SPONSORED LINKS
At 02:08 PM 3/24/98 , Dominique Pivard wrote: >I'm planning to use 1024 x 768 as the resolution, based on the (hopefully >correct) assumption that a 15" TFT monitor really has a 15" displayable >area (as opposed to 17" CRT typically having 15.5"-16") and also is >brighter and higher quality. I think the screen size assumption is correct, but I may take you to task about brighter and higher quality. First of all, most TFT's I've seen aren't as bright as I'd like them to be. I've seen a few that claimed to be "superbright" that looked great next to a "normal" TFT, but monitor quality? Hmmm...I didn't think so. "Quality" is very much subjective and means different things to different people. I don't know how you'd define it. I'll say this much: when I look at my TP's TFT, there's no question that I can pick out each pixel--its square and chunky. Edges of every pixel are quite sharp and contrasty. Okay, it looks pretty great. But to me, there's something about a monitor that just looks better. Of course, I'm assuming a quality monitor too--a crappy, fuzzy, low-dot-pitch monitor is not what I'd use for comparison. But then again I have high standards--I use a 20" Sony Trinitron tube at 1600x1200 as my desktop's monitor. Its hard to beat that kind of picture for comparison. The pixels on a monitor can sort of "blend" together, making for a smoother picture. On a TFT, there's no question--three pixels (one for each of RBG) lined up, one of them turned on depending what color that part of the screen is supposed to be. Instead of blending the 3 colors together, it just puts some shade of each really, really close to each other to fool your eye into believing it is that color. >Which of the following characteristics should attract my attention: dot >pitch, brightness, contrast ratio, refresh rate. A poor refresh rate is the worst of all, but luckily with today's video cards and monitors, that's probably a thing of the past. A low/bad dot pitch is also bad. I've (temporarily) worked on .41 dot pitch monitors...whew, did my eyes hurt after that! FUZZY! HORRIBLE! And they were made by IBM in a school lab. If I were IBM, I'd have thought twice about giving those things away--or if I did, I'd have taken the logo off the box. It was *really* bad and didn't reflect well on their company. Brightness and Contrast are, IMO, very much an issue of personal taste. Though I will say this much: In general, brighter is better because even if you don't use it all the way "up", you can "turn it down". On the other hand, if its on its highest setting and you want it brighter, you're out of luck. But there are some monitors that are plenty bright, but the colors are all washed-out. Its pretty tough to get it right. ;-) ------- Randal J. Whittle whittle@usc.edu (213) 740-7775 Director, Electronic Commerce Program Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (E-mail me for my PGP Public Encryption Key)