OT: Eye strain, headaches, glare & glasses
At 01/13/2005, you wrote:
>LCD's are great but if you do a lot of image editing, CRT's still seem to be
>a better choice for color accuracy. I bought a used 21 inch Flat tube
>Trinitron for like $230 shipped and my eyes feel better. The key for me has
>been a high refresh rate of 120Hz at 1280x1024. I tried 1600x1200 at 100Hz
>but my hurt my eyes, so I bumped down. Most people seem to not notice
>anything about 100Hz, but I did.
Agreed. All 3 of my monitors are flat screen trinitron CRT's. The picture
just seems better to me than any 19" LCD's that a normal person could
afford. I also have a high refresh rate and it has made me very sensitive
to lesser monitors. I recently visited my sister in NYC at her office and
her monitor was a bulging screen low refresh rate piece of dung that
flickered so bad to my eye that I couldn't imagine looking at it for longer
than 9 seconds before heaving it out the window. She barely even noticed
what I was bothered by.
I also work in a fairly dim room, no sunlight is allowed in - ambient
lighting is indirect, etc.
I also think that having an eyesight imbalance like you describe is a huge
contributor. In fact, I would go so far as to say that even normal vision
correction with glasses is a poor choice compared to contacts or correction
surgery. That being because glasses do not provide true correction at all
angles, only if you look through them dead ahead.
I wore very heavily corrected glasses (-6) and looking sideways at
something through the periphery of the lenses always annoyed my eyes. A
couple of years ago I had lasik which took my vision to 20/15 and I can
work a lot longer before my eyes / brain get tired. Plus I look much more
handsome now. My Mom told me so, so it must be true.
A.
First Man Media
<A HREF ="http://www.firstmanmedia.com">http://www.firstmanmedia.com</A>
Custom designs incorporating Flash
Specializing in Miva Merchant E-commerce
At 01/13/2005, you wrote:
>LCD's are great but if you do a lot of image editing, CRT's still seem to be
>a better choice for color accuracy. I bought a used 21 inch Flat tube
>Trinitron for like $230 shipped and my eyes feel better. The key for me has
>been a high refresh rate of 120Hz at 1280x1024. I tried 1600x1200 at 100Hz
>but my hurt my eyes, so I bumped down. Most people seem to not notice
>anything about 100Hz, but I did.
Agreed. All 3 of my monitors are flat screen trinitron CRT's. The picture
just seems better to me than any 19" LCD's that a normal person could
afford. I also have a high refresh rate and it has made me very sensitive
to lesser monitors. I recently visited my sister in NYC at her office and
her monitor was a bulging screen low refresh rate piece of dung that
flickered so bad to my eye that I couldn't imagine looking at it for longer
than 9 seconds before heaving it out the window. She barely even noticed
what I was bothered by.
I also work in a fairly dim room, no sunlight is allowed in - ambient
lighting is indirect, etc.
I also think that having an eyesight imbalance like you describe is a huge
contributor. In fact, I would go so far as to say that even normal vision
correction with glasses is a poor choice compared to contacts or correction
surgery. That being because glasses do not provide true correction at all
angles, only if you look through them dead ahead.
I wore very heavily corrected glasses (-6) and looking sideways at
something through the periphery of the lenses always annoyed my eyes. A
couple of years ago I had lasik which took my vision to 20/15 and I can
work a lot longer before my eyes / brain get tired. Plus I look much more
handsome now. My Mom told me so, so it must be true.
A.
First Man Media
<A HREF ="http://www.firstmanmedia.com">http://www.firstmanmedia.com</A>
Custom designs incorporating Flash
Specializing in Miva Merchant E-commerce
Comment