Eyestrain from monitors

[caddmannq]

One of my clients (an architect) told me that he has a lot less eyestrain since he switched to a flat-panel monitor.

Have any of you noticed this effect? I don't really like them so far, but that would be a good excuse for me to buy one, as I spend half of my life looking at a CRT. (OK...part of that is watching TV!)

Frankly, I think that perhaps he just had a crummy video card before, as he bought a new digital one to match the flat-panel when he switched. He's not a PC geek, BTW, so he couldn't even tell me exactly what card or panel he bought.

Any opinions (or certified documented evidence ;) ) ?

[NeoStarO1]

That makes alot of sense to me, I had used the ole CRT monitors for years, and for years I had suffered from migraines, been to the doc numerous times for this, cat scans and everything and they still couldn't figure it out. So it was something I just had to learn to live with.

Then my folks bought me a nice 15" Flat Panel display for my birthday last january and guess what I discovered!!! My mingrains went down about 75% since using the flat panel. That was the only change I had done that could have contributed to the lesser migrains now.

So yes I think Flat Panels are better on the eyes.

I don't have any certified documents to support this or not, Im just happy not to be overtaken with migrains. :)

[Mntsnow]

I personally have found for me that as long as I have a refresh rate that is above 85 and below 100 I do fine. While I do have a 15" flat panel I could use I prefer my HP p1120 monitor(21") flat screen trinitron :D

[NDC]

I prefer a CRT monitor over LCD flat panel. Although LCD monitors may have sharper images, the color display is crummy when it comes to preciseness. As Mntsnow has mentioned above, tell your client to set a higer refresh rate if he/she hasn't already done so... 85Hz at the most since 100Hz makes no different the human eye can see. Setting the refresh rate too high will only make text look blurrier...

Also, I noticed that using a glare guard helps. I'm suggesting it because it puts a slight tint on the monitor, not because of glare.

[caddmannq]

Thanks, folks.
I prefer CRT's myself, though I don't have any long-term experience with flat panels to base that on.

But when I survey them at the stores, I notice two things.

The flat panels seemed "garish" to me. Glittering. Not natural.

The other thing is that they do not dislpay them side-by-side with CRTs. I think that they do not because the picture-quality-for-the-buck is far superior from CRTs. The $800 panel did not compare even to a $200 CRT of similar size. (Again...maybe video card diffs? I dunno. They were all set up on preconfigured OEM stuff. Probably far from top performance cards.)

I have a couple very good CRTs (A CTX and an NEC) and good video cards, and I don't notice any more strain from reading a monitor than from reading a book.

I use refresh rates of about 90, but this other guy may have had it significantly lower due to a cheap video card (Gateway OEM MGA, I think.)

[NDC]

Also like to mention that it's ideal to run the monitor at 1024 x 768 on a 17 inch monitor... I see some people run it at 1280 x 1024 which in my opinion is too much for a 17" monitor at whatever refresh rate...

[caddmannq]

I run 1024x768 on both my 17" and my 21"
More than that seems like overkill.

[surrealchereal]

What does the refresh rate do?

[NDC]

It controls the flicker on your monitor... Go to Display Properties\Settings\Advanced\Monitor and set the refresh rate to 85Mhz. But make sure your monitor supports this refresh rate at the resolution you are currently using... I've seen some cheesy monitors that won't do over 60Hz @ 1280 x 1024...

[madfish]

I have a tnt-m 64 at 32mb with a NEC multi-sync 50. 15 ' it's set at optimal refresh rate, the other options are: 60,70,72,75,85. should I leave it alone or change it to 85? Oh I also have a glare screen, I swear by this one, without it I can't stand viewing this for very long.

Edit: 1024x768 btw is what I have this on.

[NDC]

Well, optimal doesn't always set the refresh rate at optimal from my past experience... Set it at 75 or 85Hz...

[madfish]

ya all cut that out now, ya scaring me! I don't see no one but me here and ya all keep poping up and posting and PMing me. darn spooks!




Turn off invisiable mode, sheese


Edit: it's at 75 now and things look alot clearer and sharper.

Tnks

[NDC]

ya all cut that out now, ya scaring me! I don't see no one but me here and ya all keep poping up and posting and PMing me. darn spooks!

Muhahahahahahaha! :D

[surrealchereal]

Ah does the bigger number make it refresh faster?
I have a really old monitor. Really good one, but old. I Love It!

So a high refresh rate is out for me. Best it will do is 85 @ 1024x768 figured I'd try it..
It was at 1152x864 and a lower refresh rate..


Hmmm when I set mine to 75 it seemed to get darker..

[NDC]

Setting a higher value produces less flicker on the monitor. perhaps this why the image appears to look darker, not faded.. Keep in mind that setting a refresh rate too high can cause blur effects on text where they don't appear as crisp...

[surrealchereal]

Hmm I wonder if that could have been the problem of my cheesy monitor.. Which is now sitting under the table not on it! :D

Thanks for the info NDC :D

Oh and the steak was great!

[NDC]

You are very welcome as always, Surreal! :)

So you liked the Bul-Go-Gi, huh? ;)

[Dudster]

I use 1152x864 @ 85Hz on my 17" Sony which is ideal for me. 1280x1024 looks rough (not just because it's only 75Hz) and 1024x768 now looks too low to me. I'd use 1024 if I had a 15" monitor.

Edit - One way to check if the refresh rate's too low is to look at the screen through your peripheral vision, if it's not flickering, it's high enough.

[surrealchereal]

So you liked the Bul-Go-Gi, huh?
Oh yeah! And my son thought it was great! :D :D

[jadison]

I use a 17" Sony HMD-A200 flatscreen Trinitron monitor (my review of it is here! (http://www.xtremepccentral.com/reviews.php?op=showcontent&id=3)) and i noticed that under Display Properties the refresh rate is set at 70 Hertz. What's more is the only settings are 60, 70, 72, and 75 Hertz. The graphx card is a 32MB GeForce2 MX400, but what's odd is I thought I had the option of higher refresh rates. At its current setting of 70 Hertz all text is crisp and clear, graphx are great, no blurriness anywhere, and the picture is bright.

So, I guess it's fine where it's at? :confused:

[Dudster]

Maximum refresh rates for the A200:
1280 x 1024/66 Hz
1024 x 768/88 Hz
800 x 600/113 Hz
From here (http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:-kVi-A3SKfgC:www.sony-cp.com/_E/News/news70.doc+Sony+HMD-A200+refresh+rates&hl=en). I've no idea why you can't set it higher than 75 and I spose as long as it looks ok, it's not so bad and the minimum recommended is 75Hz. And @ 75Hz on mine (1280x1024) I could sometimes see flickering, usually on bright backgrounds.

[jadison]

Forgot to mention I have my resolution set at 1152x864, that would be pertinent info ;)
If I would just think a little more than a second, I'd probably answer my own question. :o

[brandon]

I used to find staring at a monitor to be a pretty monotonous routine after a while, but now I swear by DELL monitors.. :D

[Socal]

My normal resolution is 1600x1200 @85hz. It's the sweet spot for me on my Mitsubishi 21" viewable as I'm looking at it up to 16 hours a day sometimes... it's a truly flat screen, and I rarely get headaches or eyestrain considering how long I stare at a monitor.

I found if I lower the bitrate from 32 to 24 I can nudge the refresh up notch - it seems to help on my older Sony, without noticeable color loss.

[caddmannq]

Color depth is not a prob on my work machine, as all our engineering stuff only runs in 256 colors. But when I kick the NEC 21" up to 1600x1200, the text in Autocad goes kinda wacky. Not all the fonts, just the ones we like to use as standard ones. Not the same as "true type" at all. (My plotter pukes all over true type.)

Having only a 32MB video card there, 1024x768 seems a good compromise to me.

[Kurylo]

I use Samsung SyncMaster 959NF and have no any problems...

[WAGGS]

I have done some extensive research on monitors and thought I would post a little on what I found. I found that I will give them another few years to develope Flat panel (LCD) monitors before I even think about buying one. They cant even begin to match the performance of a good CRT, and charge you atleast three times as much for them.
Refresh rate is how many times a screen is refreshed per second. Refresh rates under 75Hz (CRT) will give most people a headache. Some older monitors are not capable of higher refresh rates and forcing them to do so will in fact shorten the life of your monitor. If you have an old CRT and it is getting dark it is because you need a new one:) Resolutions and refresh rate settings depend on what your monitor is rated for. All monitors are different in which settings are optimal for them. For instance Refresh rates for a LCD can be much lower because they work in a completely different way. A cell in a LCD is either on or off, that is why text is so crisp on a LCD. But play Quake 3 or Unreal on a LCD and you will see where they fall short. They also dont present precise colors like a CRT, so video editing and intensive graphic use will leave you wanting more. If what you use your computer for is general word processing, surfing then web, and space on your desk is at a premium then a LCD will work fine. They take up less room, use less power, are easier on the eyes and last much longer than a CRT. But if you are into gaming, demand high quality color and graphic at mind ripping speeds for alot less money then stick with a CRT......Just my two cents:D

Here is where I got alot of this info if you want to learn more

http://www.pctechguide.com/07panels.htm

[jadison]

Quite the informative post, thanks WAGGS. :)
BTW, wonderful link...I think my head hurts from reading that guide. There were actually several things I didn't know much or even anything about, and that site did a good job of answering those questions. Great Find! :cooldude:

[WAGGS]

Yea, that is alot of reading but there arent many questions left after you finish.........lol. I research things almost to a falt before I buy them so Its nice to share some info with others in the process.:D

[fosin]

I recommend anything flat :). Both Flat CRT or LCD don’t have all that glare. Especially under fluorescent lights. I prefer my LCD because to me the colors look much richer and it doesn’t flicker, but expensive. I would be using a flat CRT if I didn’t get a good deal on my LCD.

[MDS]

I have an NEC multisync E1100 21" monitor & an HP 17" monitor on my main box,and I bought a KDS rad-5 15" LCD in which went strait to the kids puter as I was not impressed at all. I was going to uses dual monitors using the KDS but could not stand looking at it the Hp was much better,but I love my NEC running at 1024 x 768 and refress at 85Hertz and seem fine for me.

[Kuasimodem]

I noticed that when I went to my Samsung 955DF that the eyestrain that I used to experience with my old monitor (IBM 17") is totally gone.

I think the difference (other than the size) is the fact that my eyes are now focusing on a flat surface instead of a curve.

I'm going down to Best Buy sometime this week and picking up that Samtron 17" flat CRT that they have in this week's flyer, $129 after rebates! Samtron is Samsung's budget line, sounds like a deal to me:D

[WAGGS]

Be carefull, you usually get what you pay for

[Kuasimodem]

That's true, but I trust Samtron and Samsung, I've had my 19" for some time now and love it:D

Now... if it was a Dynablurb or some off-brand garbage, I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole!

[WAGGS]

Ive read many times that anything over 70Hz is just wasted because the human eye cant detect it anyway.

[NDC]

Yeah, Samsung makes some good monitors. They started building their reputation with their Sync Master Monitors. As for Samsung LCD panels, they are considered class "A".

[skeleton]

Originally posted by WAGGS
Ive read many times that anything over 70Hz is just wasted because the human eye cant detect it anyway.

Originally posted by NDC
85Hz at the most since 100Hz makes no different the human eye can see.


well, I see difference between 85 and 100 (or 90 and 100), does that make me an alien? :p @75 almost anyone should see the flickering.. if you dont see flickering normally, just look at monitor from the corner of your eye, its there.. @100 even i cant see any flickering normally.. usually i can tell if monitor uses 75, 85(90) or 100 hz just by looking at it..

about eyestrain, had to look at 6 year old viewsonic e655 (15") for about a month 800*600@85hz and my eyes are seriously f*cked up.. going to buy samsung syncmaster 959nf tomorrow.. cheapest good monitor out there that meets my standards..

[GohanSSJ]

I never actually had my monitor on 100hz because they can't reach it with the resolution i use on it, i do use 85 hz, and i really don't want to look at anything lower then that.

Anyway welcome to XPC skeleton.

[davidamarkley]

I've used resolutions from 60hz to 95hz, and can't see the flicker on any of them. I guess my eyes are just wierd... :D

But, 75-85Hz is where I usually try to set mine at...

David