Miles Nordin <carton@Ivy.NET> writes:
> 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.

I really like my Hitachi SuperScan Supreme 803.  DVD's look pretty
nice when interpolated onto a 1200x1600 display.  (Such as with
"mplayer -fs".)

On the other hand, it is very hard for a CRT to pass the vertical
horizontal line comparison test. (Eg. test-1 and test-2 at the
following URL.)  All the crt's I've every seen smear the pixels
horizontally a bit.  Some even seem to get the average intensity wrong
and make the vertical lines look lighter or darker than the horizontal
ones.

            http://psychtoolbox.org/tips/displaytest.html

I bet those line tests would be trivial for even the cheapest DVI LCD
to pass.

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

Some of them are getting reasonable sounding numbers.  The Samsung
214T claims 8ms.

I'm tempted to get one of these and use it for things where color and
speed don't matter just to keep wear and tear off my CRT.

> 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.

Wait.  It gets worse.  Some of the 6-bit guys are adding the other 2
bits by dithering in the time direction.  How nice of them to add 15hz
flicker to the 60hz refresh.

-wolfgang
-- 
Wolfgang S. Rupprecht                http://www.wsrcc.com/wolfgang/