easy on the eyes monitor

quozl

Hi guys,
want to buy a new monitor, but its going to be used for stupid amounts of programming not just games. And I find that normal monitors tire my eyes, unless they're at least 100hz. So it's either a choice between a 19inch monitor that does 100hz at 1280*1240 which should be easy on the eyes, or a (also) 300 quid TFT 15.1 inch viewable flatscreen that does 75hz at 1024*768 (my prefered resolution).
I've heard that lower refresh rates on flatscreens are fine, I want something that wont hurt my eyes (after 50 hour weeks) and that can still play a decent game of quake3.
I'm leaning towards the 19inch normal monitor. Any opinions, suggestions? By the way, the two monitors mentioned are from overclockers.co.uk
quozl

astrofool

a TFT would probably be easier on the eyes than a CRT, less glare, and lower refresh rates less noticable.

I use a 19" CRT here, which does 1280 at 120hz and 1024 at 140hz, it seems fine at those resolutions, but I won't be sitting down in front of it writing code all day.

If you are getting a CRT and want it good quality, go for a sony high spec one, or a iiyama, even though cheaper monitors might have the same specs, they generally aren't as clean and crisp, and that will give you headaches after prolonged use.

Best thing to do is look for reviews of the respective monitors, at least that way you can know what to expect, looking at specs can be a folly as you can't really know until you try the part, and when that is impossible, someone else's opinion is the next best option.

(look through www.dabs.com range of monitors, particularly the Sony and iiyama sections, often alot cheaper, and cheaper delivery too)

chernobyl

i was under the impression that the eye could not detect anything above 85mhz.
maybe im wrong.

astrofool

the eye can see exactly what is displayed, the brain however fills in all the missing data with whats needed, which is why moving pictures work at a relatively low 25fps and and can see flicker free (50hz interlaced), above 72hz the brain is able to relax a bit more, but can be still noticable if looked at for long periods, I for 1 use 1600x1200 @ 85hz, and I notice immediately if I go to a higher refresh, picture becomes less "work" to look at

chernobyl

its probably cheaper buy a top quality 19inch and you get more for your money compared to a flicker free TFT.

R. Daneel Olivaw

TFT's are quite a bit easier on vision IMHO. I have a Gateway VX900 that does 1280x1024 at 85Hz, but I drop to 1152x868 at 100Hz because like already posted it *is* a bif difference, you just don't need to "focus" as hard or something.

But still at the mo I am looking for a TFT replacement because of the ones I have seen the picture is nice and flat and solid, I would rather a CRT for games and a TFT for office/desktop stuff. I think that's the best solution.

Maximum practical resolution on a 19" for me anyway at 0.28 dot pitch is 1280x1024 at the very most. I would trade happily for a solid TFT display at 1024x768.

JustHalf

Fool, just a little note on that:

The moving picture appearing smooth at 25fps or so (TV speed is 24fps if I recall correctly) is because of motion blur.

astrofool

all that happens with motion blur is that 3 or 4 frames are taken and melded together as such, meaning the brain can make up for the extra lost data more easily, which makes looking at the movie seem like real life rather than a series of photo's, tv's are 50hz interlaced, meaning every second line is updated, giving 25fps, on ntsc it's 60hz interlaced giving 30fps.

JustHalf

You're talking about syntethic motion blur... I'm talking about *actual* motion blur, due to the design of the capture devices.