I'd love if you'd post an explanation of the real-world effects of the difference between 3K and 10K contrast, or dot pitch, or the response time. I understand pretty well how things things work, but it'd be great coming from a true video snob
>3K and 10K contrast
Although much number play goes into this metric, the intention is to reflect the ability to display the darkest darks and the lightest lights - in one display. Therefore a low contrast ratio can reflect issues that resemble low quality LCDs that have literally no capacity to display true black images on the screen, along with being unable to truly produce the brightest whites found in CRT type displays, such as a DLP. Think of dull video representations of anything (as seen on bad laptops or hand-held devices). But with strikingly sharp displays (like your damn plasma) you'll notice that whites slap you in the face and blacks don't seem like dull, gray, low-budge surfaces found in most portable GPS systems
Contrast ratio was far less of a metric in CRT land, since blacks were simply "off" and whites would produce blindness if stared at for too long.
>Dot pitch
This one is filled with marketing hooey. The intention is to measure the distance between pixels thereby revealing a dimension of picture quality. This dimension is meaningless at certain distances since the human eye can't detect the lack of "resolution" unless sufficiently close enough. The problem is various corps have "redefined" this definition from a diagonal measurement of the monitor to some other, selfishly beneficial yardstick which yields better (smaller) numbers for their hardware. Bottom line, if measured fairly this should be the lowest number possible since it implies the smallest distance between pixels.
>Response time / refresh rate
The response time is the time it takes for an LCD pixel to change from black to white and back to black again.
From:
http://computers.toptenreviews.com/monitors/response-time-explained.htm"Look for a monitor with the fastest time possible; it does matter. Keep in mind that display quality is also important, so look for a high contrast ratio and small dot pitch coupled with a powerful graphics card to give you the best view possible."
In a nutshell, fast response times avoid "blurring and ghosting." Think of the display model at Best Buy of some discount LCD TV showing a soccer game. When the ball is kicked and the camera moves quickly, a good monitor has no delay where a slower response time monitor looks choppy and laggy. In video games with extreme fast action this is totally crital if you want to master the sharp-shooter head-shot technique
As for refresh rates you already know what this is about, my long lost mentor
Think VTR (as in Vertical Retrace Manager, umkay) The higher the better. This is the rate at which the VTR "gun" literally repaints your screen for you. So in CRT land a low refresh rate (say 50hz) will cause your eyeballs to eventually freak out. Here's a good test. Take your right hand and wave it in front of your monitor with your fingers spread far apart from each other. If it looks like you're having an acid flashback you mush have a monitor (TV, etc.) with a low refresh rate. If it looks relatively smooth your refresh rate is probably good.
Ever noticed how bad a monitor looks with a low refresh rate under florescent lighting? Wonder why?? This is because florescent lighting is pulsing light. It's not constant like incandescent lighting or, say, fire. Therefore the disastrous discount lighting mashup between florescent and low refresh rate CRT is your fast track to blindness!
But seriously perks, if I'm content with a 42" LCD TV and DVD "backups" on a 5.1 surround system, I simply
must not be the "video snob" you're looking for
