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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
HIGH Screen resolution kills performance in WIN/XP?
"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. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
HIGH Screen resolution kills performance in WIN/XP?
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. -- _____ / ' / â„¢ ,-/-, __ __. ____ /_ (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / _/ _ |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
HIGH Screen resolution kills performance in WIN/XP?
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. -- _____ / ' / â„¢ ,-/-, __ __. ____ /_ (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / _/ _ |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
HIGH Screen resolution kills performance in WIN/XP?
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. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
HIGH Screen resolution kills performance in WIN/XP?
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 ;-) |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
HIGH Screen resolution kills performance in WIN/XP?
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 .... -- _____ / ' / â„¢ ,-/-, __ __. ____ /_ (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / _/ _ |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
HIGH Screen resolution kills performance in WIN/XP?
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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
HIGH Screen resolution kills performance in WIN/XP?
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. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
HIGH Screen resolution kills performance in WIN/XP?
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? |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
HIGH Screen resolution kills performance in WIN/XP?
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...mitter_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/de...series/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! |
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 05:01 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 |