What local retail stores still sell CRT monitors?

[jjnunes]

(e-mail address removed) wrote:

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.

I agree with the increasingly evident lack of choices. And some people do
purchase things just to consume for consumptions sake. But it seems that
since LCD is generally superior for text, and that is what most people use a
computer for, which mostly explains them 'taking over' the market,

 

[Bob Myers]

Permanent vertical dark reddish lines down the edges of where the 4:3
window had displayed on a 16:9 screen. What sounds like the cause of that
to you?

Well, by golly, that DOES sound like "burn-in" or "image sticking"
to me. Which is by no means saying that it was the "overdrive"
drive method that caused it. Remember, no one (except for you)
was saying that you couldn't have seen this sort of problem - only
that if you had, it wasn't due to the simple fact that an overdrive drive
method had been used with this panel. There are a fair number of
other things which can lead to this problem, some of which have
nothing AT ALL to do with drive, and NONE of which are
specific to "overdrive."

Bob M.

 

[Bob Myers]

Then why are some people calling you an LCD fanboy?

You'd have to ask them; I am obviously not responsible for
the opinions, beliefs, and/or delusions of others.

Bob M.

 

[jjnunes]

On 15 Feb 2007 00:57:23 GMT, (e-mail address removed) wrote:

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.

Thanks for the insult, but nothing you have said makes a case of 'overall
the CRT is superior.' They are for YOU and that is inviolate in such a
context. Nobody is saying that your opinion is wrong for YOU. It's really
more useful to discuss how they differ in an objective terms and thus users
can make a more informed choice for themselves in making a purchasing
decision. The fact the LCD's have taken over the market is mostly that they
are superior for text, which is what most computer users use a computer for.
It's a paradox of the market system and the culture that there are less
choices now for CRT's.

 

[Bob Myers]

The true problem with any sub-10ms average response time LCD monitor isn't
the response time. It's human visual perception. Human image persistence
(about 10 milliseconds) works for CRTs because it compensates for the
phospher excitement decay whilst the electron beam continues to scan the
rest of the screen. It works against LCDs because they store the image
between frames and the significantly slower image "decay" collides with
the "imprinted image" on the retina, hence the perception of motion blur.

It's a bit more complicated than even that. Human vision DOES have
a persistence phenomenon as described (although its behavior is
more complex), but it also has an "expectation" (built into the eye-brain
system) that things which APPEAR to be moving across the visual field
really ARE moving smoothly across that field. The eye also is never
perfectly stationary, but is constantly in motion in a combination of very
small and relatively sizable rapid movements (micro-saccades and saccades)
and "assumes" that the object in motion is going to appear in the "expected"
relative position within the visual field following those movements. The
LCD behaves more like film - a series of truly static images, shown and
"held" (in a fixed position) than does the CRT (in which there really never
IS a single, whole image presented at once), and suffers from very
similar motion artifacts. (This isn't really in conflict at all with what
you're
saying, but should be taken more as a bit of elaboration on the pheomenon.)

I have serious doubts about the ability of a camera to accurately mimic
this phenomenon.

So far, the results seem to correlate fairly well with perceived blur,
although
the camera probably shouldn't the thought of as actually "mimicking" the
behavior
of the visual system in this area. And as long as we can come up with a
number
SOMEHOW which is shown to be a good predictor of how the display will
be perceived - well, that SHOULD be the goal, right?

Bob M.

 

[Bob Myers]

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.

No, they (the PANEL makers, not the monitor makers) really FIRST started
using GtG because they were asked to by their customers (monitor and
system integrators), because GtG was in many cases slower and we were
seeing artifacts as a result. The GtG measurements, in addition to the
"standard"
response time, were needed to give the whole picture re a panel's
performance.
Faster GtG is now being touted in many LCD specs to show that these problems
are not an issue with the panel in question.

Bob M.

 

[DRS]

[...]

(This isn't really in conflict at all with

what you're
saying, but should be taken more as a bit of elaboration on the
pheomenon.)

Xbitlabs have an excellent if lengthy article on it
(http://wwww.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/lcd-parameters.html) for
those interested.

[...]

in this area. And as long as we can come up
with a number
SOMEHOW which is shown to be a good predictor of how the display will
be perceived - well, that SHOULD be the goal, right?

Indeed.

 

[Pipboy]

No, they (the PANEL makers, not the monitor makers) really FIRST started
using GtG because they were asked to by their customers (monitor and
system integrators), because GtG was in many cases slower and we were
seeing artifacts as a result. The GtG measurements, in addition to the
"standard"
response time, were needed to give the whole picture re a panel's
performance.
Faster GtG is now being touted in many LCD specs to show that these problems
are not an issue with the panel in question.

Bob M.

OK. Is 16(6ms GtG)) good numbers to use for gaming on?

 

[Pipboy]

Thanks for the insult, but nothing you have said makes a case of 'overall
the CRT is superior.' They are for YOU and that is inviolate in such a
context. Nobody is saying that your opinion is wrong for YOU. It's really
more useful to discuss how they differ in an objective terms and thus users
can make a more informed choice for themselves in making a purchasing
decision. The fact the LCD's have taken over the market is mostly that they
are superior for text, which is what most computer users use a computer for.
It's a paradox of the market system and the culture that there are less
choices now for CRT's.

How did I insult you?

The problem I have is that I see people who describe themselves as gamers
and many of them say LCD is superior too. Fom a gaming perspective it is
just not true. I thnk they look at their LCD's through rose colored
glasses.

 

[Pipboy]

Well, by golly, that DOES sound like "burn-in" or "image sticking"
to me. Which is by no means saying that it was the "overdrive"
drive method that caused it. Remember, no one (except for you)
was saying that you couldn't have seen this sort of problem - only
that if you had, it wasn't due to the simple fact that an overdrive drive
method had been used with this panel. There are a fair number of
other things which can lead to this problem, some of which have
nothing AT ALL to do with drive, and NONE of which are
specific to "overdrive."

Bob M.

OK, I blamed it on overdrive because when I was researching how to possibly
resolve this issue I came across an article on LCD burn in and that article
blamed it on LCD's with overdrive. I know, I know, don't believe everything
you read on the internet. Who do I beleive then? They say usenet is full of
even more misinformation than the web.

 

[Bob Myers]

OK. Is 16(6ms GtG)) good numbers to use for gaming on?

Up to you, and whether or not you like the "look" of the game with
that panel. If you're running at an honest 60 Hz frame rate (i.e., not
just a video rate of 60 Hz, but actually supplying new frames at
a steady 60 Hz rate), AND you're seeing a lot of full-range
(black-to-white or WtB) or close to it transitions, then a response
time that's right at the frame period will probably look a little
slow to you. On the other hand, there may be other considerations
that cause you personally to prefer the look of the panel in question,
and there are motion-response-improvement methods (black frame
insertion, scanning backlights, etc.) which might also be provided
which would significantly improve the perceived motion qualities of
a display even with these response time numbers.

The short form of this is that you can't simply wrap "display goodness"
up in a single objective measurement.

Bob M.

 

[Bob Myers]

The problem I have is that I see people who describe themselves as gamers
and many of them say LCD is superior too. Fom a gaming perspective it is
just not true. I thnk they look at their LCD's through rose colored
glasses.

OK, so their opinions don't line up with yours. What is
it, exactly, that makes your opinions right, and theirs
wrong? Are you familiar with the notion of differing
personal preferences?

Bob M.

 

[Bob Myers]

OK, I blamed it on overdrive because when I was researching how to
possibly
resolve this issue I came across an article on LCD burn in and that
article
blamed it on LCD's with overdrive. I know, I know, don't believe
everything
you read on the internet. Who do I beleive then? They say usenet is full
of
even more misinformation than the web.

Unfortunately, without getting into a MUCH lengthier discussion
- a tutorial, really, on basic LCD principles, current designs,
drive methods, etc. - there's really no simple answer to the "who
do I believe?" question. I'm sure neither of us have time for that
sort of thing (I surely don't), and for that matter there's no clear
and simple reason I can give you up front as to why you would
or should believe ME before anyone else, for that matter.
About the only further help I can give you at this point would come
in the form of two observations:

1. Explanations have to make sense. If you're told something,
and after thinking about it for a bit you find some serious
questions regarding that proposition, then you need to look into
it further. This doesn't mean that what you were told is
necessarily wrong - just that you don't want to be treating it
as a certainty just yet.

2. Personal opinions and preferences are just that - personal.
They are neither right nor wrong, nor do they NEED to be.
But it's always a serious mistake to confuse such things with
that other category that we call "facts."


Bob M.

 

[Pipboy]

OK, so their opinions don't line up with yours. What is
it, exactly, that makes your opinions right, and theirs
wrong? Are you familiar with the notion of differing
personal preferences?

Bob M.

Are you familiar with the facts? Just the fact that CRT has much better
blacks and a grey scale grqadation in the drak tones makes it far superior.
That is a fact and unarguable. Lots of computer games are played in dark
areas, playing these types of games on an LCD is not a pleasurable
experience for the reasons I have given. There are other reasons why a crt
is suprior but I don't need to bring up any others because I have already
destroyed your viewpoint. If you can't see the facts then you are clearly
an LCD fanboy or as blind as a bat. In fact, I bet you're not even a gamer
so your opinion counts for jack shit.

 

[Pipboy]

2. Personal opinions and preferences are just that - personal.
They are neither right nor wrong, nor do they NEED to be.
But it's always a serious mistake to confuse such things with
that other category that we call "facts."


Bob M.

I just made a post to you up above regarding facts myself. The websites
present them as facts and are written by supposed tech heads who make it
seem believable enough so it's not my fault if sometimes I spread
misinformation. In future though I will ask you for info regarding LCD
because you do seem to know a lot about the technology.

 

[Bob Myers]

Are you familiar with the facts? Just the fact that CRT has much better
blacks and a grey scale grqadation in the drak tones makes it far
superior.

You still don't get it. It makes it "far superior" IF that is what
you're looking for. Not everyone is.

Bob M.

 

[willbill]

You'd have to ask them; I am obviously not responsible for
the opinions, beliefs, and/or delusions of others.

i'm calling myers a fanboy of LCD coz of his clear
slanted n/g preference for them this past 3+ years.
what's odd to me is that he's offered misleading
info in general and also to the OP, who went on
to get an LCD that he then wasn't happy with

in my own very recent experience, CRT monitors
have been, and continue to be, better than LCD

bill

 

[Bob Myers]

i'm calling myers a fanboy of LCD coz of his clear
slanted n/g preference for them this past 3+ years.
what's odd to me is that he's offered misleading
info in general and also to the OP, who went on
to get an LCD that he then wasn't happy with

If you think I've offered any misleading or erroneous information,
please be specific - with examples. If you can't do that, then I
will expect you to retract that statement.

Bob M.

 

[willbill]

If you think I've offered any misleading or erroneous information,
please be specific - with examples. If you can't do that, then I
will expect you to retract that statement.

Bob M.

there has been negative input to you
re your love of LCD in this thread
from 3 or 4 others besides myself

meaning your love of LCD flatscreen
as opposed to tube CRT

to me that is "fanboy" of flatscreen

if flatscreen were really better,
i wouldn't be calling you "fanboy"

but CRT is still better (and cheaper
as of 3-to-6 months ago) than LCD

i find it curious that you've done
by far the most posts in this thead!

imho, i did by far the most on topic
responses to the OP

why are you doing these continuing
dumb responses?

i mean, the remaining miserable CRT
monitors are still better than
current/pricier LCD montiors

at least in my recent 5 month experience

bill

 

[Bob Myers]

there has been negative input to you
re your love of LCD in this thread
from 3 or 4 others besides myself

[much else of no relevance deleted]

In all of that, I see that you were unable to provide even a
single example of any erroneous or misleading information
that I've posted. That being the case, I will thank you for
withdrawing your claim that I have done so.

Bob M.