The Official PC building thread - 4th Edition

It takes quite a big screen to notice the difference between 35mm and 70mm, but in big enough cinemas, you do notice it. For home use though, from what I remember reading 35mm affords a digital resolution up to 3840x2160, which will be plenty sufficient for anything you can fit in the home.

 

New page bug correction post

 

I believe the new Chronicles of narnia was exactly 16:9. I was quite surprised to see no black bars on top and bottom of a screen capture. I imagine the theatre aspect was not though, eh? SO they must have reformated for Blu-Ray disc. I wish all companies would do this 16:9 is plenty fine for viewing at home. I believe a lot of people thought that switching from their old style televisions to an HDTV widescreen, would finally be rid of the black bars on top and bottom. Still see them from time to time.
I suppose when I get a projector, I might view my statements a little differently :S

 

Sam,
I think there is much to be said for both technologies. The only real downside to a quality .024mm dot pitch CRT, is cost! There are other downsides like the ones you already mentioned, but they typically go for any CRT. There are a few huge upsides in there is no native resolution, meaningful viewing angles or effective refresh rate. They compare very favorably with the $1100+ high end 24" NEC I had here for almost a month, whose only real downside was the refresh rate of 8ms GTG.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I use a $100 TN panel monitor, because I bought that one for Oxi, and works well for it's intended purpose. Mine is an Asus ML228-H, which while still a TN screen, is one with 0.248mm Pixel Pitch, with viewing angles of 170H/160V. It's a thoroughly modern HDMI 1080p LED Backlight monitor that I bought on sale, that cost me $100 more than the eMachine one I bought for Oxi! It has a gorgeous picture! It's vastly superior to any CFL lighted screen because the blacks are actually black, not dark gray!

As far as the SmartPhone screen's pixel density, I think the main problem is one of cost, and probably durability for a large monitor screen with that kind of pixel density. You would need a much thicker and rigid display in a large screen monitor, than you would need in any phone! I also think that the Phosphor persistence of a CRT has much to do with the difference it makes as well. I've yet to see anything that beats the color quality and accuracy of a high end CRT. The only thing that is hard to justify, is the price!

Best Regards,
Russ

 

That is very true CRT's are still better then LCD's or Plasma's but price isn't the only negative Size is probably the biggest downside of a CRT.

Now I suppose we will get into the choice bias like we did with the more secure optical media verses hard drive backups argument, which truly isn't about choice but is just a fact. What one chooses is up to them. Even though I think CRT's are better picture wise I much prefer the smaller footprint of a flat panel so that is what I use I would pay the extra expense otherwise.

 

Mr-Movies,

Generally the really good CRTs these days are only available from China and can be purchased through Canada. The last time I checked an .024 dot pitch 19" Flatscreen 4:3 CRT was right at $1500! It actually costs more than most 24" LCDs. Unless you have the need, or already own one, it's not a very economical buy at all! LOL!!

The Big dell I bought for $50 7 years ago, turned out to be the best monitor bargain of my life. What the label says on the outside is not what it is on the inside. I didn't discover the difference for over two years. According to the label on the back of the monitor it's supposed to be a .026mm Dot Pitch, which is the home version, that's supposed to weigh 42 Lbs. Mine turned out to be the Commercial .024mm Dot Pitch model for a Precision Graphics workstation, according to what is reported in the hardware manager, and weighs in at a few ounces shy of 60Lbs! I have enough parts for it to keep it running for at least another 10 years, including the right CRT, new and still packed in the original box! I won't part with it! I watched the Digitally re-mastered 1956 technicolor movie of 'The King and I' on it and was blown away by the color. Simply awesome! Works great with more modern video cards!

Russ

 

With CRT's going away CRT TV's, Monitors, and CCT's are very expensive these days. I forgot about the wieght and limited screen size as negatives too, so we missed those as well. I had a 36" Sony HDTV Flat CRT screen and what a pig that was to lift. It took 3 people to move it around and was so front heavy due to the flat glass front that is was a real pain. I like Deborah Kerr that is a good movie for sure.

Steve

 

There are CCFL LCDs, and there are CCFL LCDs, some have terrible black levels (my old 3007WFP was one), whereas others have excellent black levels (most modern S-PVA screens, and even the 3008WFP). They won't match those of an LED-backlit display but they come very close.
Having seen LED backlit LCDs, I can agree that the technology is better than CCFLs, but when considering high-end displays, the extra cost isn't worth it (yet).

I had a Viewsonic E92f+ for a year and a half, which was pretty dandy at the time, image quality way surpassing the 1280x1024 17" OEM display that came with my first PC. The 2048x1536 resolution was amazing, but limited to 60Hz, it was hard to look at. 1600x1200 allowed 75Hz which was much better.
At some point, part of it failed, not sure if it was the tube or what, but it made some odd noises and some bizarre green lines came up on the screen.
The replacement Viewsonic gave me was a G90f+, supposedly the workstation version of the home-grade E92. By comparison, it was naff, it had identical specs, but the picture wasn't quite as clear, and the pincushioning was off, so the image was always bent on one side and not the other (not correctable in the menu despite the plethora of options) so ultimately, I was glad to upgrade.
Now had I gone for an early and/or cheap TN LCD with a high refresh rate and 1280x1024, no doubt I would have said CRTs were better, if bulkier, but starting at the high end (My first ever LCD was a 24" Dell Ultrasharp), I was immediately done with CRTs. For image stability and consistency, CRTs don't come close. As good as the image a CRT produces may get, you can still tell you're looking through glass at a screen. The natural 100% image of an LCD is just so much nicer to work with, even ignoring the issues of refresh rate and manually adjusting the picture shape.
Granted my Viewsonic 19" CRT was only £170, versus the £640 of my LCD, but even the best CRTs that some LAN gamers hold on to, sorry but I don't see the appeal at all. Different strokes for different folks, as they say.

 

I have yet to see a LCD, no matter how good it is, that can beat the persistence of a CRT. All LCD's blur with motion and a trained eye can easily see it.

It has nothing to do with different strokes or choice once again. That seems to be the first excuse to use for differing with someone around here.

I’ll definitely buy a LCD every time even though I think the picture quality is better on a CRT for the size, weight, screen size reasons but just because my choice is to do that doesn’t mean LCD’s are better.

 

I'm not referring to fluidity of motion, with modern displays that's a relative non-issue which you have to be extremely sensitive to notice, I'm referring to static images. When you look at an LCD displaying a single image you can see it's just that, an image. When using a CRT, even with a very high refresh rate you can tell it's a picture that's updating continuously, and that's much less pleasant, imo.

 

Sam,
I've seen what you are talking about on relatively cheap CRT monitors, but I've never seen it on the big Dell before, or any of the newer models from China. NuckNFutz has a couple of those, and he swears by them as well. I never have to adjust anything on the old Dell. The picture is bright, clear and steady as a rock. Great for Photographic work!

Russ

 

I imagine if you get the refresh rate high enough it stops being an issue. I've seen a few 120Hz CRTs around, presumably those are the displays you guys use. Having not used something that can produce a respectable resolution (read over 1024x768) at over 85Hz, it just isn't enough for me, whereas 60Hz on an LCD is no issue whatsoever.

 

I would agree with that from a static point they are excellent do doubt in fact I like the whites as they seem whiter! But you don't have to be extremely sensitive to notice the motion blur however the average person is probably accepted it so they just ignore it. I have a friend that has a nice HDTV and he flipped on the baseball game for me when we were socializing and right off I noticed it wasn't on the HD channel but it didn't seem to bother him but I could see it even with blurry eyes, if you know what I mean. But again just because some won't see the difference doesn't mean there isn't one.

 

HDTVs are a bit different because there's deinterlacing and upscaling going on, which ruins the responsiveness of the display. 100/120Hz TVs go some way to dealing with this but it's not ideal.

 

Sam,
I generally use it at 1280x1024, which automatically sets the refresh rate at 85Hz. I can adjust it manually to as high as 120Hz, but I've never seen the need to do so. Please don't get me wrong, I love my new Asus 1080p monitor. The eMachine one is admittedly a cheepo, but for the price, it was better than the 19" Proview it replaced.

Russ

 

With a 1080p signal coming in there is no interlace issue or upscaling except possibly if he chooses to upconvert a 480i SD signal of course. Then you are absolutely right.

 

Well not with a 1080p signal, but for HDTV those are still very rare (though I wish that wasn't the case)

 

A bit of an off topic, but whoever it is that posts here and works for UPS, they did an excellent job on an order I placed from Germany. Two days for the delivery, was very cheap to ship, the stuff is unmarked, and the delivery driver was very friendly. Full marks.

 

a bit random

btw, is llano a phemon 2 based apu or buldozer?

 

Afaik its Phenom derived