• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Flat-screen monitors: question on specs

bigred

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
22,664
Location
USA
Checking specs on these things the 2 things that stand out/appear to be of particular importance performance-wise are the dot pitch and refresh rates. Standard dot pitch on these things seems to be in the .29 range - may not notice a diff in most cases but this seems disappointing as CRTs have been better than that for some time. Is that typical, and how much of a diff do you really think would be noticeable?

The other stat of note seems to be contrast ratio, which appears to range from 500 to 800/900 to 1. Again, beyond playing with numbers and "bragging rights" how much does this really matter?
 
Okay :)

I have never heard anyone brag about their flatscreen's dot pitch or contrast ratio.
The only thing I'm interested in (except for size, of course) is response time; a low response time is required if you're going to play (fast moving) games.
 
Higher contrast is good if you are viewing the screen in bright conditions. If you are in a dark basement all the time, you can get away with lower contrast.
 
Dot pitch is not really applicable to LCD screens. Flat screens use a pixel pitch measurement and, basically, all LCD screens of the same size have the same pixel pitch. Pixels are also rectangular on an LCD, as opposed to the shadow mask (dot) or aperture grill methods of masking used on a CRT. This makes the measurement non-comparable between CRT and LCD, and actually even the measurement between shadow mask and aperture grille CRTs are not comparable.

Refresh rate is a term also mistakenly applied to LCDs. LCDs have a pixel response time and there are actually two separate types: white-to-black and gray-to-gray. In the past these were critical specifications to know because a slow response time could mean that an LCD would exhibit ghosting when playing games with high frame rates or while running videos on your screen. With the newest monitors, most of which have response times of 8ms or better, it's not much of a consideration anymore.

Contrast ratio is important because it defines the difference between the whitest whites and the blackest blacks a display can produce. LCDs have lower contrast ratios than CRTs because their design, in which the light from an LCD is backlit and not produced by phosphors as on a CRT, means that you can never get really true blacks. That's why most professional graphic artists still use CRTs. Without true blacks the grayscale production is affected which affects color tone. LCDs are notorious for not being consistent across the entire screen real estate as well so they are difficult to color calibrate. For the casual user though who doesn't spend most of their time in Photoshop or Maya, an 800:1 or higher contrast ration will suit them just fine.

One advantage of an LCD over a CRT, by virtue of it's design, is eye fatigue. A CRT must refresh the phosphors on the screen a certain number of times every second. Many people will run their video output at a refresh rate of 75Hz or higher to avoid the flickering induced at lower refresh rates. However, even though we don't consciously notice the screen refreshing it still has an effect of fatiguing the eye. LCD pixels are either on or off. They don't refresh so their is less strain on the eye. It's also why you really won't notice any difference when running your video card output at 60Hz or 75Hz to an LCD.

Hope this helps.
 
Dot pitch is not really applicable to LCD screens. Flat screens use a pixel pitch measurement and, basically, all LCD screens of the same size have the same pixel pitch. Pixels are also rectangular on an LCD, as opposed to the shadow mask (dot) or aperture grill methods of masking used on a CRT. This makes the measurement non-comparable between CRT and LCD, and actually even the measurement between shadow mask and aperture grille CRTs are not comparable.

Refresh rate is a term also mistakenly applied to LCDs. LCDs have a pixel response time and there are actually two separate types: white-to-black and gray-to-gray. In the past these were critical specifications to know because a slow response time could mean that an LCD would exhibit ghosting when playing games with high frame rates or while running videos on your screen. With the newest monitors, most of which have response times of 8ms or better, it's not much of a consideration anymore.

Contrast ratio is important because it defines the difference between the whitest whites and the blackest blacks a display can produce. LCDs have lower contrast ratios than CRTs because their design, in which the light from an LCD is backlit and not produced by phosphors as on a CRT, means that you can never get really true blacks. That's why most professional graphic artists still use CRTs. Without true blacks the grayscale production is affected which affects color tone. LCDs are notorious for not being consistent across the entire screen real estate as well so they are difficult to color calibrate. For the casual user though who doesn't spend most of their time in Photoshop or Maya, an 800:1 or higher contrast ration will suit them just fine.

One advantage of an LCD over a CRT, by virtue of it's design, is eye fatigue. A CRT must refresh the phosphors on the screen a certain number of times every second. Many people will run their video output at a refresh rate of 75Hz or higher to avoid the flickering induced at lower refresh rates. However, even though we don't consciously notice the screen refreshing it still has an effect of fatiguing the eye. LCD pixels are either on or off. They don't refresh so their is less strain on the eye. It's also why you really won't notice any difference when running your video card output at 60Hz or 75Hz to an LCD.

Hope this helps.
What Apollyon said :D.

The only thing I might question is whether or not 8ms is the standard response time for LCDs. When shopping for one a few months ago, it seemed like the standard was still 10ms, and there was still a lot of 12ms monitors out there. I'd suggest springing the extra $$ for an 8ms one though.. That is one spec that will definately make a difference while viewing it.

I have a very high contrast ratio LCD, but I only spent the extra because my wife is a graphic designer. The casual user probably wouldn't notice a difference.
 
To everyone, thx for all the info, greatly appreciated :)
 
What Apollyon said :D.

The only thing I might question is whether or not 8ms is the standard response time for LCDs. When shopping for one a few months ago, it seemed like the standard was still 10ms, and there was still a lot of 12ms monitors out there. I'd suggest springing the extra $$ for an 8ms one though.. That is one spec that will definately make a difference while viewing it.
A fair observation. Though I did state it was applicable to the newest monitors. Many of the new LCD monitors out now have a 4ms (and some claim 2ms) pixel refesh times so even 8ms is no longer the cutting edge benchmark.

LCD tech is improving quickly, probably driven by the advances in and popularity of large screen LCD TVs.
 

Back
Top Bottom