If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
HIGH Screen resolution kills performance in WIN/XP?
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? |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
HIGH Screen resolution kills performance in WIN/XP?
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). -- _____ / ' / â„¢ ,-/-, __ __. ____ /_ (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / _/ _ |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
HIGH Screen resolution kills performance in WIN/XP?
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. -- _____ / ' / â„¢ ,-/-, __ __. ____ /_ (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / _/ _ |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
HIGH Screen resolution kills performance in WIN/XP?
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. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
HIGH Screen resolution kills performance in WIN/XP?
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. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
HIGH Screen resolution kills performance in WIN/XP?
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. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
HIGH Screen resolution kills performance in WIN/XP?
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. -- _____ / ' / â„¢ ,-/-, __ __. ____ /_ (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / _/ _ |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
HIGH Screen resolution kills performance in WIN/XP?
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. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
HIGH Screen resolution kills performance in WIN/XP?
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. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
HIGH Screen resolution kills performance in WIN/XP?
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??? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
High Resolution Paper? | ER | Printers | 23 | July 10th 05 07:24 AM |
High Resolution Paper | Ron | Printers | 1 | June 9th 04 05:43 AM |
Looking for high-end 18- or 19-inch flat panels with high resolution. | Jim Sanders | Ati Videocards | 0 | February 25th 04 04:01 AM |
Geforce4 MX does not allow high resolution after install | Charlie | Nvidia Videocards | 3 | September 3rd 03 09:06 PM |
GeForce ti4200 Blank Screen on high resolution | Bratboy | Nvidia Videocards | 0 | July 10th 03 02:58 PM |