> Why is LCD angle-dependent in the first place?

Look at a picture of how TN molecules are orientated inside the LCD, eg 
here:

http://img.tfd.com/cde/LCD.GIF

When light is not going perpendicularly through, the LC obviously has a 
different effect on the light.

TN happens to be very bad for this, there are of course better ideas, one is 
called multi-domain vertical alignment:

http://www.pctechguide.com/images/43mva.gif

Simply put, it splits the pixel into several sub-parts, each aligned a 
different way, so when you see the pixel overall it looks the same from all 
viewing angles.

> I'm guessing making it touch-sensitive makes it more expensive though?

Of course.

> (How the hell do they do that anyway?

Stick a touch panel on the front.

> And how come the display doesn't "ripple" when you do this?)

Because there's an air gap between the TP and LCD, unless you press really 
hard then the TP might hit the front of the LCD.

> I was under the impression that high-performance displays (e.g., my 
> computer monitor) use florescent lighting rather than LEDs. (Although, 
> obviously, I don't design LCDs for a living...)

CCFLs are being replaced by LEDs, mainly because CCFLs contain mercury.  It 
started off with small size displays, but recently even TVs are using LEDs 
now.  LEDs have pros and cons compared to CCFL, but the only real cons are 
that it's harder to spread out the light evenly from a point source, and 
they get dimmer at high temperatures (watch out for positive feedback!).

Post a reply to this message