> In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "KCB"
> >
> wrote:
>
>>Frank, 1600*1200 has 156,000 more pixels than your 1680*1050. Other
>>than being wide-screen, how is yours a tad better?
>
> Because the pixels on the LCD screen are *much* better defined; and
> don't bleed into each other like those on a CRT do. This makes
> (viewing-wise) much clearer Icons and even text; almost like going up
> the next step in resolution to 2400x1800, without having to change
> sizes
> of everything to match. Each pixel is more *distinct* from the next
> one. Also, the screen is *always* filled out to the edges, perfectly
> square, with no tilt, keystone, pincushion, or other defect like
> purity
> and misalignment that you get in CRT screens at similar definitions.
>
> So the LCD panel at close to the same number of pixels *greatly*
> outshines the CRT at the a similar resolution.
>
> That's why I bought it ... That and the CRT getting a tad jittery.

IOW, that's your opinion. You stated it previously as if it were fact.
Thanks for clearing that up.

Frank McCoy
May 22nd 07, 02:37 AM
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "Mr.E Solved!" >
wrote:

>Frank McCoy wrote:
>
>
>> So the LCD panel at close to the same number of pixels *greatly*
>> outshines the CRT at the a similar resolution.
>
>Can you say that again for the audience at home having a hard time
>trying to understand what you are saying?
>
Well, you can put one side-by side, and SEE the difference.
However, think of it this way: On an LCD, a pixel is a pixel is a pixel.
Each has *NO* effect on the one next to it.
On a CRT, each pixel is a blurry dot. HOW blurry, depends on the native
resolution of the monitor, or "dot-pitch", along with overall monitor
size. Usually people pay no attention to dot-pitch; only the number
lines or dots it can take in as supposed "resolution". However, the
resolution of a CRT monitor mean nothing if the dot-pitch is large
enough that several pixel bleed over into each other as one dot to the
eye.
VERY few CRT monitors, except some very expensive 21" types can actually
get any benefit of much higher resolution than 1280x1024. The dot-pitch
and monitor-size work together to determine the largest *practical*
resolution for that particular monitor; even if it will *accept* much
higher resolutions as input; and the video-card will output those modes.

Thus each colored pixel on the CRT monitor "bleeds" over onto the next
one; modifying it's color unless the two adjacent pixels are nearly the
same color anyway. The overall effect is slight out-of-focus fuzziness
on higher resolutions; when the effect *should* be increased sharpness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot_pitch

Note that focus, type of screen, and a bunch of other parameters all
effect dot-pitch; and the screen-size also has lots to do with the
maximum density displayable. Divide the screen size by the dot pitch
(using the same type of measurements. Screens are measured in inches
while dot-pitch is measured in millimeters) and get the *possible*
resolution of the monitor. However, due to various CRT defects, along
with things like misalignment, and very few CRT monitors live up to
their promises.

On the other hand, EVERY pixel in an LCD monitor is separate from every
other, there's NO bleed-over, no pincushion effect, no misalignment of
three different colors even at the extreme corners, etc. Each pixel is
alone, separately addressed, and as clear and distinct from all others
at the corners as it is in the center. NO CRT monitor can make that
claim; not even those costing several thousand dollars.

Sometime LOOK at a CRT monitor with a magnifying glass, or better-yet, a
jeweler's loupe. Especially look in the corners.

Then do the same thing with an LCD panel at native resolution.

Finally, do the same thing with an LCD panel emulating some *other*
resolution than native.

The LCD panel at native resolution will outshine either of the others;
while likely the CRT will FAR outshine the LCD panel when running at
reduced resolution.

That's both the plus and the minus of LCD or plasma panels. At their
native resolution (if decently high enough) they FAR outstrip CRT
displays at similar resolutions. However, if your job requires changing
resolutions often, then you'd usually be far better off with a CRT
monitor of decent size and dot-pitch.

I really don't recommend anything less than a full 21" CRT Monitor these
days; nor an LCD panel with less than 1680x1050 (if wide-screen) or
1600x1200 (if "standard" shape).

Even a *good* 21" CRT monitor is usually being pushed past it's
dot-pitch when you select resolutions above 1600x1200; so I don't
recommend that, even though most such monitors support far higher input
resolutions. They just don't do a decent job of actually *displaying*
such stuff.

>> That's why I bought it ... That and the CRT getting a tad jittery.
>
>You were quite right about LCD panels being at their best at their
>native resolution, you should quit while you are ahead, fair warning! :)
>
Don't think so. I know whereof I speak.
I've worked with CRT displays since long before most people here were
even born.

Like I say, LOOK at the various displays under magnification.
It's a real eye-opener.

THEN look at the two in side-by-side comparisons.
Again, if your eyes are any good, the difference is astounding.
MOST people just stand back and look at the total picture-size and think
that's what actually counts. It isn't. Dot-pitch, versus screen-size
does. Or, in an LCD panel, the equivalent is native resolution.

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

Frank McCoy
May 22nd 07, 03:04 AM
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "KCB" >
wrote:

>
>"Frank McCoy" > wrote in message
...
>> In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "KCB"
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Frank, 1600*1200 has 156,000 more pixels than your 1680*1050. Other
>>>than being wide-screen, how is yours a tad better?
>>
>> Because the pixels on the LCD screen are *much* better defined; and
>> don't bleed into each other like those on a CRT do. This makes
>> (viewing-wise) much clearer Icons and even text; almost like going up
>> the next step in resolution to 2400x1800, without having to change
>> sizes
>> of everything to match. Each pixel is more *distinct* from the next
>> one. Also, the screen is *always* filled out to the edges, perfectly
>> square, with no tilt, keystone, pincushion, or other defect like
>> purity
>> and misalignment that you get in CRT screens at similar definitions.
>>
>> So the LCD panel at close to the same number of pixels *greatly*
>> outshines the CRT at the a similar resolution.
>>
>> That's why I bought it ... That and the CRT getting a tad jittery.
>
>IOW, that's your opinion. You stated it previously as if it were fact.
>Thanks for clearing that up.
>
Um ... It *IS* fact.
Look at both side-by-side, and you'll SEE the difference!
Especially if you use magnification.

I know ... I've got two side-by-side right here and now.
The 21" CRT looks crappy by comparison at 1600x1200 and the LCD at
1680x1050; and that's one damned *EXPENSIVE* CRT monitor!

Actually, I have *three* fairly expensive 21" monitors, all darned good
ones; and all three look crappy next to the LCD if you examine each
closely. Stand back about four feet, and you can't see any difference,
of course.

Don't believe me.
Don't take my word for it.
Go somewhere and LOOK at the two side-by-side.
There's a damned good reason for the LCD looking better by far, *IF* you
have any real knowledge of how each technology works.

I've explained it several times in this thread.
All I can say now is go *LOOK* and see for yourself.
I'm not lying; and I'm NOT exaggerating!

The CRT monitors look fuzzy and out-of-focus next to the LCD panels at
similar resolutions. Most especially so at the corners. The LCD panels
also EXACTLY fill out the screen; while with good adjustment of a CRT
you can only get *close* to doing so without either not displaying the
whole thing, or leaving black borders in some parts of the screen.

Don't believe me?
Try it yourself and see!
Geesh.

Hell, come over to my house and I'll *SHOW* you the difference,
side-by-side with the same card driving both monitors.

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

Sjouke Burry
May 22nd 07, 03:19 AM
Frank McCoy wrote:
> In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "KCB" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Frank McCoy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "KCB"
>>> >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Frank, 1600*1200 has 156,000 more pixels than your 1680*1050. Other
>>>> than being wide-screen, how is yours a tad better?
>>> Because the pixels on the LCD screen are *much* better defined; and
>>> don't bleed into each other like those on a CRT do. This makes
>>> (viewing-wise) much clearer Icons and even text; almost like going up
>>> the next step in resolution to 2400x1800, without having to change
>>> sizes
>>> of everything to match. Each pixel is more *distinct* from the next
>>> one. Also, the screen is *always* filled out to the edges, perfectly
>>> square, with no tilt, keystone, pincushion, or other defect like
>>> purity
>>> and misalignment that you get in CRT screens at similar definitions.
>>>
>>> So the LCD panel at close to the same number of pixels *greatly*
>>> outshines the CRT at the a similar resolution.
>>>
>>> That's why I bought it ... That and the CRT getting a tad jittery.
>> IOW, that's your opinion. You stated it previously as if it were fact.
>> Thanks for clearing that up.
>>
> Um ... It *IS* fact.
> Look at both side-by-side, and you'll SEE the difference!
> Especially if you use magnification.
>
> I know ... I've got two side-by-side right here and now.
> The 21" CRT looks crappy by comparison at 1600x1200 and the LCD at
> 1680x1050; and that's one damned *EXPENSIVE* CRT monitor!
>
> Actually, I have *three* fairly expensive 21" monitors, all darned good
> ones; and all three look crappy next to the LCD if you examine each
> closely. Stand back about four feet, and you can't see any difference,
> of course.
>
> Don't believe me.
> Don't take my word for it.
> Go somewhere and LOOK at the two side-by-side.
> There's a damned good reason for the LCD looking better by far, *IF* you
> have any real knowledge of how each technology works.
>
> I've explained it several times in this thread.
> All I can say now is go *LOOK* and see for yourself.
> I'm not lying; and I'm NOT exaggerating!
>
> The CRT monitors look fuzzy and out-of-focus next to the LCD panels at
> similar resolutions. Most especially so at the corners. The LCD panels
> also EXACTLY fill out the screen; while with good adjustment of a CRT
> you can only get *close* to doing so without either not displaying the
> whole thing, or leaving black borders in some parts of the screen.
>
> Don't believe me?
> Try it yourself and see!
> Geesh.
>
> Hell, come over to my house and I'll *SHOW* you the difference,
> side-by-side with the same card driving both monitors.
>
Why dont you put a color photo on them side by side.
And then move your head a bit around.
And enjoy the horrible color depth of the LCD.

Coffee Lover
May 22nd 07, 03:44 AM
Wow, looks like I started an ber debate of native resolution.

I got my answers though.

You kids be safe playing the 'cowboys and indians' resolution games.


People with IQ's above 120 will get the last line ;-)

Frank McCoy
May 22nd 07, 04:08 AM
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Sjouke Burry
> wrote:

>Frank McCoy wrote:
>> In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "KCB" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Frank McCoy" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "KCB"
>>>> >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Frank, 1600*1200 has 156,000 more pixels than your 1680*1050. Other
>>>>> than being wide-screen, how is yours a tad better?
>>>> Because the pixels on the LCD screen are *much* better defined; and
>>>> don't bleed into each other like those on a CRT do. This makes
>>>> (viewing-wise) much clearer Icons and even text; almost like going up
>>>> the next step in resolution to 2400x1800, without having to change
>>>> sizes
>>>> of everything to match. Each pixel is more *distinct* from the next
>>>> one. Also, the screen is *always* filled out to the edges, perfectly
>>>> square, with no tilt, keystone, pincushion, or other defect like
>>>> purity
>>>> and misalignment that you get in CRT screens at similar definitions.
>>>>
>>>> So the LCD panel at close to the same number of pixels *greatly*
>>>> outshines the CRT at the a similar resolution.
>>>>
>>>> That's why I bought it ... That and the CRT getting a tad jittery.
>>> IOW, that's your opinion. You stated it previously as if it were fact.
>>> Thanks for clearing that up.
>>>
>> Um ... It *IS* fact.
>> Look at both side-by-side, and you'll SEE the difference!
>> Especially if you use magnification.
>>
>> I know ... I've got two side-by-side right here and now.
>> The 21" CRT looks crappy by comparison at 1600x1200 and the LCD at
>> 1680x1050; and that's one damned *EXPENSIVE* CRT monitor!
>>
>> Actually, I have *three* fairly expensive 21" monitors, all darned good
>> ones; and all three look crappy next to the LCD if you examine each
>> closely. Stand back about four feet, and you can't see any difference,
>> of course.
>>
>> Don't believe me.
>> Don't take my word for it.
>> Go somewhere and LOOK at the two side-by-side.
>> There's a damned good reason for the LCD looking better by far, *IF* you
>> have any real knowledge of how each technology works.
>>
>> I've explained it several times in this thread.
>> All I can say now is go *LOOK* and see for yourself.
>> I'm not lying; and I'm NOT exaggerating!
>>
>> The CRT monitors look fuzzy and out-of-focus next to the LCD panels at
>> similar resolutions. Most especially so at the corners. The LCD panels
>> also EXACTLY fill out the screen; while with good adjustment of a CRT
>> you can only get *close* to doing so without either not displaying the
>> whole thing, or leaving black borders in some parts of the screen.
>>
>> Don't believe me?
>> Try it yourself and see!
>> Geesh.
>>
>> Hell, come over to my house and I'll *SHOW* you the difference,
>> side-by-side with the same card driving both monitors.
>>
>Why dont you put a color photo on them side by side.
>And then move your head a bit around.
>And enjoy the horrible color depth of the LCD.

Do/did.
When moving the head, the CRT flickers a bit because of it's refresh.
The LCD panel doesn't.

As to color-depth; I can't see any difference.
Don't know what LCD panels *you* look at; but modern ones are pretty
good for color display. At least *mine* is anyway.

The one place the LCD panel loses out a bit is full-motion video from
the TV. It's not *quite* up to snuff in comparison. The response time
is a tad slow. They both look about the same playing MPG files or
decoding DVD movies; but then *those* are compressed and made for
digital displays.

Looked at close up with a static display though, the LCD panel wins
hands down. Yes, with both showing full 32-bit color, side-by-side.
(I never run at anything but full 32-bit color anyway.)
Full color pictures are my normal wallpaper.
Pictures I took myself with a digital camera.
Most pictures on the net are crap in comparison, unless you want to
spend a half hour or so downloading even at high rates. Take up *lots*
of my usable memory though. But with 1 gig main memory, what's a few
extra megabytes for wallpaper?

Don't know what crappy displays *you* have been looking at ... Obviously
nothing modern though.

Oh yeah ... In truth, the CRT monitor DOES have a blacker black ... But
it looks way too dark when I set it that way; so that's not a real
advantage. When I set both to the contrast and brightness I prefer,
they look pretty much identical except:
A. The CRT looks crappy at edges and corners.
B. The CRT purity shows up worse across the screen.
(The LCD purity isn't perfect either.)
C. The CRT has a background flicker.
The LCD doesn't.
D. The LCD fills the screen edge-to-edge and side-to-side.
The CRT doesn't.
E. The CRT has color fringes around the edges of things, caused
by misalignment of the three color guns at the corners.
The LCD doesn't.
F. The characters in the corners look out of focus on the CRT.
The same characters are as sharp at the edges as in the center
on the LCD panel.
F. The brightness is *slightly* more even on the CRT from edge to edge.
But it's not noticeably so unless you look *really* close.
G. Looked at under magnification, the pixels on the CRT "squirm"
slightly. The LCD panels pixels don't.
F: Looked at under magnification you wonder how you even SEE characters
in small fonts in the corners of the CRT. Blown up, they sometimes
are unrecognizable. For some reason though, the eye compensates
when you pull back. I suspect that's because different colors focus
in different spots on the retina anyway; and the brain is used to
automatically compensating for close differences in such things.
The LCD characters though, are *much* easier on the eye.

Now most of these differences are NOT very noticeable taken one-by-one;
but when side-by-side and especially looking close at both; the LCD
panel wins hands down in almost every test except speed of response.

It's also FAR easier on the eye; because the LCD panel doesn't flicker
*AT ALL*; even though the refresh-rate is only 60Hz. That's because the
LCD panel is *digital*; and each pixel remains on or off or whatever at
the same level from frame to frame; while the phosphors on a CRT
constantly fade from frame to frame and have to be refreshed; thus
making higher refresh-rates "better" for a CRT. In contrast, LCD panels
only HAVE on "rate" because they don't get better with faster ... In
fact, they aren't designed for any other rate.

That does cause problems with Windows ... At least XP anyway; when you
go to "Safe Mode". Micro$hit wrote XP in days when everything was going
CRT; and assumed (we all know what ass-u-me does) that any modern
monitor when going minimal resolution or VGA mode, would easily handle
85Hz as a refresh-rate. Well, LCD panels *don't*. They don't need it,
don't WANT it, and can't handle it. They run at 60Hz *only*.

Thus to run "Safe Mode" with an LCD panel and Windows-XP, you have to
set /BASEVIDEO with msconfig in the BOOT.INI file. An annoyance.
I expect Vista corrects that; since wide-screen digital displays are the
"coming thing".
However, Vista *breaks* about everything else, so ....

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

kony
May 22nd 07, 04:39 AM
On Mon, 21 May 2007 17:32:01 -0400, "Mr.E Solved!"
> wrote:

>Frank McCoy wrote:
>
>
>> So the LCD panel at close to the same number of pixels *greatly*
>> outshines the CRT at the a similar resolution.
>
>Can you say that again for the audience at home having a hard time
>trying to understand what you are saying?
>
>> That's why I bought it ... That and the CRT getting a tad jittery.
>
>You were quite right about LCD panels being at their best at their
>native resolution, you should quit while you are ahead, fair warning! :)


No he's right.

kony
May 22nd 07, 04:41 AM
On Mon, 21 May 2007 21:03:19 -0400, "KCB"
> wrote:

>
>"Frank McCoy" > wrote in message
...
>> In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "KCB"
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Frank, 1600*1200 has 156,000 more pixels than your 1680*1050. Other
>>>than being wide-screen, how is yours a tad better?
>>
>> Because the pixels on the LCD screen are *much* better defined; and
>> don't bleed into each other like those on a CRT do. This makes
>> (viewing-wise) much clearer Icons and even text; almost like going up
>> the next step in resolution to 2400x1800, without having to change
>> sizes
>> of everything to match. Each pixel is more *distinct* from the next
>> one. Also, the screen is *always* filled out to the edges, perfectly
>> square, with no tilt, keystone, pincushion, or other defect like
>> purity
>> and misalignment that you get in CRT screens at similar definitions.
>>
>> So the LCD panel at close to the same number of pixels *greatly*
>> outshines the CRT at the a similar resolution.
>>
>> That's why I bought it ... That and the CRT getting a tad jittery.
>
>IOW, that's your opinion. You stated it previously as if it were fact.
>Thanks for clearing that up.
>

It may be his opinion as to why it's better for any certain
use but it is not opinion that the pixels are substantially
better defined, that this necessarily makes clearer icons
and text.

kony
May 22nd 07, 04:42 AM
On Tue, 22 May 2007 04:19:37 +0200, Sjouke Burry
> wrote:


>Why dont you put a color photo on them side by side.
>And then move your head a bit around.
>And enjoy the horrible color depth of the LCD.


If you find your head can't stay still while using a
computer, you might consider a head brace or some stronger
medication?

Mr.E Solved!
May 22nd 07, 04:46 AM
Frank McCoy wrote:

>
> Even a *good* 21" CRT monitor is usually being pushed past it's
> dot-pitch when you select resolutions above 1600x1200; so I don't
> recommend that, even though most such monitors support far higher input
> resolutions. They just don't do a decent job of actually *displaying*
> such stuff.

Absurd nonsense. I would methodically go over each and every point with
you, even the subjective ones, but when you boldly mis-state technical
capabilities to try and make your point, you end up taking all the fun
out of having a discussion of the merits.

A 21" monitor, even the 'good' ones can and do display resolutions
higher than 1600x1200, in fact they are recommended to run the desktop
higher than 1600x1200.

Perhaps you do not know what a BNC cable is, you use that when you are
running high resolutions on CRTs, it provides for a superior image than
that provided by the more common Dsub15 cable. Of course, in your side
by side offer to compare, you have BNC cables on those monitors, right?



> Don't think so. I know whereof I speak.
> I've worked with CRT displays since long before most people here were
> even born.

Then you have wasted a lot of time not really understanding how these
displays function, but as I closely read your posts it is clear to me
you actually do understand how they function and that you actually do
agree with me in that CRTs are superior in almost every single
measurable criteria, far far superior in many criteria when, as you
mention 'good', 21" CRTs are used. Which are all that are left in the
current sparse CRT market, as they are still viable products and will be
until a better technology takes their place such as SED, which has the
advantages of a digital display and the advantages of a CRT all rolled
into one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-conduction_electron-emitter_display


> Like I say, LOOK at the various displays under magnification.
> It's a real eye-opener.

Why look at a display under magnification? You look at a display in the
conditions you would likely be using it in. You get the right display
that will best suit your purposes and budget. LCDs have advantages, one
if them is not superior image quality. They can display text with
greater contrast in some circumstances and static images with greater
vividness and more brightness than CRTs. They also have a smaller form
factor and can do widescreen more easily than CRTs, not to mention their
seemingly endless currently cheap supply. Their greatest advantage is
their ability to scale to very large sizes (40+ inches), which CRTs can
not do.

That said, color depth on LCDs is comically bad resulting in ever
present banding, moving images are subject to a host of noticeable
artifacts (such as over shoot and ghosting) inherent to the chosen
electronics and are deal breakers for many gamers. Blacks aren't black
enough, never will be. Refresh rates are fixed and native resolutions
must be adhered to or (more) scaling artifacts are added.

Not to mention, input lag is an issue with LCD panels, further
complicating the gamers position. The one true advantage, widescreen, is
also not unique to LCDs, Sony makes a stunning 24" widescreen CRT, and
it plays Oblivion with a richness and visual quality impossible to match
with any digital panel. Care to see that for yourself?

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=952788

Take a look at some of those screen shots of widescreen Oblivion (and
WOW and Far Cry) on a 24" CRT that can be had for about $500, about the
cost of a new 21" CRT. I challenge you to provide a screen shot of a
game on a widescreen LCD that has the same color reproduction, dynamic
range of light to dark, no input lag, a non fixed refresh rate, no
motion artifacts...you can't so don't bother.

LCD engineers have been struggling desperately to make LCD panels
attractive to gamers, the latest BenQ LCD with fancy 'shutter'
technology, to minimize the in motion artifacts I just mentioned, by
getting the LCD panel to appear more like a CRT. Want to see what the
smart guys are doing to make LCDs more like CRTs, but failing? Here's a
link:

http://www.benq.us/products/LCD/?product=671


> THEN look at the two in side-by-side comparisons.
> Again, if your eyes are any good, the difference is astounding.
> MOST people just stand back and look at the total picture-size and think
> that's what actually counts. It isn't. Dot-pitch, versus screen-size
> does. Or, in an LCD panel, the equivalent is native resolution.

Dot pitch is no longer relevant as they are all so incredibly small
(.22mm/.25mm) on modern invar masks used in current CRTs. Also the masks
have dual pitch measurements now for additional image quality, one for
horizontal dot pitch and one for vertical.

http://www.viewsonic.com/products/desktopdisplays/crtmonitors/graphicseries/g225fb/

Here's Viewsonic's current G225FB it has a combined dot pitch of .20MM
horizontal .25 diagonal. I speak from experience, you have to stick your
eyeball right up to the screen to see individual elements on a .20DP
masked CRT. Have you ever even seen one? They sell for $499, about $200+
dollars cheaper than a 24" BenQ LCD.

Not to mention, DP is completely irrelevant on Trinitron CRT's which are
preferred by a sub group of CRT users for their superior ability to
display text, some say better than the best LCD. I don't have an opinion
on that comparison, they both look the same to me when cleartype is enabled.

Convergence, pincushion, moire, any and all of the raster errors a CRT
can have are easily adjusted, typically automatically by the controls,
and not a concern after you set them and forget them.

I'll say it again, CRTs are superior in many ways to LCD panels, and
mostly in the single most important way, the final image. Many of the
disadvantages of CRTs have nothing to do with the image.

Of course, I have a feeling that was all in one ear and out the other
with you, but hey, I'm not writing this for you. Cheers!

Frank McCoy
May 22nd 07, 04:47 AM
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Coffee Lover
> wrote:

>Wow, looks like I started an Über debate of native resolution.
>
>I got my answers though.
>
>You kids be safe playing the 'cowboys and indians' resolution games.
>
>
>People with IQ's above 120 will get the last line ;-)
>
I have serious reservations about that.
Perhaps the Aborigines in Australia might get the point if they
walkabout the subject far enough away to avoid conflict-of-interest.
;-}

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

Sjouke Burry
May 22nd 07, 04:50 AM
kony wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2007 04:19:37 +0200, Sjouke Burry
> > wrote:
>
>
>> Why dont you put a color photo on them side by side.
>> And then move your head a bit around.
>> And enjoy the horrible color depth of the LCD.
>
>
> If you find your head can't stay still while using a
> computer, you might consider a head brace or some stronger
> medication?
I would rather look at a screen with decent colors,
and decent contrast, and I dont find that on an LCD.

Mr.E Solved!
May 22nd 07, 04:59 AM
Sjouke Burry wrote:

> kony wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 May 2007 04:19:37 +0200, Sjouke Burry
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Why dont you put a color photo on them side by side.
>>> And then move your head a bit around.
>>> And enjoy the horrible color depth of the LCD.
>>
>>
>> If you find your head can't stay still while using a
>> computer, you might consider a head brace or some stronger
>> medication?

> I would rather look at a screen with decent colors,
> and decent contrast, and I dont find that on an LCD.

Ignore his abandoning the topic with an idiotic comment and instead
check out SED displays:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-conduction_electron-emitter_display

All the advantages of CRTs plus the advantages of TFT LCDs! Just think,
high quality images on a big flat glass screen...something LCDs
currently do not provide.

Frank McCoy
May 22nd 07, 05:25 AM
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "Mr.E Solved!" >
wrote:

>A 21" monitor, even the 'good' ones can and do display resolutions
>higher than 1600x1200, in fact they are recommended to run the desktop
>higher than 1600x1200.
>
All I can say is:
Count the actual dot-pitch, convert to inches, and divide into the
actual screen-size. You'll be surprised at where the actual resolution
limits actually ARE.

Yes, they *recommend* higher resolutions.
Yes they SUPPORT higher resolutions.
Neither one means a damned thing.
I have a 16" monitor out in the garage that "supports" resolutions up to
1600x1200 and beyond even!
However, it doesn't do a **** bit better looking past 800x600; and it's
dot-pitch is .28
A 21" monitor with .26 dot-pitch means it *should* support higher
resolutions. In fact, multiplying out:
..28 / .26 = 1.08
21" / 16" = 1.31
1.32*1.08 = 1.41

Even if that fairly-good 16 inch monitor CAN handle 1024x768 resolution,
multiplying that by 1.41 and you get (for the finer grained and larger
CRT) 1444x1085. Thus my expectation of getting much better pictures on
the 21" CRT of much higher quality fails the math test. 1600x1200 is
already pushing things.

DON'T be fooled by manufacturer's specifications of what a supposed
monitor *will handle*. Yes, it *will* handle even higher resolutions
than that. Whether they will LOOK better or not ... Well, count the
inches and divide by the dot-pitch; and ignore the "recommended"
settings by the manufacturer, which in this case is just sales-hype
telling what input the monitor will TAKE, not what it will actually
*display* worth a damn.

Having been in the business of working with CRT displays more years than
you've likely been alive (I started as a TV technician in 1960) and been
*designing* circuits for such probably most of that time (Was Chief
Engineer and R&D engineer out in Calif. in 1972.) I know whereof I
speak.

CRT displays are *wonderful* creatures. They also are very susceptible
to sales-hype, especially about resolutions supported. Just because a
CRT monitor supports *input* for a specific resolution, doesn't mean the
actual *display* will be a bit sharper when you choose that method.

>Perhaps you do not know what a BNC cable is, you use that when you are
>running high resolutions on CRTs, it provides for a superior image than
>that provided by the more common Dsub15 cable. Of course, in your side
>by side offer to compare, you have BNC cables on those monitors, right?
>
About half my monitors around here have BNC inputs. The resolution
increase using RBG cables was minor compared to standard VGA cables.
That's why those monitors even bothered to come with both.

Oh yeah: That 16" monitor out in the garage has BNC connectors too.
Yes, I've run with them ... Until I got tired of the horrible clutter
and switched back to VGA adapter, which looked just about as good.

It still runs fine ... Want to buy it?

I had FAR more improvement between monitor clarity when I changed video
cards to a better brand than I ever did changing the input method.

Having used more that two hundred monitors in my time ... Well, thinking
about it, probably several thousand, I know whereof I speak.

These days you get best results from using the High-definition cables
supplied on many monitors intended to be used as High-def TV ports ...
and also on many video-cards for use with high-def monitors.

My LCD panel recommends using the high-def inputs if available; but I
didn't notice any difference when using same. I do, when using a CRT
monitor with both types. Frequency-response is better. However, the
LCD display runs at a lower frame-rate; which more than compensates. It
doesn't flicker though at the same lower frame-rate; just because of the
way LCD panels work.

Sometime try waving your hand in front of a CRT monitor while the lights
are off ... Then do the same thing with an LCD panel.

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

Frank McCoy
May 22nd 07, 05:53 AM
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Sjouke Burry
> wrote:

>kony wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 May 2007 04:19:37 +0200, Sjouke Burry
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Why dont you put a color photo on them side by side.
>>> And then move your head a bit around.
>>> And enjoy the horrible color depth of the LCD.
>>
>>
>> If you find your head can't stay still while using a
>> computer, you might consider a head brace or some stronger
>> medication?
>I would rather look at a screen with decent colors,
>and decent contrast, and I dont find that on an LCD.

All I can say is: You must have not looked at LCD displays recently.
They're NOT the same as they were two years ago.
Hell, they're not the same as LCD panels from even one year ago.
The improvements in the last two years alone, have been about the same
as CRTs did in the previous ten years.

I have only one complaint:
They seem to be completely STALLED at the equivalent of 1080P television
resolution; as that (full resolution HDTV) seems to be the main driving
force for flat panel displays right now, not computers; which seem to be
only incidental.

I guess the full switchover to digital TV, due by next year, is pushing
flat-panel displays more than anything else. That, of course, means LCD
panels *will* get faster, just for TV use if nothing else ... the main
drawback now to LCDs.

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

Frank McCoy
May 22nd 07, 06:03 AM
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "Mr.E Solved!" >
wrote:

>Sjouke Burry wrote:
>
>> kony wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 May 2007 04:19:37 +0200, Sjouke Burry
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Why dont you put a color photo on them side by side.
>>>> And then move your head a bit around.
>>>> And enjoy the horrible color depth of the LCD.
>>>
>>>
>>> If you find your head can't stay still while using a
>>> computer, you might consider a head brace or some stronger
>>> medication?
>
>> I would rather look at a screen with decent colors,
>> and decent contrast, and I dont find that on an LCD.
>
>Ignore his abandoning the topic with an idiotic comment and instead
>check out SED displays:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-conduction_electron-emitter_display
>
>All the advantages of CRTs plus the advantages of TFT LCDs! Just think,
>high quality images on a big flat glass screen...something LCDs
>currently do not provide.
>
I've seen 42" LCD HDTV sets with full 1080P resolution, that looked
*damned* good. Better, in fact, than the plasma-panels and certainly
far better than any of the projection sets I've seen. The plasma-panels
are marginally better; but they're supposed to burn in or burn out a lot
easier. Brings back the old original reason for "screensavers".

BTW: Cold Conduction displays have been "in the works" for too many
years for me to get real excited about another type. They've had
point-contact emitters, diamond emitters, and all sorts. Each has turned
out to have problems that the designers keep saying, "will be solved
next month".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_emission_display
http://news.com.com/Carbon+TVs+to+edge+out+liquid+crystal%2C+plasma/2100-1041_3-5512225.html
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press_Archive/199811/98-1102/index.html

Of course, so were both LCD and Plasma Panel displays, for the longest
time. Still, I'll start expecting large flat-panel FED displays the day
I see the first 12" TV set based on the process in the stores.

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

kony
May 22nd 07, 06:05 AM
On Mon, 21 May 2007 23:46:01 -0400, "Mr.E Solved!"
> wrote:

>Frank McCoy wrote:
>
>>
>> Even a *good* 21" CRT monitor is usually being pushed past it's
>> dot-pitch when you select resolutions above 1600x1200; so I don't
>> recommend that, even though most such monitors support far higher input
>> resolutions. They just don't do a decent job of actually *displaying*
>> such stuff.
>
>Absurd nonsense. I would methodically go over each and every point with
>you, even the subjective ones, but when you boldly mis-state technical
>capabilities to try and make your point, you end up taking all the fun
>out of having a discussion of the merits.

Actually it's shades of grey.

The inherant problem with CRT is that the borders of each
pixel blur into each other. At a low resolution, this is an
acceptibly low % of the total pixel area and can even be
perceived as a desirable softening of a low (compared to
real life, the human eye's perception of real world imagry)
resolution pixelated image. At higher resolution the pixels
become smaller yet at same time the % of pixel border
blurring to total pixel area is substantially larger onto
the point where the entire pixel becomes more /wrong/ than
right at highest resolutions any particular monitor
supports. DVI is slightly better but alone it can't counter
this effect and likewise an LCD can be compared with both
analog and DVI.

When it comes to resolution vs. quality, so long as the LCD
stays at it's native resoution it wins every time when
considering preservation of resolutional detail, any factor
relating to resolution.

Where the LCD falls short is areas _not_ related to
resolution, particularly contrast. Viewing angle we can
ignore, this is not a cinema theatre where broad rows of
seating are trying to look at a computer monitor.




>
>A 21" monitor, even the 'good' ones can and do display resolutions
>higher than 1600x1200, in fact they are recommended to run the desktop
>higher than 1600x1200.

"Can do" doesn't mean "does well".



>
>Perhaps you do not know what a BNC cable is, you use that when you are
>running high resolutions on CRTs, it provides for a superior image than
>that provided by the more common Dsub15 cable. Of course, in your side
>by side offer to compare, you have BNC cables on those monitors, right?

BNC or DVI, and still CRT falls short when there is any
consideration of resolution as stated above.

There are only two areas of any significant user
perceptibility where CRT better LCD.

kony
May 22nd 07, 06:08 AM
On Tue, 22 May 2007 05:50:23 +0200, Sjouke Burry
> wrote:

>kony wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 May 2007 04:19:37 +0200, Sjouke Burry
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Why dont you put a color photo on them side by side.
>>> And then move your head a bit around.
>>> And enjoy the horrible color depth of the LCD.
>>
>>
>> If you find your head can't stay still while using a
>> computer, you might consider a head brace or some stronger
>> medication?
>I would rather look at a screen with decent colors,
>and decent contrast, and I dont find that on an LCD.


Then why are you introducing irrelevant arguments like
whether you can sit still, whether it would matter what the
viewing angle is for a purposefully one-operator,
adjustable, stationary display unit?

Yes CRT have better contrast. Colors is not necessarily
true, if looking at one with good contrast and 8 bit
adjusted properly you will not find enough difference
between LCD and CRT to pick one over the other. This does
not mean all LCD are good. Neither were cheap CRT,
especially when trying to run the high resolutions much
modern software or webpages demand.

kony
May 22nd 07, 06:11 AM
On Mon, 21 May 2007 23:59:16 -0400, "Mr.E Solved!"
> wrote:

>Sjouke Burry wrote:
>
>> kony wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 May 2007 04:19:37 +0200, Sjouke Burry
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Why dont you put a color photo on them side by side.
>>>> And then move your head a bit around.
>>>> And enjoy the horrible color depth of the LCD.
>>>
>>>
>>> If you find your head can't stay still while using a
>>> computer, you might consider a head brace or some stronger
>>> medication?
>
>> I would rather look at a screen with decent colors,
>> and decent contrast, and I dont find that on an LCD.
>
>Ignore his abandoning the topic with an idiotic comment and instead
>check out SED displays:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-conduction_electron-emitter_display
>
>All the advantages of CRTs plus the advantages of TFT LCDs! Just think,
>high quality images on a big flat glass screen...something LCDs
>currently do not provide.
>


You purposefully seek out a screen with high reflectivity?
LOL. No wonder you have a terrible enough experience to
think CRT are better.

Sjouke Burry
May 22nd 07, 06:33 AM
kony wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2007 05:50:23 +0200, Sjouke Burry
> > wrote:
>
>> kony wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 May 2007 04:19:37 +0200, Sjouke Burry
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Why dont you put a color photo on them side by side.
>>>> And then move your head a bit around.
>>>> And enjoy the horrible color depth of the LCD.
>>>
>>> If you find your head can't stay still while using a
>>> computer, you might consider a head brace or some stronger
>>> medication?
>> I would rather look at a screen with decent colors,
>> and decent contrast, and I dont find that on an LCD.
>
>
> Then why are you introducing irrelevant arguments like
> whether you can sit still, whether it would matter what the
> viewing angle is for a purposefully one-operator,
> adjustable, stationary display unit?
>
> Yes CRT have better contrast. Colors is not necessarily
> true, if looking at one with good contrast and 8 bit
> adjusted properly you will not find enough difference
> between LCD and CRT to pick one over the other. This does
> not mean all LCD are good. Neither were cheap CRT,
> especially when trying to run the high resolutions much
> modern software or webpages demand.

I did not complain about being unable to sit still.
That was the guy promoting lcds.
I just dont like to be forced to stay in one location,
just to have the right brightness/contrast/color.
A CRT gives me that and an lcd does not.

Mr.E Solved!
May 22nd 07, 06:38 AM
kony wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2007 23:59:16 -0400, "Mr.E Solved!"

> You purposefully seek out a screen with high reflectivity?
> LOL. No wonder you have a terrible enough experience to
> think CRT are better.

I read your other replies, and I will reply since I know you will
understand when I say I need to extend my remark in light of your silly
comment: I meant a polarized glass screen.

Reflectivity is easily mitigated with a variety of passive and active
methods, it is a non issue in that regard. I use polarized glass now,
they are essential display enhancers.

Also, you agree with me that "CRTs are better" since you say:

"There are only two areas of any significant user perceptibility where
CRT better LCD."

And

"so long as the LCD stays at it's native resoution it wins every time
when considering preservation of resolutional detail"

So true assertions or not, you believe LCDs are better for 1 criteria,
CRTs are better for 2. It's nice to find points of common ground, don't
you think? :)

Frank McCoy
May 22nd 07, 07:21 AM
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt kony > wrote:

>On Mon, 21 May 2007 23:46:01 -0400, "Mr.E Solved!"
> wrote:
>
>>Frank McCoy wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Even a *good* 21" CRT monitor is usually being pushed past it's
>>> dot-pitch when you select resolutions above 1600x1200; so I don't
>>> recommend that, even though most such monitors support far higher input
>>> resolutions. They just don't do a decent job of actually *displaying*
>>> such stuff.
>>
>>Absurd nonsense. I would methodically go over each and every point with
>>you, even the subjective ones, but when you boldly mis-state technical
>>capabilities to try and make your point, you end up taking all the fun
>>out of having a discussion of the merits.
>
>Actually it's shades of grey.
>
>The inherant problem with CRT is that the borders of each
>pixel blur into each other. At a low resolution, this is an
>acceptibly low % of the total pixel area and can even be
>perceived as a desirable softening of a low (compared to
>real life, the human eye's perception of real world imagry)
>resolution pixelated image. At higher resolution the pixels
>become smaller yet at same time the % of pixel border
>blurring to total pixel area is substantially larger onto
>the point where the entire pixel becomes more /wrong/ than
>right at highest resolutions any particular monitor
>supports. DVI is slightly better but alone it can't counter
>this effect and likewise an LCD can be compared with both
>analog and DVI.
>
>When it comes to resolution vs. quality, so long as the LCD
>stays at it's native resoution it wins every time when
>considering preservation of resolutional detail, any factor
>relating to resolution.
>
>Where the LCD falls short is areas _not_ related to
>resolution, particularly contrast. Viewing angle we can
>ignore, this is not a cinema theatre where broad rows of
>seating are trying to look at a computer monitor.
>
Actually, modern LCD monitors are quite good with viewing angle; unlike
early models with TFT displays where you lost sight when turning the
screen more than a few degrees off-axis.

Mine, for example, right here in front of me, and using a protractor to
test with: is *quite* visible 80-degrees off-axis, for a full 160-degree
viewing angle where the screen is not only visible; but the text on this
very program I'm typing this respons on, is quite easily readable. I
don't know many CRT monitors that would do that good; as the far side of
most curved monitors would be bent out of sight by then. Flat-screen
CRT monitors, I'm pretty sure would be about the same.

In any case, with *MY* present LCD monitor anyway (A "Starlogic" 20.1")
I find little to choose in off-axis viewing between it and a CRT.

I also find little difference on *my* monitor anway, in contrast or
color definition between it and my CRT sitting right next to it.

Perhaps older models were different?
>>
>>A 21" monitor, even the 'good' ones can and do display resolutions
>>higher than 1600x1200, in fact they are recommended to run the desktop
>>higher than 1600x1200.
>
>"Can do" doesn't mean "does well".
>
Exactly.

One slight problem with LCD monitors is that in anything *other* than
the LCD panel's native resolution, the CRT does *much* better.

Well, except in the possible case of exact submultiples.
But: Nobody DOES resolutions of 840x525, do they?

My LCD panel doesn't say it accepts that as a VESA input.
So, it must compromise somehow at 800x600 (the closest).

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

Frank McCoy
May 22nd 07, 07:32 AM
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Sjouke Burry
> wrote:

>kony wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 May 2007 05:50:23 +0200, Sjouke Burry
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> kony wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 22 May 2007 04:19:37 +0200, Sjouke Burry
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Why dont you put a color photo on them side by side.
>>>>> And then move your head a bit around.
>>>>> And enjoy the horrible color depth of the LCD.
>>>>
>>>> If you find your head can't stay still while using a
>>>> computer, you might consider a head brace or some stronger
>>>> medication?
>>> I would rather look at a screen with decent colors,
>>> and decent contrast, and I dont find that on an LCD.
>>
>>
>> Then why are you introducing irrelevant arguments like
>> whether you can sit still, whether it would matter what the
>> viewing angle is for a purposefully one-operator,
>> adjustable, stationary display unit?
>>
>> Yes CRT have better contrast. Colors is not necessarily
>> true, if looking at one with good contrast and 8 bit
>> adjusted properly you will not find enough difference
>> between LCD and CRT to pick one over the other. This does
>> not mean all LCD are good. Neither were cheap CRT,
>> especially when trying to run the high resolutions much
>> modern software or webpages demand.
>
>I did not complain about being unable to sit still.
>That was the guy promoting lcds.
>I just dont like to be forced to stay in one location,
>just to have the right brightness/contrast/color.
>A CRT gives me that and an lcd does not.

*Mine* does just *fine* thank you.
I'm not sure what kind of old-fashioned crap you're thinking about, but
it's NOT a modern LCD monitor!

Well, at least not *mine* anyway.
I'm viewing mine with my head cocked about forty-degrees off-axis right
now; and it's as clear as it would be straight-on.
With the large size of this monitor, and the fact I have to shift my
eyes right-to-left and up-and-down to take in the entire screen from
sitting about three feet away, it would indeed be a crappy monitor if
what you said was true.

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

kony
May 22nd 07, 07:39 AM
On Tue, 22 May 2007 01:21:11 -0500, Frank McCoy
> wrote:


>>Where the LCD falls short is areas _not_ related to
>>resolution, particularly contrast. Viewing angle we can
>>ignore, this is not a cinema theatre where broad rows of
>>seating are trying to look at a computer monitor.
>>
>Actually, modern LCD monitors are quite good with viewing angle; unlike
>early models with TFT displays where you lost sight when turning the
>screen more than a few degrees off-axis.

Modern LCD are quite sufficient for the intended use, but if
there was an extended viewing angle necessary it is one area
where CRT still proves superior.



>
>Mine, for example, right here in front of me, and using a protractor to
>test with: is *quite* visible 80-degrees off-axis, for a full 160-degree
>viewing angle where the screen is not only visible; but the text on this
>very program I'm typing this respons on, is quite easily readable.


Absolutely, I've never claimed otherwise, BUT at these
significant and atypical angles there is a degradation.


> I
>don't know many CRT monitors that would do that good; as the far side of
>most curved monitors would be bent out of sight by then. Flat-screen
>CRT monitors, I'm pretty sure would be about the same.

We can expect most semi-modern, mildly curved monitors to
have higher acuity at any extremes still visible within what
the curvature of their screen allows. Further we can expect
the better per-pixel accuity of an LCD to be mitigated by
this off-axis angle, but unless there is a specific use
where off-axis viewing is important, the differences can be
ignored and if it is important, the specific angle and use
would have to be the context for discrimination between
particular displays instead of a general lumping of LCD vs
CRT.

>One slight problem with LCD monitors is that in anything *other* than
>the LCD panel's native resolution, the CRT does *much* better.

Perhaps, it is again shades of grey. Asthetically speaking
the CRT may look better, but when it comes to the eye-brain
concentration on pixel borders and being able to
discriminate borders, the CRT will be nearly equivalent once
it has reached beyond it's optimal resolution which is
obviously below it's maximum resolution.


>
>Well, except in the possible case of exact submultiples.
>But: Nobody DOES resolutions of 840x525, do they?


If you had a video driver capable it could, certainly
nVidia's can program some made-up resolutions but I don't
see the point in doing so. Minor differences are not that
important when sticking with native resolution and merely
scooting a thin display forward a bit will achieve the same
(actually better) visual discrimination by just using a
framed display mode instead of interpolated.


>
>My LCD panel doesn't say it accepts that as a VESA input.
>So, it must compromise somehow at 800x600 (the closest).

The video card driver functionality can determine which
alternate output options you have.

kony
May 22nd 07, 07:47 AM
On Tue, 22 May 2007 01:38:32 -0400, "Mr.E Solved!"
> wrote:

>kony wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 May 2007 23:59:16 -0400, "Mr.E Solved!"
>
>> You purposefully seek out a screen with high reflectivity?
>> LOL. No wonder you have a terrible enough experience to
>> think CRT are better.
>
>I read your other replies, and I will reply since I know you will
>understand when I say I need to extend my remark in light of your silly
>comment: I meant a polarized glass screen.
>
>Reflectivity is easily mitigated with a variety of passive and active
>methods, it is a non issue in that regard. I use polarized glass now,
>they are essential display enhancers.

Nonsense but it was a novel idea.
The effect is obvious on any monitor you care to try.


>
>Also, you agree with me that "CRTs are better" since you say:

Not at all, you're confused.

CRT, on average, have higher contrast. If that is most
important it is a reasonable reason to chose one. If there
is any other criteria more important, the choice must be
weighted and many many people HAVE done so and chose LCD.
They didn't become popular because manufacturers refused to
make CRT, rather it was the market demand. There's a lot
more to want besides good contrast. Truth be told, many
people are so ignorant of contrast that they end up
increasing it so much that they can't even perceive the full
gamnut of greyscale anymore. What "looks good" at first
glance, is not necessarily any better than what reveals more
detail at second glance if your work (or play) is detail
oriented.

A very good LCD can even be good for tasks that require good
contrast such as photoediting, because at magnified zoom the
per-pixel boundaries are better. An editor can eyeball the
image and be aware of the differences between CRT and LCD
contrast (on average) and compensate while appreciating the
per-pixel precision. It does require more attention to
calibration on an LCD than CRT though, but calibration is
still required on both so even then it is not as though a
step is subtracted from proper use.

kony
May 22nd 07, 07:54 AM
On Tue, 22 May 2007 07:33:25 +0200, Sjouke Burry
> wrote:


>I did not complain about being unable to sit still.
>That was the guy promoting lcds.
>I just dont like to be forced to stay in one location,
>just to have the right brightness/contrast/color.
>A CRT gives me that and an lcd does not.


Yes you made reference to LCD viewing angle being
significant which could only be true if you can't use a
computer like everyone else with your monitor aimed at you
and your head still.

If you don't like being forced to stay in one location, so
what? It's not like you can't shift around in your seat
some and if you are doing jumping jacks while trying to
critically use an LCD and that minor difference is
important, you are just an oddball we can ignore because you
can't have good visual acuity of anything if you aren't
concentrating on what you're doing. Otherwise the minor
differences won't matter.

If you are far enough away from a monitor to do acrobatics
safely, you aren't even talking about a computer monitor,
you would need a hi-def largescreen TV running at lower
resolution than serious professionals use. So yes I'll
agree that if you are watching some TV show while standing
on your head in the corner, a CRT might help if you have
binoculars. Now for the REST of us using a display as would
be expected, it is not so significant unless contrasting
only the lower-end poor 6 bit LCDs.

Frank McCoy
May 22nd 07, 08:07 AM
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt kony > wrote:

>On Tue, 22 May 2007 01:21:11 -0500, Frank McCoy
> wrote:
>
>
>>>Where the LCD falls short is areas _not_ related to
>>>resolution, particularly contrast. Viewing angle we can
>>>ignore, this is not a cinema theatre where broad rows of
>>>seating are trying to look at a computer monitor.
>>>
>>Actually, modern LCD monitors are quite good with viewing angle; unlike
>>early models with TFT displays where you lost sight when turning the
>>screen more than a few degrees off-axis.
>
>Modern LCD are quite sufficient for the intended use, but if
>there was an extended viewing angle necessary it is one area
>where CRT still proves superior.
>
I guess it depends on the LCD then.
*MINE* has just about as full a veiwing angle as it's possible to get.
I can still read text with the screen 10-degrees from edge-on.
My CRT won't do that; simply because the bezel gets in the way.

>
>
>>
>>Mine, for example, right here in front of me, and using a protractor to
>>test with: is *quite* visible 80-degrees off-axis, for a full 160-degree
>>viewing angle where the screen is not only visible; but the text on this
>>very program I'm typing this respons on, is quite easily readable.
>
>
>Absolutely, I've never claimed otherwise, BUT at these
>significant and atypical angles there is a degradation.
>
Not on MINE!!!!
I don't know what you've been looking at but what I have here just does
*not* do that. Yes, I've seen LCD screens on many laptops that do.
But not my personal desktop LCD monitor.

>
>> I
>>don't know many CRT monitors that would do that good; as the far side of
>>most curved monitors would be bent out of sight by then. Flat-screen
>>CRT monitors, I'm pretty sure would be about the same.
>
>We can expect most semi-modern, mildly curved monitors to
>have higher acuity at any extremes still visible within what
>the curvature of their screen allows. Further we can expect
>the better per-pixel accuity of an LCD to be mitigated by
>this off-axis angle, but unless there is a specific use
>where off-axis viewing is important, the differences can be
>ignored and if it is important, the specific angle and use
>would have to be the context for discrimination between
>particular displays instead of a general lumping of LCD vs
>CRT.
>
I'll agree; except I se *NO* such deterioration in off-axis viewing that
you assume is always there in an LCD monitor. As I've said repeatedly,
NOT IN MINE!

Yes, I have a laptop that does just such things; becoming awkward to
read or see and the colors changing as you move the screen. My
*present* Starlogic LCD panel doesn't do that much more (if any) than a
CRT monitor does. The interior workings are *different* than in my
laptop. I'm not sure *how* it works; I'm just certain that it *does*;
because I'm staring at it right now; and tilting the thing every which
way ... not losing brightness, contrast, or changing colors when I do.

Oh, when I move it *vertically* WAY past normal viewing angles, the
contrast deepens ... very slightly; and the pale eggshell color of my
selected color for the program I use becomes slighly yellowish in tinge.
The white remains white however. I have to tilt it WAY over though; and
only vertically to get a small shift in color ... unlike earlier LCD
panels like my old laptop.


>>One slight problem with LCD monitors is that in anything *other* than
>>the LCD panel's native resolution, the CRT does *much* better.
>
>Perhaps, it is again shades of grey. Asthetically speaking
>the CRT may look better, but when it comes to the eye-brain
>concentration on pixel borders and being able to
>discriminate borders, the CRT will be nearly equivalent once
>it has reached beyond it's optimal resolution which is
>obviously below it's maximum resolution.
>
>
>>
>>Well, except in the possible case of exact submultiples.
>>But: Nobody DOES resolutions of 840x525, do they?
>
>
>If you had a video driver capable it could, certainly
>nVidia's can program some made-up resolutions but I don't
>see the point in doing so. Minor differences are not that
>important when sticking with native resolution and merely
>scooting a thin display forward a bit will achieve the same
>(actually better) visual discrimination by just using a
>framed display mode instead of interpolated.
>
>
>>
>>My LCD panel doesn't say it accepts that as a VESA input.
>>So, it must compromise somehow at 800x600 (the closest).
>
>The video card driver functionality can determine which
>alternate output options you have.

That's true. ;-{
Most cards only accept "standard" resolutions.
I had to get an updated driver for my card to get it to accept 1680x1050
resolution. Before that, I was running 1600x1200 on the thing; and
while it *accepted* that as input, it wasn't as nice as when I got
native resolution going.

Superficially, it *looked* almost the same; until I compared it with the
"real thing". I'm NOT going back to a CRT ... Ever again.

Actually, I'd *prefer* a full 21" LCD screen that did 1600x1200, over
the wide-screen one I have now. Only the *price* of those is about
twice or more what this one was. I've seen them ... and drooled.
I actually *prefer* the old taller and narrower format.
Oh well ... I'm getting used to this type now.

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

kony
May 22nd 07, 09:10 AM
On Tue, 22 May 2007 02:07:25 -0500, Frank McCoy
> wrote:

>In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt kony > wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 22 May 2007 01:21:11 -0500, Frank McCoy
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Where the LCD falls short is areas _not_ related to
>>>>resolution, particularly contrast. Viewing angle we can
>>>>ignore, this is not a cinema theatre where broad rows of
>>>>seating are trying to look at a computer monitor.
>>>>
>>>Actually, modern LCD monitors are quite good with viewing angle; unlike
>>>early models with TFT displays where you lost sight when turning the
>>>screen more than a few degrees off-axis.
>>
>>Modern LCD are quite sufficient for the intended use, but if
>>there was an extended viewing angle necessary it is one area
>>where CRT still proves superior.
>>
>I guess it depends on the LCD then.
>*MINE* has just about as full a veiwing angle as it's possible to get.
>I can still read text with the screen 10-degrees from edge-on.
>My CRT won't do that; simply because the bezel gets in the way.

It is not just about "can I read text" it is about whether
it retains the majority of the contrast originally present.
If the entire viewing experience remains intact. However,
again I must stress that this distinction has everything to
do with whether there is an unusual viewing angle. It's not
hard to place one's head near what they want to see, just
like they would any inanimate object if they wanted to
change their viewing angle.


>Not on MINE!!!!
>I don't know what you've been looking at but what I have here just does
>*not* do that. Yes, I've seen LCD screens on many laptops that do.
>But not my personal desktop LCD monitor.

All LCD do have inferior viewing angle. That you can "see"
it isn't same thing as having it preserve as much detail in
contrast. As stated above the purpose has to be considered.
For some being able to read the text is enough, for others
it is not, and for either group, they are oddballs in trying
to judge it if they cant just get in front of the monitor
like any typical user does.

kony
May 22nd 07, 09:15 AM
On Tue, 22 May 2007 01:32:29 -0500, Frank McCoy
> wrote:


>*Mine* does just *fine* thank you.
>I'm not sure what kind of old-fashioned crap you're thinking about, but
>it's NOT a modern LCD monitor!
>

Yours behaves like most, you can shift horizontally and the
degradation is minor for the first 50' or so, but
nevertheless a discriminable degradation. That doesn't mean
it's "bad" per se at that angle, but we are contrasting
minor differences already when someone acts as though
choosing CRT is somehow important versus CRT for such
aspects - then those have to be determined objectively and
objectively any LCD does measure as lower contrast at
horiztonal angles.

Vertical angles are where they are far worse though, so if
someone has an unusual use where they need that viewing
angle they will need to be sure they had auditioned the LCD
prospects before assuming one would be acceptible, rather
than just legible.


>Well, at least not *mine* anyway.
>I'm viewing mine with my head cocked about forty-degrees off-axis right
>now; and it's as clear as it would be straight-on.

What does head cocked have to do with anything? That
wouldn't have any substantial differences in viewing angle
in an absolute sense unless you are a giraffe.



>With the large size of this monitor, and the fact I have to shift my
>eyes right-to-left and up-and-down to take in the entire screen from
>sitting about three feet away, it would indeed be a crappy monitor if
>what you said was true.

Nobody is saying crap but the fact remains LCD does have a
primary weakness in viewing angle. You need not agree,
every single review of LCDs every written agrees with this.
That does not disqualify them though since it is not a
typica thing to do, to extend oneself at odd angles from
what they are trying to view as even if everything else were
perfect it would still necessarily upset the correct aspect
ratio and by most scenarios, increase viewing distance which
by itself interferes with best perceptions.

Gorby
May 22nd 07, 09:33 AM
Frank McCoy wrote:
> In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt hummingbird >
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 May 2007 00:27:50 +0100 'hummingbird'
>> posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:
>>
>>> On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:48:25 -0400 'Coffee Lover'
>>> posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:
>>>
>>>> I got my resolution AS high as possible right now.
>>>> I read/heard the higher the resolution, you get a drop in performance?
>>>> 1280 X 1024 right now, what's a good one for performance?
>>>>
>>>> Or does it matter????????
>>> I use 800 x 600 on my 17" LCD and it displays at lightning speed
>>> with excellent sharpness etc. I'm at a loss to know why so many
>>> people use higher res on similar monitors.
>> Frank & FKS:
>> I can see no reference to 'native resolution' in any of the utils
>> which display monitor specs. The max resolution of my monitor is
>> reported as being 1280 x 1024 ...is this what you mean by native?
>> Native resolution may be referenced in the small user manual which
>> I can't locate right now.
>>
> Most likely, if it's shown as max, that's your native resolution.
> Most modern LCD panel displays report to the OS what resolutions they
> support (as do most modern CRTs). I'm not sure exactly how they do; but
> am pretty sure it's part of the VESA spec for monitors.
>
>> Whether upgrading to 1280 x 1024 would improve the image on the
>> screen, I don't know. My current 800 x 600 @32bit colour & 75Hz
>> refresh rate already produces excellent image/colour quality when
>> viewing my digital camera pix etc and possibly generates images faster
>> than a higher resolution. I know there's some debate about that.
>>
> Actually, going "native" in this case *could* actually make things
> faster ... but most likely the images would be generated at the same
> rate. And as for image/colour quality ... You don't know what you're
> missing by not running at native resolution. I think you'll find the
> difference is about the same as shifting from EGA resolution to 800x600.
>
> Yes, THAT much.
>
>> Although I'm interested in this I'm unlikely to change the resolution
>> settings because I have large numbers of scanned documents and
>> thousands of images which I have sized to display on screen in the way
>> I want. Using a higher resolution would make them appear smaller on
>> the screen.
>
> Actually, I'd say TRY IT!!!
> I think you'd find the difference in size minimal between 800x600 and
> 1280x1024; being not much of a (only 60%) difference, while the
> improvement in *clarity* could be tremendous!
>
> IOW: Even though *smaller*, with native resolution the images would be
> *so much sharper*, they'd be far easier on the eye to look at and grasp.
>
> I don't think you fully realize what a compromise it is when downgrading
> resolution on an LCD panel. On a CRT monitor, not much is lost, if any.
> On an LCD, the things done to make lower resolutions work at all is
> really CRAPPY.
>
> Try it: You'll never go back; and wonder why you ever ran in that mode
> on an LCD panel in the first place.
>
> If it doesn't work, you can always shift back.
> It only takes a few SECONDS to shift resolutions, you know.
> And, a few more to shift back.
> Run a few of your favorite programs.
> Look at some of your favorite pictures.
> Shift between modes, and see the astounding difference.
> Geesh.
>
> An LCD panel is pretty much CRIPPLED except at native resolution.
> Especially one below 1680x1050 native.
> Even there, the compromises are bad.
>
OK! I've read the entire thread so far. Lots of good reading.
My problem is my eyes! As I'm getting older I don't like the text
getting too small.

I had a 21" CRT monitor running at 1024x768. Looked great!
I purchased an LCD (to get more desk space) and running it at native
resolution was clear if I got up really close. But my old eyes need
bigger text. I cranked the LCD back to 1024x768. I think it looks
horrible! Setting clear type helps, but icons, etc now look crappy.

I've even played around with DPI settings in Display properties.

Does anyone have some good settings (for whatever) that will allow me to
run at 1280x1024 and still have text and other icons large enough???

Conor
May 22nd 07, 09:55 AM
In article >, Frank McCoy
says...

> The CRT monitors look fuzzy and out-of-focus next to the LCD panels at
> similar resolutions. Most especially so at the corners. The LCD panels
> also EXACTLY fill out the screen; while with good adjustment of a CRT
> you can only get *close* to doing so without either not displaying the
> whole thing, or leaving black borders in some parts of the screen.
>
> Don't believe me?
> Try it yourself and see!
> Geesh.
>
How old is this CRT monitor? They start to go out of focus after a year
or so and need adjusting periodically.


--
Conor

Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright
until you hear them speak.........

hummingbird[_2_]
May 22nd 07, 01:07 PM
On Mon, 21 May 2007 18:49:30 +0100 'hummingbird'
posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:

>On Mon, 21 May 2007 10:05:50 -0500 'Frank McCoy'
>posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:
>
>>In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt hummingbird >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 21 May 2007 00:27:50 +0100 'hummingbird'
>>>posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:48:25 -0400 'Coffee Lover'
>>>>posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:
>>>>
>>>>>I got my resolution AS high as possible right now.
>>>>>I read/heard the higher the resolution, you get a drop in performance?
>>>>>1280 X 1024 right now, what's a good one for performance?
>>>>>
>>>>>Or does it matter????????
>>>>
>>>>I use 800 x 600 on my 17" LCD and it displays at lightning speed
>>>>with excellent sharpness etc. I'm at a loss to know why so many
>>>>people use higher res on similar monitors.
>>>
>>>Frank & FKS:
>>>I can see no reference to 'native resolution' in any of the utils
>>>which display monitor specs. The max resolution of my monitor is
>>>reported as being 1280 x 1024 ...is this what you mean by native?
>>>Native resolution may be referenced in the small user manual which
>>>I can't locate right now.
>>>
>>Most likely, if it's shown as max, that's your native resolution.
>>Most modern LCD panel displays report to the OS what resolutions they
>>support (as do most modern CRTs). I'm not sure exactly how they do; but
>>am pretty sure it's part of the VESA spec for monitors.
>>
>>>Whether upgrading to 1280 x 1024 would improve the image on the
>>>screen, I don't know. My current 800 x 600 @32bit colour & 75Hz
>>>refresh rate already produces excellent image/colour quality when
>>>viewing my digital camera pix etc and possibly generates images faster
>>>than a higher resolution. I know there's some debate about that.
>>>
>>Actually, going "native" in this case *could* actually make things
>>faster ... but most likely the images would be generated at the same
>>rate. And as for image/colour quality ... You don't know what you're
>>missing by not running at native resolution. I think you'll find the
>>difference is about the same as shifting from EGA resolution to 800x600.
>>
>>Yes, THAT much.
>>
>>>Although I'm interested in this I'm unlikely to change the resolution
>>>settings because I have large numbers of scanned documents and
>>>thousands of images which I have sized to display on screen in the way
>>>I want. Using a higher resolution would make them appear smaller on
>>>the screen.
>>
>>Actually, I'd say TRY IT!!!
>>I think you'd find the difference in size minimal between 800x600 and
>>1280x1024; being not much of a (only 60%) difference, while the
>>improvement in *clarity* could be tremendous!
>>
>>IOW: Even though *smaller*, with native resolution the images would be
>>*so much sharper*, they'd be far easier on the eye to look at and grasp.
>>
>>I don't think you fully realize what a compromise it is when downgrading
>>resolution on an LCD panel. On a CRT monitor, not much is lost, if any.
>>On an LCD, the things done to make lower resolutions work at all is
>>really CRAPPY.
>>
>>Try it: You'll never go back; and wonder why you ever ran in that mode
>>on an LCD panel in the first place.
>>
>>If it doesn't work, you can always shift back.
>>It only takes a few SECONDS to shift resolutions, you know.
>>And, a few more to shift back.
>>Run a few of your favorite programs.
>>Look at some of your favorite pictures.
>>Shift between modes, and see the astounding difference.
>>Geesh.
>>
>>An LCD panel is pretty much CRIPPLED except at native resolution.
>>Especially one below 1680x1050 native.
>>Even there, the compromises are bad.

>Right!!!!!!!! I'm going to give it a try overnight UK time and report
>back here tomorrow. I predict that the difference will be minimal
>but will openly admit the truth of whatever it does.
>Watch this space!.................

OK here's the scoop:
I've tried the 1280x1024 resolution and my findings are:

Pros:
-- there was no noticeable delay in generating screen images,
possibly because of the graphics card I use (ATI 9800-Pro)
and/or maybe the monitor prefers its 'native' resolution.
However I'm still of the view that higher resolutions theoretically
require more processing and therefore more delay but I accept
that this may be insignificant and unnoticeable nowadays and may
not be the case with LCD monitors.

-- screen images appear a little sharper as I expected but not
a whole lot clearer than 800x600 at 32bit colour with ClearType
running and my Samsung monitor carefully tweaked/adjusted.
Some of the sharper appearance is due to the fact that images
appear smaller on the monitor.

-- some webpages which used to invoke a horizontal slider now
display without it. The downside is that text appears smaller to
the point where I have a problem reading it, so I'd have to tweak
the font size which might then cause the pages to revert back to
using sliders. In that case there's no gain to be had.

Cons:
-- many of my applications would need reconfiguring to use the higher
resolution because font settings have been set to accomodate 800x600.
This includes my browsers, two instances of Agent, ZtreeWin etc etc.
That's a lot of changes to a lot of applications. The simple process
of enlarging font sizes to make them readable may cause the display
quality to revert back to what it is under 800x600. I dunno.

-- my icon settings are currently set for 800x600 and would need to
be reconfigured to increase their display size on the monitor so I can
read the text and see where the little devils are on the desktop!

-- my wallpaper would also need to be replaced with one which is
sized for use on the higher resolution. Currently it's carefully sized
to fill the vertical axis, under 1280x1024 it doesn't, so it looks
rather odd.

-- I have a bunch of home made screensavers which contain images
sized for 800x600 display resolution. These would either need to be
remade (a lot of work on many hundreds of images) or they would
display smaller on the monitor if I left them as-is.

-- many hundreds of scanned documents and images I have on my
computer all display much smaller, again to the point where reading
the text is difficult and a strain on the eyes. I can't rescan the
documents because the originals have been shredded long ago.
Hundreds of images are involved too. A huge piece of work.

-- even my animated mouse pointer would need to be resized.
Not sure if that's possible.

There are probably other pros/cons which I haven't mentioned
but all in all, given that my current display settings produce good
quality, this is not a change which is of clear benefit to me and
would involve a lot of time/effort to implement. It may be something
to consider when I build my next PC and install all the apps onto it
afresh.

hummingbird[_2_]
May 22nd 07, 01:13 PM
On Tue, 22 May 2007 18:03:09 +0930 'Gorby'
posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:

>Frank McCoy wrote:
>> In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt hummingbird >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 21 May 2007 00:27:50 +0100 'hummingbird'
>>> posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:48:25 -0400 'Coffee Lover'
>>>> posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:
>>>>
>>>>> I got my resolution AS high as possible right now.
>>>>> I read/heard the higher the resolution, you get a drop in performance?
>>>>> 1280 X 1024 right now, what's a good one for performance?
>>>>>
>>>>> Or does it matter????????
>>>> I use 800 x 600 on my 17" LCD and it displays at lightning speed
>>>> with excellent sharpness etc. I'm at a loss to know why so many
>>>> people use higher res on similar monitors.
>>> Frank & FKS:
>>> I can see no reference to 'native resolution' in any of the utils
>>> which display monitor specs. The max resolution of my monitor is
>>> reported as being 1280 x 1024 ...is this what you mean by native?
>>> Native resolution may be referenced in the small user manual which
>>> I can't locate right now.
>>>
>> Most likely, if it's shown as max, that's your native resolution.
>> Most modern LCD panel displays report to the OS what resolutions they
>> support (as do most modern CRTs). I'm not sure exactly how they do; but
>> am pretty sure it's part of the VESA spec for monitors.
>>
>>> Whether upgrading to 1280 x 1024 would improve the image on the
>>> screen, I don't know. My current 800 x 600 @32bit colour & 75Hz
>>> refresh rate already produces excellent image/colour quality when
>>> viewing my digital camera pix etc and possibly generates images faster
>>> than a higher resolution. I know there's some debate about that.
>>>
>> Actually, going "native" in this case *could* actually make things
>> faster ... but most likely the images would be generated at the same
>> rate. And as for image/colour quality ... You don't know what you're
>> missing by not running at native resolution. I think you'll find the
>> difference is about the same as shifting from EGA resolution to 800x600.
>>
>> Yes, THAT much.
>>
>>> Although I'm interested in this I'm unlikely to change the resolution
>>> settings because I have large numbers of scanned documents and
>>> thousands of images which I have sized to display on screen in the way
>>> I want. Using a higher resolution would make them appear smaller on
>>> the screen.
>>
>> Actually, I'd say TRY IT!!!
>> I think you'd find the difference in size minimal between 800x600 and
>> 1280x1024; being not much of a (only 60%) difference, while the
>> improvement in *clarity* could be tremendous!
>>
>> IOW: Even though *smaller*, with native resolution the images would be
>> *so much sharper*, they'd be far easier on the eye to look at and grasp.
>>
>> I don't think you fully realize what a compromise it is when downgrading
>> resolution on an LCD panel. On a CRT monitor, not much is lost, if any.
>> On an LCD, the things done to make lower resolutions work at all is
>> really CRAPPY.
>>
>> Try it: You'll never go back; and wonder why you ever ran in that mode
>> on an LCD panel in the first place.
>>
>> If it doesn't work, you can always shift back.
>> It only takes a few SECONDS to shift resolutions, you know.
>> And, a few more to shift back.
>> Run a few of your favorite programs.
>> Look at some of your favorite pictures.
>> Shift between modes, and see the astounding difference.
>> Geesh.
>>
>> An LCD panel is pretty much CRIPPLED except at native resolution.
>> Especially one below 1680x1050 native.
>> Even there, the compromises are bad.
>>
>OK! I've read the entire thread so far. Lots of good reading.
>My problem is my eyes! As I'm getting older I don't like the text
>getting too small.
>
>I had a 21" CRT monitor running at 1024x768. Looked great!
>I purchased an LCD (to get more desk space) and running it at native
>resolution was clear if I got up really close. But my old eyes need
>bigger text. I cranked the LCD back to 1024x768. I think it looks
>horrible! Setting clear type helps, but icons, etc now look crappy.
>
>I've even played around with DPI settings in Display properties.
>
>Does anyone have some good settings (for whatever) that will allow me to
>run at 1280x1024 and still have text and other icons large enough???

Afaik the only way to do this is to reconfigure each application to
use larger font sizes. That may defeat the gain from using a larger
resolution. Icon sizes can be changed through the standard Windows
'desktop/right click' option and selecting
'properties/settings/advanced'. If you have an ATI graphics card,
you can also do this using ATI Tray Tools utility (free).

DRS
May 22nd 07, 04:13 PM
"Mr.E Solved!" > wrote in message


[...]

> That said, color depth on LCDs is comically bad resulting in ever
> present banding, moving images are subject to a host of noticeable
> artifacts (such as over shoot and ghosting)

As an aside, I do wish people would stop referring to motion artifacts as
ghosting. The VESA Flat Panel Display Manual defines ghosting as the
problem of interference over the signal, resulting in an "echoed" image.
It's quite different to motion blur.

kony
May 22nd 07, 04:40 PM
On Wed, 23 May 2007 01:13:44 +1000, "DRS"
> wrote:

>"Mr.E Solved!" > wrote in message

>
>[...]
>
>> That said, color depth on LCDs is comically bad resulting in ever
>> present banding, moving images are subject to a host of noticeable
>> artifacts (such as over shoot and ghosting)
>
>As an aside, I do wish people would stop referring to motion artifacts as
>ghosting. The VESA Flat Panel Display Manual defines ghosting as the
>problem of interference over the signal, resulting in an "echoed" image.
>It's quite different to motion blur.
>


I agree it would be nice if people didn't refer to it as
ghosting but there are many reviewers who use the term like
that so it keeps getting perpetuated.

Mr.E Solved!
May 22nd 07, 05:29 PM
kony wrote:

>>> That said, color depth on LCDs is comically bad resulting in ever
>>> present banding, moving images are subject to a host of noticeable
>>> artifacts (such as over shoot and ghosting)

>> As an aside, I do wish people would stop referring to motion artifacts as
>> ghosting. The VESA Flat Panel Display Manual defines ghosting as the
>> problem of interference over the signal, resulting in an "echoed" image.
>> It's quite different to motion blur.
>>
>
>
> I agree it would be nice if people didn't refer to it as
> ghosting but there are many reviewers who use the term like
> that so it keeps getting perpetuated.

The term ghosting is accepted lingo since it is an excellent metaphor
for describing what occurs in the conditions when it occurs.

Also, to make the point: you can't get ghosting with a static image, it
requires the scene to be in motion since ghosting is caused by the
pixels switching on and off too slowly. Ghosting is a single form of
visual artifact, not the only one possible. So the original statement is
correct, "moving LCD images are subject to a whole host of noticeable
artifacts, such as over shoot (a signal processing error) and ghosting
(a physical design limitation)."

The point being, none of these immersion ruining artifacts are present
in CRTs by design, making them infinitely superior in this category.

For example, if you are trying to aim at a small fast moving target,
with ghosting you will never be sure the object you are shooting at is
actually where your display says it is, the smaller the target, the
greater the impact of ghosting, this is why one of the most recognizable
measurement criteria for LCD 'quality' is the pixel response time, since
it impacts ghosting directly.

What would you prefer to call it?

DRS
May 22nd 07, 05:34 PM
"Mr.E Solved!" > wrote in message

> kony wrote:

[...]

>>> As an aside, I do wish people would stop referring to motion
>>> artifacts as ghosting. The VESA Flat Panel Display Manual defines
>>> ghosting as the problem of interference over the signal, resulting
>>> in an "echoed" image. It's quite different to motion blur.
>>
>> I agree it would be nice if people didn't refer to it as
>> ghosting but there are many reviewers who use the term like
>> that so it keeps getting perpetuated.
>
> The term ghosting is accepted lingo since it is an excellent metaphor
> for describing what occurs in the conditions when it occurs.

It already has a defined meaning. By misusing as you did you help to
confuse people not aware of the differences between ghosting and motion
blur.

> Also, to make the point: you can't get ghosting with a static image,
> it requires the scene to be in motion since ghosting is caused by the
> pixels switching on and off too slowly.

No, it isn't. Ghosting is possible with a static image, which is why you
shouldn't use it to refer to motion blur.

Frank McCoy
May 22nd 07, 05:56 PM
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt kony > wrote:

>On Tue, 22 May 2007 01:32:29 -0500, Frank McCoy
> wrote:
>
>
>>*Mine* does just *fine* thank you.
>>I'm not sure what kind of old-fashioned crap you're thinking about, but
>>it's NOT a modern LCD monitor!
>>
>
>Yours behaves like most, you can shift horizontally and the
>degradation is minor for the first 50' or so, but
>nevertheless a discriminable degradation.

!!!!!NNNOOOOO!!!!!!!
Geesh, CAN'T YOU READ????

I get almost *90 degree* horizontal shift with *NO* degradation.
It just gets a bit hard to read in that last ten degrees from
right-angle. The thick glass of a CRT is actually *harder* to see
through at such an angle! And there's no, I repeat *!NO!* degradation
in either color, contrast OR brightness when the thing is a full 80+
degrees from horizontal. By the time it does deteriorate, I'm almost
looking at the BACK of the panel instead of the front!

There is a *tiny* bit of such "degradation" with vertical shift; but not
enough to notice until well past 45 degrees ... and who tilts their
screen back THAT far?

> That doesn't mean
>it's "bad" per se at that angle, but we are contrasting
>minor differences already when someone acts as though
>choosing CRT is somehow important versus CRT for such
>aspects - then those have to be determined objectively and
>objectively any LCD does measure as lower contrast at
>horiztonal angles.
>
But there IS no such lower contrast in mine.
Not one tiny bit.

>Vertical angles are where they are far worse though, so if
>someone has an unusual use where they need that viewing
>angle they will need to be sure they had auditioned the LCD
>prospects before assuming one would be acceptible, rather
>than just legible.
>
Like I said, vertical gets a *tiny* bit of change in color and contrast
.... but only at completely ridiculous angles ... Looking at mine right
now, it's *barely* noticeable difference when tilted a full 50 degrees
from face-on to me. Only at about a full seventy degrees does the shift
in hue and slight decrease in contrast become quite noticeable. The
screen is *still* readable though to a full 80 degrees and beyond.

Try that with a CRT ... You can't. The thing will fall over first.

Like I said, I see *laptops* with the kind of displays you talk about,
as if they were modern LCD monitors ... But they're NOT.

My monitor has *NONE* of those problems you mention.
Those are pretty much old-style technology.

>
>>Well, at least not *mine* anyway.
>>I'm viewing mine with my head cocked about forty-degrees off-axis right
>>now; and it's as clear as it would be straight-on.
>
>What does head cocked have to do with anything? That
>wouldn't have any substantial differences in viewing angle
>in an absolute sense unless you are a giraffe.
>
Geesh I had my head cocked almost *three feet* off to the left side.
I'm not talking so much about twisting my head from the vertical, as
moving it to one side of the screen, way past the edge.
<Sigh.>

>
>
>>With the large size of this monitor, and the fact I have to shift my
>>eyes right-to-left and up-and-down to take in the entire screen from
>>sitting about three feet away, it would indeed be a crappy monitor if
>>what you said was true.
>
>Nobody is saying crap but the fact remains LCD does have a
>primary weakness in viewing angle. You need not agree,

!!!!NOT MINE!!!!
That's a "problem" that's been *FIXED*!
Geesh.
The LCD is actually *easier* to view off-angle and BETTER than any CRT
I've ever looked at. Hell, like I say, I've a 21" CRT sitting right
here and *IT isn't as clear viewed off-axis, because the thickness of
the front panel glass gets in the way!

>every single review of LCDs every written agrees with this.

Get a review of a *MODERN* LCD panel then.
Hell, I'm reviewing my own right now; and comparing it with a 21" CRT
monitor; and in almost every comparison *THE CRT LOSES*.

Yes, in viewing-angle most specifically!

Here:
Read *these* reviews of modern LCD tft monitors.
Can't find a review, good or bad, of mine.
http://www.reviewcentre.com/products93.html

>That does not disqualify them though since it is not a
>typica thing to do, to extend oneself at odd angles from
>what they are trying to view as even if everything else were
>perfect it would still necessarily upset the correct aspect
>ratio and by most scenarios, increase viewing distance which
>by itself interferes with best perceptions.

And *I* am saying, you're not comparing modern desktop monitors to CRTs,
but perhaps laptop screens or old technology.

When comparing fluorescent bulbs to incandescents, you *don't* complain
they all need long mounts, must hang from the ceiling, and have
expensive transformer ballasts, do you?

Don't similarly compare OLD LCD panels to CRTs and then say THAT is
where they fall down! Modern ones DON'T!

Geesh.
You'd think this was alt.folklore.computers, not
alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt.

It's like you guys are describing a computer built with a Pentium II to
a modern Apple, and saying that "Intel Processors just don't compare."

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

Frank McCoy
May 22nd 07, 05:58 PM
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Conor > wrote:

>In article >, Frank McCoy
>says...
>
>> The CRT monitors look fuzzy and out-of-focus next to the LCD panels at
>> similar resolutions. Most especially so at the corners. The LCD panels
>> also EXACTLY fill out the screen; while with good adjustment of a CRT
>> you can only get *close* to doing so without either not displaying the
>> whole thing, or leaving black borders in some parts of the screen.
>>
>> Don't believe me?
>> Try it yourself and see!
>> Geesh.
>>
>How old is this CRT monitor? They start to go out of focus after a year
>or so and need adjusting periodically.

It's old ... but IN FOCUS.
You're talking to somebody who started out as a TV technician clear back
in 1960. I *do* know about keeping a CRT in focus.
Can't stand one out of focus or misaligned.
Drives me *nuts*.
Most people would never notice; but *I* do.

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

Frank McCoy
May 22nd 07, 06:17 PM
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Gorby >
wrote:

>Frank McCoy wrote:
>> In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt hummingbird >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 21 May 2007 00:27:50 +0100 'hummingbird'
>>> posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:48:25 -0400 'Coffee Lover'
>>>> posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:
>>>>
>>>>> I got my resolution AS high as possible right now.
>>>>> I read/heard the higher the resolution, you get a drop in performance?
>>>>> 1280 X 1024 right now, what's a good one for performance?
>>>>>
>>>>> Or does it matter????????
>>>> I use 800 x 600 on my 17" LCD and it displays at lightning speed
>>>> with excellent sharpness etc. I'm at a loss to know why so many
>>>> people use higher res on similar monitors.
>>> Frank & FKS:
>>> I can see no reference to 'native resolution' in any of the utils
>>> which display monitor specs. The max resolution of my monitor is
>>> reported as being 1280 x 1024 ...is this what you mean by native?
>>> Native resolution may be referenced in the small user manual which
>>> I can't locate right now.
>>>
>> Most likely, if it's shown as max, that's your native resolution.
>> Most modern LCD panel displays report to the OS what resolutions they
>> support (as do most modern CRTs). I'm not sure exactly how they do; but
>> am pretty sure it's part of the VESA spec for monitors.
>>
>>> Whether upgrading to 1280 x 1024 would improve the image on the
>>> screen, I don't know. My current 800 x 600 @32bit colour & 75Hz
>>> refresh rate already produces excellent image/colour quality when
>>> viewing my digital camera pix etc and possibly generates images faster
>>> than a higher resolution. I know there's some debate about that.
>>>
>> Actually, going "native" in this case *could* actually make things
>> faster ... but most likely the images would be generated at the same
>> rate. And as for image/colour quality ... You don't know what you're
>> missing by not running at native resolution. I think you'll find the
>> difference is about the same as shifting from EGA resolution to 800x600.
>>
>> Yes, THAT much.
>>
>>> Although I'm interested in this I'm unlikely to change the resolution
>>> settings because I have large numbers of scanned documents and
>>> thousands of images which I have sized to display on screen in the way
>>> I want. Using a higher resolution would make them appear smaller on
>>> the screen.
>>
>> Actually, I'd say TRY IT!!!
>> I think you'd find the difference in size minimal between 800x600 and
>> 1280x1024; being not much of a (only 60%) difference, while the
>> improvement in *clarity* could be tremendous!
>>
>> IOW: Even though *smaller*, with native resolution the images would be
>> *so much sharper*, they'd be far easier on the eye to look at and grasp.
>>
>> I don't think you fully realize what a compromise it is when downgrading
>> resolution on an LCD panel. On a CRT monitor, not much is lost, if any.
>> On an LCD, the things done to make lower resolutions work at all is
>> really CRAPPY.
>>
>> Try it: You'll never go back; and wonder why you ever ran in that mode
>> on an LCD panel in the first place.
>>
>> If it doesn't work, you can always shift back.
>> It only takes a few SECONDS to shift resolutions, you know.
>> And, a few more to shift back.
>> Run a few of your favorite programs.
>> Look at some of your favorite pictures.
>> Shift between modes, and see the astounding difference.
>> Geesh.
>>
>> An LCD panel is pretty much CRIPPLED except at native resolution.
>> Especially one below 1680x1050 native.
>> Even there, the compromises are bad.
>>
>OK! I've read the entire thread so far. Lots of good reading.
>My problem is my eyes! As I'm getting older I don't like the text
>getting too small.
>
>I had a 21" CRT monitor running at 1024x768. Looked great!
>I purchased an LCD (to get more desk space) and running it at native
>resolution was clear if I got up really close. But my old eyes need
>bigger text. I cranked the LCD back to 1024x768. I think it looks
>horrible! Setting clear type helps, but icons, etc now look crappy.
>
>I've even played around with DPI settings in Display properties.
>
>Does anyone have some good settings (for whatever) that will allow me to
>run at 1280x1024 and still have text and other icons large enough???

Sure. I had to do that with mine.
The improvement in clarity is *well* worth the time.
Improvement over 1024x768.

(Assuming Windows XP here:)
Right-click on the desktop.
Select "Properties".
Select "Desktop".
Select "Effects...".
Activate the button labeled: "Use large Icons"
(Actually, I activate *all* the buttons on that page.
I prefer "Fade-effect" and "Standard" for transitions and smooting.)
Hit "OK".

In the "Display Properties", select "Settings".
Select "Advanced".
Under "Display" and "DPI setting:" Select "Large Size (120DPI)".
Hit "OK".

Try that.

You *might* want to fiddle with Icon Spacing under
"Display Properties" => "Appearance" => "Advanced".
If the large icons appear too close together.
Mine are set to 62 pixels both horizontal and vertical.



--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

Mr.E Solved!
May 22nd 07, 06:27 PM
DRS wrote:


> No, it isn't. Ghosting is possible with a static image, which is why you
> shouldn't use it to refer to motion blur.


Ghosting is not possible with a static image, ghosting is due to the
pixels not turning on and off quickly enough which is not a factor in an
image that stays still. The image has to move to different pixels for
ghosting to be noticed. The same pixel refreshing itself does not create
the ghosting effect.

Ghosting is an example of motion blur which is an unwanted visual
artifact, there are forms of motion blurring other than ghosting, such
as overshoot and undershoot with the prediction circuits. Which have
nothing to do with the pixels themselves. Nor does it create the exact
type of visible artifacts.

Not to mention this does not occur on CRTs, by design, adding to their
superior image quality. This whole thread is a big joke on me, right?
Ha ha, very funny.

Frank McCoy
May 22nd 07, 06:27 PM
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt hummingbird >
wrote:

>On Tue, 22 May 2007 18:03:09 +0930 'Gorby'
>posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:
>
>>Frank McCoy wrote:
>>> In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt hummingbird >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 21 May 2007 00:27:50 +0100 'hummingbird'
>>>> posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:48:25 -0400 'Coffee Lover'
>>>>> posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I got my resolution AS high as possible right now.
>>>>>> I read/heard the higher the resolution, you get a drop in performance?
>>>>>> 1280 X 1024 right now, what's a good one for performance?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or does it matter????????
>>>>> I use 800 x 600 on my 17" LCD and it displays at lightning speed
>>>>> with excellent sharpness etc. I'm at a loss to know why so many
>>>>> people use higher res on similar monitors.
>>>> Frank & FKS:
>>>> I can see no reference to 'native resolution' in any of the utils
>>>> which display monitor specs. The max resolution of my monitor is
>>>> reported as being 1280 x 1024 ...is this what you mean by native?
>>>> Native resolution may be referenced in the small user manual which
>>>> I can't locate right now.
>>>>
>>> Most likely, if it's shown as max, that's your native resolution.
>>> Most modern LCD panel displays report to the OS what resolutions they
>>> support (as do most modern CRTs). I'm not sure exactly how they do; but
>>> am pretty sure it's part of the VESA spec for monitors.
>>>
>>>> Whether upgrading to 1280 x 1024 would improve the image on the
>>>> screen, I don't know. My current 800 x 600 @32bit colour & 75Hz
>>>> refresh rate already produces excellent image/colour quality when
>>>> viewing my digital camera pix etc and possibly generates images faster
>>>> than a higher resolution. I know there's some debate about that.
>>>>
>>> Actually, going "native" in this case *could* actually make things
>>> faster ... but most likely the images would be generated at the same
>>> rate. And as for image/colour quality ... You don't know what you're
>>> missing by not running at native resolution. I think you'll find the
>>> difference is about the same as shifting from EGA resolution to 800x600.
>>>
>>> Yes, THAT much.
>>>
>>>> Although I'm interested in this I'm unlikely to change the resolution
>>>> settings because I have large numbers of scanned documents and
>>>> thousands of images which I have sized to display on screen in the way
>>>> I want. Using a higher resolution would make them appear smaller on
>>>> the screen.
>>>
>>> Actually, I'd say TRY IT!!!
>>> I think you'd find the difference in size minimal between 800x600 and
>>> 1280x1024; being not much of a (only 60%) difference, while the
>>> improvement in *clarity* could be tremendous!
>>>
>>> IOW: Even though *smaller*, with native resolution the images would be
>>> *so much sharper*, they'd be far easier on the eye to look at and grasp.
>>>
>>> I don't think you fully realize what a compromise it is when downgrading
>>> resolution on an LCD panel. On a CRT monitor, not much is lost, if any.
>>> On an LCD, the things done to make lower resolutions work at all is
>>> really CRAPPY.
>>>
>>> Try it: You'll never go back; and wonder why you ever ran in that mode
>>> on an LCD panel in the first place.
>>>
>>> If it doesn't work, you can always shift back.
>>> It only takes a few SECONDS to shift resolutions, you know.
>>> And, a few more to shift back.
>>> Run a few of your favorite programs.
>>> Look at some of your favorite pictures.
>>> Shift between modes, and see the astounding difference.
>>> Geesh.
>>>
>>> An LCD panel is pretty much CRIPPLED except at native resolution.
>>> Especially one below 1680x1050 native.
>>> Even there, the compromises are bad.
>>>
>>OK! I've read the entire thread so far. Lots of good reading.
>>My problem is my eyes! As I'm getting older I don't like the text
>>getting too small.
>>
>>I had a 21" CRT monitor running at 1024x768. Looked great!
>>I purchased an LCD (to get more desk space) and running it at native
>>resolution was clear if I got up really close. But my old eyes need
>>bigger text. I cranked the LCD back to 1024x768. I think it looks
>>horrible! Setting clear type helps, but icons, etc now look crappy.
>>
>>I've even played around with DPI settings in Display properties.
>>
>>Does anyone have some good settings (for whatever) that will allow me to
>>run at 1280x1024 and still have text and other icons large enough???
>
>Afaik the only way to do this is to reconfigure each application to
>use larger font sizes. That may defeat the gain from using a larger
>resolution. Icon sizes can be changed through the standard Windows
>'desktop/right click' option and selecting
>'properties/settings/advanced'. If you have an ATI graphics card,
>you can also do this using ATI Tray Tools utility (free).

Well, actually, most programs pay attention to the Windows Setting.
When using Word, it expands to your display size (one of the few nice
things I have to say about Word); thus making your typing easier to see.

Agent, on the other hand, I had to manually reset all the font sizes to
what I like for this resolution. (Options => Display Preferences =>
Fonts)

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

kony
May 22nd 07, 06:52 PM
On Tue, 22 May 2007 12:29:38 -0400, "Mr.E Solved!"
> wrote:

>kony wrote:
>
>>>> That said, color depth on LCDs is comically bad resulting in ever
>>>> present banding, moving images are subject to a host of noticeable
>>>> artifacts (such as over shoot and ghosting)
>
>>> As an aside, I do wish people would stop referring to motion artifacts as
>>> ghosting. The VESA Flat Panel Display Manual defines ghosting as the
>>> problem of interference over the signal, resulting in an "echoed" image.
>>> It's quite different to motion blur.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I agree it would be nice if people didn't refer to it as
>> ghosting but there are many reviewers who use the term like
>> that so it keeps getting perpetuated.
>
>The term ghosting is accepted lingo since it is an excellent metaphor
>for describing what occurs in the conditions when it occurs.
>

Well no, it's not "accepted" because it had already been the
term used to describe a different monitor problem and while
some might say "it looks like a similar kind of problem", so
it's fairly called ghosting, it is only reasonable to use
the term to crudely described perceptions of visual appeal,
not to describe the phenomenon as an understanding of what's
causing it.



>Also, to make the point: you can't get ghosting with a static image, it
>requires the scene to be in motion since ghosting is caused by the
>pixels switching on and off too slowly.

Wrong. Ghosting has been and will always be possible with
excessive analog signal degradation. On a static image.
Being ignorant of what ghosting means as a term does not
mean you can just reject and reuse the term for something
else. That's why terms exist, you can't just use one that
is already taken in the same genre except as mentioned
above, if only loosely used to describe visual perception,
not actual state of output/technology.

kony
May 22nd 07, 06:54 PM
On Tue, 22 May 2007 11:56:01 -0500, Frank McCoy
> wrote:

>In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt kony > wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 22 May 2007 01:32:29 -0500, Frank McCoy
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>*Mine* does just *fine* thank you.
>>>I'm not sure what kind of old-fashioned crap you're thinking about, but
>>>it's NOT a modern LCD monitor!
>>>
>>
>>Yours behaves like most, you can shift horizontally and the
>>degradation is minor for the first 50' or so, but
>>nevertheless a discriminable degradation.
>
>!!!!!NNNOOOOO!!!!!!!
>Geesh, CAN'T YOU READ????
>
>I get almost *90 degree* horizontal shift with *NO* degradation.


You do not and even your monitor manufacturer will have to
concede it. As written the horizontal degradation is very
slight compared to vertical but it is nevertheless present.

There is no existing LCD technology that overcomes this.
Your monitor is not made of mythic pixie dust, it can only
perform as well as the sum of the parts.

Perhaps your eyes just can't see the difference, but
measurement tools and other people's eyes can.

Frank McCoy
May 22nd 07, 07:21 PM
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt kony > wrote:

>On Tue, 22 May 2007 11:56:01 -0500, Frank McCoy
> wrote:
>
>>In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt kony > wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 22 May 2007 01:32:29 -0500, Frank McCoy
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>*Mine* does just *fine* thank you.
>>>>I'm not sure what kind of old-fashioned crap you're thinking about, but
>>>>it's NOT a modern LCD monitor!
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yours behaves like most, you can shift horizontally and the
>>>degradation is minor for the first 50' or so, but
>>>nevertheless a discriminable degradation.
>>
>>!!!!!NNNOOOOO!!!!!!!
>>Geesh, CAN'T YOU READ????
>>
>>I get almost *90 degree* horizontal shift with *NO* degradation.
>
>
>You do not and even your monitor manufacturer will have to
>concede it. As written the horizontal degradation is very
>slight compared to vertical but it is nevertheless present.
>
>There is no existing LCD technology that overcomes this.
>Your monitor is not made of mythic pixie dust, it can only
>perform as well as the sum of the parts.
>
>Perhaps your eyes just can't see the difference, but
>measurement tools and other people's eyes can.

I get *more* degradation with a CRT!
Why?
Because the *thick glass* gets in the way when the angle gets great.
The glass front on an LCD is pretty damned thin in comparison.
The leaded and quite thick glass *grays out* the CRT display far more
than the slight shift in color off-axis on the LCD display.

Yes, there's *always* degradation no matter what technology you use when
not viewed at the design angle. But LCD displays (at least *desktop*
displays) no longer have much of the old problems that made them such a
pain-in-the-butt a few years ago.

If you don't believe me, come here, and I'll give you a side-by-side
demonstration.

Don't tell ME what I see when you aren't here to see it.

Just go down to any computer place, Best Buy, or other store that sells
monitors and TRY one yourself. You'll see you're complaining about a
problem that was pretty much *solved* about two years ago.

Geesh.
I don't know what they did, or how the new technology works ... I just
know it DOES; and the issue of poor off-axis viewing for LCD monitors is
a dead horse!

Quit beating on it.

The issues of poor color depth and contrast are also pretty dead too.
Technology *DOES* advance; whether some people wish to admit it or not.
You'd *think* in a group about building your own computers, people would
*know* that!

Yes, LCD panels *do* have some minor problems left; including
most-especially response time (though that's improving fast also).

But color-depth, contrast, and most-especially off-axis viewing are no
longer issues worth even considering when buying an LCD monitor. (OK
.... Correction: They ARE worth considering if buying an OLDER monitor.)

Native resolution, aspect-ratio, physical size, and response-time ARE.
Also, lifetime, come to think about it.
I'm not too sure of the lifetime of LCD monitors yet; though mine is
doing just fine after over six months now. (I got it in the "Black
Friday" sale last Thanksgiving weekend, for Christmas.)

CRTs *do* have a fairly decent history of holding up fairly well.
With the new TFT displays, who knows?
Nothing *inherently* in the design to make them go pop; but ....
We'll just have to see.

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

DRS
May 22nd 07, 08:47 PM
"Mr.E Solved!" > wrote in message

> DRS wrote:
>
>> No, it isn't. Ghosting is possible with a static image, which is
>> why you shouldn't use it to refer to motion blur.
>
> Ghosting is not possible with a static image, ghosting is due to the
> pixels not turning on and off quickly enough which is not a factor in
> an image that stays still. The image has to move to different pixels
> for ghosting to be noticed. The same pixel refreshing itself does not
> create the ghosting effect.

That is simply wrong. Interference with the analogue signal is perfectly
capable of producing an "echoed" static image, as defined by the VESA Flat
Panel Display Manual.

> Ghosting is an example of motion blur which is an unwanted visual
> artifact,

No, it isn't. You're referring to a phenomenon different to ghosting.

[...]

> Not to mention this does not occur on CRTs, by design, adding to their
> superior image quality. This whole thread is a big joke on me, right?
> Ha ha, very funny.

CRTs are fundamentally similar to TVs. Have you never seen ghosting on a TV
because of a poor signal?

hummingbird[_2_]
May 22nd 07, 09:00 PM
On Tue, 22 May 2007 12:27:26 -0500 'Frank McCoy'
posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:

>In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt hummingbird >
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 22 May 2007 18:03:09 +0930 'Gorby'
>>posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:
>>
>>>Frank McCoy wrote:
>>>> In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt hummingbird >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 21 May 2007 00:27:50 +0100 'hummingbird'
>>>>> posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:48:25 -0400 'Coffee Lover'
>>>>>> posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I got my resolution AS high as possible right now.
>>>>>>> I read/heard the higher the resolution, you get a drop in performance?
>>>>>>> 1280 X 1024 right now, what's a good one for performance?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or does it matter????????
>>>>>> I use 800 x 600 on my 17" LCD and it displays at lightning speed
>>>>>> with excellent sharpness etc. I'm at a loss to know why so many
>>>>>> people use higher res on similar monitors.
>>>>> Frank & FKS:
>>>>> I can see no reference to 'native resolution' in any of the utils
>>>>> which display monitor specs. The max resolution of my monitor is
>>>>> reported as being 1280 x 1024 ...is this what you mean by native?
>>>>> Native resolution may be referenced in the small user manual which
>>>>> I can't locate right now.
>>>>>
>>>> Most likely, if it's shown as max, that's your native resolution.
>>>> Most modern LCD panel displays report to the OS what resolutions they
>>>> support (as do most modern CRTs). I'm not sure exactly how they do; but
>>>> am pretty sure it's part of the VESA spec for monitors.
>>>>
>>>>> Whether upgrading to 1280 x 1024 would improve the image on the
>>>>> screen, I don't know. My current 800 x 600 @32bit colour & 75Hz
>>>>> refresh rate already produces excellent image/colour quality when
>>>>> viewing my digital camera pix etc and possibly generates images faster
>>>>> than a higher resolution. I know there's some debate about that.
>>>>>
>>>> Actually, going "native" in this case *could* actually make things
>>>> faster ... but most likely the images would be generated at the same
>>>> rate. And as for image/colour quality ... You don't know what you're
>>>> missing by not running at native resolution. I think you'll find the
>>>> difference is about the same as shifting from EGA resolution to 800x600.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, THAT much.
>>>>
>>>>> Although I'm interested in this I'm unlikely to change the resolution
>>>>> settings because I have large numbers of scanned documents and
>>>>> thousands of images which I have sized to display on screen in the way
>>>>> I want. Using a higher resolution would make them appear smaller on
>>>>> the screen.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, I'd say TRY IT!!!
>>>> I think you'd find the difference in size minimal between 800x600 and
>>>> 1280x1024; being not much of a (only 60%) difference, while the
>>>> improvement in *clarity* could be tremendous!
>>>>
>>>> IOW: Even though *smaller*, with native resolution the images would be
>>>> *so much sharper*, they'd be far easier on the eye to look at and grasp.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think you fully realize what a compromise it is when downgrading
>>>> resolution on an LCD panel. On a CRT monitor, not much is lost, if any.
>>>> On an LCD, the things done to make lower resolutions work at all is
>>>> really CRAPPY.
>>>>
>>>> Try it: You'll never go back; and wonder why you ever ran in that mode
>>>> on an LCD panel in the first place.
>>>>
>>>> If it doesn't work, you can always shift back.
>>>> It only takes a few SECONDS to shift resolutions, you know.
>>>> And, a few more to shift back.
>>>> Run a few of your favorite programs.
>>>> Look at some of your favorite pictures.
>>>> Shift between modes, and see the astounding difference.
>>>> Geesh.
>>>>
>>>> An LCD panel is pretty much CRIPPLED except at native resolution.
>>>> Especially one below 1680x1050 native.
>>>> Even there, the compromises are bad.
>>>>
>>>OK! I've read the entire thread so far. Lots of good reading.
>>>My problem is my eyes! As I'm getting older I don't like the text
>>>getting too small.
>>>
>>>I had a 21" CRT monitor running at 1024x768. Looked great!
>>>I purchased an LCD (to get more desk space) and running it at native
>>>resolution was clear if I got up really close. But my old eyes need
>>>bigger text. I cranked the LCD back to 1024x768. I think it looks
>>>horrible! Setting clear type helps, but icons, etc now look crappy.
>>>
>>>I've even played around with DPI settings in Display properties.
>>>
>>>Does anyone have some good settings (for whatever) that will allow me to
>>>run at 1280x1024 and still have text and other icons large enough???
>>
>>Afaik the only way to do this is to reconfigure each application to
>>use larger font sizes. That may defeat the gain from using a larger
>>resolution. Icon sizes can be changed through the standard Windows
>>'desktop/right click' option and selecting
>>'properties/settings/advanced'. If you have an ATI graphics card,
>>you can also do this using ATI Tray Tools utility (free).
>
>Well, actually, most programs pay attention to the Windows Setting.
>When using Word, it expands to your display size (one of the few nice
>things I have to say about Word); thus making your typing easier to see.

Well, I never go near s/w from MS except XP.
I didn't look at all my apps - only those which I thought might need
re-configuring. I guess some of them would be ok.


>Agent, on the other hand, I had to manually reset all the font sizes to
>what I like for this resolution. (Options => Display Preferences =>
>Fonts)

Indeed but I have two instances of it running and then there's my
other apps. EG: In Avant Browser I configured the top toolbar to
contain only those small icons I wanted and to fill up the width using
space bars etc. Under 1280x1024 there's an ugly space across the top
and the icons are v/small. Re-configuring ZtreeWin is a whole new
ball game and requires the .pif font size to be edited and command
line syntax etc.

kony
May 22nd 07, 09:00 PM
On Tue, 22 May 2007 13:21:23 -0500, Frank McCoy
> wrote:

>>You do not and even your monitor manufacturer will have to
>>concede it. As written the horizontal degradation is very
>>slight compared to vertical but it is nevertheless present.
>>
>>There is no existing LCD technology that overcomes this.
>>Your monitor is not made of mythic pixie dust, it can only
>>perform as well as the sum of the parts.
>>
>>Perhaps your eyes just can't see the difference, but
>>measurement tools and other people's eyes can.
>
>I get *more* degradation with a CRT!
>Why?
>Because the *thick glass* gets in the way when the angle gets great.
>The glass front on an LCD is pretty damned thin in comparison.

That could be quite true, any tpyical consumer display is
meant to be viewed straight-on in front and those with
reflective surface then also need the ambient lighting
adjusted more to minimize reflections.

DRS
May 22nd 07, 09:19 PM
"Frank McCoy" > wrote in message


[...]

> I guess the full switchover to digital TV, due by next year, is
> pushing flat-panel displays more than anything else. That, of
> course, means LCD panels *will* get faster, just for TV use if
> nothing else ... the main drawback now to LCDs.

I must disagree with you that LCD speed is the issue. Se
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/lcd-parameters.html for a
detailed explanation of why.

Frank McCoy
May 23rd 07, 12:34 AM
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "DRS" >
wrote:

>"Frank McCoy" > wrote in message

>
>[...]
>
>> I guess the full switchover to digital TV, due by next year, is
>> pushing flat-panel displays more than anything else. That, of
>> course, means LCD panels *will* get faster, just for TV use if
>> nothing else ... the main drawback now to LCDs.
>
>I must disagree with you that LCD speed is the issue. Se
>http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/lcd-parameters.html for a
>detailed explanation of why.
>
Um ... A large part of his discussion about "persistance of vision"
actually turns out to be related to LCD speed versus CRT.

What he doesn't take into account, is the persistence of *phosphor* on
the screen; assuming that the effect seen is purely do to the human eye.

It's not.

The problem he describes with LCD panels, he correctly attributes to the
fact that an LCD pixel is turned on *all the time* during a frame,
versus the temporary showing and fading-out on a CRT, especially when
showing Television pictures.

But, instead of being "persistence of vision" causing the problem, if
you examine it closely and mathematically, the root problem is
"persistence of pixel". When an LCD panel switches pictures (or, more
correctly, when an LCD pixel switches brightness states) the old setting
*remains* and *doesn't change* quickly; because of the delay in changing
states for the LCD itself. Sometimes the remnants of a previous picture
can persist over several *frames*.

As evidence of this, Plasma Panels just don't *have* this problem; even
though they also maintain brightness for the full time of a frame. They
however, switch *instantly* to the new brightness level; and thus don't
have the same problem. If his analysis was right, then Plasma Panels
would have the exact same problem ... and they don't.

No, proper speed in switching *will* solve the problem ... eventually.
Only the switching-speed has to get up to at least three times the
frame-rate before the described "problem" he's covering will go away;
NOT the same rate as the frames are updated. There, he's quite correct,
that raising the speed to frame-rates won't make the problem go away.

The technical "solution" he documents that some manufacturers of LCD
televisions are doing: Blacking out between frames with the backlight,
to my notion causes more problems than it solves; not the least of which
is bringing back flicker ... a defect that LCD and Plasma Panels got rid
of nicely. I certainly would never buy an LCD panel with that sort of
thing making my eyes ache! I'd rather put up with the smearing.

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

Frank McCoy
May 23rd 07, 01:00 AM
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt kony > wrote:

>On Tue, 22 May 2007 13:21:23 -0500, Frank McCoy
> wrote:
>
>>>You do not and even your monitor manufacturer will have to
>>>concede it. As written the horizontal degradation is very
>>>slight compared to vertical but it is nevertheless present.
>>>
>>>There is no existing LCD technology that overcomes this.
>>>Your monitor is not made of mythic pixie dust, it can only
>>>perform as well as the sum of the parts.
>>>
>>>Perhaps your eyes just can't see the difference, but
>>>measurement tools and other people's eyes can.
>>
>>I get *more* degradation with a CRT!
>>Why?
>>Because the *thick glass* gets in the way when the angle gets great.
>>The glass front on an LCD is pretty damned thin in comparison.
>
>That could be quite true, any tpyical consumer display is
>meant to be viewed straight-on in front and those with
>reflective surface then also need the ambient lighting
>adjusted more to minimize reflections.

Sometime look up what goes into a modern color CRT.
Especially to increase contrast and minimize reflection.
They *waste* over 3/4 of the brightness by adding black surrounds,
darkening the glass, and other tricks so that while actually reducing
brightness of the tube, the output *looks* brighter in comparison to
unwanted reflections. They make the dots smaller (dots, not pixels.
Pixels are made up of many dots) and the black area bigger; simply
because the phosphor, when unexcited, is white and reflects room
lighting. So, they then have to excite the phosphor that much more in
compensation. However, CRTs and their new electron guns are well up to
the job; so the customer never notices; simply seeing what *looks* like
a brighter picture, when it isn't. It just has more contrast to the
black background and darkened glass on the front of the tube.

Modern TV screens have the glass an actual dark-gray, for this reason:
Ambient light goes through the glass TWICE; and the dark gray of the
glass will dampen light going through it by more than half each
direction in some models. That reduces reflected glare by up to three
times. The light going out however, only gets reduced one time; so it
ends up *looking* twice as bright ... In comparison, of course to the
reflection. Look also at the surface of most TVs these days. They are
*not* the smooth "glassy* surface you might expect with what's known as
"specular" reflection. Instead they're textured to reduce reflections;
and might even have real anti-reflection coatings. (That last, I'm not
sure of. It's an expensive procedure for something mass-produced like
CRTs.)

CRTs are *amazing* things.
That's why it's taken so long to replace them. They just kept getting
BETTER all the time; and a stern-chase is always a long one.

Most of the early problems color CRTs had with bad purity, convergence,
alignment, and poor showing in bright rooms, have, while not exactly
been "solved"; certainly have so much improvement that nobody even
notices the small remaining defects they still have ... Until, of
course, they're compared side-by-side with a digital panel display; and
such things as misconvergence, minute variation in focus, and such
defects become obvious ... Though, to many people, only when viewed
under at least medium magnification.

LCD panels still have their own problems; as to Plasma Panels.
However, their improvement rate is *staggering*; while CRTs have pretty
much got about as much improvement in as they can. There's little left
in the technology that hasn't already been tried.

I don't really expect LCD panels or Plasma either to be the display of
the future. Some kind of FED display will *eventually* take over ...
once they get something that actually emits and does so reliably over
long periods of time. Of course, by then, perhaps another dark horse
will come along and sweep the field. OLEDs, perhaps?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLED

Whatever. In any case, digital and flat-panel displays are here to
stay; and I don't really expect the CRT to last much longer than another
decade, if that. The new displays are getting cheaper, faster, and
better each day; and some day will replace cathode-ray-tubes the way
semiconductor memory has long-since replaced core.

(THAT, BTW, took decades longer than some people predicted.)
Eventually however, everything will be digital; just like music went
from analog scratches in a plastic record to digital dimples in a
plastic CD.

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

Frank McCoy
May 23rd 07, 01:04 AM
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt hummingbird >
wrote:

>On Tue, 22 May 2007 12:27:26 -0500 'Frank McCoy'
>posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:
>
>>In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt hummingbird >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 22 May 2007 18:03:09 +0930 'Gorby'
>>>posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:
>>>
>>>>Frank McCoy wrote:
>>>>> In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt hummingbird >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 21 May 2007 00:27:50 +0100 'hummingbird'
>>>>>> posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:48:25 -0400 'Coffee Lover'
>>>>>>> posted this onto alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I got my resolution AS high as possible right now.
>>>>>>>> I read/heard the higher the resolution, you get a drop in performance?
>>>>>>>> 1280 X 1024 right now, what's a good one for performance?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or does it matter????????
>>>>>>> I use 800 x 600 on my 17" LCD and it displays at lightning speed
>>>>>>> with excellent sharpness etc. I'm at a loss to know why so many
>>>>>>> people use higher res on similar monitors.
>>>>>> Frank & FKS:
>>>>>> I can see no reference to 'native resolution' in any of the utils
>>>>>> which display monitor specs. The max resolution of my monitor is
>>>>>> reported as being 1280 x 1024 ...is this what you mean by native?
>>>>>> Native resolution may be referenced in the small user manual which
>>>>>> I can't locate right now.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Most likely, if it's shown as max, that's your native resolution.
>>>>> Most modern LCD panel displays report to the OS what resolutions they
>>>>> support (as do most modern CRTs). I'm not sure exactly how they do; but
>>>>> am pretty sure it's part of the VESA spec for monitors.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Whether upgrading to 1280 x 1024 would improve the image on the
>>>>>> screen, I don't know. My current 800 x 600 @32bit colour & 75Hz
>>>>>> refresh rate already produces excellent image/colour quality when
>>>>>> viewing my digital camera pix etc and possibly generates images faster
>>>>>> than a higher resolution. I know there's some debate about that.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, going "native" in this case *could* actually make things
>>>>> faster ... but most likely the images would be generated at the same
>>>>> rate. And as for image/colour quality ... You don't know what you're
>>>>> missing by not running at native resolution. I think you'll find the
>>>>> difference is about the same as shifting from EGA resolution to 800x600.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, THAT much.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Although I'm interested in this I'm unlikely to change the resolution
>>>>>> settings because I have large numbers of scanned documents and
>>>>>> thousands of images which I have sized to display on screen in the way
>>>>>> I want. Using a higher resolution would make them appear smaller on
>>>>>> the screen.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, I'd say TRY IT!!!
>>>>> I think you'd find the difference in size minimal between 800x600 and
>>>>> 1280x1024; being not much of a (only 60%) difference, while the
>>>>> improvement in *clarity* could be tremendous!
>>>>>
>>>>> IOW: Even though *smaller*, with native resolution the images would be
>>>>> *so much sharper*, they'd be far easier on the eye to look at and grasp.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think you fully realize what a compromise it is when downgrading
>>>>> resolution on an LCD panel. On a CRT monitor, not much is lost, if any.
>>>>> On an LCD, the things done to make lower resolutions work at all is
>>>>> really CRAPPY.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try it: You'll never go back; and wonder why you ever ran in that mode
>>>>> on an LCD panel in the first place.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it doesn't work, you can always shift back.
>>>>> It only takes a few SECONDS to shift resolutions, you know.
>>>>> And, a few more to shift back.
>>>>> Run a few of your favorite programs.
>>>>> Look at some of your favorite pictures.
>>>>> Shift between modes, and see the astounding difference.
>>>>> Geesh.
>>>>>
>>>>> An LCD panel is pretty much CRIPPLED except at native resolution.
>>>>> Especially one below 1680x1050 native.
>>>>> Even there, the compromises are bad.
>>>>>
>>>>OK! I've read the entire thread so far. Lots of good reading.
>>>>My problem is my eyes! As I'm getting older I don't like the text
>>>>getting too small.
>>>>
>>>>I had a 21" CRT monitor running at 1024x768. Looked great!
>>>>I purchased an LCD (to get more desk space) and running it at native
>>>>resolution was clear if I got up really close. But my old eyes need
>>>>bigger text. I cranked the LCD back to 1024x768. I think it looks
>>>>horrible! Setting clear type helps, but icons, etc now look crappy.
>>>>
>>>>I've even played around with DPI settings in Display properties.
>>>>
>>>>Does anyone have some good settings (for whatever) that will allow me to
>>>>run at 1280x1024 and still have text and other icons large enough???
>>>
>>>Afaik the only way to do this is to reconfigure each application to
>>>use larger font sizes. That may defeat the gain from using a larger
>>>resolution. Icon sizes can be changed through the standard Windows
>>>'desktop/right click' option and selecting
>>>'properties/settings/advanced'. If you have an ATI graphics card,
>>>you can also do this using ATI Tray Tools utility (free).
>>
>>Well, actually, most programs pay attention to the Windows Setting.
>>When using Word, it expands to your display size (one of the few nice
>>things I have to say about Word); thus making your typing easier to see.
>
>Well, I never go near s/w from MS except XP.
>I didn't look at all my apps - only those which I thought might need
>re-configuring. I guess some of them would be ok.
>
>
>>Agent, on the other hand, I had to manually reset all the font sizes to
>>what I like for this resolution. (Options => Display Preferences =>
>>Fonts)
>
>Indeed but I have two instances of it running and then there's my
>other apps. EG: In Avant Browser I configured the top toolbar to
>contain only those small icons I wanted and to fill up the width using
>space bars etc. Under 1280x1024 there's an ugly space across the top
>and the icons are v/small. Re-configuring ZtreeWin is a whole new
>ball game and requires the .pif font size to be edited and command
>line syntax etc.

All I can say is:
Do it, and you'll find the decrease in eye-strain with higher resolution
fonts WELL worth the extra effort.

Rather like switching from DOS screen-fonts to True-Type.

The finer grain of the resulting fonts is *much* easier on the eye.
Once, of course, you do get everything changed over.

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

Ed Medlin[_2_]
May 23rd 07, 03:42 PM
"DRS" > wrote in message
...
> "Mr.E Solved!" > wrote in message
>
>> kony wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>> As an aside, I do wish people would stop referring to motion
>>>> artifacts as ghosting. The VESA Flat Panel Display Manual defines
>>>> ghosting as the problem of interference over the signal, resulting
>>>> in an "echoed" image. It's quite different to motion blur.
>>>
>>> I agree it would be nice if people didn't refer to it as
>>> ghosting but there are many reviewers who use the term like
>>> that so it keeps getting perpetuated.
>>
>> The term ghosting is accepted lingo since it is an excellent metaphor
>> for describing what occurs in the conditions when it occurs.
>
> It already has a defined meaning. By misusing as you did you help to
> confuse people not aware of the differences between ghosting and motion
> blur.
>
>> Also, to make the point: you can't get ghosting with a static image,
>> it requires the scene to be in motion since ghosting is caused by the
>> pixels switching on and off too slowly.
>
> No, it isn't. Ghosting is possible with a static image, which is why you
> shouldn't use it to refer to motion blur.
Anyone here who remembers trying to adjust an indoor TV antenna to get rid
of that "double" image will know what ghosting is. At least that is what I
always considered ghosting. Motion blur is what you see (more and more
rarely as LCD monitors are improving) when gaming on LCDs with fast moving
objects.


Ed
>

Frank McCoy
May 23rd 07, 04:30 PM
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "Ed Medlin" >
wrote:

>Anyone here who remembers trying to adjust an indoor TV antenna to get rid
>of that "double" image will know what ghosting is. At least that is what I
>always considered ghosting. Motion blur is what you see (more and more
>rarely as LCD monitors are improving) when gaming on LCDs with fast moving
>objects.

"Ghosting" is now more properly called, "Multipath reception"; and
applies to both TV and FM signals.

Digital TV is removing that problem. With digital TV, either you get
the station with *good* reception; or you don't see anything except
sporadically. Makes it a bit difficult to adjust a TV antenna; though
the digital sets usually *do* have a signal-strength bar or "meter" to
help ... somewhere in their "tools" or "channel" menus.

One of the nice thing about analog though was: If you could get even a
very WEAK signal, you could still watch a snowy picture. No more.

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

kony
May 23rd 07, 08:43 PM
On Wed, 23 May 2007 10:30:56 -0500, Frank McCoy
> wrote:

>In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "Ed Medlin" >
>wrote:
>
>>Anyone here who remembers trying to adjust an indoor TV antenna to get rid
>>of that "double" image will know what ghosting is. At least that is what I
>>always considered ghosting. Motion blur is what you see (more and more
>>rarely as LCD monitors are improving) when gaming on LCDs with fast moving
>>objects.
>
>"Ghosting" is now more properly called, "Multipath reception"; and
>applies to both TV and FM signals.

It just happens that in a different discipline,
computers/monitors, it has a different cause but similar
result still. If it hadn't already been a standard computer
term it might be applied to LCD artifacts but since it is,
reusing the term in same discipline deviates from the
intention of using a term for a defined meaning.

Brooks Moses
May 24th 07, 10:51 PM
Frank McCoy wrote:
> Um ... A large part of his discussion about "persistance of vision"
> actually turns out to be related to LCD speed versus CRT.
>
> What he doesn't take into account, is the persistence of *phosphor* on
> the screen; assuming that the effect seen is purely do to the human eye.
>
> It's not.

I'm reminded of the old black-and-white 12" CRT I was playing around
with recently. It's limited to 640x480 at 60Hz, and when I realized
that it wouldn't go any faster, I immediately figured it would be
terribly annoying to use -- I'm one of the people who can see 60Hz
flicker, and it gives me a headache pretty quickly.

But not with this CRT. Its phospors have a remarkably long delay time,
which means that at 60Hz it looks rock steady. On the other hand, the
mouse cursor leaves quite clear trails when it's moving around.

- Brooks


--
The "bmoses-nospam" address is valid; no unmunging needed.

Frank McCoy
May 25th 07, 02:42 AM
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Brooks Moses
> wrote:

>Frank McCoy wrote:
>> Um ... A large part of his discussion about "persistance of vision"
>> actually turns out to be related to LCD speed versus CRT.
>>
>> What he doesn't take into account, is the persistence of *phosphor* on
>> the screen; assuming that the effect seen is purely do to the human eye.
>>
>> It's not.
>
>I'm reminded of the old black-and-white 12" CRT I was playing around
>with recently. It's limited to 640x480 at 60Hz, and when I realized
>that it wouldn't go any faster, I immediately figured it would be
>terribly annoying to use -- I'm one of the people who can see 60Hz
>flicker, and it gives me a headache pretty quickly.
>
>But not with this CRT. Its phospors have a remarkably long delay time,
>which means that at 60Hz it looks rock steady. On the other hand, the
>mouse cursor leaves quite clear trails when it's moving around.
>
Uhuh. My LCD as well, looks rock-steady; and the hand doesn't even
flicker when moved in front of it (like it does in front of a CRT).

However, the mouse *does* live trails behind it. Not long ones, even
compared to the cursor-size; but definite trails. I'd guess about three
frames worth. When moved fast, it seems to stagger a bit from place to
place. That last I'm not so sure is the monitor. It looks more like
what I'd expect from software delays in posting a new position.

Don't really notice either though, in normal use.
Only when I look real hard at the thing.

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

Vittorio Janus
May 27th 07, 04:22 PM
On Tue, 22 May 2007 04:19:37 +0200, Sjouke Burry
>>
>Why dont you put a color photo on them side by side.
>And then move your head a bit around.
>And enjoy the horrible color depth of the LCD.

How old are the LCDs you are looking at? I can remember that as a
major problem when I saw the Crimean War Exibition that the War Museum
in London put on but that was a couple of years ago and the screens
were pretty old then.

I can promise you that there is no such problem on my Samsung
SyncMaster 214T - no even at really stupid angles of vision.

Regards,
vj

Ed Medlin[_2_]
May 28th 07, 12:22 PM
"Vittorio Janus" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 22 May 2007 04:19:37 +0200, Sjouke Burry
>>>
>>Why dont you put a color photo on them side by side.
>>And then move your head a bit around.
>>And enjoy the horrible color depth of the LCD.
>
> How old are the LCDs you are looking at? I can remember that as a
> major problem when I saw the Crimean War Exibition that the War Museum
> in London put on but that was a couple of years ago and the screens
> were pretty old then.
>
> I can promise you that there is no such problem on my Samsung
> SyncMaster 214T - no even at really stupid angles of vision.
>
> Regards,
> vj

I find the same with my 244T if you take the time to correctly calibrate it.
I found the default settings a bit on the bright side. I matched the color
settings with my laptop for photo editing and I love this thing. LCDs have
come a long way in the last few years especially with color depth and
viewing angle issues.

Ed

Frank McCoy
May 28th 07, 03:16 PM
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "Ed Medlin" >
wrote:

>
>"Vittorio Janus" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 22 May 2007 04:19:37 +0200, Sjouke Burry
>>>>
>>>Why dont you put a color photo on them side by side.
>>>And then move your head a bit around.
>>>And enjoy the horrible color depth of the LCD.
>>
>> How old are the LCDs you are looking at? I can remember that as a
>> major problem when I saw the Crimean War Exibition that the War Museum
>> in London put on but that was a couple of years ago and the screens
>> were pretty old then.
>>
>> I can promise you that there is no such problem on my Samsung
>> SyncMaster 214T - no even at really stupid angles of vision.
>>
>> Regards,
>> vj
>
>I find the same with my 244T if you take the time to correctly calibrate it.
>I found the default settings a bit on the bright side. I matched the color
>settings with my laptop for photo editing and I love this thing. LCDs have
>come a long way in the last few years especially with color depth and
>viewing angle issues.
>
Amen!
I personally like the settings of my LCD panel as it came right out of
the box. It looks almost exactly the same as my previous CRT had.

I suppose I *could* tweak the settings to match my color-laser-printer
instead; but I like the video settings better ... they're more
"lifelike". I suppose if I needed to see what things would look like
when printed very often, I'd probably quickly change my mind on that.

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

Ed Medlin[_2_]
May 29th 07, 01:28 PM
"Frank McCoy" > wrote in message
...
> In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "Ed Medlin" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Vittorio Janus" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Tue, 22 May 2007 04:19:37 +0200, Sjouke Burry
>>>>>
>>>>Why dont you put a color photo on them side by side.
>>>>And then move your head a bit around.
>>>>And enjoy the horrible color depth of the LCD.
>>>
>>> How old are the LCDs you are looking at? I can remember that as a
>>> major problem when I saw the Crimean War Exibition that the War Museum
>>> in London put on but that was a couple of years ago and the screens
>>> were pretty old then.
>>>
>>> I can promise you that there is no such problem on my Samsung
>>> SyncMaster 214T - no even at really stupid angles of vision.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> vj
>>
>>I find the same with my 244T if you take the time to correctly calibrate
>>it.
>>I found the default settings a bit on the bright side. I matched the color
>>settings with my laptop for photo editing and I love this thing. LCDs
>>have
>>come a long way in the last few years especially with color depth and
>>viewing angle issues.
>>
> Amen!
> I personally like the settings of my LCD panel as it came right out of
> the box. It looks almost exactly the same as my previous CRT had.
>
> I suppose I *could* tweak the settings to match my color-laser-printer
> instead; but I like the video settings better ... they're more
> "lifelike". I suppose if I needed to see what things would look like
> when printed very often, I'd probably quickly change my mind on that.

I do a lot of outdoor photography and carry my laptop out in the field and
may do some basic edititing in the woods (plug it into the aux power plug on
my ATV). I like to get the colors matched for when I get back home and do
any final touchup work. I found that the default settings were just a bit
bright. I just softened it a little and used a color card to match up the
two screens and it is about as close as it gets now. My old eyes really like
this 244T.......:-). There is a lot of real estate on this thing.


Ed