Slashdot Mirror
LCD Overtaking CRT
prostoalex writes "IDC has a new report out, claiming that revenues for LCDs by the end of this year will top the CRT revenues. The only market not susceptible to the shift will be gaming and graphics-intensive applications, where the refresh rates of LCDs are not satisfactory yet."
In the graphics design realm it's rarely about refresh rates (unless you're working specifically with animation or motion media production). The color calibration just isn't there yet, the level threshold dropps off at the bottom (reducing the low luminosity contrast) and turns to glare far too low in the histogram (almost eliminating useful high-luminosity contrast).
They're also sensitive to heat, both from the operating environment and duration of use causing further shifts in appreciable color and (perceived) refresh.
OLED display's promise to eliminate the contrast and color calibration issues, but until those are more viable in cost and lifetime graphics design will still rely alost solely on CRT's.
Any spoon would be too big.
While I agree with you (I only use an LCD because I won it in a draw) keep in mind that LCD screens of the same recorded dimension are actually larger then CRT's. LCD's are not larger then the viewable screen, while CRT's measure the total size of the picture tube, which is substantially larger then the viewable screen. Therefore, add at least an inch (2 is better) to the size of the LCD when comparing them to a CRT.
That being said, I hate the lack of variable resolution on LCD's. Can't have everything, I guess.
The performance and reliability of LCDs compared with CRTs is a big factor in bolstering revenue for the LCD market. Sure, LCD screens are more expensive - but the benefits of LCD screens over CRTs, in my opinion, are worth the additional money (savings in energy, ease of long-term viewing on the eyes, etc.)
d _pixels-01.html
Many manufacturers guarantee their LCDs from burned out pixels with a pixel defect policy. The policies will differ as to the amount of defect will warrant a free replacement, and you should check to see the duration of terms of the policy prior to making a decision.
In fact, Tom's Hardware Guide posted a recent article with regards to pixel displays. You can find the article here: http://www17.tomshardware.com/display/20030319/lc
Ayup
Check out tomshardware.com, they have an article on manufactures replacement policies for burned out pixels. Basically, the policies are all accross the board. Also, they make a distinction between an "unlit" pixel (black), and a "stuck" pixel (always on). Personally, I can put up with an unlit pixel at the edge of a screen, but I had a laptop once that had a couple of red pixels towards the middle, and it drove me bonkers.
...with LCDs is that they're generally lower res at a given size than I'd run an equivilent-sized CRT at. In other words, I can crank a CRT to a higher display resolution than an LCD can.
To get the res I'm used to on a 21" CRT (1920x1440), I need some $3k 24" LCD display.
"...where the refresh rates of LCDs are not satisfactory yet."
;)
I believe the poster is mistakenly trying to apply CRT terminology to LCDs. The refresh rate of a CRT, which is the number of times an image is painted on the screen per second, doesn't quite apply to LCDs. What does apply, however, is the response time. This is usually measured in ms and refers to the time period for a pixel to completely change its state. Response times are typically around 25 ms, but are often slower for black -> white transitions. Slow response gives the effect known as ghosting and makes these panels undesirable to gamers.
As for the graphics artists, it's kind of a mixed bag. They get perfect geometries as a trade off for true color. Most modern LCDs operate at only 24 bit color.
The office user/casual gamer makes up the vast majority of the population and won't notice any of these downfalls. Thus, despite the price, these things are selling like hotcakes due to the easiness on the eyes and uber-coolness. Besides, chicks dig em.
"Software is like sex. It's better when it's free." -Linus Torvalds
Refresh rates don't make sense on an LCD... The parameter you need to look at is the Rise/Fall time of the pixels (also known as response time). The pixels don't change unless they need to, whereas for CRTs, every pixel on the screen is being redrawn (60 times a second at 60Hz, obviously)
The response times are getting faster and cheaper, but still leave a bit to be desired.
The total response time of a pixel can be (typically) anywhere from 15ms to 40ms for an LCD monitor. Most are between 25 and 35. 30ms response time is pretty much average. If the whole screen is changing quickly (think fast FPS gaming), you would only be getting the equivalant of 33Hz or so. At 15ms (for considerably more $$), you are looking at an analogous 66Hz refresh.
Most of the hardcore gamers I know don't like less than 85Hz on their CRTs, so still lots of room for improvement on the LCDs.
Check out IBM's new L200p 21" LCD. 1600x1200 native, 400:1 brightness, and only 1349 USD w/ 3yr warranty.
This baby just came out last week.
The 85Hz on a CRT is different. This is because the CRT flickers - and many people can perceive this flicker at 60Hz. However, 60fps is as smooth as it gets. An LCD has a constant light, so it doesn't flicker. All you need is 60 updates per second to redraw all the pixels, and then you get a smooth, flicker-free image.
My server
Not terribly difficult,
If something (a speck of dust perhaps) was blocking the aperature grille, the electron beam would never reach the Phosphor to illuminate it. Dirty manufacturing facilities could be to blame. You don't see this often because manufacturers check for this sort of thing, and don't generally let defective CRT's leave the factory.
Go away, or I will replace you with a very small shell script.