As I move into my new apartment. I'm not getting internet access right away, perhaps for a couple of weeks, so I won't be here or on MSN for a while. I will still check in sporadically at my parents house or whereever else I may happen to get internet access, but for the most part, my activity is going to drop for a while. Once I'm moved in and hooked up, I'll let you all know. Until then, stay sane without me :D.
P.S. to Ryan, about your computer, once I'm back online and have Paypal access, we can begin from there, kay?
Adieu, for now...
Well you've described what is happening with you so, considering you won't see this for a while, a few weeks from now when you come back, I have this to say. "Welcome back!"
And Weltall, what's going on with you?
I wanted to sell my desktop, as I have a laptop now and no longer needed the other.
Brian: The guy who purchased it from me and was dissatisfied changed his mind again and decided to keep it, after etoven talked him into keeping it. So, I guess that's that. :/
The almighty laptop. Sure hope "fully customizable" shells and hardware parts are eventually released. I'd like to get a super powered laptop and a nice dockstation some time. Completely replace the desktop, that sort of thing.
I don't want a laptop... ... okay it'd be nice sometimes, but certainly not as my main machine. Far too limited for what I want to use my computer for.
(and no, I will not give up on my opinion that CRTs are still better than LCD monitors! :))
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube
This specifically mentions that the resolution of CRT actually is fixed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCD
It should be noted that the major complaint of proper scaling is really more of a software issue than a hardware limitation. The makers seem to prefer stretching the image in a rather ugly fasion (division by fractions doesn't work with cruel hard FIXED PIXELS, you can't have half a pixel) to just showing it at it's original resolution (which would make it smaller) or just "scaling up" while maintaining the ration (which would result mainly in just having some black bars around the image, which really isn't a problem since a normal TV has AIR in the same place as the black bars).
My desktop, after a little upgrading, wasn't top of the line but was certainly an honorable mention. Yet, for all its power and ability, all I ever really did was use Word, Photoshop, the net. The few games I played were all old and far beneath its abilities. I'm not a PC gamer, nor do I have any interest in video editing or 3D modeling. My laptop isn't even close to top of the line, but it's beyond adequate for everything I do.
And, CRTs, be they monitors or televisions, are krap.
CRTs get the job done, and LCDs for a long while had issues with things like "looking at the screen from an angle" and a strange image blur. However, these issues are resolved at this point. CRTs have an edge in max resolution according to what I've read, but this is only temporary. Again, the main issue I can see them needing to "overcome" is merely a reprogramming of how the moniters handle certain resolution screens. Which is to say, they need to "maintain the aspect of a resolution".
Quote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube
This specifically mentions that the resolution of CRT actually is fixed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCD
It should be noted that the major complaint of proper scaling is really more of a software issue than a hardware limitation. The makers seem to prefer stretching the image in a rather ugly fasion (division by fractions doesn't work with cruel hard FIXED PIXELS, you can't have half a pixel) to just showing it at it's original resolution (which would make it smaller) or just "scaling up" while maintaining the ration (which would result mainly in just having some black bars around the image, which really isn't a problem since a normal TV has AIR in the same place as the black bars).
I'm pretty sure that this is just wrong.
First... you are right: CRTs do indeed have a maximum resolution. All monitors do.
However... they do NOT have an "optimal resolution". A CRT will look equally good at any resolution below its maximum. This is not true for LCDs. CRTs aren't just set pixels in the screen that can only display things at one resolution well.
From that Wikipedia article:
Quote:Drawbacks
LCD technology still has a few drawbacks in comparison to some other display technologies:
* While CRTs are capable of displaying multiple video resolutions without introducing artifacts, LCD displays usually produce only crisp images in their "native resolution" or even fractions of it.
* LCD displays generally have a lower contrast ratio than that on a plasma display or CRT. This is due to their "light valve" nature: some light always leaks out making black grey.
* LCDs have longer response time than their plasma and CRT counterparts, creating ghosting and mixing when images rapidly change; this drawback, however, is continually improving as the technology progresses.
* The viewing angle of a LCD is usually less than that of most other display technologies, thus reducing the number of people who can conveniently view the same image. However, this negative has actually been capitalized upon in two ways. Some vendors offer portables with intentionally reduced viewing angle, to provide additional privacy for example when using the PC in airplanes. Secondly, it allows multiple TV outputs from the same LCD screen just by changing the angle from where the TV is seen. Such a set can also show two different images to one viewer, providing a three-dimensional effect.
* Many users of older (around pre-2000) LCD monitors get migraines and severe eyestrain problems from the flicker nature of the fluorescent backlights. If you experience eyestrain issues with LCDs, consider these possibilities: you are using too small a resolution for reading text, there is glare from another light, screen brightness is set too low or high, there is a defective backlight, or the LCD monitor is too close or too far away. If your operating system has antialiasing with subpixel accuracy (called "ClearType" on Windows XP), this generally helps improve font visibility, although its style is not to everyone's liking.
* LCD screens occasionally suffer from image persistence, which is similar to screen burn on CRT displays. Unlike CRTs, however, LCDs can be restored to normal by displaying an all-white pattern for extended periods of time.
* Light guns do not work with this type of display since they do not have flexible lighting dynamics that CRTs have. However, the field emission display will be a potential replacement for LCD flat-panel displays since they emulate CRTs in some technological ways.
* Many models can't display some low resolution screenmodes (such as 320x240).
While many of these things have been improved on over the years, there is only so much that can be done. As for the CRT's 'drawbacks' section, it's mostly about archaic 1950s CRTs that were prone to implosion... their main drawback is just their size. They continue to have higher refresh rates, more resolutions available (any resoulution that fits your screen's aspect ratio and is allowed by your video card can be produced, pretty much -- other ones would of course require stretching or windowing, but that's true for any monitor; LCDs, though, only only have resolutions available that are programmed in, I believe -- otherwise why would some of them not be able to display low resolutions like 320x240?), no viewing angle restrictions (that continue to be sometimes annoying on LCDs), no ghosting/trails (more common on things like some portable devices or older LCDs perhaps, but still...)... videophiles would also talk about the LCD's lack of a true black color, but that doesn't bother me as much. :) The first item on that list though, about resolutions, I have noticed while using LCDs and really annoys me sometimes. CRTS simply do not have the problem.
Anyway, it's not just things that are 'solvable'. LCDs are just more limited technology, despite improvements.
I know that LCDs have come a long, long way, but when I try to use a rarely used resolution and the monitor won't let me without big black borders or edges that go over the sides of the screen and cannot be fully adjusted within bounds, I am less than impressed. And I know that it's not exactly high on monitor companies' agendas to fix LCD comaptibility with arcaic, rarely used resolutions...
"Light dynamics" isn't something I had previously heard about. I suppose it has to do with brightness of individual dots on the screen rather than only being able to make the overall screen bright or dark.
The FED type display is VERY interesting to me though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_emission_display
Also, the article is not accurate because it mentions "light guns" in a general sense when talking about LCD screens. However, only SOME light guns do not work with LCD screens, as discussed in this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_gun , and as my personal experience has shown. Either way, electrons ain't what any light guns see :D.
I think I'll update the article myself after doing a little research to confirm this.
But as for optimal resolutions, while I knew that even CRTs had their resolutions locked into place physically at the front of the screen (by where the phosphors are placed physically in place and so shining the electron beam at point A will ALWAYS result in "green"), I didn't realize just how well it could be graduated (shifted from left to right) without even really noticing anything. It almost looks smooth. The max resolution of a moniter is just much much finer than I thought it to be. Reading further indicates that yes, there is a lot of work to be done for LCDs to truly replace CRTs, but the FED (or possibly SED) screens seems set to replace BOTH. The only issue is exactly how thin they can get, which is important when you talk about using either one of those new options in a portable device. If they really are more energy efficient, then if they can be as thin as an LCD screen, they really are better for portable devices.
Ryan Wrote:I wanted to sell my desktop, as I have a laptop now and no longer needed the other.
Brian: The guy who purchased it from me and was dissatisfied changed his mind again and decided to keep it, after etoven talked him into keeping it. So, I guess that's that. :/
:(
Well, shit. Ah, don't sweat it. I really shouldn't be spending such money right now anyway, although I would have :D. Thanks anyway!
Quote:But as for optimal resolutions, while I knew that even CRTs had their resolutions locked into place physically at the front of the screen (by where the phosphors are placed physically in place and so shining the electron beam at point A will ALWAYS result in "green"), I didn't realize just how well it could be graduated (shifted from left to right) without even really noticing anything. It almost looks smooth. The max resolution of a moniter is just much much finer than I thought it to be. Reading further indicates that yes, there is a lot of work to be done for LCDs to truly replace CRTs, but the FED (or possibly SED) screens seems set to replace BOTH. The only issue is exactly how thin they can get, which is important when you talk about using either one of those new options in a portable device. If they really are more energy efficient, then if they can be as thin as an LCD screen, they really are better for portable devices.
You finally see my point... :) CRTs have fully gradient (or, probably more accurately, close enough to full that it doesn't matter much) resolution changing, LCDs are locked in to only set values. Just mess with the 'moving the screen around' settings (move left/right/up/down, resize picture, rotate, skew, etc) on a CRT and then and LCD and it should become pretty clear.
Of course, at this point it's hard to get any kind of PC that includes a CRT monitor, they all (even ones for gaming) have pretty much only LCDs, but... while I know it was a better point four or five years ago, it's still true that LCDs just aren't as good, particularly for games (for why else would you want those weird old resolutions? To run WordPerfect 5.0 for DOS? While I know it has a few adherents, I doubt that they are many anymore... :)) With lower-latency monitors that solves the most immediate problem for gaming, the trails and ghosting, gamers seem to have largely switched over too... convenience wins in the end, I guess.
... but who am I to talk, I'm on an LCD monitor right now for purely convenience reasons: CRTS are heavy. Carrying my monitor back and forth frequently is a pain. So I'd rather use the extra monitor that is here instead, which is an LCD... but I don't know if I'd want to buy one as my main monitor. If CRTs weren't available I might want to use my old one (other than an incredibly twisted VGA cable, it's in fine condition...)... :D
Yep I get the point now, though in all honesty I don't really notice much of an issue. Then agian I don't notice low frame rates until they reach a certain point either.
Anyway, yes LCD screens have some issues, and some of them seem inherent. Fortunatly it seems that this will in fact be resolved with the new technologies coming out soon.
THAT explains it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_mask
I've always wondered why moving the image around and resizing it on a CRT screen computer moniter doesn't cause the colors to constantly change repeatedly, like a rainbow. Turns out that the 3 electron guns, which otherwise are functionally identical, only have one real difference, their location inside the tube (duh), and the two masks are designed around the "angle of attack" from each of these 3 guns, since their different location means the light enters at a different angle. Essentially, light from one of the guns is "blocked", no matter how the magnetic field inside it happens to adjust it, so no angles that are possible with magnetic adjustment will ever get inside the specific place of a red phosfor for either the blue or green phosphors to enter it.
Neat, another riddle solved.
Quote:I've always wondered why moving the image around and resizing it on a CRT screen computer moniter doesn't cause the colors to constantly change repeatedly, like a rainbow. Turns out that the 3 electron guns, which otherwise are functionally identical, only have one real difference, their location inside the tube (duh), and the two masks are designed around the "angle of attack" from each of these 3 guns, since their different location means the light enters at a different angle. Essentially, light from one of the guns is "blocked", no matter how the magnetic field inside it happens to adjust it, so no angles that are possible with magnetic adjustment will ever get inside the specific place of a red phosfor for either the blue or green phosphors to enter it.
Neat, another riddle solved.
The part at the end about
exploding imploding vacuum tubes is fun too... :)
Quote:Yep I get the point now, though in all honesty I don't really notice much of an issue. Then agian I don't notice low frame rates until they reach a certain point either.
Anyway, yes LCD screens have some issues, and some of them seem inherent. Fortunatly it seems that this will in fact be resolved with the new technologies coming out soon.
Well yeah, these days the most obvious thing is just the low resolutions, but those other things do exist if you look closely, or look at less expensive LCDs like the ones in handheld consoles... (like the brighter GBA-SP and the reports that it blurs more than older GBA-SPs -- that's because it's an LCD, of course, and I guess that the brighter screen led to some problems with ghosting...)
I've checked into that, but I can't discern any "ghosting" problems with the newer SP. The older one was an LCD too ya know, it was just front lit.
The main issue is the screen design makes a formal test very difficult because there IS one other, major, detectible difference between the screens (the main selling point, clearer and brighter).
I've also heard that "reds are oversaturated", but I think that's a matter of opinion. Reds seem just fine to me.
My cursory glance, where I was wanting to see if there was a refresh rate difference, I didn't notice anything substantial. What I did notice was that on both screens, when I clicked from off/on on the frontlit model and bright/brighter on the new model, the ghosting effect was more noticable. A working hypothesis I have right now is that the increased ghosting some people are seeing is just a result of the existing ghosting in the old screen being more apparent as the screen gets brighter. Considering the ghosting is there anyway and I notice it less when the old SP is off than when it is on, and in the new one I notice it less when dim than when bright, I think this is a reasonable conclusion... However, again a more scientific test is in order, because that's all subjective and may just be the result of my own bias.
All reports agree, though, that the brighter one has more problems with trails... maybe you're right and it's just that with a brighter screen you can see them better, but who knows. I know that the original GB had horrible blurring problems, but whether that had anything to do with the LCD or not, they fixed the problem with the GBP (they introduced other ones, but they fixed the blurring...) and other GBs since (they introduced other problems like incompatible link cables, lower battery life, and less durability, things that the original GB still does better at than all subsequent Nintendo handheld products, but they fixed the blurring...)... but since I don't have a GBA-SP to test, much less one of each type, I can't say much. :) I just know that a bunch of reviews of the new one mentioned more ghosting.
"All reports"? The only mention of it I've even seen is at IGN. Could you link to the other complaints? When I first heard the complaints a few months back I immediatly ran to the web to find whatever I could about it but couldn't find anything else saying as such.
You might be right about it being and IGN thing, I'm not sure...