LCD monitor resolution question

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 17:23:07 +0000, Bob Myers wrote:


 > "Andy Axnot" <Andy DeleteThis @mepis1.invalid> wrote in message
 > news:pan.2004.07.22.22.51.58.203772@mepis1.invalid...
  >> And, perhaps more importantly, why are most 17" lcd monitors 1280x1024?
  >> I would prefer 1024x768 at 17", it should be more readable I think, as
  >> long as we're dealing with different *native* resolutions. Again, let
  >> me emphasize I'm talking about the maximum, native resolution.
 >
 > The answer to this question in large part has to do with the common
 > confusion between "resolution" and "pixel format" (or "addressibility").
 > A 17" diagonal panel providing 1280 x 1024 pixels has a RESOLUTION which
 > is slightly higher than that of a 15", 1024 x 768 - the 15" XGA product
 > has a resolution of 85 pixels/inch, while the 17" SXGA is about 96
 > pixels/inch. A 17" XGA panel would provide about 75 PPI, a notably
 > coarser image than either of the others. Most monitor customers expect
 > more screen area to translate into more pixels (the ability to display
 > more information on the screen), and an image quality (resolution, in
 > the proper sense of the word) at least as good as the smaller, less
 > expensive option. A good place for desktop displays to be in that
 > regard is somewhere in the 85-110 pixels per inch range, a very usable
 > and visually pleasing range of resolution without getting too expensive
 > to manufacture at an acceptable cost.
 >
 > Bob M.

Bob, thanks for your response.

So the SXGA display is finer, less coarse. But aren't elements rendered
smaller, too? I wonder how this affects readability, and if the ideal
reading distance would be different for the two displays.

I guess I better get myself off to some place where I can compare some
monitors side by side, and get some assistance from the friendly, patient,
and knowledgeable sales staff. Oh, wait! That was just a dream...

Andy<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: LCD monitor resolution question 

"Andy Axnot" <Andy DeleteThis @mepis1.invalid> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.07.23.23.07.51.506207@mepis1.invalid...

 > So the SXGA display is finer, less coarse. But aren't elements rendered
 > smaller, too?

Exactly - higher resolution, in the technically correct sense of the word,
means finer picture elements ("pixels"), for more pixels per inch (or
whatever unit you'd care to use).

 > I wonder how this affects readability, and if the ideal
 > reading distance would be different for the two displays.

A lot of that depends on just what you're using the display for, and
to some degree on how well the OS and/or application software
handles displays of differing resolutions. Windows, for example, has
pretty much always assumed that it will be dealing with a display of
about 90-100 ppi, and so does not yet do all that well with higher
resolution displays since it doesn't do that great a job of matching
its text size to the display in use. (The extreme case of this is a
system in which a given character is ALWAYS the same size
in pixels, rather than being scaled so as to be the same physical size
on the screen regardless of resolution.) Ergonomic standards typically
say that you don't want to have to deal with characters shorter than
about 2.6 mm (a bit more than 0.1"), assuming typical "desktop"
viewing distances, and most people will be most comfortable with
characters displayed such that they're a bit larger than that.

As far as readibility, that's a question of both the character size and
other factors - the font design, the spacing between characters
and lines, the colors used, and so forth. And most people will
generally want the image to be a little "visually sharper" for text
work than they will for photgraphic images (where very sharp
edges on the pixels, if the pixels are large enough to be visible,
will be objectionable). So, as usual, everything's a tradeoff.

Bob M.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: LCD monitor resolution question 

Andy Axnot <Andy.TakeThisOut@mepis1.invalid> wrote:

 >So why do most manufacturers market the higher resolution 1280x1024 17"
 >displays?

Because that's the "sweet spot", given the current manufacturing
technology (read: cost) and customer expectations regarding
resolution.

Although many (including myself) agree with you that 1280x1024 is too
many pixels for a 17" LCD monitor, the manufacturer has to shoot for
the middle of the market to maximize profits. It would be nice if
someone would produce, say, an 1152x864 17" monitor. This would be,
IMO, a more comfortable resolution for this size, but then the poor
manufacturer would then be seen as "inferior" to his competitors and
their 1280x1024 displays. So, the poor manufacturer would be forced
to sell at a lower price point, even though his manufacturing costs,
heavily dependant on size, wouldn't be hardly any different.

IMO, if you're commited to LCD, you should get a 15" 1024x768, or, if
you need more resolution, step up to a 19" 1280x1024.

 >Is there an inherent advantage to one resolution over the
 >other, and would the optimum for text be different for graphics or games?

That's a very personal question, depending on how you use your
computer. Personally, I think most home users are well served by the
venerable CRT monitor, which has no issues switching resolutions as
needed. If I need 1600x1200 to see a speadsheet, no problem. If Doom
III runs too slow at 1280x960, I'll drop to 1024x768.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: LCD monitor resolution question 

I work 8 hours a day on a PC and want a LCD because all people say
that will be easier for my eyes, and better for my health.
Is It really better to use a LCD than CRT for long time works or those
are only subjective opinions.
Thanks.
 >> Stay informed about: LCD monitor resolution question 

"Ricardo" <x4vier.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:80362ef.0408101128.78312e0f@posting.google.com...
 > I work 8 hours a day on a PC and want a LCD because all people say
 > that will be easier for my eyes, and better for my health.
 > Is It really better to use a LCD than CRT for long time works or those
 > are only subjective opinions.

First, ANY display (or for that matter, any visual task at all) viewed
for an extended period of time will result in tired eyes, etc.. So
my first word of advice here is that you shouldn't do any work
involving close-up, fine-detail work (whether it's working with a
computer display, tying flies, or whatever!) for a long time without
taking a break. Get up from the desk. Focus on something in the
distance for a while. Hey, get out and take a walk already, it's a
nice day out...

Having said THAT...LCDs are easier on the eyes than CRTs
primarily in two areas. First, and most obvious, they do not
suffer from the "flicker" problem usually associated with the
CRT. The other primary advantage is that an LCD (or really,
any fixed-format display type, which would include plasma
panels, OLEDs, etc.) will not, when operated at its native
format, suffer from "focus" problems, nor any of the CRT
behaviors that can appear as "poor focus" (e.g., misconvergence).
This is a benefit, since your eyes won't be constantly trying to
correct what it sees as a problem in what THEY are doing.

Bob M.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: LCD monitor resolution question 

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 21:38:39 GMT, "Bob Myers"
<nospamplease.TakeThisOut@address.invalid> wrote:

 >
 >"Ricardo" <x4vier.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
 >news:80362ef.0408101128.78312e0f@posting.google.com...
  >> I work 8 hours a day on a PC and want a LCD because all people say
  >> that will be easier for my eyes, and better for my health.
  >> Is It really better to use a LCD than CRT for long time works or those
  >> are only subjective opinions.
 >
 >First, ANY display (or for that matter, any visual task at all) viewed
 >for an extended period of time will result in tired eyes, etc.. So
 >my first word of advice here is that you shouldn't do any work
 >involving close-up, fine-detail work (whether it's working with a
 >computer display, tying flies, or whatever!) for a long time without
 >taking a break. Get up from the desk. Focus on something in the
 >distance for a while. Hey, get out and take a walk already, it's a
 >nice day out...
 >
 >Having said THAT...LCDs are easier on the eyes than CRTs
 >primarily in two areas. First, and most obvious, they do not
 >suffer from the "flicker" problem usually associated with the
 >CRT. The other primary advantage is that an LCD (or really,
 >any fixed-format display type, which would include plasma
 >panels, OLEDs, etc.) will not, when operated at its native
 >format, suffer from "focus" problems, nor any of the CRT
 >behaviors that can appear as "poor focus" (e.g., misconvergence).
 >This is a benefit, since your eyes won't be constantly trying to
 >correct what it sees as a problem in what THEY are doing.
 >
 >Bob M.
 >

As a PC user who has had some extensive eye surgeries (my vision is
fine now), I find that my new LCD display *is* easier on the eyes. And
I think you're right, Bob -- the great geometry and focus on my
monitor keep my eyes from having to work too hard.

Kevin Miller

"Either way, it is bad for Zathras."<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: LCD monitor resolution question 

In article <zfbSc.7659$mL2.5270@news.cpqcorp.net>,
nospamplease.TakeThisOut@address.invalid says...
 >
 > "Ricardo" <x4vier.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
 > news:80362ef.0408101128.78312e0f@posting.google.com...
  > > I work 8 hours a day on a PC and want a LCD because all people say
  > > that will be easier for my eyes, and better for my health.
  > > Is It really better to use a LCD than CRT for long time works or those
  > > are only subjective opinions.
 >
 > First, ANY display (or for that matter, any visual task at all) viewed
 > for an extended period of time will result in tired eyes, etc.. So
 > my first word of advice here is that you shouldn't do any work
 > involving close-up, fine-detail work (whether it's working with a
 > computer display, tying flies, or whatever!) for a long time without
 > taking a break. Get up from the desk. Focus on something in the
 > distance for a while. Hey, get out and take a walk already, it's a
 > nice day out...
 >
 > Having said THAT...LCDs are easier on the eyes than CRTs
 > primarily in two areas. First, and most obvious, they do not
 > suffer from the "flicker" problem usually associated with the
 > CRT. The other primary advantage is that an LCD (or really,
 > any fixed-format display type, which would include plasma
 > panels, OLEDs, etc.) will not, when operated at its native
 > format, suffer from "focus" problems, nor any of the CRT
 > behaviors that can appear as "poor focus" (e.g., misconvergence).
 > This is a benefit, since your eyes won't be constantly trying to
 > correct what it sees as a problem in what THEY are doing.
 >
 > Bob M.
 >
 >
 >
Adding a slightly OT comment to this:

I found that getting eyeglasses specically prescribed for the distance
between me and my monitor, and have the glasses anti-glare coated,
reduced my eyestrain a lot.

Louise<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: LCD monitor resolution question 

LCD's are NOT FLICKER FREE.

I actually am sensitive to LCD's and have always thought I perceived
some type of flickering or shimmering. Perhaps not for the reasons I
will enumerate, for I don't have all the answers. But I recently came
across the following site which I found quite enlightening:

http://www.techmind.org/lcd/

It has information on:
Clock/phasing for Analog inputs
Pixel Inversion
Cross-talk
Color, contrast and viewing angle

These can all cause flickering and other visual noise which can be
distracting to sensitive individuals.

Pixel-inversion flicker is particularly nasty because it operates at a
lower frequency, about 30-40Hz on most displays. Compared with over
100Hz on a quality CRT. I've seen these effects and thought I was
just crazy. In many cases, "insanity" is an explanation of things we
cannot directly observe or fall outside of the scope of our
understanding. Just because something is difficult to notice or
explain, doesn't mean it isn't real.

LCD's also require greater brightness to produce a high-contrast
image. This can mean more direct glare issues, especially for
spectacle wearers.

I appreciate the many advantages of LCD's, but I have used many
high-rated displays and they haven't been the panacea that many people
claim. In ways I prefer a quality CRT, and I'm know I'm not alone.
 >> Stay informed about: LCD monitor resolution question 

LCD's are NOT FLICKER FREE.

I actually am sensitive to LCD's and have always thought I perceived
some type of flickering or shimmering. Perhaps not for the reasons I
will enumerate, for I don't have all the answers. But I recently came
across the following site which I found quite enlightening:

http://www.techmind.org/lcd/

It has information on:
Clock/phasing for Analog inputs
Pixel Inversion
Cross-talk
Color, contrast and viewing angle

These can all cause flickering and other visual noise which can be
distracting to sensitive individuals.

Pixel-inversion flicker is particularly nasty because it operates at a
lower frequency, about 30-40Hz on most displays. Compared with over
100Hz on a quality CRT. I've seen these effects and thought I was
just crazy. In many cases, "insanity" is an explanation of things we
cannot directly observe or fall outside of the scope of our
understanding. Just because something is difficult to notice or
explain, doesn't mean it isn't real.

LCD's also require greater brightness to produce a high-contrast
image. This can mean more direct glare issues, especially for
spectacle wearers.

I appreciate the many advantages of LCD's, but I have used many
high-rated displays and they haven't been the panacea that many people
claim. In ways I prefer a quality CRT, and I'm know I'm not alone.
 >> Stay informed about: LCD monitor resolution question