Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #5350 > unrolled thread

Monitors

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  Monitors Steve <tinker123@gmail.com> - 2012-05-20 05:52 -0700
    Re: Monitors David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-05-20 17:29 +0200
      Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-05-20 15:35 +0000
        Re: Monitors Stan Bischof <stan@worldbadminton.com> - 2012-06-01 17:17 +0000
          Re: Monitors Patrick <Patrick@none.com> - 2012-06-01 18:58 +0000
            Re: Monitors Stan Bischof <stan@worldbadminton.com> - 2012-06-01 19:09 +0000
              Re: Monitors Patrick <0001patrick@gmail.com> - 2012-06-01 23:35 +0000
              Re: Monitors Patrick <0001patrick@gmail.com> - 2012-06-01 23:47 +0000
            Re: Monitors Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2012-06-01 15:11 -0400
              Re: Monitors David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-06-03 19:00 +0200
                Re: Monitors Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2012-06-03 14:01 -0400
                  Re: Monitors David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-06-03 23:10 +0200
                    Re: Monitors Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2012-06-03 19:06 -0400
          Re: Monitors Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2012-06-02 04:51 +0000
            Re: Monitors unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-06-02 05:36 +0000
            Re: Monitors The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-06-02 10:41 +0100
            Re: Monitors Stan Bischof <stan@worldbadminton.com> - 2012-06-04 14:27 +0000
              Re: Monitors Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2012-06-04 17:23 +0200
                Re: Monitors Stan Bischof <stan@worldbadminton.com> - 2012-06-04 15:31 +0000
                  Re: Monitors David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-06-05 09:14 +0200
                    Re: Monitors unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-06-05 15:46 +0000
                Re: Monitors J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2012-06-04 15:41 +0000
                  Re: Monitors Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2012-06-04 18:27 +0200
                    Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-06-04 17:00 +0000
                    Re: Monitors Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2012-06-04 14:14 -0400
                    Re: Monitors unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-06-04 18:17 +0000
                      Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-06-04 18:58 +0000
                      Re: Monitors Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2012-06-04 16:33 -0400
                        Re: Monitors unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-06-04 21:17 +0000
                      Re: Monitors Stan Bischof <stan@worldbadminton.com> - 2012-06-04 20:52 +0000
          Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-06-02 12:36 +0000
            Re: Monitors TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2012-06-02 11:59 -0400
              Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-06-02 17:34 +0000
                Re: Monitors TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2012-06-02 15:40 -0400
                Re: Monitors The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-06-02 23:45 +0100
                  Re: Monitors Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2012-06-03 00:46 +0200
                    Re: Monitors The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-06-02 23:52 +0100
                      Re: Monitors Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2012-06-03 00:54 +0200
                        Re: Monitors The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-06-03 00:08 +0100
                          Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-06-03 02:52 +0000
                            Re: Monitors The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-06-03 13:08 +0100
                              Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-06-03 13:10 +0000
                                Re: Monitors Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2012-06-03 09:57 -0400
                                  Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-06-03 14:25 +0000
                          Re: Monitors Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2012-06-03 10:05 +0200
                            Re: Monitors TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2012-06-03 08:00 -0400
                            Re: Monitors unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-06-03 18:16 +0000
      Re: Monitors TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2012-05-24 11:10 -0400
        Re: Monitors David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-05-24 19:32 +0200
          Re: Monitors TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2012-05-25 20:09 -0400
            Re: Monitors J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2012-05-26 09:35 +0000
              Re: Monitors TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2012-05-26 08:07 -0400
                Re: Monitors David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-05-26 19:49 +0200
              Re: Monitors Allodoxaphobia <knock_yourself_out@example.net> - 2012-05-26 16:42 +0000
    Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-05-26 00:32 +0000

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#5350 — Monitors

I'm thinking about getting a new monitor for a Linux box.

I've noticed that many most computer monitors work fine if you are
looking straight at the monitor but if you veer off to the side or get
under them, the picture distorts.

Since I like using my computer to watch movies and other videos I am
interested in the kind of monitor that doesn't do this.   I've seen a
few of those in computer stores.

Is that second type of monitor actually a television monitor?  Does a
classification like that still make sense?  Have computer monitor and
TV screen technology merged?   Is the only difference between the two
is that one has more of something to allow a quality picture even if
the viewer isn't looking at the monitor straight on?

Has anyone used the higher quality/"TV"monitor for a computer?  Has it
hurt your eyes or have you experienced any other problems?

Thanks

Steve

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#5356

On 20/05/12 14:52, Steve wrote:
> I'm thinking about getting a new monitor for a Linux box.
>
> I've noticed that many most computer monitors work fine if you are
> looking straight at the monitor but if you veer off to the side or get
> under them, the picture distorts.
>
> Since I like using my computer to watch movies and other videos I am
> interested in the kind of monitor that doesn't do this.   I've seen a
> few of those in computer stores.
>
> Is that second type of monitor actually a television monitor?  Does a
> classification like that still make sense?  Have computer monitor and
> TV screen technology merged?   Is the only difference between the two
> is that one has more of something to allow a quality picture even if
> the viewer isn't looking at the monitor straight on?
>
> Has anyone used the higher quality/"TV"monitor for a computer?  Has it
> hurt your eyes or have you experienced any other problems?
>
> Thanks
>
> Steve

I don't think I've seen monitors with poor viewing angles for many 
years.  There are possibly a few that give slightly distorted colours at 
extreme angles, but any reasonable monitor will be fine at any sensible 
viewing angle.

There are some differences between monitors.  In particular, monitors 
with very high pixel count and designed for accurate static views are 
often IPS screens - they give the best picture for desktop use, 
programming, graphics, etc., but they are poorer for games or other 
fast-moving graphics.  They are normally fine for TV/video, but opinions 
vary.

The best recommendation is to go to a real live shop where you can try 
them out and look at the pictures, and buy a screen that you are sure 
does the best job for your use.  A good monitor will outlast the 
computer - it's worth making a good investment.

For my own use, I am very happy with the Dell IPS screen I have.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5357

On 2012-05-20, David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> wrote:



> The best recommendation is to go to a real live shop where you can try 
> them out and look at the pictures.......

Yep.  Nothing like a plain ol' viewing test to see what's what.  

I haven't been in some time, but I know plasma TVs were once
atrocious.  Extremely limited viewing cone.  This has probably
changed.  I'd stick with LCD technology.

nb

-- 
vi --the heart of evil!
Support labeling GMOs
<http://www.labelgmos.org/>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5444

notbob <notbob@nothome.com> wrote:
> 
>> The best recommendation is to go to a real live shop where you can try 
>> them out and look at the pictures.......
> 
> Yep.  Nothing like a plain ol' viewing test to see what's what.  
> 
> I haven't been in some time, but I know plasma TVs were once
> atrocious.  Extremely limited viewing cone.  This has probably
> changed.  I'd stick with LCD technology.
> 

for the moment perhaps, but if you really want good
viewing angles you want an LED screen - and I don't
mean the so-called "led" screens that are really just
an led backlight for an LCD.

LED screens can approach 180 deg viewing angle- far more
than plasma or LCD

Stan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5446

On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 17:17:57 +0000, Stan Bischof wrote:

> notbob <notbob@nothome.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> The best recommendation is to go to a real live shop where you can try
>>> them out and look at the pictures.......
>> 
>> Yep.  Nothing like a plain ol' viewing test to see what's what.
>> 
>> I haven't been in some time, but I know plasma TVs were once atrocious.
>>  Extremely limited viewing cone.  This has probably changed.  I'd stick
>> with LCD technology.
>> 
>> 
> for the moment perhaps, but if you really want good viewing angles you
> want an LED screen - and I don't mean the so-called "led" screens that
> are really just an led backlight for an LCD.
> 
> LED screens can approach 180 deg viewing angle- far more than plasma or
> LCD
> 
> Stan

I think the next screen I buy I'll look for a higher refresh rate.
Perhaps 80hz or even 100hz instead of the normal 60hz.
Hard to find but I'm sure they exist.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5448

Patrick <Patrick@none.com> wrote:
> I think the next screen I buy I'll look for a higher refresh rate.
> Perhaps 80hz or even 100hz instead of the normal 60hz.
> Hard to find but I'm sure they exist.

hard to find anything as slow as 60Hz these days, so you
will have no issues. 240 Hz is common for 3D monitors.
However you'll find that for LCD's the flicker at 60 Hz is
nowhere near the problem it was back in the old days of CRT's.

This is another area where LED's excel-- they respond
in usec ( or faster ) rather than the msec to 10's of msec
needed for LCD.

Stan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5452

On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 19:09:13 +0000, Stan Bischof wrote:

> Patrick <Patrick@none.com> wrote:
>> I think the next screen I buy I'll look for a higher refresh rate.
>> Perhaps 80hz or even 100hz instead of the normal 60hz.
>> Hard to find but I'm sure they exist.
> 
> hard to find anything as slow as 60Hz these days, so you will have no
> issues. 240 Hz is common for 3D monitors. However you'll find that for
> LCD's the flicker at 60 Hz is nowhere near the problem it was back in
> the old days of CRT's.
> 
> This is another area where LED's excel-- they respond in usec ( or
> faster ) rather than the msec to 10's of msec needed for LCD.
> 
> Stan

thanks for the response.

If we want our refresh rate equal to our frames per second
we can get the best picture.  If we're talking 240hz that's great.
I've run across a Linux program called driconf which can vary
that but it only works for OpenGL in Linux.  I remember when
glxgears was used and people thought their monitors were
super based on FPS over what their refresh rate could handle.

Patrick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5453

On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 19:09:13 +0000, Stan Bischof wrote:

> Patrick <Patrick@none.com> wrote:
>> I think the next screen I buy I'll look for a higher refresh rate.
>> Perhaps 80hz or even 100hz instead of the normal 60hz.
>> Hard to find but I'm sure they exist.
> 
> hard to find anything as slow as 60Hz these days, so you will have no
> issues. 240 Hz is common for 3D monitors. However you'll find that for
> LCD's the flicker at 60 Hz is nowhere near the problem it was back in
> the old days of CRT's.
> 
> This is another area where LED's excel-- they respond in usec ( or
> faster ) rather than the msec to 10's of msec needed for LCD.
> 
> Stan

thanks for the response.

If we want our refresh rate equal to our frames per second
we can get the best picture.  If we're talking 240hz that's great.
I've run across a Linux program called driconf which can vary
that but it only works for OpenGL in Linux.  I remember when
glxgears was used and people thought their monitors were
super based on FPS over what their refresh rate could handle.

Patrick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5449

Patrick <Patrick@none.com> writes:

> On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 17:17:57 +0000, Stan Bischof wrote:
>
>> notbob <notbob@nothome.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> The best recommendation is to go to a real live shop where you can try
>>>> them out and look at the pictures.......
>>> 
>>> Yep.  Nothing like a plain ol' viewing test to see what's what.
>>> 
>>> I haven't been in some time, but I know plasma TVs were once atrocious.
>>>  Extremely limited viewing cone.  This has probably changed.  I'd stick
>>> with LCD technology.
>>> 
>>> 
>> for the moment perhaps, but if you really want good viewing angles you
>> want an LED screen - and I don't mean the so-called "led" screens that
>> are really just an led backlight for an LCD.
>> 
>> LED screens can approach 180 deg viewing angle- far more than plasma or
>> LCD
>> 
>> Stan
>
> I think the next screen I buy I'll look for a higher refresh rate.
> Perhaps 80hz or even 100hz instead of the normal 60hz.
> Hard to find but I'm sure they exist.

I strongly recommend staying away from CRTs.
For computer work an LCD beats a CRT to death.

As far as "refresh rate" on an LCD:

  The closest  equivalent to  a refresh  rate on an  LCD monitor  is its
  frame rate, which is often locked  at 60 frame/s. But this is rarely a
  problem, because  the only part of  an LCD monitor  that could produce
  CRT-like  flicker—its  backlight—typically   operates  at  around  200
  Hz.  Different   operating  systems  set  the   default  refresh  rate
  differently.  Microsoft Windows 95  and Windows  98 (First  and Second
  Editions) set the  refresh rate to the highest  rate that they believe
  the  display supports.  Windows  NT-based operating  systems, such  as
  Windows 2000 and its descendants Windows XP, Windows Vista and Windows
  7, set the  default refresh rate to a  "conservative" rate, usually 60
  Hz. The many variations of Linux  usually set a refresh rate chosen by
  the  user during  setup of  the  display manager  (although a  default
  option   is   usually  included   with   xfree86).  Some   full-screen
  applications, including some games,  allow the user to reconfigure the
  refresh rate before  entering full-screen mode, but most  default to a
  "conservative" resolution  and refresh rate  and let you  increase the
  settings in the options.

For an LCD you shop for resolution and size.
I'm currently at 20.5 inches and 1600x1200.
(DELL).

I wouldn't mind 24 inches or even 30 but anything less than
the vertical 1200 is out of the question.


-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5477

On 01/06/12 21:11, Dan Espen wrote:
> Patrick<Patrick@none.com>  writes:
>
>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 17:17:57 +0000, Stan Bischof wrote:
>>
>>> notbob<notbob@nothome.com>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The best recommendation is to go to a real live shop where you can try
>>>>> them out and look at the pictures.......
>>>>
>>>> Yep.  Nothing like a plain ol' viewing test to see what's what.
>>>>
>>>> I haven't been in some time, but I know plasma TVs were once atrocious.
>>>>   Extremely limited viewing cone.  This has probably changed.  I'd stick
>>>> with LCD technology.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> for the moment perhaps, but if you really want good viewing angles you
>>> want an LED screen - and I don't mean the so-called "led" screens that
>>> are really just an led backlight for an LCD.
>>>
>>> LED screens can approach 180 deg viewing angle- far more than plasma or
>>> LCD
>>>
>>> Stan
>>
>> I think the next screen I buy I'll look for a higher refresh rate.
>> Perhaps 80hz or even 100hz instead of the normal 60hz.
>> Hard to find but I'm sure they exist.
>
> I strongly recommend staying away from CRTs.
> For computer work an LCD beats a CRT to death.
>

It's hard to get at all CRTs now - they are not even common for 
second-hand, as they have so low re-sale value, and are so big and 
heavy.  Baring a very few niche areas, no one would buy a CRT now.  The 
majority are LCD screens, with a few plasma, OLED, etc.

> As far as "refresh rate" on an LCD:
>
>    The closest  equivalent to  a refresh  rate on an  LCD monitor  is its
>    frame rate, which is often locked  at 60 frame/s.

There are only two frame rates realistically available for LCD monitors. 
  The huge majority at 60 frames per second, while there are a few at 
120 frames per second aimed specifically at 3D, so that each eye gets 60 
frames per second.

As you say, there is /no/ flicker on LCDs (or other flatscreen 
technologies).  It doesn't matter what the frame rate is, because they 
are not being turned on and off at that rate, merely updated at that 
rate.  And since 60 frames per second is much faster than the eye can 
see movement, there is no point in going any faster.

What /does/ vary between screens is the response time - how fast a pixel 
can change from fully on to fully off.  Any modern screen is going to be 
good enough for most uses, including video, but some that are designed 
for the highest quality static pictures (such as IPS screens) are poor 
at very fast video games.

>
> For an LCD you shop for resolution and size.
> I'm currently at 20.5 inches and 1600x1200.
> (DELL).
>
> I wouldn't mind 24 inches or even 30 but anything less than
> the vertical 1200 is out of the question.
>

1600x1200 are getting rare and expensive.  The majority of screens use 
full HD resolution - 1920 x 1080.  I agree that having 1200 pixels 
vertically is much nicer than 1080 for a computer - but on my brief 
check of prices, the cheapest 1600 x 1200 I found is almost 50% more 
expensive than the cheapest 1920 x 1200 - and over three times the price 
of the cheapest 1920 x 1080.

If you've got the money, there is a lot to be said for 2560x1440 - you 
get a nice big monitor, and the price is getting quite reasonable. 
Remember that a good monitor will last longer than your computer, and 
make a bigger difference to your working environment than the speed of 
the processor or graphics card.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5479

David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> writes:

> On 01/06/12 21:11, Dan Espen wrote:
>> Patrick<Patrick@none.com>  writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 17:17:57 +0000, Stan Bischof wrote:
>>>
>>>> notbob<notbob@nothome.com>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The best recommendation is to go to a real live shop where you can try
>>>>>> them out and look at the pictures.......
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep.  Nothing like a plain ol' viewing test to see what's what.
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't been in some time, but I know plasma TVs were once atrocious.
>>>>>   Extremely limited viewing cone.  This has probably changed.  I'd stick
>>>>> with LCD technology.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> for the moment perhaps, but if you really want good viewing angles you
>>>> want an LED screen - and I don't mean the so-called "led" screens that
>>>> are really just an led backlight for an LCD.
>>>>
>>>> LED screens can approach 180 deg viewing angle- far more than plasma or
>>>> LCD
>>>>
>>>> Stan
>>>
>>> I think the next screen I buy I'll look for a higher refresh rate.
>>> Perhaps 80hz or even 100hz instead of the normal 60hz.
>>> Hard to find but I'm sure they exist.
>>
>> I strongly recommend staying away from CRTs.
>> For computer work an LCD beats a CRT to death.
>>
>
> It's hard to get at all CRTs now - they are not even common for
> second-hand, as they have so low re-sale value, and are so big and
> heavy.  Baring a very few niche areas, no one would buy a CRT now.
> The majority are LCD screens, with a few plasma, OLED, etc.
>
>> As far as "refresh rate" on an LCD:
>>
>>    The closest  equivalent to  a refresh  rate on an  LCD monitor  is its
>>    frame rate, which is often locked  at 60 frame/s.
>
> There are only two frame rates realistically available for LCD
> monitors. The huge majority at 60 frames per second, while there are a
> few at 120 frames per second aimed specifically at 3D, so that each
> eye gets 60 frames per second.
>
> As you say, there is /no/ flicker on LCDs (or other flatscreen
> technologies).  It doesn't matter what the frame rate is, because they
> are not being turned on and off at that rate, merely updated at that
> rate.  And since 60 frames per second is much faster than the eye can
> see movement, there is no point in going any faster.
>
> What /does/ vary between screens is the response time - how fast a
> pixel can change from fully on to fully off.  Any modern screen is
> going to be good enough for most uses, including video, but some that
> are designed for the highest quality static pictures (such as IPS
> screens) are poor at very fast video games.
>
>>
>> For an LCD you shop for resolution and size.
>> I'm currently at 20.5 inches and 1600x1200.
>> (DELL).
>>
>> I wouldn't mind 24 inches or even 30 but anything less than
>> the vertical 1200 is out of the question.
>>
>
> 1600x1200 are getting rare and expensive.  The majority of screens use
> full HD resolution - 1920 x 1080.  I agree that having 1200 pixels
> vertically is much nicer than 1080 for a computer - but on my brief
> check of prices, the cheapest 1600 x 1200 I found is almost 50% more
> expensive than the cheapest 1920 x 1200 - and over three times the
> price of the cheapest 1920 x 1080.
>
> If you've got the money, there is a lot to be said for 2560x1440 - you
> get a nice big monitor, and the price is getting quite
> reasonable. Remember that a good monitor will last longer than your
> computer, and make a bigger difference to your working environment
> than the speed of the processor or graphics card.

Yes I agree with everything you've said.

Maybe because I've had CRTs and now LCDs with 1200 vertical pixels so long
I'm slightly prejudiced.  But I would not trade my 20.5 1600x1200 for
30 inches of 1920x1080.  I'd consider that a loss of 120 pixels with
the horizontal gain being no real advantage.

You're right that the prices really start to go up at the higher
resolutions but for me, the monitor is the most important part of
the whole machine.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5483

On 03/06/12 20:01, Dan Espen wrote:
> David Brown<david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no>  writes:
>
>> On 01/06/12 21:11, Dan Espen wrote:
>>> Patrick<Patrick@none.com>   writes:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 17:17:57 +0000, Stan Bischof wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> notbob<notbob@nothome.com>   wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The best recommendation is to go to a real live shop where you can try
>>>>>>> them out and look at the pictures.......
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep.  Nothing like a plain ol' viewing test to see what's what.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I haven't been in some time, but I know plasma TVs were once atrocious.
>>>>>>    Extremely limited viewing cone.  This has probably changed.  I'd stick
>>>>>> with LCD technology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> for the moment perhaps, but if you really want good viewing angles you
>>>>> want an LED screen - and I don't mean the so-called "led" screens that
>>>>> are really just an led backlight for an LCD.
>>>>>
>>>>> LED screens can approach 180 deg viewing angle- far more than plasma or
>>>>> LCD
>>>>>
>>>>> Stan
>>>>
>>>> I think the next screen I buy I'll look for a higher refresh rate.
>>>> Perhaps 80hz or even 100hz instead of the normal 60hz.
>>>> Hard to find but I'm sure they exist.
>>>
>>> I strongly recommend staying away from CRTs.
>>> For computer work an LCD beats a CRT to death.
>>>
>>
>> It's hard to get at all CRTs now - they are not even common for
>> second-hand, as they have so low re-sale value, and are so big and
>> heavy.  Baring a very few niche areas, no one would buy a CRT now.
>> The majority are LCD screens, with a few plasma, OLED, etc.
>>
>>> As far as "refresh rate" on an LCD:
>>>
>>>     The closest  equivalent to  a refresh  rate on an  LCD monitor  is its
>>>     frame rate, which is often locked  at 60 frame/s.
>>
>> There are only two frame rates realistically available for LCD
>> monitors. The huge majority at 60 frames per second, while there are a
>> few at 120 frames per second aimed specifically at 3D, so that each
>> eye gets 60 frames per second.
>>
>> As you say, there is /no/ flicker on LCDs (or other flatscreen
>> technologies).  It doesn't matter what the frame rate is, because they
>> are not being turned on and off at that rate, merely updated at that
>> rate.  And since 60 frames per second is much faster than the eye can
>> see movement, there is no point in going any faster.
>>
>> What /does/ vary between screens is the response time - how fast a
>> pixel can change from fully on to fully off.  Any modern screen is
>> going to be good enough for most uses, including video, but some that
>> are designed for the highest quality static pictures (such as IPS
>> screens) are poor at very fast video games.
>>
>>>
>>> For an LCD you shop for resolution and size.
>>> I'm currently at 20.5 inches and 1600x1200.
>>> (DELL).
>>>
>>> I wouldn't mind 24 inches or even 30 but anything less than
>>> the vertical 1200 is out of the question.
>>>
>>
>> 1600x1200 are getting rare and expensive.  The majority of screens use
>> full HD resolution - 1920 x 1080.  I agree that having 1200 pixels
>> vertically is much nicer than 1080 for a computer - but on my brief
>> check of prices, the cheapest 1600 x 1200 I found is almost 50% more
>> expensive than the cheapest 1920 x 1200 - and over three times the
>> price of the cheapest 1920 x 1080.
>>
>> If you've got the money, there is a lot to be said for 2560x1440 - you
>> get a nice big monitor, and the price is getting quite
>> reasonable. Remember that a good monitor will last longer than your
>> computer, and make a bigger difference to your working environment
>> than the speed of the processor or graphics card.
>
> Yes I agree with everything you've said.
>
> Maybe because I've had CRTs and now LCDs with 1200 vertical pixels so long
> I'm slightly prejudiced.  But I would not trade my 20.5 1600x1200 for
> 30 inches of 1920x1080.  I'd consider that a loss of 120 pixels with
> the horizontal gain being no real advantage.
>

Once you've got used to 1920 width, the horizontal gain /is/ a real 
advantage.  But I'd hate to lose the 120 vertical pixels - at my office, 
1920 x 1200 is the standard size.  I do have one 1920 x 1080, and it's 
missing vertical resolution bugs me.

At home I have a Dell U2711, with 2560 x 1440, which is /very/ nice.

> You're right that the prices really start to go up at the higher
> resolutions but for me, the monitor is the most important part of
> the whole machine.
>

You've misread me a little.  Prices are going /up/ for 1600 x 1200 - but 
they are going /down/ for 1920 x 1200 (and 1920 x 1080 are very cheap) 
and 2560 x 1440.

In other words, for computing use (rather than just watching TV on your 
computer), 1920 x 1200 is the spot to aim for, unless you lack the 
physical space for the width.  You get more horizontal pixels, the same 
vertical resolution, and a lower price.  But if you can afford it, 
2560x1440 is a worthwhile investment for serious use.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5484

David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> writes:

> On 03/06/12 20:01, Dan Espen wrote:
>>>> For an LCD you shop for resolution and size.
>>>> I'm currently at 20.5 inches and 1600x1200.
>>>> (DELL).
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't mind 24 inches or even 30 but anything less than
>>>> the vertical 1200 is out of the question.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 1600x1200 are getting rare and expensive.  The majority of screens use
>>> full HD resolution - 1920 x 1080.  I agree that having 1200 pixels
>>> vertically is much nicer than 1080 for a computer - but on my brief
>>> check of prices, the cheapest 1600 x 1200 I found is almost 50% more
>>> expensive than the cheapest 1920 x 1200 - and over three times the
>>> price of the cheapest 1920 x 1080.
>>>
>>> If you've got the money, there is a lot to be said for 2560x1440 - you
>>> get a nice big monitor, and the price is getting quite
>>> reasonable. Remember that a good monitor will last longer than your
>>> computer, and make a bigger difference to your working environment
>>> than the speed of the processor or graphics card.
>>
>> Yes I agree with everything you've said.
>>
>> Maybe because I've had CRTs and now LCDs with 1200 vertical pixels so long
>> I'm slightly prejudiced.  But I would not trade my 20.5 1600x1200 for
>> 30 inches of 1920x1080.  I'd consider that a loss of 120 pixels with
>> the horizontal gain being no real advantage.
>>
>
> Once you've got used to 1920 width, the horizontal gain /is/ a real
> advantage.  But I'd hate to lose the 120 vertical pixels - at my
> office, 1920 x 1200 is the standard size.  I do have one 1920 x 1080,
> and it's missing vertical resolution bugs me.
>
> At home I have a Dell U2711, with 2560 x 1440, which is /very/ nice.

I remember.  I bought the DELL 2100FP at the same price point the
U2711 is currently at.

Probably what I'll buy if this thing ever dies or they get
a lot cheaper.

>> You're right that the prices really start to go up at the higher
>> resolutions but for me, the monitor is the most important part of
>> the whole machine.
>>
>
> You've misread me a little.  Prices are going /up/ for 1600 x 1200 -
> but they are going /down/ for 1920 x 1200 (and 1920 x 1080 are very
> cheap) and 2560 x 1440.
>
> In other words, for computing use (rather than just watching TV on
> your computer), 1920 x 1200 is the spot to aim for, unless you lack
> the physical space for the width.  You get more horizontal pixels, the
> same vertical resolution, and a lower price.  But if you can afford
> it, 2560x1440 is a worthwhile investment for serious use.

Serious user here.
Plus, you only live once.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5454

On 2012-06-01, Stan Bischof <stan@worldbadminton.com> wrote:
> notbob <notbob@nothome.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> The best recommendation is to go to a real live shop where you can try 
>>> them out and look at the pictures.......
>> 
>> Yep.  Nothing like a plain ol' viewing test to see what's what.  
>> 
>> I haven't been in some time, but I know plasma TVs were once
>> atrocious.  Extremely limited viewing cone.  This has probably
>> changed.  I'd stick with LCD technology.
>> 
>
> for the moment perhaps, but if you really want good
> viewing angles you want an LED screen - and I don't
> mean the so-called "led" screens that are really just
> an led backlight for an LCD.
>
> LED screens can approach 180 deg viewing angle- far more
> than plasma or LCD
>
> Stan

That could be true if the "LED" monitors were _TRULY_ LED
monitors.  Last time I asked at Frys, the "LED" monitors are
simply LCD monitors with an LED backlight instead of fluorescent.

HTH

-- 
Robert Riches
spamtrap42@jacob21819.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5455

On 2012-06-02, Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> wrote:
> On 2012-06-01, Stan Bischof <stan@worldbadminton.com> wrote:
>> notbob <notbob@nothome.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> The best recommendation is to go to a real live shop where you can try 
>>>> them out and look at the pictures.......
>>> 
>>> Yep.  Nothing like a plain ol' viewing test to see what's what.  
>>> 
>>> I haven't been in some time, but I know plasma TVs were once
>>> atrocious.  Extremely limited viewing cone.  This has probably
>>> changed.  I'd stick with LCD technology.
>>> 
>>
>> for the moment perhaps, but if you really want good
>> viewing angles you want an LED screen - and I don't
>> mean the so-called "led" screens that are really just
>> an led backlight for an LCD.
>>
>> LED screens can approach 180 deg viewing angle- far more
>> than plasma or LCD

My TV has a 180 degree viewing angle horizontally and vertically (LCD)
my laptop has 180 deg horiz. and about 20 deg vertically before the
colour start changing. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5456

Robert Riches wrote:
> On 2012-06-01, Stan Bischof <stan@worldbadminton.com> wrote:
>> notbob <notbob@nothome.com> wrote:
>>>> The best recommendation is to go to a real live shop where you can try 
>>>> them out and look at the pictures.......
>>> Yep.  Nothing like a plain ol' viewing test to see what's what.  
>>>
>>> I haven't been in some time, but I know plasma TVs were once
>>> atrocious.  Extremely limited viewing cone.  This has probably
>>> changed.  I'd stick with LCD technology.
>>>
>> for the moment perhaps, but if you really want good
>> viewing angles you want an LED screen - and I don't
>> mean the so-called "led" screens that are really just
>> an led backlight for an LCD.
>>
>> LED screens can approach 180 deg viewing angle- far more
>> than plasma or LCD
>>
>> Stan
> 
> That could be true if the "LED" monitors were _TRULY_ LED
> monitors.  Last time I asked at Frys, the "LED" monitors are
> simply LCD monitors with an LED backlight instead of fluorescent.
> 
> HTH
> 
Indeed. OLED three color screens are beginning to make an appearance, 
but they are a rarity and very expensive.

-- 
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5494

Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> wrote:
>>
>> for the moment perhaps, but if you really want good
>> viewing angles you want an LED screen - and I don't
>> mean the so-called "led" screens that are really just
>> an led backlight for an LCD.
>>
>> LED screens can approach 180 deg viewing angle- far more
>> than plasma or LCD
>>
>> Stan
> 
> That could be true if the "LED" monitors were _TRULY_ LED
> monitors.  Last time I asked at Frys, the "LED" monitors are
> simply LCD monitors with an LED backlight instead of fluorescent.
> 

Read back earlier in the thread-- when I refer to LED monitors
I'm specifically referring to real LED, not LED-backlit LCD.

Stan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5497

Stan Bischof wrote:

> Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> for the moment perhaps, but if you really want good
>>> viewing angles you want an LED screen - and I don't
>>> mean the so-called "led" screens that are really just
>>> an led backlight for an LCD.
>>>
>>> LED screens can approach 180 deg viewing angle- far more
>>> than plasma or LCD
>>>
>>> Stan
>> 
>> That could be true if the "LED" monitors were _TRULY_ LED
>> monitors.  Last time I asked at Frys, the "LED" monitors are
>> simply LCD monitors with an LED backlight instead of fluorescent.
>> 
> 
> Read back earlier in the thread-- when I refer to LED monitors
> I'm specifically referring to real LED, not LED-backlit LCD.
> 

Can you name a single "real LED" monitor?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5498

Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> 
> 
> Can you name a single "real LED" monitor?

Sure- there's quite a few. All are still expensive. For instance
see the Sony Trimaster series. Most major manufacturers are
getting into the LED game so that they won't be left high-and-dry
when LCD's become passe.

Stan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5511

On 04/06/2012 17:31, Stan Bischof wrote:
> Peter Köhlmann<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de>  wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Can you name a single "real LED" monitor?
>
> Sure- there's quite a few. All are still expensive. For instance
> see the Sony Trimaster series. Most major manufacturers are
> getting into the LED game so that they won't be left high-and-dry
> when LCD's become passe.
>
> Stan

It will be at least a few years before OLED monitors become common even 
at the high end - they are just too expensive at the moment (ten times 
the price of an LCD), and the benefits (brighter and sharper picture, 
and greater colour consistency over all angles) don't outweigh the other 
disadvantages (size, thickness, weight and power) for most users.

Maybe they will become a realistic choice, but don't bet too much on it 
- if LCD gets better faster than OLED gets cheaper, then there will be 
no point in OLED displays.  And perhaps other technologies such as 
electronic ink will take over instead.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web