Feelings anyone? CRT vs LCD Photo editing and games

[Desertma]

Just like some input on just how bad is it playing games with a LCD. I am
not a hard core gamer maybe 2-3 hours a week. Will I notice picture
distortions playing Doom 3 or Quake type games? Then how about doing photo
editing? I do it mostly as a hobby, but what to put out good quaity work.
What I will be replacing is a 11/2 year old VeiwSonic A90f+ 19incher....
Its going south on me....warrenty gone. Like to send it south with a bang ]
: .
Like to know what you people are using what you like and don't like
thank you much

 

[dannysdailys]

Desertmawrote
Just like some input on just how bad is it playing games with a LCD
I am

not a hard core gamer maybe 2-3 hours a week. Will I notice pictur

distortions playing Doom 3 or Quake type games? Then how abou doing photo
editing? I do it mostly as a hobby, but what to put out good quait work
What I will be replacing is a 11/2 year old VeiwSonic A90f 19incher....
Its going south on me....warrenty gone. Like to send it south with bang ]
:
Like to know what you people are using what you like and don' lik
thank you muc

I'd recommend the new Viewsonic X series of monitors. I have both th
19 and it's 17 inch younger sister

These are my second set of LCD's and no CRT that I've ever seen, ca
surpass them for color. In fact, the color is so rich on both thes
monitors, you'll wonder what's wrong with your CRT

Rated at 3ms, these are a gamers delight. Scrolling web pages doesn'
stutter like a 24ms unit does. DVD playback is very good as well

And, they're very pretty to look at when they're off too

 

[Sean Cousins]

These are my second set of LCD's and no CRT that I've ever seen, can
surpass them for color. In fact, the color is so rich on both these
monitors, you'll wonder what's wrong with your CRT.

Translation: the LCD has oversaturated colours.

Rated at 3ms, these are a gamers delight.

Translation: they achieve 3ms response time by only dispalying 6bits
per pixel instead of 8bits.

 

[chrisv]

Desertmawrote:

Just like some input on just how bad is it playing games with a LCD.
I am

not a hard core gamer maybe 2-3 hours a week. Will I notice picture

distortions playing Doom 3 or Quake type games? Then how about doing photo
editing? I do it mostly as a hobby, but what to put out good quaity work.
What I will be replacing is a 11/2 year old VeiwSonic A90f+ 19incher....
Its going south on me....warrenty gone. Like to send it south with a bang ]
: .
Like to know what you people are using what you like and don't like
thank you much

I'd recommend the new Viewsonic X series of monitors. I have both the
19 and it's 17 inch younger sister.

How about you learn how to post without utterly mangling what you
quote, you clueless idiot. If you're going to mangle it that badly
delete it, clueless.

 

[Bob Myers]

Translation: the LCD has oversaturated colours.

What do you mean by "oversaturated"? If you're talking
about the wider gamut that is now possible with LCDs, that's a
feature, not a flaw. It is up to the source to do what it will
within the larger available color space.

Translation: they achieve 3ms response time by only dispalying 6bits
per pixel instead of 8bits.

Why would you think this?

Bob M.

 

[Sean Cousins]

What do you mean by "oversaturated"? If you're talking
about the wider gamut that is now possible with LCDs, that's a
feature, not a flaw. It is up to the source to do what it will
within the larger available color space.

CRT still has the most accurate colour representation. That's why
graphics pros still use CRT. Just because colours are more saturated
doesn't make it more accurate.

Why would you think this?

I don't think it. It's a known fact. Come back when you've done some
actual research.

 

[Bob Myers]

CRT still has the most accurate colour representation. That's why
graphics pros still use CRT. Just because colours are more saturated
doesn't make it more accurate.

Wrong.

Neither technology has, inherently, "more accurate color
representation." Accurate color requires that all pieces in the
chain, from image source to output, do the right thing with
respect to color. CRTs are "more accurate" when dealing with
source material which is generated expecting a CRT-like color
space, and that's it. However, if the only difference between
two displays is that one provides a gamut which is larger and
completely contains the gamut of the other, then it is certainly
possible to duplicate the appearance of images as they appear
on the smaller-gamut device using the wider-gamut. The
converse is clearly not true, since there are obviously colors
which can be produced using the wide-gamut device that are
not available within the smaller gamut. The bottom line is
that if you know what your output device characteristics are,
and generate images with that in mind, wider gamut is better
than smaller. If you misuse the output device, though, you
will of course see color errors.

IF you use both display types today in the typical consumer
applications, CRTs will generally produce a "more accurate"
result, but only because consumer imagery (e.g., digital
photographs) is very often generated assuming the sRGB
color space, and THAT specification is extremely CRT-centric.
But let's see how a CRT is going to do with source material
which takes full advantage of, say, the AdobeRGB space and
which is not compensated to the CRT prior to display...

"Graphics pros" often still use CRTs for other reasons, but
on the list of specifications for the "ideal display" from these
same pros is a wide color gamut - 100% of the 1953 NTSC
gamut or better, for instance. Which, of course, you will
never ever get with a CRT. Those same pros are currently
going through the transition to LCD and other technologies,
by the way, for the simple reason that the "high-end CRTs"
are almost all gone from the market now.

Why would you think this? [re supposed "6-bit" response of

fast-response LCDs]

I don't think it. It's a known fact. Come back when you've done some
actual research.

OK, here I am! (That didn't take long, since display technology
research is what I do for a living.) So - since I'm back, could
you again take a whack at answering the question of why you
think faster-response LCDs would have to provide fewer bits
per color?

Bob M.

 

[Sean Cousins]

OK, here I am! (That didn't take long, since display technology
research is what I do for a living.) So - since I'm back, could
you again take a whack at answering the question of why you
think faster-response LCDs would have to provide fewer bits
per color?

Bob M.

How can a fast response time LCD possibly have a wider color gamut
when it is only displaying 6bits per pixel? And you do this for a
living?! I've already done the research and I'm not going to hold your
hand and waste my time looking it all up for you. Go read about
various types of LCD panels used and how they achieve 4ms repsonse
time in the "gaming" dispalys. Here, I'll start you off.

http://compreviews.about.com/od/multimedia/a/LCDColor.htm
Since consumers were demanding faster screens, something needed to be
done to improve response times. To facilitate this, many manufacturers
turned to reducing the number of levels each color pixel render. This
reduction in the number of intensity levels allows the response times
to drop but has the drawback of reducing the overall number of colors
that can be rendered.

8-Bit vs. 6-Bit

Now color depth was previous referred to by the total number of colors
that the screen can render, but when referring to LCD panels the
number of levels that each color can render is used instead. This can
make things difficult to understand, but to demonstrate, we will look
at the mathematics of it. For example, 24-bit or true color is
comprised of three colors each with 8-bits of color. Mathematically,
this is represented as:

* 2^8 x 2^8 x 2^8 = 256 x 256 x 256 = 16,777,216

High-speed LCD monitors typically reduce the number of bits for each
color to 6 instead of the standard 8. This 6-bit color will generate
far fewer colors than 8-bit as we see when we do the math:

* 2^6 x 2^6 x 2^6 = 64 x 64 x 64 = 262,144

This is far fewer than the true color display such that it would be
noticeable to the human eye. To get around this problem, the
manufacturers employ a technique referred to as dithering. This is an
effect where nearby pixels use slightly varying shades or color that
trick the human eye into perceiving the desired color even though it
isn't truly that color. A color newspaper photo is a good way to see
this effect in practice. (In print the effect is called half-tones.)
By using this technique, the manufacturers claim to achieve a color
depth close to that of the true color displays.

How to Tell if an LCD is 8-Bit or 6-Bit

This is the biggest problem for individuals who are looking at
purchasing an LCD monitor. Most manufacturers do not list the color
depth of their display. Even fewer will list the actual per-color
depth. If the manufacturer lists the color as 16.7 million colors, it
should be assumed that the display is 8-bit per-color. If the colors
are listed as being 16.2 million or 16 million, consumers should
assume that it uses a 6-bit per-color depth. If no color depths is
listed, it should be assumed that monitors of 12ms or faster will be
6-bit and the 20ms and slower panels are 8-bit.

Does it Really Matter?

This is very subjective to the actual user and what the computer is
used for. The amount of color really matters to those that do
professional work on graphics. For these people, the amount of color
that is displayed on the screen is very important. The average
consumer is not going to really need this level of color
representation by their monitor. As a result, it probably doesn't
matter. People using their displays for video games or watching video
will likely not care about the number of colors rendered by the LCD
but by the speed at which it can be displayed. As a result, it is best
to determine your needs and base your purchase on those criteria.

 

[Bob Myers]

How can a fast response time LCD possibly have a wider color gamut
when it is only displaying 6bits per pixel?

Ah, I see - the typical confusion between "dynamic range" and
"color gamut." Let's see if we can clear this up...

"Color gamut" refers to the range of colors, within the full color
space usable by human vision, that can be reproduced on a
given display. It is often given as a percentage of some reference
gamut (e.g., "72% of NTSC"), but more precisely is defined by
stating the chromaticities of the primaries used by that device. It
is, in simple terms, an area or volume (depending on whether you're
working in a 2-D or 3-D color model) which defines the colors
that can be produced by the display. It is NOT related to the
*number* of different luminance levels or "gray values" which can
be produced by the display (within the gamut area or volume) for
any given primary (which is what the "bits per color" figure means,
and which is more properly called "dynamic range." You CAN have
a display with a very, very wide gamut which provides only 2-3
bits/color, although why someone would want such a thing (at least
in most technologies) is beyond me.

An analogy: Suppose I have two parcels of land, one of which is
a square mile in area while the other is only 20 acres. I divide
the 20-acre parcel up into 80 lots, though, while I leave the square-
mile bit intact. That I have a larger number of discrete lots
within the 20-acre parcel (the larger number here being analogous
to the dynamic range) does not change the fact that the overall
area of that parcel is still considerably smaller than a square mile
(which is analogous to the gamut question).

And you do this for a living?!

Yes, I do; and I think we're seeing why you don't, perhaps.

I've already done the research and I'm not going to hold your
hand and waste my time looking it all up for you. Go read about
various types of LCD panels used and how they achieve 4ms repsonse
time in the "gaming" dispalys. Here, I'll start you off.

You would do well to extend your research to something other
than "pop-science" level articles aimed at lay consumers. While
restricting the dynamic range HAS been used in some methods
for improved response time, it is by no means NECESSARY to
achieving that goal. In short, it is one possible technique (and
within the range of available techniques, sort of a "quick-and-dirty"
one), but by no means the only one available. Various other
methods have being used (and are being used) to achieve lower
response times, including the use of completely different LC
modes (check out "OCB" - optically-compensated "bend" -
panels, just for one example). For that matter, restricting the
available dynamic range or accuracy *over a single frame time*
is not always necessarily a bad thing, since the eye won't
respond that quickly to the lower bits anyway - as long as a
given area winds up at the proper level (to 8-bit or, in some
cases, now even 10-bit accuracy) within 2-3 frames of the
transition, that will generally be more than adequate. Unless,
of course, you're claiming you can see a subpixel varying between,
say, level 132 and level 133 (out of 255) on alternate frames.

Now color depth was previous referred to by the total number of colors
that the screen can render, but when referring to LCD panels the
number of levels that each color can render is used instead. This can
make things difficult to understand, but to demonstrate, we will look
at the mathematics of it. For example, 24-bit or true color is
comprised of three colors each with 8-bits of color. Mathematically,
this is represented as:

* 2^8 x 2^8 x 2^8 = 256 x 256 x 256 = 16,777,216

This, however, is not "gamut." The value given here is a function of the
dynamic range on a per-color basis, and is not related to the
chromaticities of the primaries.

This is very subjective to the actual user and what the computer is
used for. The amount of color really matters to those that do
professional work on graphics. For these people, the amount of color

Let's note here that "amount of color," as it is being used (possibly
misused) by this writer is an extremely ambiguous term. What is
really meant here?

All in all, the most charitable thing that can be said about this article is
that it's not too inaccurate for use by the lay reader, but it certainly
does not give a technically accurate description of how these factors
relate, and it is very quickly being rendered obsolete by advances in the
industry.

Bob M.

 

[Sean]

All in all, the most charitable thing that can be said about this article is
that it's not too inaccurate for use by the lay reader, but it certainly
does not give a technically accurate description of how these factors
relate, and it is very quickly being rendered obsolete by advances in the
industry.

Bob M.

OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and I apologize if you really
are correct in what you say about LCD vs CRT. I quite often see graphics
pros say they use and prefer CRT though. In fact there is a post further
down in here where one says so. Suggest to me then a really good LCD that
has good color and a fast response time. I'll check it out and maybe even
buy one. I do have an LCD but for gaming I prefer my CRT because of its
multi-resolution support.

 

[Bob Myers]

OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and I apologize if you really
are correct in what you say about LCD vs CRT. I quite often see graphics
pros say they use and prefer CRT though.

Oh, sure they do - in fact, that's one of the problems facing
the industry right now, in that (a) you've got a (relatively) small
but very vocal customer base who's used to CRTs and who
further buy a lot of nice expensive systems to drive them, and
(b) are right now being left with no equivalent displays owing
to the exit of the CRT makers from the market. Note that I
said "equivalent," not "as good as or better" - it's not a difference
in the relative quality of the displays as much as it is (at least in many
aspects) differences in how these displays are used. For instance,
a lot of these "graphics pros" want to use their displays in a dark
environment (to prevent adaptation to the ambient lighting
throwing off their sense of color, etc, within the image itself).
That says you need a display with a really, really dark black -
not necessarily higher contrast numbers, but high contrast
achieved through a DARK black (0.1 cd/m^2 or lower) and
what most people would consider a pretty dim white (maybe
80 - 100 cd/m^2). You can do that easily with a CRT, but not
so much with other technologies.

But the LCD, unlike the CRT, is continuing to advance in its
development *very* rapidly...

down in here where one says so. Suggest to me then a really good LCD that
has good color and a fast response time. I'll check it out and maybe even
buy one. I do have an LCD but for gaming I prefer my CRT because of its
multi-resolution support.

The problem here is that I don't know what you mean by
"good color" - wide gamut, CRT-like response, greater
dynamic range, what? There are LCDs coming on to the
market this year which will provide gamuts well in excess of
that of a CRT, response times in the 8 ms and under range,
and 8 bits/color - but these features are being introed into
TV panels first, because that's where the money is. Monitor
panels have become essentially commodity items, and with
very few (high-end) exceptions, there's simply insufficient
demand (read: number of customers willing to pay for it)
for performance improvements in these areas in the majority
of that market. However, consider such things as the
NEC LCD2180WGLED monitor - you won't find much
better color anywhere, but most sources also list a price
over $6,000. (It's not built with a fast-response panel,
because there's not much need for that in its target market,
but it does give you an idea of what LCDs can do in terms
of color these days. Most of the "graphics pros" I've talked
to say that something like this is very close to what they're
looking for - except for that pain in the wallet!)

Bob M.

 

[Sean Cousins]

The problem here is that I don't know what you mean by
"good color" - wide gamut, CRT-like response, greater
dynamic range, what? There are LCDs coming on to the
market this year which will provide gamuts well in excess of
that of a CRT, response times in the 8 ms and under range,
and 8 bits/color - but these features are being introed into
TV panels first, because that's where the money is. Monitor
panels have become essentially commodity items, and with
very few (high-end) exceptions, there's simply insufficient
demand (read: number of customers willing to pay for it)
for performance improvements in these areas in the majority
of that market. However, consider such things as the
NEC LCD2180WGLED monitor - you won't find much
better color anywhere, but most sources also list a price
over $6,000. (It's not built with a fast-response panel,
because there's not much need for that in its target market,
but it does give you an idea of what LCDs can do in terms
of color these days. Most of the "graphics pros" I've talked
to say that something like this is very close to what they're
looking for - except for that pain in the wallet!)

Bob M.

Well, that's just it. Most of the LCD's people are using are not true
color and they are only 6bits per pixel. Look at the specs of all the
LCD's people are buying and you will find out they are 6bits per
pixel. I've seen how that looks on my LCD compared to a CRT.
I was playing a music DVD that had bright white backlighting of the
singer and on the LCD you could see dithering in the lighting, no such
issue on my CRT with the same DVD. I want it all and at a good price
too. For now my CRT is clearly superior.

 

[Sean Cousins]

The problem here is that I don't know what you mean by
"good color" - wide gamut, CRT-like response, greater
dynamic range, what?

Do you know what the Inquirer means?

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29655
Right now, they are not up to speed compared to their smaller 19-inch
cousins: 16 ms declared response time is the current standard here -
enough to watch the HD movies or for 3-D design, but not for the
fastest paced 3-D games. Also, the colour gamut leaves more to be
desired, as with most LCDs - maybe the move to 10-bit per colour
definition or different backlighting techniques would help. Another
problem that increases proportionally with the LCD screen size is
ensuring that the backlighting is uniformly bright across the whole
display, avoiding the problems of slightly varying intensity that
sometimes plague large monitors. The white intensity should be
consistent everywhere.

 

[J. Clarke]

Do you know what the Inquirer means?

Pretty much means that Nebojsa Novakovic shouldn't quit his day job.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29655
Right now, they are not up to speed compared to their smaller 19-inch
cousins: 16 ms declared response time is the current standard here -
enough to watch the HD movies or for 3-D design, but not for the
fastest paced 3-D games. Also, the colour gamut leaves more to be
desired, as with most LCDs - maybe the move to 10-bit per colour
definition or different backlighting techniques would help. Another
problem that increases proportionally with the LCD screen size is
ensuring that the backlighting is uniformly bright across the whole
display, avoiding the problems of slightly varying intensity that
sometimes plague large monitors. The white intensity should be
consistent everywhere.

He seems to have missed out on the new 37" and 42" Chinese 1920x1080 panels
that have 8 ms response, for one thing. He also goes off on 1080p 60 fps
like that's something that is actually used. Seems like he didn't really
do his homework.

 

[Bob Myers]

Do you know what the Inquirer means?

Well, not really, given that a lot of what they say in the excerpt you
gave doesn't translate to their other more specific gripes. For
instance:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29655
Right now, they are not up to speed compared to their smaller 19-inch
cousins: 16 ms declared response time is the current standard here -
enough to watch the HD movies or for 3-D design, but not for the
fastest paced 3-D games.

While 16 ms response ISN'T really fast enough, in general
for video and other "fast" applications, the comment about
"not for the fastest paced 3-D games" doesn't make a lot of
sense here. Consider that, almost universally, the panels
themselves in these monitors are operating at a 60 Hz refresh
rate; the response time *as it being discussed here* is relevant
only to the question of whether or not the display can handle
the frame rate of the input video. There is a separate issue,
recently referred to by various names ("motion picture response
time" or "moving edge response time") which has more of a
bearing on the perception of smooth motion in the image, but
that's not what currently-quoted panel response times really
mean. And anyone who thinks a 60 Hz frame rate ISN'T
fast enough for good motion rendition on a display OUGHT
to be having a problem with regular television as well - the
fact that most people find, say, the telecasts of football games
to look "realistic" in terms of motion suggests that there's something
more to motion than just the simple frame rate or response time
numbers.

Also, the colour gamut leaves more to be
desired, as with most LCDs - maybe the move to 10-bit per colour
definition or different backlighting techniques would help.

This comment from the Inquirer again illiustrates the common
confusion between dynamic range - the number of bits of
luminance control per color or pixel/subpixel - and "color
gamut." These are COMPLETELY unrelated issues, so it's
hard to tell if this writer really understands what they really
want. ("Different backlighting," though, IS something that can
address the need for increased gamut in LCDs. However,
CURRENT backlighting methods are capable of essentially
duplicating the *gamut* of standard color CRTs, which is
somewhere around 72-75% of the 1953 NTSC specification.)

Another
problem that increases proportionally with the LCD screen size is
ensuring that the backlighting is uniformly bright across the whole
display, avoiding the problems of slightly varying intensity that
sometimes plague large monitors. The white intensity should be
consistent everywhere.

LCDs actually tend to be considerably better than CRTs in
terms of brightness (luminance) uniformity; most CRT monitors
are very lucky to achieve better than about 60-70% uniformity
(the percentage of the center-screen luminance that you will
measure at the sides or corners). What is often mistakenly
labelled as a "uniformity" issue with LCDs is actually viewing
angle - if you are sitting relatively close to a large-size LCD,
then the corners/sides are being viewed at a considerably
different angle than you're seeing the center. Even in those
panels quoting "160 degree" or better viewing angles, this is
still often a very visible problem - since the viewing angle spec
is generally quoted as the point where the CONTRAST drops
off to worse than 10:1!

Bob M.

 

[Bob Myers]

He seems to have missed out on the new 37" and 42" Chinese 1920x1080 panels
that have 8 ms response, for one thing. He also goes off on 1080p 60 fps
like that's something that is actually used. Seems like he didn't really
do his homework.

Well, it IS being used, at least as a DISPLAY timing or format.
1080p/60 Hz isn't used as a broadcast timing (the HDTV standard
doesn't permit for anything more demanding than 1080 interlaced at
a 60 Hz field rate), but in the TVs themselves the video is generally
going to be DE-interlaced before being handed to the panel in
60p form.

I also find it a bit amusing that he continues to talk about things like
a "2560 x 1600 resolution" while in the very same paragraph speaks
of 96 dpi as a "pixel density."

Bob M.