It seems like the industry is coming up with new and creative ways to advertise the responce time for LCD monitors. They are now using the "gray to gray" and "black to white" scale, instead of the usuall "black to white to black". After a little research into this, it looks like a "gray to gray" responce time should be multiplied by 3 or 4 to get the true "ms" rating and "black to white" should by multiplied by 2. If anyone else has more information on this, I'd be interested to see it. I know I've seen several posts here about people interested in buying an LCD monitor and thought I would give them a heads-up.
Buyer beware..
LCD Buyers beware..
-
Pooinyourmouth
- Posts: 609
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 1999 8:00 am
I came to the conclusion that I just can't use an LCD monitor. I took a couple of pretty nice ones home to try out, and they both where disappointing. One of them was a really nice $900 viewsonic. I ended up ordering a CRT 24" 16:10 widescreen for half the price of a decent LCD but more than twice the image quality. 1920x1200 at 85hz makes me happy.
Only problem is it probably weighs about 150 pounds and uses four times as much electricity.Pooinyourmouth wrote:I came to the conclusion that I just can't use an LCD monitor. I took a couple of pretty nice ones home to try out, and they both where disappointing. One of them was a really nice $900 viewsonic. I ended up ordering a CRT 24" 16:10 widescreen for half the price of a decent LCD but more than twice the image quality. 1920x1200 at 85hz makes me happy.
-
Pooinyourmouth
- Posts: 609
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 1999 8:00 am
I only had to lift it once, and I went from a 19"CRT to a 24" so I don't think I'll see to much of a difference in my power bill.
When it comes to my eyes, I'll gladly pay the extra per month on the power bill.
When it comes to my eyes, I'll gladly pay the extra per month on the power bill.
Last edited by Pooinyourmouth on Sun Sep 11, 2005 5:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
[url=http://bf2s.com/player/44657857/][img]http://bf2s.com/player/44657857/sig.png[/img][/url]
[url=http://bf2s.com/player/44657857/][img]http://bf2s.com/player/44657857/sig5.png[/img][/url]
[url=http://bf2s.com/player/44657857/][img]http://bf2s.com/player/44657857/sig5.png[/img][/url]
-
HM-PuFFNSTuFF
- Posts: 14376
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 8:00 am
-
Pooinyourmouth
- Posts: 609
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 1999 8:00 am
It wasn't the flicker I was worried about though, it was more about the resolution and the amount of contrast I get. Besides I can go up to 120hz but I can't see any difference past 85hz so that's where I left it. I can see flicker below 85hz though and that kills me for sure.Foo wrote:I'd say TFTs are better for your eyes, since they don't flicker (even at 80+hz, CRTs are still flickering)Pooinyourmouth wrote:When it comes to my eyes, I'll gladly pay the extra per month on the power bill.
Run 120 for a while and I bet you will notice a difference. For the longest time I never saw a difference between 60 and 85 until I used it day-to-day.Pooinyourmouth wrote:It wasn't the flicker I was worried about though, it was more about the resolution and the amount of contrast I get. Besides I can go up to 120hz but I can't see any difference past 85hz so that's where I left it. I can see flicker below 85hz though and that kills me for sure.Foo wrote:I'd say TFTs are better for your eyes, since they don't flicker (even at 80+hz, CRTs are still flickering)Pooinyourmouth wrote:When it comes to my eyes, I'll gladly pay the extra per month on the power bill.
-
YourGrandpa
- Posts: 10075
- Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2000 7:00 am
:icon14: