Personal computing discussed

Moderators: mac_h8r1, Nemesis

 
snowdog
Gerbil First Class
Topic Author
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 4:11 pm
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Sold my Dell 2405 LCD, going back to CRT. Exploring myths.

Sat Apr 01, 2006 3:13 pm

I am not one of those anti LCD folks. I thought they would be great. I don't hard core game so the lag is no a big issue for me. But I discovered after purchasing a nice 24" widescreen Dell LCD (2405) that there were two factors about it that bothered me. Factors almost no one ever mentions in reviews.

1: viewing angle. Quoted as 170 degrees, but this number is a myth. In reality it is more like 10-20 degrees on dark tones. Horrible. And if you sit close enough to touch it (which I do) you get slightly differrent tones to each eye, which gives a strange glare, and sometimes an odd phony 3d effect. No to mention slight head movements shifting the dark tones. All of this I found aggravating. And it seems this is common to PVA/MVA panels (but more noticable on big widescreens, because you are always at an angle to some part of the screen). An IPS screen is reportedly better, but after being burned, I won't be checking it out until my next CRT dies. PVA viewing angle leads to host of wierd effects. This sucked when playing game with dark environments that would change with slight head movements. Strange glare effects. Shadow changes while picture editing.

2: Excess brightness combined with the above effect actually hurt my eyes to use the monitor. Even adjusting the brightness to minimum and further darkening with the graphics card didn't totally resolve this. I had eye pain for days until I sold the screen and went back to my craptastic 19" crt. So reviews that look at human ergonomic factors would be nice. So I consider it another myth that LCD's produce less eye strain. I can stare at CRT for 12 hours straight without issue. LCD was killing me. Eyestrain on CRT is idiots who don't understand refresh rates.

Other factors. The lag. Not a reason I got rid of it, but there is significant input lag on this panel. 40 MS before anything changes on screen. Straddle a window across the LCD and a CRT and move it up and down and watch the LCD trail the CRT. But this is not why I got rid of the monitor but somethgin to be aware of for others.

It was so annoying and uncomforatable that I sold it within days of buying it (and lost money of course). I am planning on a Philips 202p to be my next screen. I would still like to check out an IPS panel sometime, but I won't be buying another LCD without trying it first.

I feel a bit like some kind of mutant, but LCD just hurts my eyes and has a host of visual abberations, none of which I expected. It is strange because I am back to using my crappy 19" monitor that is losing focus and looks like crap, but my eyes now feel great again.

Anyone else try LCD and go back to CRT?
Last edited by snowdog on Sat Apr 01, 2006 3:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Spyder22446688
Gerbil Jedi
Posts: 1875
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 12:28 pm
Location: Seattle, Washington
Contact:

Sat Apr 01, 2006 3:41 pm

I completely agree. My 17" Viewsonic that cost me $530 left me pretty upset.

I wish R&D was still being focused on lower-profile 19" and 21" CRTs with high refresh rates.

The only thing LCDs have that I like are crisp text, lower energy consumption, and size.
x--x--x--x
 
Forge
Lord High Gerbil
Posts: 8239
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: SouthEast PA

Sat Apr 01, 2006 4:27 pm

I had eye pain for the first few days after moving from my Hitachi 19" CRT to my Dell 2000FP. It seemed mostly to be a result of my eyes being used to the curve of the CRT, the LCD seemed 'pushed in'. I haven't had any problems with black levels or laggy inputs except when I was using analog input. I blame the repeated analog/digital conversions for that. On DVI it's godly.

Wish I could have bought your 2405FPW. That's where I want to be next.
Behemoth - Plex server
Galactica - FreeNAS
Pegasus - R710 ESX host
fsociety - MBP 15
Rocinante - E5530 testing machine
Saratoga, Ticonderoga, BunkerHill - the Hydra desktop PC-thing.
 
Spyder22446688
Gerbil Jedi
Posts: 1875
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 12:28 pm
Location: Seattle, Washington
Contact:

Sat Apr 01, 2006 4:48 pm

I also experience eye pain when moving from a 17" shadow-mask CRT to a 19" aperture grill. I think this is normal, and I would not blame an LCD for ths problem.

I experienced no eye strain when switching from my 19" CRT to my 17" LCD.
x--x--x--x
 
OsakaJ
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 773
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2002 9:39 pm
Location: South Carolina, USA

Sat Apr 01, 2006 5:42 pm

I just changed from a 19'' CRT to a Gateway FPD2185W (21'', 1680x1050), and I haven't noticed any eye strain or image quality problems, though I did have to turn down the brightness. Before getting the Gateway I had bought a 20'' Westinghouse widescreen. Its picture quality was only so-so, and not as good as my old CRT. Gaming on it was horrible, with texture-shearing-like effects, even at its native resolution (with 8ms gray to gray). It went straight back to Best Buy.
The best thing about gaming with a CRT is that you can lower the resolution and keep the eye candy turned up without having to deal with poor image quality and lag caused by using a non-native resolution. Also, on a CRT you can crank up the refresh rate so that turning on Vsync doesn't kill your frame rates, especially if triple buffering isn't working right.
If you game with a system that can pump out high frame rates at higher resolutions then an LCD works as well as a CRT, but delivers a better image (at least on the FPD2185W; I've not seen a Dell). Far Cry on the 21'' Gateway is incredible -- much better than on my old 4:3 CRT.
Snowdog, I wonder if your Dell was defective. I looked close at my Gateway, and I didn't see anything like the problems you described. But, I admit my eyesight isn't the best. Has anyone else has similar experiences?
Defend your right to arm bears!
 
steelcity_ballin
Gold subscriber
Gerbilus Supremus
Posts: 12031
Joined: Mon May 26, 2003 5:55 am
Location: Pittsburgh PA

Sat Apr 01, 2006 5:46 pm

I bought a Samsung 19" CRT for 200- at a BB B&M a year ago about, and I love the hell out of it. The only downside to it would be the spiral lines I can see when the screen has lots of dark tones, but I got used to it, I love it. LCD I use at work is Meh at best. Not a fan.
Corsair 600T | ASUS P8P67 PRO | Intel 2500k @ 4.4Ghz | Asus 1080GTX | G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 8GB | Corsair HX650 650W | Asus ROG Swift Gsync 27"
 
BigMadDrongo
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 909
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 12:57 pm
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Sat Apr 01, 2006 6:24 pm

Interesting. I have a 2405 and haven't noticed any of the things you complain about. (Not saying you're imagining them, just that I haven't noticed them.)

I can see a small variation in colour saturation between viewing angles: if I fill the screen with red, there's a minor gradient between the centre of the screen (bright red, where my eyes are at 90 degrees to the screen) and the edge (slightly less bright red, where my eyes are at an angle). It's most definitely still readable (hence the quoted viewing angle, presumably), the colour just isn't totally uniform.

The 2405 is a very bright monitor (AFAIK this isn't a characteristic of LCDs in general, just the 2405 - every review of it anywhere ever mentions its unusual brightness). I don't find it a problem.

As for the "lag" - this I do find strange, as in games etc I don't notice any delay at all. As regards moving windows around, I wonder if you're experiencing a different problem: the native resolution of the 2405 (1920x1200) is so high that it's straining the video bandwidth of most graphics cards. (It's something to do with only having a single channel of DVI-D, but I'm not sure of the details.) I was told at one point that a single-link card would be unable to run it at 1920x1200 - this is utterly false, but I do sometimes notice little "tearing" type artefacts on the screen (e.g. a small square area of the screen redraws a bit late, or I move a window and the redraw to one side is "ragged") which look like the graphics card is having a hard time keeping up. The same artefacts don't occur on my 17" Samsung LCD, so I assume if I got a dual-link DVI card this would go away.

Anyway, to answer your question, I've tried LCD and could not imagine ever going back.
 
snowdog
Gerbil First Class
Topic Author
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 4:11 pm
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Sat Apr 01, 2006 6:25 pm

Input lag is a well known problem with the Dell 2405 and is the number one reason people dump them, but it is not my reason, though I notice it:
Read this thread. I have read several symptoms, some LCD's have almost none, some are close to the 2405, but the the 2405 has among the worse input lag of all LCD monitors. I notice but it was not a factor in my ditching it. When I switched back to CRT it felt like my mouse cursor was telepathic.
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/fo ... php?t=2074

No my Dell was not defective. I tracked down some 19" dells at work. They were clearly PVA panels and showed the same effect, BUT it is much less noticable on the smaller screen and it is particularly noticable on the big wide screen, which has a lot of angular change do to size, if you sit within touching distance.

I also did a lot of research after getting my monitor and being quite displeased with it. This is a well known property of all PVA/MVA panels in most dells (not the 21" wide iirc) and samsungs.

See the pictures below. An IPS panel (Like in the Apple screens) basically has viewing angles almost like a CRT. While VA panels get lighter, TN panels get darker.

But the picture doesn't tell the whole story. PVA panels like my dell have this effect on darker tones first and with very small deflections, so I see it all the time when sitting close to the big Dell 2405. I personally would never buy another PVA panel again. But I might consider an IPS panel, since from what I have seen in pics/reviews, it looks to have very good real world view angle.

So what I am saying about view angle problems only applies to PVA/MVA panels and I probably wouldn't have noticed on a smaller screen like the 19" Dells at work. IMO PVA and big wide screen is a bad combo. But obviously it doesn't bother most people who have no issue with the big Dell. Note it is still there, it just doesn't bother them as it does me.

To better quantify what was going I loaded this pattern up. Move my head just a few inches dissproportionally affects the 5%-30% squares. Note it hardly affects the pure black or the brighter tones at all. It is very obvious.
http://i.pbase.com/o4/04/606404/1/57902216.clip5.png


Here is an IPS panel:
Image
Here is a MVA/PVA panel:
Image
Here is a TN panel:
Image
 
Flying Fox
Gerbil God
Posts: 25447
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 2:19 am
Contact:

Sat Apr 01, 2006 8:04 pm

Try to be further away from the LCD and this should help a bit.

You are not the only one who cannot stand LCDs. I guess you are just one of those people. Have you also tried the 2005? You may just have to try some (S-)IPS panels to see if it is to your liking. You may just have to bite the bullet and get the NEC or even Eizo. :o
 
snowdog
Gerbil First Class
Topic Author
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 4:11 pm
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Sun Apr 02, 2006 8:32 am

Try to be further away from the LCD and this should help a bit.
You may just have to try some (S-)IPS panels to see if it is to your liking.


I like to sit within arms reach, which would be fine if it were not for the poor viewing angles and extreme brightness. Non issue now, since I sold the LCD. I recognize that all problems dissappear at 5 feet away but then you can't read anything, so what is the point?

And I agree, and previous indicated an IPS screen might interest me with it's apparently vastly superior viewing angles, but there are none on display locally. And they are at least 50% more expensive than the LCD I sold. The new NEC LCD20WGX2 seems a clear step in the right direction. Which on paper is the closest thing to bridging the gap to CRT. I hope there are nice big screens based on this technology soon, and I hope they dominate.

But as previously indicated I am going with a tried and true alternative that I know will work. A big Aperture grill CRT with a ton of video bandwidth (It will refresh at 80Hz at 2048x1536), the Phillips 202p. A choice that won't be available much longer.

A high quality CRT is still a great choice and beats LCD in most ways except size (zero lag, perfect viewing angles, eye easy ergonomic brightness levels, excellent multi-resolution support). I just hope the LCD offerings have more bugs worked out in 3-5 years when I am looking to upgrade this new display, because it is clear there won't be another CRT to replace it then.

I realize there are many people (usually gamers) who don't want to switch to LCD because of lag/latency, but I thought I could point out in this post that there is at least one person who was gung-ho to switch and discovered reasons that made him sell his big LCD and head back to CRT. I wanted to point out what I consider myths that are taken for granted. Myth #1 is that LCD is easier on the eyes. I actually got eye pain from using an LCD, in a quarter century of heavy CRT use that never happened to me. When I tracked down an LCD at work, the guy using it said he prefered CRT and found the LCD harder on the eyes as well. Myth #2 is the marketing lie that PVA screens have 178 degree viewing angle, this is almost never challenged. But in reality this is like 10 degrees before you get wierd dark tone shifts. With the big wide screen you are always 10 degrees off axis on some part of the screen and I move around a lot which only makes it worse.
Last edited by snowdog on Sun Apr 02, 2006 8:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
syadasti
Gerbil First Class
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 9:02 am
Location: NJ
Contact:

Sun Apr 02, 2006 8:38 am

The 2407 with an updated LCD panel is rumored to be released next week in the USA (its out in Japan already).

As far as upgrading in 3-5 years - well maybe you'll be able to get what you want - a flat panel microdisplay CRT of sorts - SED. I think the first high-end applications of SED are supposed to come out in 2007 but who knows if they'll be on time.
 
snowdog
Gerbil First Class
Topic Author
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 4:11 pm
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Sun Apr 02, 2006 9:27 am

syadasti wrote:
The 2407 with an updated LCD panel is rumored to be released next week in the USA (its out in Japan already).

As far as upgrading in 3-5 years - well maybe you'll be able to get what you want - a flat panel microdisplay CRT of sorts - SED. I think the first high-end applications of SED are supposed to come out in 2007 but who knows if they'll be on time.


That or OLED:
http://www.samsung.com/PressCenter/Pres ... 0000123644

OLED looks super if they get past lifespan issues: pure black (no backlight), very low power, great viewing angles, contrast, response speed. Seems to have it all. One more CRT should just about do it.
 
syadasti
Gerbil First Class
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 9:02 am
Location: NJ
Contact:

Sun Apr 02, 2006 9:41 am

snowdog wrote:
syadasti wrote:
The 2407 with an updated LCD panel is rumored to be released next week in the USA (its out in Japan already).

As far as upgrading in 3-5 years - well maybe you'll be able to get what you want - a flat panel microdisplay CRT of sorts - SED. I think the first high-end applications of SED are supposed to come out in 2007 but who knows if they'll be on time.


That or OLED:
http://www.samsung.com/PressCenter/Pres ... 0000123644

OLED looks super if they get past lifespan issues: pure black (no backlight), very low power, great viewing angles, contrast, response speed. Seems to have it all. One more CRT should just about do it.


OLED isn't as far along in the prototypes and they haven't announced any product release dates yet.

SED is basically a CRT adapted to microdisplay technology - flat panel CRTs without the scanning gun/huge depth instead using individual addressable emitters.

At CES Toshiba and Canon had 42" prototypes which already were running at 720p and 10000:1 contrast.

The first generation models supposedly coming in 2007 will have 1ms response time, 100000:1 contrast ratio, lower power consumption than LCDs, and 1080p resolution.

And thats just the first generation TV versions.

SED mass production uses technologies similar to inkjet printing and should eventually cost 1/10th that of an LCD production line.
 
Yahoolian
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
Posts: 3577
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 3:43 pm
Location: MD
Contact:

Sun Apr 02, 2006 9:54 am

Since you mentioned ergonomics, did you know that people can read text faster, find text faster, and absorb information faster on LCDs? Lots more in the link: LCD vs CRT [PDF]
 
Flying Fox
Gerbil God
Posts: 25447
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 2:19 am
Contact:

Sun Apr 02, 2006 10:08 am

Yahoolian wrote:
Since you mentioned ergonomics, did you know that people can read text faster, find text faster, and absorb information faster on LCDs? Lots more in the link: LCD vs CRT [PDF]

There are some people who are just too used to CRTs and just can't stand LCDs. I think the OP is one of those people. He has almost no choice but to go back. (S-)IPS panels are his best bet in LCD tech, or SEDs, but as others pointed out who knows when they will come onto the market at the right price.

My suggestion is to try the 2005FPW while they are still available. The 2007 is rumoured to be using either PVA or IPS depending on stock so it will be more of an lottery by then. The problem with the 2005 can be backlight bleeding but you may apply the electrical tape (surprisingly not duct tape :)) trick. I have some bleeding on my 2005 and I will attempt that once I'm more than halfway through warranty. :wink:
 
snowdog
Gerbil First Class
Topic Author
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 4:11 pm
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Sun Apr 02, 2006 10:46 am

Yahoolian wrote:
Since you mentioned ergonomics, did you know that people can read text faster, find text faster, and absorb information faster on LCDs? Lots more in the link: LCD vs CRT [PDF]



I trust my eyes over a biased study. Any study that harps on CRT flicker is clearly biased. CRT flicker is present only in improperly set up systems. This study sounds like a Press release from Samsung. I wonder who funded it? This entire study is extremely one sided. CRT bad, LCD good is about all it really has to say.

Ergonomics are highly dependant on what monitor was used. The 2405 is blazingly bright to the point that it may be hard on the eyes of many people. My computer room is dimly lit. The 2405 on minimum brightness is too bright. Playing with RGB and further card adjusments and it starts to look ugly. A CRT by contrast has nearly infinite capabiltiy to lower the brightness to a tolerable level without looking terrible.

If I had a Dell 2005 it is entirely possible it has better brightness control and the tone shifts of an IPS panel are much smaller. It probably would have ended differently. The reason I didn't go for the 2005 is that it is smaller than what I am looking for.

Everything indicates IPS is more expensive panel type and most people are fine with PVA, so economics dictates PVA is most likely what you will get in the Dell 2007. The Dell 2005 is something of an abberation for Dell and its mostly PVA samsung based lineup. I think there were few choices for wide 20" panels when they introduced the 2005.

As for the 2407 as someone mentioned. Most say the 2407 is essentially the same monitor with HDCP. Nothing more.
 
zgirl
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
Posts: 3990
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: The dark side of the moon
Contact:

Re: Sold my Dell 2405 LCD, going back to CRT. Exploring myth

Sun Apr 02, 2006 11:05 am

snowdog wrote:
So I consider it another myth that LCD's produce less eye strain. I can stare at CRT for 12 hours straight without issue. LCD was killing me. Eyestrain on CRT is idiots who don't understand refresh rates.


Idiot huh, why not just call people **** while you are at it. I used top of the line viewsonic CRT for years. Even with my Matrox G200 and G400 (Matrox still has the best image quailty of any card) My eyes would strain all the time. And I would try every Refresh rate under the sun.

When I was at a company that got 2001FPs in I spent a whole day on one (12 hours) and noticed my eyes didn't hurt. Same went as the rest of the week there on. That is when I looked into the gaming issues. There were none and I have been happily using my 2001FP to game work and all types of work. I love it, it has been a godsend and I will never go back. (it's been almost 2 years now.)

So no I don't think it is a myth.

snowdog wrote:
It is strange because I am back to using my crappy 19" monitor that is losing focus and looks like crap, but my eyes now feel great again.

Anyone else try LCD and go back to CRT?


Yes I have to use CRTs on most of the machines I install for companies. Though it is about 50/50 now with more LCD coming in. I know I almost hate them now.

Again, some people don't like CRTs, some don't like LCDs. Everyone is different and see things differently.

But calling it flat out lies and myths is wrong, since I don't see any of the problems you do. Granted I use a different model. Could have been the LCD, could have been just the one you got. I've never seen or looked at the 2405. So I cannot comment.

However if at all posibble I will never use a CRT again.

Oh and for point of reference I've always had 20/20 vision and never worn glasses.
Last edited by zgirl on Mon Apr 03, 2006 8:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I used to think the brain was the most amazing organ in the entire body. Then I realized who was telling me this."
If ignorance were painful, half the posters here would be on morphine drips.
 
snowdog
Gerbil First Class
Topic Author
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 4:11 pm
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Sun Apr 02, 2006 11:27 am

My words, perhaps, were poorly chosen.

I would still say it is a myth that LCD is easier on the eyes for everyone. Clearly it is not. I certainly don't claim that CRT is easier on the eyes for everyone. My idiot remark is reserved for those who complain about flicker on CRT and don't understand how to adjust refresh.

http://www.nfib.com/object/1583663.html
* Why do LCD screens help prevent eyestrain? Because the technology is entirely flicker-free. This means that text and graphics can now be viewed with as little flicker as when reading a book. Of course, you can get eyestrain even from too much reading. But when viewing an LCD monitor, at least you won't have the constant subtle motion of the screen to contend with.



The other myth is 178 degree viewing angle on PVA panels. This is clearly marketing tripe. I guess you can still see something, but the image degrades at the slightest deflection.

I didn't go back lightly. Who would want to leave a 24" widescreen if it was tolerable. Nothing should cause actual eye pain. I find looking at a CRT no more strenuous than reading paper print. But the LCD actually hurt my eyes. Mostly I think because it was too bright, but the angle of view issues also resulted in some weird glare like effects. Absent glare/excess brightness I find Decent/properly setup CRT easier on the eyes. I at least have a reason. Those who complain about CRT's usually complain about flicker and that can be easily remedied.

I think that the biggest factor with peoples CRT proplems are using a crappy old CRT and slow refresh. I never use under 85Hz. And my Home CRT is now crappy and old, but will soon be replaced.
 
Flying Fox
Gerbil God
Posts: 25447
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 2:19 am
Contact:

Sun Apr 02, 2006 11:59 am

Actually IIRC even at a high refresh rate you may not perceive it consciously, but sub-consciously the refresh is still registering. So you will still feel eyestrain even if you are running like 100Hz. LCD shouldn't have that problem so it will not strain your eyes that way. Your eyes hurting from the 2405 is probably due to another variable.
 
snowdog
Gerbil First Class
Topic Author
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 4:11 pm
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Sun Apr 02, 2006 12:16 pm

Flying Fox wrote:
Actually IIRC even at a high refresh rate you may not perceive it consciously, but sub-consciously the refresh is still registering. So you will still feel eyestrain even if you are running like 100Hz. LCD shouldn't have that problem so it will not strain your eyes that way. Your eyes hurting from the 2405 is probably due to another variable.


Averaging 10+ hours a day in front of CRT I think I would notice if I was experiencing eye strain from refresh. There may be some individuals affected by this, but I am not one of them. Below a certain refresh it bothers me (usually under 75Hz) but I keep it 85Hz or above and never have issues.

I don't attribute my LCD issues to refresh, but excess brightness, harshness, and odd glare from angle of view issues.
 
GokuSS2
Gerbil Jedi
Posts: 1854
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 8:29 pm
Location: San Diego, Ca

Sun Apr 02, 2006 12:33 pm

This is intresting. I am wondering if you got a bad one. I have seen it once.

The reason I say this is that I have setup 4 2405s and calibrated them. The best settings I find is briteness set at 27 and the colors set as

R 36
G 33
B 32

As I use DVI I don't have to worry about contrast. Are you using DVI?
I am VERY sensitive to brite lite so your problem is a little perplexing to me.

I set the other 3 moniters the same way except for briteness cause my friends aren't as sensitive to it.

I have run a dead pixel checking program and ran benchmarks to look for any tearing. I couldn't find any.
 
zgirl
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
Posts: 3990
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: The dark side of the moon
Contact:

Sun Apr 02, 2006 12:44 pm

snowdog wrote:
Averaging 10+ hours a day in front of CRT I think I would notice if I was experiencing eye strain from refresh. There may be some individuals affected by this, but I am not one of them. Below a certain refresh it bothers me (usually under 75Hz) but I keep it 85Hz or above and never have issues.


So have have for 13+ years and even the best CRTs at the highest rates cause my eyes to hurt if I spend any longer the 3.5 hours on average.

Not so on an LCD.

I feel this is going to be a circular argument. However don't tell us LCD owners that we are wrong. Because it works for us and not you doesn't mean we are smoke something.
"I used to think the brain was the most amazing organ in the entire body. Then I realized who was telling me this."

If ignorance were painful, half the posters here would be on morphine drips.
 
drsauced
Gerbil Jedi
Posts: 1543
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2003 1:38 pm
Location: Here!

Sun Apr 02, 2006 1:31 pm

Hm. How provocative! I will say that the 2405FPW was hard to tame. All of Snowdog's comments (hey, you don't have a brother named Bytor, do you?) are true, as well. The 2405FPW is freaking bright and the viewing angles for the panel are odd.

But.

There are very simple solutions to each. One, sit in the center of the screen. There isn't much discoloration while in front of the thing. If it really does bother you so much, then you might have very wide eye spacing, which would mean that something like the HP L2335 might be a better fit. The lost inch won't matter, and the higher price might be worth it.

The too-bright screen can be aleviated by turning on a lamp and pointing it at the facing wall. It won't seem so bright at that point. I use a, ahem, 25W grow light.

Edit: I believe the review statements about flicker-free LCD's is erroneous. If I hold my hand up to the screen and shake-it, shake-it, shake-it, I see strobing. The number I've read was somewhere on the order of 160 to 250Hz refresh. Refresh is also not the correct word, but I believe it is done precisely to raise and lower brightness of backlights. I'll d-check-it though.
Last edited by drsauced on Sun Apr 02, 2006 1:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Calm seas never made a skilled mariner. But, sadly I'm an A's fan.
 
snowdog
Gerbil First Class
Topic Author
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 4:11 pm
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Sun Apr 02, 2006 1:43 pm

z-man wrote:
So have have for 13+ years and even the best CRTs at the highest rates cause my eyes to hurt if I spend any longer the 3.5 hours on average.

Not so on an LCD.

I feel this is going to be a circular argument. However don't tell us LCD owners that we are wrong. Because it works for us and not you doesn't mean we are smoke something.


You did see where I said they are not easier on the eyes for EVERYONE. Clearly there are anomolies with both technologies. I have been using CRT heavily since the early 80's. As a teen I played games till the sun came up. Soemtimes 20 hours at a stretch. The past ten years I have been working full time as a programmer and still doing a bit of gaming/internet after work. I have no trouble going 10 hours straight on just about any CRT in the past 20 years, though the first thing I do is make sure it is well set up. I know dozens of software professionals and gaming geeks, I don't know any that have issues looking at CRT's.

A small minority of people have problems with either technology IMO. So it is incorrent to make a blanket statment about either technology being easier on the eyes.

The vast majority of people have no problem with either tech. A minority of people will be susceptible to problems with either.

Read this for some more mutants like me:
http://cloanto.com/users/mcb/19960719lcd.html
 
bitvector
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
Posts: 3264
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 4:39 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA

Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:00 pm

snowdog wrote:
Yahoolian wrote:
Since you mentioned ergonomics, did you know that people can read text faster, find text faster, and absorb information faster on LCDs? Lots more in the link: LCD vs CRT [PDF]

I trust my eyes over a biased study. Any study that harps on CRT flicker is clearly biased. CRT flicker is present only in improperly set up systems.

What is your evidence for bias? Your critieria seems to be that, if any study finds that CRT flicker is a problem, it must be biased. CRT flicker is always present, even if it's subperceptual, because that's how they work.

Do you have some dirt on Professor Alan Hedge from the Dept. Design & Environmental Analysis at Cornell other than, "I don't like his conclusions?"
 
snowdog
Gerbil First Class
Topic Author
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 4:11 pm
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:01 pm

GokuSS2 wrote:
This is intresting. I am wondering if you got a bad one. I have seen it once.

The reason I say this is that I have setup 4 2405s and calibrated them. The best settings I find is briteness set at 27 and the colors set as

R 36
G 33
B 32

As I use DVI I don't have to worry about contrast. Are you using DVI?
I am VERY sensitive to brite lite so your problem is a little perplexing to me.


This will show that I am not unusual with respect to 2405 brightness. I did the search after getting my 2405, just read the summary lines that come up. Ambient light has a big effect. When I was demoing it for sale at work under bright flourescents, it didn't seem too bright at all. Yes I was DVI connected.
http://www.google.ca/search?q=dell+2405 ... S:official

If I could find a good deal on the HP2335 and I could try it before buying I would go for it, but as it stands I don't see anything wrong going for a new good CRT like the Phillips 202p. If I don't suffer CRT eyestrain what is wrong with going for a display that has perfect viewing angles, better multiple resolution support, Better brightness control, no lag whatsoever, and cost less to boot. Yeah it is big an heavy but my current monitor hasn't moved off my desk in 4 years.

Drsauced. I am from the Great White North and I am a big Rush fan. :-) Sitting in front of the screen and not moving doesn't seem to be an option for me. I never was good at sitting still. Also I see glare effects on the sides of the screen even when centered. I would only consider a IPS panel for myself going forward.

Yes the the Flourescent backlight strobes at 150+ Hz. Some may lower as you lower the backlight. Not sure on this though.
 
drsauced
Gerbil Jedi
Posts: 1543
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2003 1:38 pm
Location: Here!

Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:08 pm

snowdog wrote:
z-man wrote:
So have have for 13+ years and even the best CRTs at the highest rates cause my eyes to hurt if I spend any longer the 3.5 hours on average.

Not so on an LCD.

I feel this is going to be a circular argument. However don't tell us LCD owners that we are wrong. Because it works for us and not you doesn't mean we are smoke something.


You did see where I said they are not easier on the eyes for EVERYONE. Clearly there are anomolies with both technologies. I have been using CRT heavily since the early 80's. As a teen I played games till the sun came up. Soemtimes 20 hours at a stretch. The past ten years I have been working full time as a programmer and still doing a bit of gaming/internet after work. I have no trouble going 10 hours straight on just about any CRT in the past 20 years, though the first thing I do is make sure it is well set up. I know dozens of software professionals and gaming geeks, I don't know any that have issues looking at CRT's.

A small minority of people have problems with either technology IMO. So it is incorrent to make a blanket statment about either technology being easier on the eyes.

The vast majority of people have no problem with either tech. A minority of people will be susceptible to problems with either.

Read this for some more mutants like me:
http://cloanto.com/users/mcb/19960719lcd.html


I wonder, do people use ClearType, the Windows Font Smearing(TM) technology? I was just playing with it, on and off, and my eyes got pretty tired pretty quickly. It's off now.

It seems to me, that CRT's seem to do this naturally, which might have made a difference.
Calm seas never made a skilled mariner. But, sadly I'm an A's fan.
 
snowdog
Gerbil First Class
Topic Author
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 4:11 pm
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:57 pm

drsauced wrote:

I wonder, do people use ClearType, the Windows Font Smearing(TM) technology? I was just playing with it, on and off, and my eyes got pretty tired pretty quickly. It's off now.

It seems to me, that CRT's seem to do this naturally, which might have made a difference.



Trust me, I tried everything. I downloaded the cleartype tuner and played with it for best results. I find it makes about 80% of the fonts better, 20% it makes worse.

But my real issue was non cleartype fonts when I logged into my unix session running at work:

http://i.pbase.com/o4/04/606404/1/57901350.TextClip.png

On CRTs this is a nice, visible, comfortable to read setup. On my LCD it felt like it was eating my retinas. It was hard to to look at. Seemed to have some kind of glare. Instant eyestrain. It was pretty much impossible to set up the monitor so this was comfortable in my workspace.
 
Usacomp2k3
Gerbil God
Posts: 22171
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 4:53 pm
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Sun Apr 02, 2006 3:00 pm

Well, as I was reading this thread, I got curious. So I moved myself and I can read the tex on this thready from every possible angle using my Dell 2005FPW. (well, in so far as one could read a text on a piece of paper from every angle).
Also, the eyestrain is most definitely not a myth.
It is true that one shouldn't use LCD's in a non-lit room. I guess I just thought that was common knowledge *shrug*
 
kvndoom
Silver subscriber
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Posts: 2717
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 11:47 pm
Location: Communistwealth of Virginia

Sun Apr 02, 2006 3:08 pm

Best picture I EVER had in a monitor was from my NEC FE991SB-BK (I think that was the right model). It had normal + 2 SuperBright levels, plus the standard brightness and contrast. I loved it so much that I bought the 22" version, which blew chunks. NEC did NOT use the same type of tube in that monitor, even though it was int he same model family. It was WAY too bright and I could not get a setting on it that wouldn't hurt my eyes. I thought maybe I got a defect, so I RMA'ed it and the replacement was exactly the same. I was so freaking mad by then (30 day return period was over) that I sold it to a friend for a $300 loss just to get it out of my house.

When I got the Dell 2405, it too was unbearably bright, and 1900x1200 is way too small for me to see anything on my screen. Fortunately Nvidia drivers are really flexible, so with a little tweaking I got it to where I like it. Here are the settings I use:

Monitor Brightness: 30

DFP setting: Fixed aspect ratio scaling

Rez: 1680x1050
Digital Vibrance: off
Brightness: 92%
Contrast: 105%
Gamma: .94
Image Sharpening: off
Clear Type: on

At 1680x1050, the icons are the exact same size as they were on my NEC 19" at 1152x864, and with the above settings the image quality is almost identical. For my eyes, these settings are near-perfect. Not too bright, and all the text and icons are really soft to look at. I would've been at a loss without the many options available in Nvidia's driver set.
A most unfortunate, Freudian, double entendre is that hotel named "Budget Inn."

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest