[Quadophile]

Please leave your comments about this article below.

[nanopoylos]

your review to crt vs lcd screens was very good . But i believe that to the point of "screen flickering" you are wrong .CRT screens DO go up from 75 hz ,the lowest limit to ther refresh is 85 hz to their maximum resolution .When we go one step of resolution down , the refresh rate goes up a step , which means that we can achieve 85 to 95 hz very easy.
maybe I am wrong,or not?

[Quadophile]

Originally Posted by nanopoylos

your review to crt vs lcd screens was very good . But i believe that to the point of "screen flickering" you are wrong .CRT screens DO go up from 75 hz ,the lowest limit to ther refresh is 85 hz to their maximum resolution .When we go one step of resolution down , the refresh rate goes up a step , which means that we can achieve 85 to 95 hz very easy.
maybe I am wrong,or not?

I am sorry but I do not recall having written anywhere that CRT monitors do not go beyond 85 Hz! Let me quote from the very article:

Some of the good CRT monitors can go much higher. Ideally a refresh rate of 85 Hz should be OK for most people using 17 inch monitors.

Allow me to explain a bit in more detail for your better understanding of how resolution, refresh rate and colour depth can be used in conjunction which according to me is basically a juggling effect.

Use 16 bit colour palate instead of 24 or 32 bit unless you are using photo editing software and need accuracy in colours. Use refresh rates around 85 Hz (anything below 72 Hz will create flickering effect which can lead to eye strain). Optimal or Default is not the ideal setting! Ideally you should set the refresh rate somewhere between 75 Hz and the maximum recommended for your monitor at a set resolution (see your monitors manual).

Normally a 15" monitor should be set at no more than 800 x 600 (higher settings will make things very small and difficult to read, taxing your eyes). At this resolution you can easily achieve a refresh rate of 85 Hz, with colour depth at 16 bit. A 17" monitor can be easily set at either 1024 x768 or if it is a better quality, even upto 1280 x 1024. The max resolution on good models can be upto 1600x1200. These monitors can be set for refresh rates from anywhere between 85-110 Hz with colour depth at 32 bits. The VGA card of course must be able to cope with these settings. Monitors 19" and higher of good makes are very flexible and will not pose any restrictions on such settings unless your Graphics Adaptor is from stone age era. A very good VGA adaptor is needed if a 19” model is to be used.



MAKE SURE YOU DO NOT EXCEED THE LIMITS IN SETTING EITHER RESOLUTION OR REFRESH RATE AS IT CAN DAMAGE THE UNIT!



I use a 17" CRT currently set at 1280 x 1024 (1600x1200 max) with a refresh rate of 90 Hz and 32 bit colour palate. I have had no problems at these settings which are in use since 2+ years.

Another tip I can give to you is to not run your monitor through the PC's power supply if possible – otherwise it will tax your power supply in the casing and may lead to overloads. These setting apply to CRT monitors only and not to LCD.


I hope this will help clear the confusion.

[thingy]

I disagree.

LCD's have two major benefits over CRT's - size and perfect geometry/convergence. A smaller benefit is power consumption, but I personally don't look at what my monitor is consuming when I buy it - that is pretty much the last thing I look at. When it comes to overall picture performance the CRT totally walks it.

LCD does have its problems - poor black level performance, colours look processed, motion blurring n fast moving scenes, not to mention the pixel dropout/bright pixel problem, black uniformity over time and of course the cold cathodes turning yellow after about 5,000 hours - an effect you will only see when you compare your used one to a nice shiny new one.

The 12ms response time - this is for the pixel to change to full on to full off, or vice versa. This does not take into consideration the real dynamics of a picture, and when these so-called fast response panels are required to change shades as opposed to going from one extreme to the other then the motion blurring effect it plain to see. I am very sensetive to this effect and I have yet to see any LCD that doesn't suffer with it, especially on fast first person shooters like quake 3.

But what I find most objectionable is that you are quoting from manufacturers spec sheets as if they are the truth. Have a look at this website - this is the real deal for LCD's, and exposes the many myths that surround them...

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/index.html

In my opinion your article is misleading.

[Quadophile]

Originally Posted by thingy

I disagree.

Why not?


Thank you very much for your input which is much appreciated. This also helps the reader get another point of view. So you are in fact helping the reader make the right decision.

The coin has two sides and every review and product will have negative and positive comments, we all have opinions and they are just opinions. I am not putting a gun on the gamers or movie buffs temple and forcing them to go out there and buy an LCD monitor.

The website you refer to did two shoot-outs some time back on DVD burners and on both occasions Plextor burner was missing in the shoot-out - is that not what you call being biased?

There are other members here who do not think very highly of that website and I am sure they may also express thier opinion in one way or another.

[Ian]

The decision to use an LCD monitor over a CRT is a personal choice, as with everything - so I don't think the article is misleading at all, simply one persons opinion on the matter.

As you say, you are very susceptible to the blurring - which is a dynamic factor for each user. I have an older generation Hercules 720 monitor, and I can only just see slight blurring in 3D games, but not at all in DVDs. I suspect I could quite comfortably use a 12ms LCD monitor and not notice blurring at all.

You seem to know your stuff, thingy, so I do hope you stick around the forums

[thingy]

True, you are not holding a gun to people's heads and compelling them to buy an LCD monitor - however, people who are not au fait with the new technologies and are wondering whether to make the leap will be swayed by articles like the one posted here. One thing you have to realise is that I would love to get this big, bulky Iiyama 19" monitor off my table and replace it with a nice flat panel but I have yet to see and LCD that gets remotely close to this monitor for picture performance - and that is what I am interested in, performance. Asthetics always come second when I make a judgement about a product.

As for Toms hardware, I have found that it gives good reviews, and also is not afraid to get behind the claims, as is the case with LCD and some of the outlandish claims made about the technology. Like all webistes that review products it isn't perfect, but I've bought many things based on what I read there and have not been disappointed - I would also point out that Tom's has reviewed plextor products before and praised them highly. My first CD burner was a Plextor, bought based on a review on Tom's and they were spot on with their appraisal of the unit. It often depends on what is available at the time a review is done, maybe they couldn't source a Plextor in time?

It is true to say that things like this are personal choices but I would always implore people to try before they buy, especially where it concerns things like monitors where they have to stare at their decision every time they use their PC. People need to be aware that some vendors are promoting LCD heavily, singing it's praises and making dubious claims about its capabilities, and in some cases forcing the choice by not stocking CRT products or stocking very basic, poor quality units to make LCD look better. This is not good for consumers, especially people like me who want to buy quality products, not the cheapest I can find. It may be true that some people simply aren't aware of the motion blurring effect - I have to say I find it hard to believe personally after having tried several recommended LCD monitors and saw the effect clearly in all of them.

I still stand by my opinion that the article is misleading, especially about the claimed 12ms response times.