Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > I'm not really against LCDs

Reply
Thread Tools

I'm not really against LCDs

 
 
Don Stauffer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-14-2005
I have made a lot of negative responses in the current thread on
monitors. Many of these have been in response to LCD advocates.

Let me emphasize this- I am not so much against LCD displays as against
the ridiculous performance claims of display makers of ALL types.

Having worked on some display technologies in past, I became thoroughly
aware of how hard it is to provide really high contrast ratios in
displays, and how easy it is to merely cook the specs and measurements.

I'd like to see REAL advances in displays. While it was a competing
technology to what we were developing, TI's DLP display really impresses
me. However, even that technology cannot obtain the kinds of numbers I
see bandied about for current display technologies.

A similar thing is true in printing paper. While there are a couple of
definitions of contrast range or dynamic range, the best emulsions or
coatings or ink vehicles still reflect nearly 2%. White paper cannot
exceed 100% reflectivity. By my understanding of contrast, that gives
prints a 50:1 range.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Kinon O'cann
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-14-2005

"Don Stauffer" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:wqJLe.2$(E-Mail Removed)...
>I have made a lot of negative responses in the current thread on monitors.
>Many of these have been in response to LCD advocates.
>
> Let me emphasize this- I am not so much against LCD displays as against
> the ridiculous performance claims of display makers of ALL types.
>
> Having worked on some display technologies in past, I became thoroughly
> aware of how hard it is to provide really high contrast ratios in
> displays, and how easy it is to merely cook the specs and measurements.
>
> I'd like to see REAL advances in displays. While it was a competing
> technology to what we were developing, TI's DLP display really impresses
> me. However, even that technology cannot obtain the kinds of numbers I
> see bandied about for current display technologies.
>
> A similar thing is true in printing paper. While there are a couple of
> definitions of contrast range or dynamic range, the best emulsions or
> coatings or ink vehicles still reflect nearly 2%. White paper cannot
> exceed 100% reflectivity. By my understanding of contrast, that gives
> prints a 50:1 range.


No need to apologize. I've never seen an LCD that I liked; not even close.
I'll stick to CRTs as long as they're available. LCDs are incredibly
overpriced and overstated, and they're not good enough.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bill Tuthill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-15-2005
Kinon O'cann <Yes.it's.me.Bowser> wrote:
>> I have made a lot of negative responses in the current thread on monitors.
>> Many of these have been in response to LCD advocates.
>> Let me emphasize this- I am not so much against LCD displays as against
>> the ridiculous performance claims of display makers of ALL types.
>> I'd like to see REAL advances in displays. While it was a competing
>> technology to what we were developing, TI's DLP display really impresses
>> me. However, even that technology cannot obtain the kinds of numbers I
>> see bandied about for current display technologies.

>
> No need to apologize. I've never seen an LCD that I liked; not even close.
> I'll stick to CRTs as long as they're available. LCDs are incredibly
> overpriced and overstated, and they're not good enough.


I think it would be ideal to have dual monitors, using an LCD for text
and a CRT for image viewing.

In the long run, I think the 4:3 aspect ratio is doomed, as LCDs make it
easier and cheaper to produce monitors with 3:2 or HDTV aspect ratio.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave Martindale
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-16-2005
Bill Tuthill <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

>In the long run, I think the 4:3 aspect ratio is doomed, as LCDs make it
>easier and cheaper to produce monitors with 3:2 or HDTV aspect ratio.


At the moment, 1280x1024 LCDs that have a physical aspect ratio of 5:4
are pretty popular.

Dave
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Tuthill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-16-2005
Dave Martindale <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>In the long run, I think the 4:3 aspect ratio is doomed, as LCDs make it
>>easier and cheaper to produce monitors with 3:2 or HDTV aspect ratio.

>
> At the moment, 1280x1024 LCDs that have a physical aspect ratio of 5:4
> are pretty popular.


True, that's the resolution at which I've been running my CRTs
for the past decade or more. In office use it's nice because
entire text pages (FrameMaker, Word) display without scrolling.

Do you think LCDs are often 1280x1024 now because that's the
sweet spot in technology, or due to inertia from CRT resolution?

For laptop computers, wide screens seem to be more popular.
Maybe this is because business travellers prefer watching
their own movies instead of paying for a bad airline movie.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave Martindale
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-16-2005
Bill Tuthill <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

>> At the moment, 1280x1024 LCDs that have a physical aspect ratio of 5:4
>> are pretty popular.


>True, that's the resolution at which I've been running my CRTs
>for the past decade or more. In office use it's nice because
>entire text pages (FrameMaker, Word) display without scrolling.


I use 1280x960 on a CRT because it gives square pixels on a 4:3 screen.
If you use 1280x1024, you either have to live with non-round circles
(which I hate), or you need to leave black bars on the left and right of
the screen to make the physical display area aspect ratio 5:4. But the
LCDs are 5:4 natively.

>Do you think LCDs are often 1280x1024 now because that's the
>sweet spot in technology, or due to inertia from CRT resolution?


I suspect it's a familiar size, and easy to manufacture with a good
yield. The optimum LCD for manufacturability is probably square, and
5:4 is close to square without looking too odd.

>For laptop computers, wide screens seem to be more popular.
>Maybe this is because business travellers prefer watching
>their own movies instead of paying for a bad airline movie.


That's a good explanation. I'm not sure I'd want to carry around one of
those really wide laptops though.

Dave
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Tuthill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-17-2005
Dave Martindale <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Do you think LCDs are often 1280x1024 now because that's the
>> sweet spot in technology, or due to inertia from CRT resolution?

>
> I suspect it's a familiar size, and easy to manufacture with a good
> yield. The optimum LCD for manufacturability is probably square, and
> 5:4 is close to square without looking too odd.


I don't understand why it would be easier to manufacture a near-square LCD
than an elongated LCD. For CRT manufacturing, it's easier to understand
(due to vacuum tube and electromagnet collar).

Here's an article about a new technology (SED) under development by
Canon and Toshiba that might bring CRT quality to flat panel displays:

http://marketnews.ca/news_archive_detail.asp?nid=430

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
valid specs for 17" flatscreen LCDs? bob Computer Information 1 04-25-2006 09:50 PM
LCDs are garbage RichA DVD Video 56 09-03-2005 04:51 PM
Samsung's unprotected LCDs Mike Henley Digital Photography 3 06-12-2005 12:03 PM
Cleaning LCDs John Wesley Hardin Digital Photography 4 05-09-2004 06:10 AM
Do photos simply look better on CRTs/LCDs than on print ? Richard Kaszeta Digital Photography 5 04-15-2004 11:35 PM



Advertisments