Well, LCDs didn't become fast enough to replace CRT's (for anything with motion in them) until the early 2000's at the earliest. (And even then, hardcore gamers still used CRTs right up until the mid-2000's because LCDs still had slightly perceptible ghosting.)
TFTs exited well before the 2000's (HP put one in their Infiniium 54800 scopes back in 1997, as did other scope manufacturers around the same time), and were more than fast enough for stuff like scopes or even motion scenes.
Gamers often used CRTs even after 2000 because they could be operated at higher refresh rates than 60Hz (a limit of LCDs back then), which was necessary to maintain high frame rates as with VSYNC enabled the frame rate is limited by the screen's refresh rate (and without VSYNC there's lots of ugly tearing). Also, many desktop LCD displays came with slow panels to keep prices down.
Then there's the CCFL issue that wasn't really solved until the late-2000's thanks to white LEDs.
What 'CCFL issue'?
There's also the issue of full color depth, which you can't get without an expensive IPS panel.
True, but even a cheap TN exceeds the color reproduction capabilities of the these shutter displays.
I also don't think NuColor helped keep costs low...
Tek at least thought so, as it was in one of their press releases back then.
In fact, I'd be surprised if a color CRT wouldn't have been a lot cheaper. Linearity and other issues had been pretty much solved by then, due to rapid advances spurred by the computer industry.
Linearity was always a problem with color CRTs, right 'til the end. Replacement of sea of pots with microprocessor controls and self adjustment capabilities did provide some improvements but the problem never went away. As to price, it's not just the price of the tube itself but also the circuitry. A color CRT display is notably more complex than a monochrome display, and the simple shutter required only very little additional circuitry plus some software changes.
Nobody said a NuColor display is better than a modern LCD.
I believe this is exactly what cncjerry implied.
The implication is that, if the technology had kept being developed, it could potentially be better. Perhaps it could have been combined with a mono plasma display or even those ultra low profile CRTs that were developed (but never went into mass production) in the early to mid 2000's.
It is highly unlikely that a technology that relies on a fragile vacuum-ized glas containment and very high voltages could ever have kept up with LCDs which are inherently free of linearity/convergence problems, more robust, have a longer service life, use less power and are cheaper to manufacture. And, like it or not, Plasma is dead for pretty much the same reason.
I've got to say, I absolutely love the display on my 754C as well. It's light years better than any LCD could have possibly been of that vintage. In fact, I even like it better than the LCD on my MSO2024B, which *is* modern! It's fast, absolutely oozes contrast, displays a full gamut of colors... It's gorgeous.
Not saying the display on the TDS700C isn't good, and I can see why you prefer it to that cheap-ass TN in the MSO2024B (which is pretty poor), although the MOS2k's UI certainly plays its part as well. But in reality there is no "full gamut of colors" (and even if the display was capable of it, which it isn't, you couldn't possibly say because the scope hardware can't do more than 256 colors, and the UI uses a lot less than that), and while it fulfilled its purpose of providing a crisp and clear display for a digital scope, it's definitely no competition for a decent LCD.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
