|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |