8 ms LCD

[Mcollector]

Originally posted by az
Mcollector: bitmap images and 4:3 images would NOT be distorted. Read my post 2 above yours.

I read it. I just didn't and don't see how square pixels or a 5:4 physical screen matter.

Take a real bmp-type bit map, not a vector drawing, of a circle originally done at 4:3 aspect ratio. Take a digital photo of a person done at 4:3. Try both at 5:4 aspect ratio. I believe the circle will come out a little squished and the person a little fat. Even some text (depending on the font) will come out a little squashed. Vector drawings won't do that, but fixed aspect ratio bitmaps will. This is why I run my 19" monitor at 1152x864 or 1280x960; I don't like the way some things look at 1280x1024.

I don't see how taking something 4:3 and forcing it on 5:4 differs from taking something 5:4 and forcing it on 4:3, except maybe the slight distortion goes a different direction. Unfortunately, most display aspect ratios are 4:3; I think 1280x1024 is the only standard resolution that is 5:4, e.g., an oddball. For vector graphics, there is no problem. But for straight bitmaps, photos, or bitmapped fonts, I think there is. (By bitmap, I mean a matrix of pixels, i.e., a raster image. You might be able to remap the image so there is little dimensional distortion, but you can introduce artifacts or lose information doing so, and it takes some processing power and foreknowledge of the bitmap to know to do it or not.)

I don't see how square pixels would make a difference, unless they aren't perfect squares, but some rectangle that somehow compensates for the different aspect ratio. I don't see how having the monitor's physical screen size at 5:4, with a display of 1280x1024 (e.g., also 5:4), makes a difference when the original bitmap (not vector) image was 4:3.

I do agree with your comment about your suspicion that 8 ms is a marketing number for some special case. The only way to see if screen is really fast is to play some motion video stuff on it, movies and games, and see whether there are ghost trails or not.

But in another couple of years, who knows. Maybe cheap 23" LCDs with 1600x1200 or 1920x1440, as fast or nearly as fast as any CRT phosphor.

[az]

No.

If you look at a 4:3 bitmap at 5:4 fullscreen, then you will have a distorted image. If you look at your 1280x960 bitmap on a 1280x1024 screen with square pixels 1:1, you will have small black stripes on the top and bottom.

Your 1280x960 image will display distorted when displayed 1:1 on a CRT that's set to 1280x960, because the pixels aren't square anymore.

Fonts are vectors, but even bitmap fonts or text on images will display undistorted as long as you view pictures at their native aspect ratio. If you would force the pictures to display full screen, you would get a distorted image if you disabled the "keep aspect ratio" option that's present in most image viewers. But you would distort non-4:3 images (like DSLR photos, which are 3:2) on any 4:3 screen if you did that, too.

AZ

[Umfriend]

Elie, any link for that Samsung CRT? I still dispise LCD and Plasma.

[gt40]

Have a look at this new tech .
I was thinking of getting a Plasma, but I'm going to wait untill I see one of these work.

iFire Technology has developed a flat panel display with low cost and high performance potential called thick-film dielectric electroluminescent technology. With superior video performance characteristics and a substantial manufacturing cost advantage over other flat panel display technologies, iFire’s proprietary TDEL display technology has the potential to become an affordable, high performance alternative for the mass consumer flat panel television market.

[Kooldino]

Originally posted by az
No.

If you look at a 4:3 bitmap at 5:4 fullscreen, then you will have a distorted image. If you look at your 1280x960 bitmap on a 1280x1024 screen with square pixels 1:1, you will have small black stripes on the top and bottom.

Your 1280x960 image will display distorted when displayed 1:1 on a CRT that's set to 1280x960, because the pixels aren't square anymore.

Fonts are vectors, but even bitmap fonts or text on images will display undistorted as long as you view pictures at their native aspect ratio. If you would force the pictures to display full screen, you would get a distorted image if you disabled the "keep aspect ratio" option that's present in most image viewers. But you would distort non-4:3 images (like DSLR photos, which are 3:2) on any 4:3 screen if you did that, too.

AZ

I was thinking along the same lines, except I don't understand this:

Your 1280x960 image will display distorted when displayed 1:1 on a CRT that's set to 1280x960, because the pixels aren't square anymore.

[GNEP]

Az probably meant "...on a CRT that's set to 1280x1024..."

[az]

Yes, I meant that, thanks for the correction, GNEP

AZ

[Kooldino]

Ten four.

[agallag]

Thanks for the clarification. So 1280x1024 resolution isn't bad on LCDs, but it is bad on CRTs that are natively 4:3.

[Wombat]

That depends. 1280x1024 isn't bad on 18" LCDs. All the other sizes of LCD generally ARE 4:3, and will have to letterbox/interpolate to display 1280/1024.

[dZeus]

huh? I've never seen a TFT panel with a 1280x1024 native res that didn't have 5:4 physical aspect ratio. My Samsung 172X panels (17"), are no different (about 270 by 338 mM).

[Wombat]

I'm just trying to say that if the LCD wasn't made for 1280x1024, then it's almost certainly a 4:3 ratio.

[dZeus]

but on LCDs you generally don't want to run any resolution other than the native one (one of the advantages of CRT).

[Wombat]

Agreed. Unless you get a large display. A 20" running 1600x1200 can display 800x600 perfectly. And honestly, that's something I would do (for gaming) or my mom would do (bad vision).

[Elie]

Originally posted by Umfriend
Elie, any link for that Samsung CRT? I still dispise LCD and Plasma.

http://neasia.nikkeibp.com/nea/200411/features_341073.html

Here you go