Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

But just wait until OLED becomes mainstream... I can't wait!

OLED is already mainstream here in the USA for both TV's and PC monitors, the picture quality on the OLED TV's blow the image quality of Plasma completely away. OLED = amazing! 😀

Fun fact: OLED can theoretically have less than 0.01 ms response time, thus enabling up to whopping 100,000 Hz refresh rate. o.o

LED has upto a 16 ms response time, and can go upto 480 Hz refresh rate.

As I said, OLED = amazing!

The only bad thing though, is you have to be very careful of what brand of TV or monitor you buy, low grade generic branded OLED only lasts about 5 years or less (14,000 hours lifespan) [simular to plasma] where as higher namebrand ones can outlast LCD (25,000–40,000 hours lifespan); OLED up to 62,000-198,000 hours lifespan.

Just got a 120Hz LCD. No more tears in my eyes about CRTs 😁
But yeah, OLED will kick everything.

sunaiac wrote:

Just got a 120Hz LCD. No more tears in my eyes about CRTs 😁
But yeah, OLED will kick everything.

Yeah 120Hz looks really cool, it boosts 30fps movies and tv shows to a full 60fps, it looks weird at first but you quickly get used to it. 😀

I was actually speaking about computer screen only, not TV.
It's really good for fast games (like tribes ascend)
But it doesn't solve the color problem. Can't wait to see OLED 😀

PhaytalError wrote:

OLED is already mainstream here in the USA for both TV's and PC monitors, the picture quality on the OLED TV's blow the image qu […]
Show full quote

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

But just wait until OLED becomes mainstream... I can't wait!

OLED is already mainstream here in the USA for both TV's and PC monitors, the picture quality on the OLED TV's blow the image quality of Plasma completely away. OLED = amazing! 😀

Fun fact: OLED can theoretically have less than 0.01 ms response time, thus enabling up to whopping 100,000 Hz refresh rate. o.o

LED has upto a 16 ms response time, and can go upto 480 Hz refresh rate.

As I said, OLED = amazing!

One area that all digital displays still fall behind CRTs in is flexible native resolution support. LCD/Plasma/LED all have fixed native resolutions and must rely on scaling to up/down convert any other resolutions (though some HDTVs actually force their "native" resolution to be a non-native one, like many "1280x720" sets that are really 1360x768).
Granted, the higher the native resolutions are and the higher quality the video scaling (in terms of static image quality and latency), the more this gap closes . . . especially since CRTs are no longer mainstream, so you won't see newer high-end CRTs pushing image quality higher in their own range.
Things like phosphor dot pitch, beam precision, etc. Or, for that matter, reduced cost, improved power consumption, form factor, or weight properties -though with LED-lit LCDs and OLED screens, CRTs don't really have a chance to compete power-wise -unlike with fluorescent lit LCDs which are much closer to CRTs there -or worse in some cases . . . plasma is obviously much, much worse.

The only bad thing though, is you have to be very careful of what brand of TV or monitor you buy, low grade generic branded OLED only lasts about 5 years or less (14,000 hours lifespan) [simular to plasma] where as higher namebrand ones can outlast LCD (25,000–40,000 hours lifespan); OLED up to 62,000-198,000 hours lifespan.

There's also additional complications in general with HDTVs which I doubt will go away with OLED.
SDTV signal support is very spotty and inconsistent on HDTVs, it ranges from perfectly acceptable to absolutely horrible and doesn't correspond to the general price range of the set either (some relatively cheap sets work very well and some high end ones suck). This tends to get even worse for non-interlaced SDTV stuff (like many old game consoles, and a handful of games on newer systems -especially compilations or re-releases/updates to classic games).
On the PC end, it seems the opposite has actually happened. Some early (early 2000s) vintage LCDs tended to have problems at very low resolutions in VGA or DVI (below 640x400) or accepting different v-sync rates, but newer monitors seem to have far fewer (or no) problems here.

On top of that you've got the incorrect native resolution forced on some HDTVs, though this may go away once 1080p becomes the bottom-end standard (since it's mainly "720p" sets that have the problem). Interestingly, you can often work around this by using analog connections rather than digital. A Sanyo TV we have won't allow 1360x768p to be run through DVI/HDMI on a PC (PC refuses to recognize that as a supported resolution), but through VGA/DVI-A it works perfectly fine. (and the analog/digital conversion artifacts are very minor, certainly less than the blur from scaline when displaying the "native" 1280x720, though not quite as sharp as 1024x768 HDMI -which, oddly enough, is supported)

Yea I hope Full HD will be the main standard for a while. On the PC, when it comes to games, resolution has kept increasing slowly but now we have hit a ceiling and to be honest I think it's a good thing.

They are now talking about 4k resolution though. But I read somewhere that the human eye, or its ability to see detail, means that on a 50" 4k screen you have to sit like 1m (2 feet?) in front of the TV 😀

Wasn't Full HD meant to be the optimum for our eyes at typical viewing distances?

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

I don't miss them to be honest. On the PSX (I used a RGB Scart cable into an Amiga monitor) I had to adjust the geometry for almost every game. My 21" back-breaking heavy Compaq CRT took ~ 30 minutes to warm up and the image shift a little to the left. Only after that was it properly ready to go...

Ditto.

The benefits of LCD screens for everyday use (no, I'm not including the edge-cases where CRT displays are still superior [medical imaging, tasks involving accurate colour reproduction etc]) are so significant, IMO, that I wouldn't go back to a CRT for love nor money. Who cares if the colour range isn't as deep - I much prefer not getting a headache every couple of hours, especially as my job requires using a display all day at work.

There's also no way I'd be able to afford the room on my desk (or the structural support!) for a dual 21" monitor setup....

It just occured to me, I still have a 19" CRT as my main working display at the office, hooked up to a laptop. We bought some of these screens in 2004, and mine is the only survivor. At 85Hz I am fine with it, even when I now use a Dell U2312HM LCD at home.

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

Yea I hope Full HD will be the main standard for a while. On the PC, when it comes to games, resolution has kept increasing slowly but now we have hit a ceiling and to be honest I think it's a good thing.

They are now talking about 4k resolution though. But I read somewhere that the human eye, or its ability to see detail, means that on a 50" 4k screen you have to sit like 1m (2 feet?) in front of the TV 😀

Wasn't Full HD meant to be the optimum for our eyes at typical viewing distances?

4k makes more sense as an alternative to film (both for recording/editing and screening in theaters), but it's a bit overkill for almost any domestic use.

For that matter, my 17" laptop screen is a bit overkill at 1440x900, but I prefer to use it mainly due to not liking the scaled look at lower resolutions. (plus I have a very cluttered desktop 😉)

megatron-uk wrote:

The benefits of LCD screens for everyday use (no, I'm not including the edge-cases where CRT displays are still superior [medical imaging, tasks involving accurate colour reproduction etc]) are so significant, IMO, that I wouldn't go back to a CRT for love nor money. Who cares if the colour range isn't as deep - I much prefer not getting a headache every couple of hours, especially as my job requires using a display all day at work.

There's also no way I'd be able to afford the room on my desk (or the structural support!) for a dual 21" monitor setup....

The only think I don't miss is the bulk.

I've had more problems with headaches from eye strain on LCD monitors than I ever did on CRTs. And, a while back when briefly switching back to a CRT as my main monitor, I felt a bit spoiled due to the better contrast.

Reading any sort of colored text (or reading web comics, etc) is much easier on a good CRT . . . at least compared to the average ~5 year old LCDs (and laptop) I'm used to. I could get around some of the contrast problems with adjustments (not on laptop), but at the expense of making the screen too bright or dark and the dynamic range way off.

Looking at sketches/art/photos is way better on my old CRTs than average LCDs. I'm pretty sure current high-end LCDs (and definitely OELDs) are more competitive though. (Plasma is too, but that has way more disadvantages to CRTs too . . . and while the bulk tends to be less, the weight and overall size still tends to make it no better than CRTs in many cases -power consumption is obviously the biggest issue)

There's no denying the convenience of a modern, compact, light-weight LCD panel though. (the weight factor is pretty significant for doing testing on WIP builds -beats lugging around a CRT any day . . . or lugging the PC over to a static monitor location)