Re: Monitor/televison question
Posted by Crono on
Fri Sep 28th 2007 at 12:09pm
Posted
2007-09-28 12:09pm
Crono
super admin
6628 posts
700 snarkmarks
Registered:
Dec 19th 2003
Location: Oregon, USA
Considering how long both of those technologies normally last, it isn't something you should worry yourself with. If you were using a plasma screen then it'd be of great concern, otherwise, you should get anywhere from 8 to 20 years from a CRT and 5 to 10 years from an LCD, with heavy use.
The only thing that can happen with an LCD as far as "unfixable damage" due to use, is the pixels malfunctioning (stuck pixels or dead pixels), and that is related to the controller chip (as far as I know). But before that happens, there's probably a better chance of the back-light going out. Which will happen in the ballpark of 60,000 hours of use. Of course, if your back-light just stops working and you now have a technically useless LCD monitor/TV, you can always rig up another one with LEDS that will probably last longer and look just as nice. Or you could use the remaining screen to make a projector.
In any case, the actual brightness doesn't effect any of this.
CRT's life span is supposedly somewhere around three times as that of an LCD, so something like 180,000 hours of use. The only difference is, when a CRT is dead, it's dead.
Also, in this case, I don't think changing brightness or contrast will effect the tube in a more negative way.
What is detrimental to both technologies is simply using them, but both last such a ridiculously long time that it's just nonsense to try to make them last even longer by crippling the way you use them.
Edit:
Weird.
About Plasma Screens: Plasmas have the lifespan of the chemical they use. So, at half its life it will look half as good as when you bought it. Once it's crap (and it will be) you can't refill it, you have to buy a new one.
And that is the reason why I don't understand why people buy Plasma screen TVs ... especially considering the life span of the plasma is the same as the lifespan of the bulb for the old style DLP tvs. One case it'll cost you ~$200 to bring to brand new condition ... the other doesn't have an alternative.
Blame it on Microsoft, God does.
Re: Monitor/televison question
Posted by CrazyIvanovich on
Fri Sep 28th 2007 at 5:52pm
24 posts
2 snarkmarks
Registered:
Jul 15th 2007
Occupation: Software Engineer
Location: US
Heh, I would imagine that it's worse for your eyes that you blink a lot less while focusing on the monitor than any radiation you're getting from it.
That's just a guess though.
Re: Monitor/televison question
Posted by Crono on
Fri Sep 28th 2007 at 11:16pm
Posted
2007-09-28 11:16pm
Crono
super admin
6628 posts
700 snarkmarks
Registered:
Dec 19th 2003
Location: Oregon, USA
How so? Each has positives and negatives.
LCD: Cheap, reliable, horrible contrast ratio, generally doesn't look very good.
Plasma: Expensive, looks phenomenal ... for a couple years.
DLP (old): Big, Has a limited view range, single light source and color wheel combine for bad response times (fine for movies, bad for games) and various visual artifacts, generally has better picture quality than LCD, however, and costs significantly less than Plasma. It will also last longer than either of the previously listed technologies as the lamp is the only thing that will realistically break and those are not insanely expensive to replace. Doesn't ever suffer from picture burn in (But some slower models can have ghosting)
DLP LED: Removes the response time problems and most artifacts by introducing Red, Green, and Blue LEDs and removing the single light source and the color wheel. Still has some issues from recombining the image and possible problems with viewing angles. These, currently, are brand new and cost less than Plasma screens ... but not by a whole lot (Samsung brought out the first one for $4K this year)
CRT: Big, cheap, can have burn in, but will, in general, last longer than any of these others. It also has picture quality that rivals a Plasma screen and will last much much longer for far less money. (A 36" CRT FlatTube by Samsung runs at about $500) They're even cheaper than LCDs in most cases.
Personally, I think CRT is the way to go right now, unless you really just have an enormous problem with the size ... but even then it's important to take into consideration that they're still smaller and lighter than old CRT tube TVs. I also think that while LCDs are cheap they don't offer enough quality. Take a walk through a Fry's or Best Buy showing these TVs off, you'll see how good or bad they look. To note, Ice Age looks horrible in HD, the animation studio took some shorcuts with the animal's fur and it's blatantly obvious.
Out of the future technologies, LCoS is making some ground (and generally has all the benefits of DLP with very little of weaknesses), Laser technology sounds cool, but I don't see how this will be any better than DLPs, considering DLPs already do what they do just not with lasers, IR is probably the most promising and looks to be the eventual cheapest option for quality. Unless some new ground is covered in CRT, which happens pretty often, actually.
Blame it on Microsoft, God does.
