On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 15:23:05 +0200 Pieter Praet <pie...@praet.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jul 2011 14:55:38 +0200, hiro <23h...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > Most people getting eye problems in front of the computer are caused > > by the concentrated day-long staring without blinking once. > > ^ Also rather influential. > > Especially for Ethan, who (based on his reference to deviantART today [1]) > appears to be a pixel-pusher. Probably started around the same time he bought > his LCD. Would explain alot. I started doing something arty about 6 months before I bought my LCD, yeah. The LCD took some of the fun out of it (which would be a color depth issue,) but I'm not even comfortable using that particular LCD for plain text any more. Aside from a little burst a few months ago, my artwork has trailed off entirely. It might be related to viewing angle and posture; I find I subconsciously hold my head in a very fixed position for the LCD monitor where I don't remember doing that with CRTs at all. I guess I'm trying to get the position where the color depth is the least bad. > > Personally I hate the typical CRT flickering (especially if set to <85 Hz) Yeah... I didn't have much of a problem with flickering myself but I'm not trying to say it wasn't bad for anyone else. I just got angry at the blanket "TFT is better", especially when stated as if it had scientific backing. If some scientists have produced 'proof' of that, they constructed their experiments badly. It also reeks of the "better is better" circle-jerk... eh, I'll stop now. I do seem to have less of a problem when there's a color management system in the display, but I can't imagine anything more sucky in a display than a system to adjust every already-rendered pixel. That reminds of how elegant a CRT is in its way - there's only 15 connections to the tube, compared to all the rows and columns of an LCD. Still, pushing a CRT up to 85Hz non-interlaced requires some fairly extreme engineering.
