PureBasic Forums - English

GPI, in some cases what you say is true if you're talking about televisions made a few years ago and earlier. Newer televisons, however, are every bit as "hi tech" as the latest CRT monitor (in fact, it could be said that the latest non-plasma televisons are actually computer monitors with specialized tv tuners built-in. It's really only a matter of time before televisons and computers become one and the same...).

Now with LCD (Thin Film Transistor), that's a bit different because, as the last person said, there is no phosphor dot fade. Then again, phosphor fade is really only a problem on interlaced displays.

I wonder if we'll ever see plasma computer monitors?

Russell

amiga5k, plasma doesn't do well in the long term with static images (burn in) so i doubt we'll ever see computer plasma screens

but there's one thing else people seem to forget, it's not just interlace or refresh speed, it's also 'fade' that counts, older televisions and computer monitors worked interlaced, true, but they also had 'pixels' (for the lack of a better word) that 'ghosted' or 'faded' for a longer time, thus 'smearing' the image, making the (moving) interlaced image even smoother

computer screens 'ghost' a lot less, making lower frequencies more visible (flickering) but improving things (less ghosting) at higher frequencies

mmm... might have to brush up on my english though, this is hard to explain...

Amiga5k wrote:GPI, in some cases what you say is true if you're talking about televisions made a few years ago and earlier.

No. There a big diffrent between CRT-TV and CRT-Monitor. Why are 20-inch and bigger CRT-Monitor so expensiv? Why no 29-inch-Monitor exist? Because you get big problem with the geometry. Also a Monitor must handle bigger resolutions and frequencies.

GPI, what Amiga5k said is that CRT TV and CRT computers displays use SAME displaying technique.
And that's true.

Psychophanta wrote:GPI, what Amiga5k said is that CRT TV and CRT computers displays use SAME displaying technique.
And that's true.

The Base-Idea is identical, but the used techniques is not realy the same. Monitors are hitech, TVs not. And a monitor needs more than 60Hz, or i can't work/play with it.

GPI wrote:The Base-Idea is identical, but the used techniques is not realy the same. Monitors are hitech, TVs not. And a monitor needs more than 60Hz, or i can't work/play with it.

Ok, all that is right.
But displaying technique doesn't change.
Of course that Monitors are hitech, and smaller pixels, more VSync freq, etc...

GPI, there are really only two main differences between a CRT-TV and a CRT-Monitor:
1) CRT-Monitor can display at higher frequencies (normal tvs have limited adjustability - Some NTSC tvs can display PAL, for example, etc)
2) CRT-Monitor can display non-interlaced (so can a tv, actually, if the input signal is about 262ntsc/312pal lines vertical or less).

Televsions are much less expensive for the simple reason that all NTSC (PAL\SECAM) televisions use the same frequencies and technology and sell in MUCH larger numbers.

Anyways, there are televisions that have been out for a while now that basically combine the two fields of a display into one CRT-Monitor type display and have no flicker. They are usually called "Improved" or "Enhanced" definition tvs. These tvs have excellent pictures but cost a LOT of money compared to the same size normal tv.

So anyways, we've kind of skipped off the subject a bit here...

Just let the user decide what frequency to use, or get that info from the OS. Warn the user if it's non-standard or very high and revert the screen back to normal in 10 seconds if they don't click ok, etc.

Russell