P
Pipboy
A hell of a lot of people
have chosen LCDs over CRTs,
They didn't choose them. LCD's have been shoved down their throats wether
they want them or not. People who do choose LCD choose them mostly as a
fashion statement.
A hell of a lot of people
have chosen LCDs over CRTs,
They didn't choose them. LCD's have been shoved down their throats wether
they want them or not. People who do choose LCD choose them mostly as a
fashion statement.
Now if I was serious gamer, I would have different preferences. What you
don't seem to recognize, despite it being pointed out to you over and over,
that each type has different strengths and weakness'. Why is that so hard
for you to understand?
chrisv said:I think everyone accepts that. What's making some of us rather
bitter, however, is the lack of quality choices in CRT's, due to the
market's radical shift. I think there's a big disconnect between what
people are buying and what device would really be "best" for them, if
not for the "newer flatter must be better" fashion-statement syndrome.
CRTs have performance advantages in terms of response time
and a certain overall "look"; LCDs have performance advantages
in other areas.
Now if I was serious gamer, I would have different preferences. What you
don't seem to recognize, despite it being pointed out to you over and over,
that each type has different strengths and weakness'. Why is that so hard
for you to understand?
Of course it does. If you believe something that isn't right,
then you're wrong. What's so difficult about that? You simply
learn more and move on.
Funny, you won't take any responsibility for being wrong OR
right, and supposedly have this "who knows?" attitude about the
whole thing - but then per your last sentence, you just KNOW that
"overdrive technology is shit." If you know enough to be certain of
that, perhaps YOU can explain to us exactly how it works, and
exactly what the mechanism is through which overdrive would be
harmful to the panel.
From this, all we can conclude is that you don't read very carefully.
There's nothing in the above regarding overdrive causing burn-in,
Pipboy said:What other areas? Nice of you to make a claim and then neglect to
back it up with data or even say what those performance advantages
are. BTW, perhaps you can explain this spec to me. If you go to the
below url you will see this LCD has 16ms response time and then in
brackets it says 6ms GtG. I'm assuming 16ms is BtW. This backs up
what I say in that they use GtG because it makes the LCD appear
faster than it actually is in real world usage.
- for instance, video). Soon you're going to see another "response
time" sort
of spec quoted (it is already, for some products), which is the
"motion picture" or "moving edge" response time - again, very
relevant to some applications, and only somewhat related to the other
two "response time" specifications.
I don't need to explain how it works because it is my experience that
proves it is shit and not my knowledge of the tech. Besides, I've already
backed up my comment with evidence.
And I've already said it wasn't burn in that I was trying to describre but
it looks similar to burn in. Bottom line is that it can ruin your HDTV, as
it did mine. And you've got no data to refute it either. Duh!
What other areas? Nice of you to make a claim and then neglect to back it
up with data or even say what those performance advantages are.
BTW,
perhaps you can explain this spec to me. If you go to the below url you
will see this LCD has 16ms response time and then in brackets it says 6ms
GtG. I'm assuming 16ms is BtW. This backs up what I say in that they use
GtG because it makes the LCD appear faster than it actually is in real
world usage.
The 16ms will be the average response time, which is the average of the
BtW (rising response time) and the WtB (falling response time).
On the contrary, pixels will far more commonly go from one intermediate
state to another intermediate state than they will go from BtW or WtB. If
the GtG spec has been measured properly, meaning it is the average of
possible intermediate transitions, then it is a far more useful spec than
the average.
Well, if you bothered to read my very first post to this thread you will
see I agreed with that satement. Still, the benefits of CRT outweighs LCD
and overall the CRT is superior. I have a problem with Bob Myers trying to
make it look like LCD is superior overall because I know it is just not
true.
Bob Myers said:That's still a bit up in the air, in terms of standardization.
Techniques used so far, and reflected in some proposals, involve
a "tracking" camera which follows a moving edge across the
screen and captures the characteristics of that edge as
displayed. The idea is to get something that correlates better
with the visual perception of motion blur.
OK, so it's not burn-in, but apparently it does result in some other
permanent effect, since it can "ruin your HDTV." So just what
IS it, then? It's hard to refute, or even comment on, something that
can't be clearly described beyond "I don't like it!"
Bob M.
The 16ms will be the average response time, which is the average of the BtW
(rising response time) and the WtB (falling response time). On the
contrary, pixels will far more commonly go from one intermediate state to
another intermediate state than they will go from BtW or WtB. If the GtG
spec has been measured properly, meaning it is the average of possible
intermediate transitions, then it is a far more useful spec than the
average.
Think about it. Does your monitor spend all day going
Black-White-Black-White-Black-White?
DRS said:How will that be measured?
No, as was already explained to you, they're stating GtG IN ADDITION
TO the normal B-W-B response time spec because it IS faster from that
perspective, and because that IS a relevant spec in many real-world
applications
(i.e., those which involve very little in terms of full-white-to-black
transitions
- for instance, video). Soon you're going to see another "response time"
sort
of spec quoted (it is already, for some products), which is the "motion
picture" or "moving edge" response time - again, very relevant to some
applications, and only somewhat related to the other two "response time"
specifications.
Bob M.
In that case, what you really have a problem with is comprehension -
I have said repeatedly that NEITHER technology is "superior overall,"
and that that notion is itself nonsensical. "Superior overall" is something
that is very dependent on individual preferences and the application in
question, and so there can never be a single, objective "superior overall."
Bob M.
Pipboy said:]
Think about it. Does your monitor spend all day going
Black-White-Black-White-Black-White?
But that's not my point. They at first started using BtW as a standard
measurement and then they started using GtG becasue it makes the
LCD's look faster to the unsuspecting than they actualy are. What you
just said backs that up too.
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.