Slashdot Mirror
LCD Round-up
TheKillerBee writes "The TechReport has posted a nice comparison of several different LCDs. A plethora of benches are present to help you decide how to spend that Christmas bonus check!" The screen update times still aren't fast enough for gamers, but they still are ever so delicious.
Why are the Macintosh LCD monitors not represented? They work quite well not just with Macintosh computers but with PCs as well, as my desktop can easily demonstrate. Additionally, Apple's patented display has none of the viewing angle problems the author complains of. Hardly representative.
Dr. Joseph Hairston
Superintendent, CCBC
The first manufacturer to go to an all-LCD lineup doesn't get it's products reviewed?
Besides pushing the technology, they've actually got LCDs that are decently bright and easy to profile and calibrate. I wish they'd reviewed some of Apple's displays - I'd like to see if the dollar premium is really worth it. (The easel adjustment on the 17", 22" and 23" is pretty killer though!)
For most everyone 60hz is sufficient for 3d gaming. For people that can actually distinguish refresh above 60hz there is a noticable difference in play (or rather results of play) as resolutions rise.
Unfortunately this sort of thing has caught on with the masses like refresh rates on video cards. 70% of the people will get the ubercard-9000 even though only 10% of people can benefit from the better refresh.
One thing I have been wondering for a while, why are there no 17" 1600x1200 lcd monitors? There are laptops that support that resolution with smaller screens, but no monitors, as far as I know.
One question:
Do you actually know what you're talking about?
Full duplex? Half duplex? Why does my LCD need to transmit to my video card, instead of the other way around?
I'm an electrical engineer and have no idea what you mean by "full duplex" as related to displays. I can see a few sync signals being helpful, maybe, but still: what does the LCD have to say to my computer?
...
Why is it I can get a laptop capable of 1600x1200 on a 15" screen no bother, but the only 1600x1200 capable LCD displays for the desktop are huge monsters?
I want a monitor with high DPI, not high physical size. I'd pay good money for a 1600x1200 desktop display that was basically a laptop screen in a different case.
The screen update times still aren't fast enough for gamers, but they still are ever so delicious.
The only games where this could possibly matter are the fastest paced shooter games, and even then it is a marginal problem. Certainly isn't a big enough problem for me to want to take up 300 square miles of desktop space with a glorified vaccuum tube.
Besides there are games besides Quake out there you know. Some of us even play them.
I think the biggest downside with CRT computer monitors is the fact that monitor manufacturers still haven't addressed the biggest downside of these monitors, namely the large depth of the monitor due to the way CRT's are manufactured.
:-(
I remember a few years ago Viewsonic addressed this with the A75s model, a 17" CRT monitor that had a physical depth substantially less than other 17" CRT monitors. I'm very disappointed that Viewsonic (let alone the CRT monitor industry) has not adapted the short-depth CRT concept to all their 17", 19" and 21" monitors.
CRT's fast response makes them excellent for viewing fast motion graphics (e.g., high-end games and DVD playback), but monitor manufacturers should be working on shortening the depth of the tube so the monitor can fit onto desks easier.
> 60Hz is ample for 3d gaming, especially when on an lcd you can't actually see 60Hz flicker...
:) is for coding. Text is crystal clear !
I concur. I have a 17" AOC LM-700 (1280x1024). First thing I did when I bought it was:
- Play Diablo 2 at 640x480 & 800x600.
- Play Quake 3.
- Watched some DVDs with high action. (Jackie Chan & James Bond.)
I was concerned about potential ghosting and other artifacts (namely aliasing at fractional multiplicative resolutions: 800 does not evenly divide into 1280), but everything looked good. (The LCD applied bi-linear filtering to 800x600 resolutions)
Where LCD's *really* shine (pardon the pun
Sure a pure green gradient (white to pure green) on my LCD has banding (I figure the LCD only has ~ 7 bits for green), but pictures look great on it whethere they are still or moving ones.
I just wish this review, and Tom's would do a *comprehensive* LCD review.
Cheers
I know, it's 10 grand, but check out the IBM T221.
here's a few reasons:
1. LCD's are smaller, have less of a depth to them.
2. LCD's are silent, CRT's have a horrible whine.
3. LCD's don't have that annoying screen refresh that gives people (me, anyway) an awful headache.
4. LCD's use less power. It ads up in the long run.
5. LCS's are brighter, at least in my experience.
YMMV, of course, but those're all the reasons I switched to LCD.
Triv
This is true, however my NEC LCD 1850E looks perfectly acceptible even in games such as Quake3. Yes it blurs a bit, but once you get used to it, its no problem. I would never switch back even for games.
Jeremy
I use a sound spectrogram (voice print) display that I scroll in the same way. Synched to the vertical retrace using DirectX and viewed on a glass monitor at over 80 Hz, the scroll is rock solid and blur free. Try this scroll on ANY LCD (even the 20 ms response kind) and it looks like a blurred mess.
I got the same blurred mess when I bumped the glass monitor refresh to 120 Hz but only updated the scroll every other frame (60 Hz). I pointedly don't get a blurred mess when refreshing and updating at 60 Hz.
What this tells me is that a glass monitor gives a stroboscobic image (it flashes the image and goes dim in between refreshes), and for certain kinds of motion (i.e. a scroll or pan of the entire field), you can do amazing things with glass and get garbage with LCD. It also tells me that LCD will never be any good for motion, no matter how fast the response time, because it is not strobing the image.
In your typical game (or even a movie), only part of the scene is changing over a pretty much static background. On the other hand, if you want a game with a scrolling 2-D display, like a moving "treasure map", you are going to notice this difference. With the right image, the effect is quite striking -- you don't need a "Golden Ear" to hear the difference between a tube and transistor amp.
I suppose LCD will eventually take over, and there will be us few glass monitor holdouts, but the LCD will NEVER do motion well, but the masses of people will resign themselves to LCD's being good enough.
Well I run my 17" crt at 16x12 so where does that leave me? ;)
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Kind of funny that two of the most highly regarded makes of LCD monitors are ignored.
I have a Dell Latitude with a 15" LCD screen running natively at 1600x1200, and it looks fantastic. Why the hell can't I get a standalone LCD with that high a resolution? 15" LCDs max out at 1024x768; 17" at 1280x1024. Half the reason that text is so clear on my laptop screen is the high resolution, and that advantage disappears for a standalone.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Does anyone out there know of the environmental impact of LCDs vs CRTs. I know that with the traditional CRT their is a high toxic metal content - lead, phosphorous,cadmium, barium and mercury. Also I think that they take more energy to produce. I have not seen similar concerns expressed with the production and disposal of LCDs. It could be of course that one can recylce the content of a CRT but not that of LCDs. Any comments welcome.
Semper ubi sub ubi
I have a pair of NEC MultiSync 1850DX monitors for work and I have to say they were the best investment I ever made on IT equipment. My headaches have reduced from about 1 every 2 days on busy days to one in the six months I have owned these monitors, this was beginning to concern me as I didn't put it down to the monitors until I bought these (and my CRT monitor was a very hig end Sony with a high refresh rate).
One thing I have noticed about flat panel displays is that you can get end of life models relativly cheaply if you are prepared to search the web and wait a bit. NEC seem to refresh their monitor range fairly frequently, the one I am using cost over $1000 each but three months later a friend managed to pick one up for around $450. If I had to move jobs and was given a CRT display now, i would seriously consider spending up to $1000 of my own money on this quality of flat screen display, such is the difference it has made to my ability to work.
I have a Samsung 181T (18 inch thin bezel) TFT LCD. I have had it since Jan/Feb this year. I play Ghost Recon without noticing any problems even looking for ghosting. I watch DVDs exclusively on this monitor and never noticed any problems.
In my home office in the summer, it produces a fraction of the heat of my 19" CRTs. It has also allowed me to push the monitor farther back on the desk to increase the distance to my eyes and give me more workspace to clutter up.
Not being able to use lower resolutions doesn't bother me. I bought a decent GEforce3Ti200 video card and run everything at 1280x1024 (Ghost Recon at 1280x1024x32 bit colour looks pretty amazing on this one compared to my 19" LG and 19" Viewsonic CRTs!... also when I compare the colours on my LCD to the colours on the CRTs, the TFT wins hands down especially whites). I've done plenty of photo editing and everything always looks crisp, bright and colourful. The 181T is also very good even when you're looking at angles.
It was expensive, but I stare at the monitor for hours on end and work in text most of the time so it's reduced eye strain and there's no glare, just a gorgeous matte finish.
Hmm. I have a pair of NEC 1530V monitors connected to a 1.2Ghz PIII with GeForce4 MX440 video card. Playing RTCW I get around 80-90 FPS on interior scenes and maybe 40 on exterior.
I don't notice any blurring, or have any problem playing the game. There may be some, but it's not substantial enough to be an issue.
Contrast is an issue in games. Whenever I start up the game, I have to go in and manually adjust the contrast settings. Once I do that, then I can see in all the dark corners, etc.
I'd have to say your comments are based on the LCD screens that we had available 4-5 years ago, or even on some of the cheaper laptops today. Either that or you are exagerrating the issues.
Actually, if you have friends, the Dells get cheap, fast. The $1400 20" (mmm...) can be had for $1050 thanks to their buy-3-get-1-free deal right now.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.