I'm not really against LCDs

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Don Stauffer, Aug 14, 2005.

  1. Don Stauffer

    Don Stauffer Guest

    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.
     
    Don Stauffer, Aug 14, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Don Stauffer

    Kinon O'cann Guest

    "Don Stauffer" <> wrote in message
    news:wqJLe.2$...
    >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.
     
    Kinon O'cann, Aug 14, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Don Stauffer

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    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.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Aug 15, 2005
    #3
  4. Bill Tuthill <> 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
     
    Dave Martindale, Aug 16, 2005
    #4
  5. Don Stauffer

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Dave Martindale <> 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.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Aug 16, 2005
    #5
  6. Bill Tuthill <> 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
     
    Dave Martindale, Aug 16, 2005
    #6
  7. Don Stauffer

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Dave Martindale <> 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
     
    Bill Tuthill, Aug 17, 2005
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Richard Kaszeta

    Do photos simply look better on CRTs/LCDs than on print ?

    Richard Kaszeta, Apr 15, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    552
    Paul H.
    Apr 16, 2004
  2. John Wesley Hardin

    Cleaning LCDs

    John Wesley Hardin, May 8, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    380
    stewy
    May 9, 2004
  3. RichA

    LCDs are garbage

    RichA, Aug 27, 2005, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    56
    Views:
    1,770
    gaffo
    Sep 3, 2005
  4. bob

    valid specs for 17" flatscreen LCDs?

    bob, Apr 25, 2006, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    362
    Dr Nick
    Apr 25, 2006
  5. Blig Merk
    Replies:
    66
    Views:
    1,935
    StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt
    Apr 27, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page