SPONSORED LINKS
On Tue, 24 Mar 1998 15:57:37 -0800, Randal Whittle wrote: >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. > My SPARCbook is SUPERbright, and is maybe a little less bright than this monitor (though this one has PROBLEMS), but I think it is close to CRT quality. > "Quality" is very much subjective and means different things to different >people. I don't know how you'd define it. > True, everyone has different tastes. > 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. > Same with dual scan. The only other problem with TFT, come to think about it, is bad pixels. Mine only has 4, I think, 2 blue, and 2 yellow. > 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. Like what I have. <g> 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. > Lucky. > 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. > But the quality is still very nice, and it is a lot easier on my eyes than using a CRT, even a high quality one. >>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. > Sounds like this one. My school gave it to me, it's a PS/2 CRT, and it really HURTS my eyes after just 1 hour! > 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. > You should also see if they have an option of trying it for 30 days, and if you don't like it, you can return it, or maybe trying it out in the store (if at all possible where you are). > But there are some monitors that are plenty bright, but the colors are all >washed-out. > > Its pretty tough to get it right. ;-) > Where one thing is ahead, another is lacking... -- Paul Khoury <pkhoury@loop.com> http://pkhoury.dyn.ml.org Sent from my P75 Server running OS/2 Warp 4.0, Fixpack 6 There are 28 Processes with 94 Threads. This machine's uptime is 0d 3h 43m 47s 359ms.