Subject: Re: 'unusual' resolutions on X
To: None <>
From: Miles Nordin <carton@Ivy.NET>
List: current-users
Date: 11/09/2005 20:00:52
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

>>>>> "ts" == Timo Schoeler <> writes:

    ts> besides that i'm still wondering why an LC display (1600 x
    ts> 1200) is told to be more productive than an CRT at 1600 x
    ts> 1200

yeah.  I think maybe some CRTs are not good.  I have Perry's old Nanao
FX2*21 and run it at 1600x1280.  It's an old CRT, not even a flat
tube, but it's fantastic.  I can see the edges of pixels, even at that
resolution.  of course I only have enough room for it because I live
out in Brooklyn.

The problem is, some CRTs are better than others.  Nanao makes
stunningly beautiful equipment.  They used to win every test in the
magazines.  But quality CRTs are not manufactured any more, and they
do not last forever---after too many years, they will get dim and burn
out like a lightbulb.  Eizo/Nanao makes only LCDs now, they say
because they refuse to condescend to release any more lead into the

I advised work to buy a 21" CRT, and we ended up with this Samsung,
cheap, ~$400 I think, but it is dim and not as nice as the Nanao.  so
they ignore me and buy all LCDs now.

LCDs are still not appropriate for graphic design because the color
reproduction is lousy, and it's impossible to calibrate them because
they have subtly different response curves at different angles.  Even
ones that seem to have a wide viewing angle, if you go through a gamma
correction process, either using some ``wizard'' or a paper color
reference or a colorimiter if that's even possible, the profile won't
be correct if you tilt the monitor five degrees.  If you sit too close
to the monitor, the edges won't even match the middle.  And even when
they're corrected, I think maybe they can't display colors as close to
the edge of the color cube as CRTs, or something.  In any case, color
aside I think they still struggle to match CRT contrast ratio because
all the sites talk about how black the black of this particular panel
is.  Of course, none of this applies to us, because we don't have
reasonable color correction tools for X11.

The response time of LCDs is lousy so they look weird when playing
video games or scrolling text.

some LCDs are only 6 bits per color rather than 8, so even though your
framebuffer is 24-bit, your display is really 18-bit.  To me, that
seems almost insulting to silently sell me that.

LCDs insist on 60Hz, which is inconvenient for playing 24fps movies,
if your movie-playing software is fancy enough to change the video
mode to accomodate the frame rate which I think mplayer sometimes is,
not sure.

anyway, graphic designers mostly seem to use LCDs now because they
appreciate ``good deSIGN,'' by which they mean pretty fashionable
things like iPods.  That is what makes my blood boil so much about the
LCD fetish, is the involvement of this damned fashion brigade, the
same people who got hired by my bank to send me this over-the-top
manic marketing email about how they're redesigning my eBanking Web
Site.  How much you want to bet the new site doesn't let me view my
statements with 'lynx' like the old one does?  And how much you want
to bet the people responsible for breaking my stuff to make it
prettier to them are sitting in front of pretty LCDs admiring their
pretty website?

It may be if somehow I stumble into an LCD and use it for months, I'll
be a convert, but from the technical trivia I think this is mostly
about fashion and making things that look futuristic.  But I admit I
still have a lot of 10Base2 around, because I think it's pretty, so if
you like the way it looks maybe there's nothing wrong with that.

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (NetBSD)