|
|
Posted by Java Jive on 08/29/05 15:11
"TokaMundo" <TokaMundo@weedizgood.org> wrote in message
news:h935h11c4io2ao76fk9j2r9grel457n0u1@4ax.com...
>
> >An LCD monitor isn't necessarily a digital monitor -
>
> It essentially is as it reprocesses the video, and the result is a
> digital rendering. DLP suffers even worse from this affliction.
>
> >many still use the
> >same analogue connector
>
> So.
But I was addressing the person to whom I was replying, not you, and I don't
think that's how he meant it ...
> > - but taking your point as I think you meant it,
> >LCDs have the potential to provide as good a picture as any CRT,
>
> Bullshit.
For the second time in this thread, insulting others doesn't make you right.
> They never will.
They already have.
> OLED will usher in first. Illuminated
> pixels will ALWAYS be better than backlit or cast pixelations.
That may be true, time will tell
> > but as with
> >anything else, there are bad ones and good ones. Getting a bad one
doesn't
> >make the whole technology bad.
>
> The technology isn't bad.
So why are you carrying on what reads to others like an irrational crusade
against it?
> But it will still never catch up to a CRT
> in quality.
For most people, it already has ...
http://news.designtechnica.com/article6097.html
http://www.desktoppipeline.com/news/56900380
.... basically, it's turned exactly as I thought a few years ago when I first
bought an LCD. Now that they are more affordable, they are taking over,
because their advantages in terms of safety, picture quality, power
consumption, and convenience are obvious to most people, if not you.
> Keep current... Think OLED.
It will be interesting to see how they do in a world where most people may
have already recently bought an LCD. Will the improvements be considered
worthwhile enough to upgrade again? Perhaps, perhaps not, or maybe they'll
just replace LCDs silently, in that next time you need a new monitor, you'll
find that you can only get OLEDs, not LCDs. Time will tell.
> > One should always research one's purchases.
>
> That's why I still buy CRTs.
Again, I was addressing the poster to whom I was replying, who had had to
return a monitor. I wasn't canvassing any one else's opinion, least of all
an irrational one such as yours.
> >A very good reason for buying an LCD is that, as an inevitable
consequence
> >of the technology, CRTs are low-level X-ray sources.
>
> You're a wussy.
For the third time in this thread, insulting others doesn't make you right.
Three strikes and you're out.
PLONK!
> > This is particularly
> >important wrt monitors because, depending on eyesight, screen res, etc,
one
> >puts one's face relatively close to it compared with a TV.
>
> Show me all the blindness stats since the advent of TV, a
> considerably higher level source. Where are all those old men that
> have been blinded from decades of CRT viewing?
I didn't need glasses until I lost control of my deskspace at work for a
period of about 18 months, and had to sit much closer to a CRT than I wanted
to. Ever since I've needed glasses to read small print such as maps and CD
covers.
[snip crap]
> > My eyes used to
> >tire with CRT monitors, they don't with LCDs
>
> You probably had cheap shit then, driven by a cheap card.
I had what a top-flight international financial firm provided for its staff,
but the point is that cheap LCD shit driven by a cheap card *doesn't* tire
my eyes.
> > - I can work at them happily
> >for hours.
>
> Funny since eye strain has historically been reported as higher from
> LCDs than from CRTs. Particularly with constantly moving imagery.
Despite extensive research on the web today, I have been unable to find a
single hit from any even remotely reputable source - I was looking for
medical reports or at least a journalistic write up quoting one - that
bears out your claim that LCDs produce more eye strain than CRTs. However,
I did find *countless* anecdotal hits concerning problems with eye strain
and CRT refresh rate, which taken together with the complete absence of any
concerning eye strain caused by LCDs, strongly indicate that you are talking
rubbish. Amongst these I also chanced on this, the 4th and 5th posts of
which show that my own experiences are not unique:
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=557187
> >Also, I have sometimes found houses where children sit right in front of
CRT
> >TVs, and have explained to the parents why this is not a good idea.
>
> You're an idiot. Millions of folks in this country and around the
> world would have ALREADY been affected by your supposed danger.
>
> Show me the stats, liar.
Stats, that's rich in the light of your unsubstantiated claims above.
However, I can do better than that - I can do laws of physics ...
All CRTs produce X-rays as an inevitable consequence of their technology.
There has to be at least a theoretical risk from their use. The parameters
which CRT designers have to counteract are:
1) Frequency ('hardness') of, and therefore potential danger from,
X-radiation is proportional to the intensity of beam (ie: the brightness
control level)
2) Colour produces more than monochrome (three guns, or a more powerful
one split into three)
3) Quantity of radiation received is proportional to refresh rate, 25Hz
for UK PAL TV but 60Hz or more for a monitor
4) Distance from the screen (once you're far enough away for the CRT to
be considered a point source, radiation will fall in inverse-square: each
doubling of distance quarters the radiation received)
As result of public debate first in the 70s with the advent of colour TVs,
and then in the 80s and 90s with increasing monitor use, the risks were
considered real enough to give rise to three radiation standards for CRT
monitors, each more stringent than the last: MRP-2, TOC-92, & TOC-95. I
don't know of any corresponding TV standards, but the technologies are
essentially the same.
So there is every justification for advising people to sit as far as
practicably possible, commensurate with good vison and comfortable posture,
away from CRT monitors and TVs, and to keep children at least a metre,
preferably two or more, from the latter.
[Back to original message]
|