Samsung LTM295W 29" LCD Review

An anonymous reader noted a review of the Samsung LTM295W. Quick excerpt "The contrast ratio of 600:1 is amazing, and takes the cake for being the highest Iâ(TM)ve seen to date here with the site. I was pleased to see a more than acceptable brightness level of 450cd/m2. The response time isnâ(TM)t anything to snuff at, standing at 22ms. For viewing angles everyone should be pleased with 170/170 (W&H). The last mention is the pixel pitch which sits at .4935(h) X .4935(w). The optimal resolution while in PC use is 1024 x 768 @ 75Hz although the maximum is 1280 x 768 @ 75Hz." Not the highest resolution, but still, quite impressive.

Comments

What??

[srboneidle]

Am I the only one that couldn't make any sense of those specs?? Man technology moves fast! ;)

Re:What??

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, think of it in terms of each pixel containing enough brightness as 2000 lightbulbs, and a screen with the area (when spread out) of 5 football fields, and the ability to display 5 libraries of congress (LOC) at once. All of this packed into something the size of 1/1240 of a VW Beetle. Also, it has the storage capacity of 50 DVD's.

HTH!

Re:What??

[spike hay]

Also, it has the storage capacity of 50 DVD's.

You meant encyclopedia volumes instead, right>

Re:What??

[dogfart]

All of this packed into something the size of 1/1240 of a VW Beetle

At $3139, I'd measure the cost in VW Beetle units!

Samsung is the Best

[Tighe_L]

Samsung is the innovator of Display Technology, Their LCDS are top notch.

When you buy a Dell Flat Panel, it is a Samsung

Panasonic, then Sharp would be next when it comes to LCDs

Re:Samsung is the Best

[Yomlogs]

I would agree with you, if I wasn't on my third replacement Samsung 171P. And even this one has a couple of dead subpixels, for which Samsung are unlikely to replace the monitor :-(

Aside from that, though, the display is stunning - just crap customer service and reliability IMO.

Re:Samsung is the Best

[vlag]

Samsung is not a flat panel innovator. Look to the Koreans for that. All those fantastic IBM panels over the last year have been powered by their technology. See here for what is the best looking monitor on Earth, or elsewhere for that matter. The IBM T221.

Re:Samsung is the Best

[Anonymous Coward]

Look to the Koreans????

Samsung *is* a Korean company.

Re:Samsung is the Best

[rhombic]

"Look to the Koreans for that..."

At first I thought you were trying to be funny. You do realize that Samsung is a Korean company, right?

Re:Samsung is the Best

[mobileskimo]

Well atleast we know he's not a Korean trying to shamelessly plug the Koreans.

Re:Samsung is the Best

[twisty7867]

That's not entirely true. I have a Dell Ultrasharp 1800FP at home and in the office. They are manufactured by LG... In fact it pisses me off I didn't buy the LG model because they built in a USB hub :)

Re:Samsung is the Best

[vladkrupin]

I just loooove those numbers! 600:1, 450cd/m^2, 22ms... So amazing... NOT!

For instance, Viewsonic boasts some imressive contrast ratios. In reality they suck. At least, the viewsonics that I saw on display and had a chance to compare to some other brands were left to shame. Same, but even to a greater extent can be said about response times. Everyone seems to find their own way of defining those. Some for fading of a pixel from white to black; some - from black to white. (notice that those two are QUITE different due to the way those transistors operate). Some go even further and declare that very dark colors are very close to completely black, and very bright colors to white, so they'll measure times for those 'approximate' extremes, and some even just measure the 'common case' response time, whatever that is.

I (and a lot of other people - just check Tom's hardware guide for their LCD overview) seem to notice that there is just way too much fudge in those numbers when it comes to measuring different aspects of LCDs.

Let me give you an example. My monitor (Samsung 181T), for example, boasts 25ms response time. I'd say it's more like 35 (at least that's what tom's hardware guesses it to be and I think he is quite close), but FPS games are a lot more playable on mine than on a lot of other 25ms panels. Why? Probably because their "fudge" factor is a bit smaller. The only real way to tell a difference easily is to look at the same set of tests being displayed on an array of several different panels. First and foremost you'll notice that color fidelity on some of them sucks. That factor alone will probably eliminate more than half of the panels from what you could consider buying. After that try adjusting contrast/brightness and notice that some monitors (notable ViewSonics) are pathetic. After that, if there are any monitors still left, check if their response time is reasonable. Chances are, it isn't. After that, slow down, think and lower your expectations.

When shopping for an LCD I learned a lesson that the numbers you see describing LCDs are not what they appear. There is so much discrepancy in how manufacturers define various parameters that those numbers become close to meaningless. The only numbers that aren't fudged are the resolution and hom much power they use. Maybe also the life of the bulb. That's about it. So, next time you are impressed with the specs of some particular LCD panel, try to see if you can have a look at it next to some other panels, performance of which is known to you. Make sure they are running the same stuff, and see what difference you can see.

Re:Samsung is the Best

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure I would agree from what I've seen. We have Sun panels at work, which are manufactured by Samsung. When I put my Powerbook next to any of them, the superiority of it's internal panel to the ones manufactured by Samsung is striking.

Re:Samsung is the Best

[andrewski]

For such a huge monitor, the optimal display size sucks.

It's more like a tv monitor than a computer monitor.

Re:Samsung is the Best

[Joey7F]

I whole heartedly agree. The 8k price tag is almost worth it. I went to Epcot's innoventions at Disney World and could not believe the unbelievable clarity of the T221.

If you are going to Disney World, you need to go stop by there.

Seriously, it looks as good or better than high quality photography!

--Joey

Re:Samsung is the Best

[Rip!ey]

...even this one has a couple of dead subpixels...

It may differ from country to country, but in Australia Samsung will not offer warranty on dead pixels unless you have at least 8. Mine has none. Having previously used crappy 15' CRT, this thing just rocks.

I also made a firm agreement with my supplier at purchase time, that if any pixels were dead on arrival they would relace it immediately.

Re:Samsung is the Best

[CatKnight]

I have a KDS rad-7 lcd, and it is the only LCD I have ever seen that has a good response time for games. There is no blurring or ghosting whatsoever that I can tell. Unfortunately it's contrast is not very good. Considering it was the cheapest model though, I am very impressed. I wouldn't go out and buy any LCD without first testing it on games.

Re:Samsung is the Best

[vlag]

Obviously Samsung is a Korean company, but it's the smaller (lesser known in the west companies) that are doing the best things with flat panels these days. We test these new devices where I work and nothing from Samsung / LG / Sony / etc even begins to compare with these monitors. Of course, I have the benefit of seeing them a year before they hit the market and none of them will make it here EVER unless they are OEMed for a large western company (i.e. IBM).

Re:Samsung is the Best

[TheCrazyFinn]

Apple uses Samsung Panels.

Re:Samsung is the Best

[Crazy Eight]

I agree that Samsung has a justified lock on market leadership. From what I can glean by reading the specs on their web site and comparing LCD monitors in retail locations, they deserve their reputation.

I have to wonder about Panasonic as a runner up though. Certainly Sharp has a big chunk of the laptop market, but where does one encounter Panasonic panels? Do they even homebrew them?

I would nominate L.G. Phillips for the number two slot. They seem to play off of Samsung's pole position by offering less expensive though comparable panels in unique form factors -- which has made them Apple's primary supplier.

Re:Samsung is the Best

[Crazy Eight]

I know that Apple invested heavily in Samsung a while back, but that doesn't mean they were motivated by anything other than the desire for a sound investment. Samsung definetely made the panel for Apple's 17" display (I peeked inside), but it was L.G. Philips that made the glass for the 22" (LM220W01) and 23" (LM230W01) Cinema displays. They also make the display for the 17" iMac (LM171W02). I think IDT makes the new 20" (look at the IAWS64).

Re:Samsung is the Best

[TheCrazyFinn]

The original 22" was Samsung, they must have changed it later.

Price?

[Anonymous Coward]

How much do they cost? I think I'll buy 10.

Re:Price?

[jrl87]

They cost over $3000(usd), pricegrabber link

Re:Price?

[angle_slam]

If you looked at the article, you would see the lowest price is about $3100.

Re:Price?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is a 5" extension even possible?

Re:Price?

[Corporate Gadfly]

RTFA (that's always a good exercise) even click on the Buy button at the top and you'll see that cheapest one is nearly $3100.

Re:Price?

[IanBevan]

PriceWatch has them listed at around $3200.

Re:Price?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, well in that case I'll buy 20.

Re:Price?

[outsider007]

am i the only one who thinks these things cost too much?
you could save yourself $2800 by getting a 19'' and moving your chair 3 inches closer to the screen.

Re:Price?

[_xeno_]

It costs too much if you want to use it as a computer monitor. It sounds about right for a kiosk display, which is what I'd imagine it was designed for. (It's about TV sized and sounds like it's really designed for HDTV displays. Sounds like a nice display for a DVD player, not something you want to stick in front of your computer.)

If you read the review, they call it a "Monitor/TV" and mention things like a remote control and speakers. It has a DVI input and a DVI/RGB adaptor. I expect that it's really a (HD)TV with RGB monitor support being a bonus feature.

Re:Price?

[zurab]

At $3100 this 29'' is way overpriced. You'd get a much better deal out of the 42'' Gateway Plasma TV.

Re:Price?

[The_Rook]

the gateway plasma monitor is actually a lower resolution at 852 x 480. also i've seen the gateway plasma monitor and it is far from being the best in its class. for a few hundred more you can get a panasonic edtv plasma, currently the best 42" plasma on the market.

Re:Price?

[zurab]

the gateway plasma monitor is actually a lower resolution at 852 x 480. also i've seen the gateway plasma monitor and it is far from being the best in its class. for a few hundred more you can get a panasonic edtv plasma, currently the best 42" plasma on the market.

Hmm... I've never seen them used as monitors and I'm wondering how the SXGA or UXGA digital scaling works on Plasmas, are they blurry, look awkward, seem slower?

Re:Price?

[Tenebrious1]

Hmm... I've never seen them used as monitors and I'm wondering how the SXGA or UXGA digital scaling works on Plasmas, are they blurry, look awkward, seem slower?

We have 42" plasma displays in most of our conference rooms (about a hundred of them). They're used mostly for video conferencing (low resolution) and Powerpoint presentations (again low res). The system uses a switch box that's pretty cool; it as Coax cable, analog video, RGB, and SVGA inputs. Ours has a dish satellite feed and a VCR hooked up as well, although it gets the most use when we plug a laptop in and watch DVDs on it. Once in a while someone brings in a PS2 or Xbox, looks fantastic!

As a monitor, it's blurry and a bit squashed, I wouldn't want to use it as a monitor. The problem with such a wide monitor is that as you look from the center of the screen to the edges, the distance between your eyes and the screen gets longer so your eyes are constantly forced to refocus, which is a real headache.

Re:Price?

[Anonymous Coward]

another who doesnt read whole articles...

Re:Price?

[Brummund]

I got the SyncMaster 240T (24", 1920x1200) It was worth every dime, and the ability to run Emacs with lots of windows/buffers while browsing code etc is something I cannot live without now :) </bragging> It also got Picture-in-picture, Picture-by-picture, analog/DVI/S-VHS connectors, a pair of stylish speakers and a remote(!).

No problems gaming, either. Castle Wolfenstein is nice and smooth, with no "lagging" due to the screen refresh

The display is sharp and crisp. The only drawback is that I had to fiddle a little with XF86Config-4 to get XFree86 to use the 1920x1200 mode.

Re:Price?

[Ian-K]

Hold your horses mate.

I hate to be a party pooper, but having a 29" monitor that can only do a native 1024x768 is like a nasty and very expensive joke to me. OK, it's a TV as well, but still I'm far from impressed.

Maybe I'm a troll, but when I buy a 29" real estate with some USD3200 or whatever (I skimmed through the article for the specs mainly), I expect to be able to enjoy huge resolutions. Take a standard 17" and it'll do you native 1280x1024.

Other than that, it *might* be useful... if you're really short-sighted.

Trian

Re:Price?

[jovlinger]

I bought the 23" sony, with the same res. I liked it, but didn't love it. Analysis of my usage habits suggested that I was paying a premium for the 16x9 formfactor but wasn't using the extra pixels that got me.

So I returned it and bought the dell 20". Much cheaper (close to $2k difference), and I only gave up 320 pixels in width, which I never used anyways.

The sony WAS better for DVDs but that was about it. I only wish the Dell had more flexible physical adjustments -- especially heightwise. I'm *this* close to attacking the mounting bracket with a hacksaw to make it lower, but not just yet.

This will likely be the last LCD I own, as by the the time display technology have made 4MP displays common, I'm sure oleds will finally have arrived. You just can't reliably make an LCD that big. The yeild just isn't up to making it worthwhile. Unless they start selling high-defect versions cheaper.

Marketing droids (who I HOPE read this forum -- idiots to ignore so many early adopters): I would buy a high-defect 30" display for use as an entertainment center: the defects don't distract from movies that much, and since you won't use it for long coding sessions, shouldn't be too much of a bother for couch-surfing. But it would have to cost in the $1K range.

Re:Price?

[malraid]

Too bad they don't come in 20s. You have to buy a case of 24

Re:Price?

[KyleCordes]

I looked at getting a single behemoth display like that, but decided that two smaller screens (two 19" LCDs) are a much better deal - more pixels for less money.

For some uses, having two screens would be a problem (i.e. graphic editing), but for software development it works quite well.

Re:Price?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are so right. 1024x768 looks kind of chunky on a 15" monitor and is downright horsey on a 17" monitor. On a 29"? That is just terrible. The pixels must look like legos.

Re:Price?

[Anonymous Coward]

And strangely, the max resolution on their 24" 240T is 1900x1200 - which is much nicer than 1024x768 or 1280x768 (weird aspect ratio) on a larger screen.

Oh well.

You know...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes you can just look at the story blurb and realize that the content is meaningless, and in the larger scheme of things doesn't matter for shit. Then you sit back, wondering what minor point will be endlessly debated in the comments.

Then you decide to browse at -1 for some entertainment.

Re:You know...

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, I'm glad I hit you comment while it was still at (0) though. Now on your advice, I'm digging deep to the -1's

Re:You know...

[Anonymous Coward]

Impressive, the total comment count is about 50 and you have the most comment replies so far. Who says target marketing doesn't work. What was that they were selling again?

Re:You know...

[Anonymous Coward]

back when the ... onmouseover="..."> bug was discovered, the janitors modded a handful of comments down to -5.

Still itwas nice to see nude girls on slashdot via the magic of javascript (this was before goatse.cx).

If you wanted to see the banned comments, you had to set the thresshold to -5 in the URL.

Re:You know...

[xA40D]

Then you decide to browse at -1 for some entertainment.

Indeed. The BSD Trolls can be particulary amusing.

But there is a rumor they are dying....

Re:You know...

[doomy]

Definitely one of the most philosophical comment's I've seen so far on /.

Re:You know...

[Crazy Eight]

Gee, I never knew...

Full text in case of slashdotting

[Anonymous Coward]

Samsung LTM295W

Posted:Chris Allen
Reviewer:Jun 3rd, 2003
Provided By:Samsung CA

Manufacturer:
Samsung Genre:
TFT LCD Monitor/TV Released:

In the last year or so Samsungâ(TM)s name has been an everyday household name around here at MonkeyReview. In terms of LCDâ(TM)s weâ(TM)ve seen our fair share, ranging from in size from 15â all the way up to todayâ(TM)s whopping 29â. Today weâ(TM)ve got the Samsung LTM295W LCD TV/monitor on the block which will be sure to impress many of you with its nice 29â viewable area and elegant looking design.

Thereâ(TM)s no question in my mind that most of you, if it was possible, would love an LCD plopped in front of you rather than a conventional CRT which hogs up 50% of your desk space, well, what if it was not only an LCD but one which is larger than most of your mates home TV? With a viewable area of 29â the LTM295W will appeal to those either looking for the crÃme de la crÃme monitor or a great looking high end HDTV ready TV or a combination of both. The Samsung LTM295W offers us at least one feature which makes me a lover of it right off the bat; Iâ(TM)ll discuss this a little later though.

Click For Larger Image
Contents & Setup

The Samsung LTM295W comes to us in two separate boxes, one which has the speakers and the other for the Monitor/TV as well as setup essentials. For a complete list of everything thatâ(TM)s included please read a little further down. Opening the box which contains the actual Monitor/TV we find a smaller box which contains the documentation, the remote (batteries included), RGB to DVI Cable, DVI cable, Power cord, audio cables, and warranty information. I was very pleased to find the RGB to DVI cable included as it will allow support for all VGA cards rather than just those with a DVI output.

LTM295W Display

Remote control (2x AAA batteries included)

Owners Manual

DV Adapter

DVI Cable

RGB to DVI cable

PC Stereo Cables

Power Cord

Clamp Back/Screw

Speakers (Stands, mounts, screws, wires)

Click For Larger Image

Also in the box, we find the large silver finished DC adapter. Finally, under the mentioned goodies, within the full Styrofoam encasing, we find the LTM295W LCD monitor/TV. To furthermore ensure its safety we find it covered in wrapping. Something worth noting is Samsungs safe packaging for all of their monitors/TVâ(TM)s. Itâ(TM)s definitely an aspect in which weâ(TM)ve noticed over the course of time and something which deserves a mention. Itâ(TM)s also something we would expect when paying the price for one of these guys, on that note; while checking pricegrabber the lowest price is $3139 USD and for our fellow Canadians itâ(TM)s going to be setting you back $4659 CDN according to Soho Diffusion, the only Canadian website which I could find thatâ(TM)s offering it.

Click For Larger Image

The next thing we focused our attention on was the box which contained the speakers. Opening the box we find the screws, braces, speaker wires and of course the 2x 10W speakers. Also in the box we find stands for alternate speaker mounting/usage. Iâ(TM)ve never been a fan of having the speakers on the side of the Monitor/TV, and so, as usual, I opted to connect them to the side of the LTM295W, using the included braces and screws. I must make a mention that while Iâ(TM)m generally unimpressed with some of the mounting methods used for speakers by manufacturers, this one is well done and while I wouldnâ(TM)t recommend carrying around this TV holding nothing more than the speakers, they are mounted in a solid manner.

Click For Larger Image

Once we had the speakers mounted, the DC Adapter plugged in, and our source ready (PC, Bell Express Vu Satellite, and DVD). A few notes about our sources The PCâ(TM)s specs are listed below, the main thing I should

Damn!

[arcite]

Who knew abstract numbers could be so sexy?

Yeah, but . . .

[pcboss99]

Who would run an LCD that big at 1024? Although I am all in favor of bigger and better geek toys, I think a careful examination of the practical longevity of a display device requires more features, not more inches.

I'd like to see display manufacturers spend as much time on usability as developers do (or should!)

Mmmmm...

[frieked]

Am I the only one drooling over this monitor?

Re:Mmmmm...

[Zaknafein500]

I was, until I saw the native resolution.

1024 vertical lines is attrocious for a 29" display. My 18" Philips 180P2 is native at 1280x1024.

I've seen these giant monitor/TV hybrids before. Ultimately, they end up being a jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none knd of device.

LCD's are still overpriced.

[Omni Magnus]

Unless you live in Japan and really need the room, I don't see why anybody would want an LCD monitor.

Re:LCD's are still overpriced.

[ackthpt]

Unless you live in Japan and really need the room, I don't see why anybody would want an LCD monitor.

I sit behind two CRT's at work and used to have my home desk crowded by a 16" Sun monitor. The real estated, if not the power bill or adjustability/versatility is a major selling point. They're also very sharp and do fine for games, those like the Samsung SyncMaster 172t with faster refresh rates. Considering 17" CRTs used to run ~700$US, LCD monitors are progressing downward in pricing nicely.

Re:LCD's are still overpriced.

[irontiki]

Unless you live in Japan and really need the room, I don't see why anybody would want an LCD monitor.

My workstation is dual-headed being comprised of a 17" LCD and a 19" CRT (ViewSonic VX700 (425US$) and P90f(245US$) respectively).

It's astounding how much nicer the LCD is compared to the CRT. The image on the CRT is noticably brighter and crisper even to people walking by my cube.

The LCD is more bucks than the CRT but the usable screen on the 17" LCD is as large as the 19"CRT and after working for months with this setup I feel that the better image of the LCD totally justifies the extra price.

Note: this is my work computer so I haven't tried with games.

Re:LCD's are still overpriced.

[Anonymous Coward]

What OS do you run? I'm looking into a dual-head setup on Windows 2000, and I'm concerned that the ATI software drivers aren't as good as NVidia for multi-monitor support.

Any insight?

Nice but not for everyone.

[grub]

I have a 19" Sony at home on my game PC. Unfortunately the relatively slow refresh rates and latency of LCDs don't cut it for my 3D LCD shutter glasses from Elsa. So until LCDs get to ~110Hz+ I'm stuck with a CRT for my 3D gaming. :(

Oh as an aside, the latest Revelator drivers from nVidia support many brands of 3D glasses and even the lame red-blue ones.

Re:Nice but not for everyone.

[Rolo Tomasi]

Umm, d00d, hate to tell you this, but LCDs are static. There is no blanking period, so shutter glasses are never going to work with LCDs. The refresh rate for LCDs will also remain at 60Hz. More just doesn't bring any improvement. DVI is fixed at 60Hz anyway.

Re:Nice but not for everyone.

[Suidae]

LCDs are static. There is no blanking period, so shutter glasses are never going to work with LCDs

Static? Damn, why don't they just call them paintings then?

If the LCD would refresh at high rates, the glasses would work. Ok, technicly they'd work at 60 hz, but the flicker would suck. The video card just has to alternate between the left and right eye views for every cycle period. Its not difficult.

Re:Nice but not for everyone.

[Equinox]

I haven't tried it...but don't the shutterglasses use polarized light (LCD tech, at it's basics, IIRC). So does the LCD monitor. From what I've read, wouldn't one cancel the other, or otherwise disrupt each other in a negative way? I could be wrong, but I've read it doesn't work.

Re:Nice but not for everyone.

[Suidae]

Likewise I haven't tried it. However, since the video card cannot control the polarization of light leaving the monitor, it simply alternates left and right eye view with each frame refresh. In sync with this it makes the left or right lens of the glasses opaque using standard LCD technology.

If the glasses are set up so that they are clear when not opaque (IE, not using a standard film polarizer), they should work with an LCD that does use a polarizer.

Price?

[echucker]

Didn't see one mentioned, but I know the 24" Samsung at newegg is 2700 buckeroos. I don't even want to think what the 29" will cost!

Resolution?

[SpamJunkie]

The resolution is totally unimpressive. Apple's 20" display is 1680 x 1050. Each pixel on this Samsung must be massive.

This isn't a monitor, it's a TV. If you buy one of these as a monitor you're an idiot.

Re:Resolution?

[jinglecat]

I agree.. Why on earth would you want to sit at a desk, most likely, *two* feet away from the display
Why sit so close?!?!
CAROL ANNE! CAROL ANNE! Geez....

Re:Resolution?

[AchilleTalon]

Absolutely right!

This isn't a monitor, it's a TV designed to be watch at least 10 feet away.

Re:Resolution?

[pla]

Why sit so close?!?!

Not sure why you got modded down to zero, but I agree with you at least partially...

While $3100 for a lowish-resolution display seems a bit steep, most of us who spend all day in front of a computer would likely benfit from giving ourselves six to eight feet rather than two.

Re:Resolution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Go to Best Buy and take a look at a new LCD display... the pixels are most certainly NOT huge, the resolution is HDTV (1920x1080) for HDTV signals and regular computer resolutions for computer...

Most TV shows and movies don't make you read tiny text off the screen... if you're going to be working behind a 29" wide screen beast like this, you'd have to sit a few feet back from the monitor to be comfortable looking at it. Do you want to see your desktop at 1920x1080 from 4 or 5 feet away? You wouldn't be able to see any pixels or read any text!

It's a usability issue... on a display with this kind of brightness and contrast, not to mention sheer size, sitting close enough to read ultra high resolution text and graphics would give you a splintering head ache!

Incidentally, to get 1024x768 and 1280x1024, they just resample the pixels in hardware on the display, so the pixels would still look smooth, not large.

Re:Resolution?

[Paradise Pete]

most of us who spend all day in front of a computer would likely benfit from giving ourselves six to eight feet rather than two.

The cost of the shoes alone would make that impractical.

Re:Resolution?

[snero3]

Did you ready the whole artical?

if you did you would notice that it is not a computer screen but rather a TV that can be used as a computer screen hences the low resolution.

Re:Resolution?

[Tingler]

Actually, they aren't that bad. check out the link:

link

Re:Resolution?

[Tingler]

Each pixel on this Samsung must be massive.

Actually, they aren't that bad. check out the link:

link

Do subcribers...

[Anonymous Coward]

get to see the ads first too or just real article? Its 4:30 EST. I'm trying to kill some time before cutting out and this is what I get? [/sigh]

Holy MegaPixels, Batman!

[Gorimek]

That's gotta have some real big pixels. My 23" Apple LCD has 1920x1200!

Re:Holy MegaPixels, Batman!

[nutbar]

They call it LegoVision(tm).

Re:Holy MegaPixels, Batman!

[takotech]

They did mention dot pitch of .4935

If you want ultimate pixel counts, check out the T221 22.2" from IBM. For $8400, you too can have a native QUXGA-W(3840x2400) resolution. Dot pitch is a microscopic .1245

Re:Holy MegaPixels, Batman!

[TopShelf]

They really should roll that into the marketing: Now With Extra-Large Pixels!

Re:Holy MegaPixels, Batman!

[Anonymous Coward]

JEEZEZ!! That's worth seeing. Don't try too hard at the gym!

sw33t

[Fry-kun]

very nice specs, but 75 Hz probably won't cut it for many computer users that may want a monitor as big as this (gamers, graphics designers, and IRC junkies XD). My eyes start hurting with any frequency below 85Hz, and I've met some people who can barely tolerate 100Hz.

Re:sw33t

[plone]

LCD monitors don't refresh in the same manner as CRT. Personally, I find that 60 Hz on a LCD looks identical to at least 85Hz on a CRT.

Re:sw33t

[mrklin]

You don't deserve to have eyes. You should know by now that refresh rate on an LCD monitor is meaningless. Graphic designers tend to not use LCDs anyway as the color is less accurate than that of the top CRTs.

Re:sw33t

[Anonymous Coward]

Aw fooey!

When I was a kid we had 640x480 at 60hz interlaced!
We'd watch it til our eyes bled and our heads exlpoded!
And we liked it!!!

Re:sw33t

[CausticWindow]

Do their heads hurt when they watch tv? Or when they watch fluroescent light tubes? Or when they drive on a flood lighted road by night?

Don't be a stupid geek. Don't invent silly "I'm more sensitive than you and need more expensive equipment" mindsets which ultimately drives up the price for the rest of us.

And why would "IRC junkies" want big screens?

Re:sw33t

[DJ Rubbie]

Low refresh rates hurt on CRT screens becase each pixel flickers at that frequency much like a strobe light (think seizures). LCD screens, on the other hand don't have this problem because the backlight glows constantly so it does not flicker like a strobe light. Try waving you hands rapidly back and forth in front of a CRT screen displaying a white background (such as this page) you will find your hands 'flickering'. On a LCD Screen, your hands will not 'flicker'.

I remember I (or my brother) used to do the waving in front of the old and antiquated 13" CRT screen, and go, Look at all the fingers I have!!!

Re:sw33t

[DJ Rubbie]

Actually, the refresh rates are not completely meaningless for an LCD screen, considering both CRT and LCD screens do need to update more or less frequently to show what has change. That figure can be misleading though, once taken the reponse rate of the LCD screen into account. This screen has a 22 ms reponse rate which can translate into about 45 Hz, if I may say so. Once these two figures are put together, a better grasp of how well the screen reponds can be realized.

Re:sw33t

[parkanoid]

Do their heads hurt when they watch tv? Or when they watch fluroescent light tubes? Or when they drive on a flood lighted road by night? Don't be a stupid geek. Don't invent silly "I'm more sensitive than you and need more expensive equipment" mindsets which ultimately drives up the price for the rest of us.
Now, now, he may be misguided, but there's no need to flame him. 75Hz and below is indeed bad (and immediately painful for some) for the eyes on a CRT; on an LCD there is no flicker even at 60Hz, as another poster pointed out, of course, but he may be making judgements based on CRT experience. Also, I do get a slight headache after looking directly at a fluorescent light. And why would "IRC junkies" want big screens Several BitchX windows open in separate xterms, perhaps. On a side note, I've noticed that I can actually see the CRT screen flickering at 72Hz when I am looking at it from the side, on the edge of my peripheral vision, but not straight on. Does anyone know why that is?

Re:sw33t

[parkanoid]

Reformatted properly, accidentally selected the incorrect formating option and didn't hit preview: Do their heads hurt when they watch tv? Or when they watch fluroescent light tubes? Or when they drive on a flood lighted road by night? Don't be a stupid geek. Don't invent silly "I'm more sensitive than you and need more expensive equipment" mindsets which ultimately drives up the price for the rest of us.

Now, now, he may be misguided, but there's no need to flame him. 75Hz and below is indeed bad (and immediately painful for some) for the eyes on a CRT; on an LCD there is no flicker even at 60Hz, as another poster pointed out, of course, but he may be making judgements based on CRT experience.
Also, I do get a slight headache after looking directly at a fluorescent light.

And why would "IRC junkies" want big screens

Several BitchX windows open in separate xterms, perhaps.
On a side note, I've noticed that I can actually see the CRT screen flickering at 72Hz when I am looking at it from the side, on the edge of my peripheral vision, but not straight on. Does anyone know why that is?

Re:sw33t

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the refresh rates are not completely meaningless for an LCD screen, considering both CRT and LCD screens do need to update more or less frequently to show what has change.

You're confusing refresh with retrace.

CRT displays draw the screen from top to bottom, then the scanning beam goes back to the top and draws the whole screen again. The amount of time that elapses between the drawing of the first pixel of frame N and the drawing of the first pixel of frame N+1 is called the vertical retrace interval.

If the vertical retrace interval is too long, the image appears to flicker. That's because the phosphors don't hold constant brightness. They get excited by the scanning beam and then immediately begin to fade, until they're excited again on the next pass.

LCD's work completely differently. There's a fluorescent lamp inside your LCD monitor that pumps out a constant amount of light. The LCD sits in front of the lamp and the individual pixels turn on and off in various ways to let the light through. So LCD's have no vertical retrace, and no vertical retrace interval.

Your computer still refreshes the display periodically, but it the entire display doesn't redraw. If a pixel doesn't change its color value, it stays perfectly still. So no flicker, no matter what the refresh.

Re:sw33t

[owlstead]

Correct. However, with the latest refresh rates you will probably see even more fingers. The .22 is more important for scrolling and gaming. Though I think that they will initially used mostly for presentations. Powerpoint does not need 1600 x 1200 imho. Warper @ 100 Hz

Re:sw33t

[gfody]

flamebait? should be insightful, a lot of people don't understand how "vsync" translates to an LCD and how it effects our "synced frames per second". 75 synced fps is pretty rediculously inadequate for such an expensive monitor.

does anyone know if/when any manufacturers are even attempting to brake the 75hz limit for lcd screens. I read somewhere that a 25ms pixel response time should be able to sync with 100hz beautifully, yet its impossible why?

Re:sw33t

[gfody]

right, but the problem is the computer will only refresh the lcd display 75 times a second because that is the signal it "syncs" to.. where as with a crt the computer will refresh the display 100+ times a second depending on your video card and the monitors ability to sync to the higher frequency.

for lcds that take dvi, why is the computer still limited to 75hz? it seems the setting should be non applicable yet the lcd screen will still only update a max of 75 times per second.

granted the effect is not as migrain inducing as it is on a crt.. the opposite, more pleasurable effect of having 100+ "sync'd" frames per second is no longer achievable

Re:sw33t

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh. Unless you're viewing full motion, you'll never notice the buffer swap rate on the graphics card. And if you are watching full motion, then 60 Hz is the right speed. (For interlaced video, that's per field. For progressive, that's per frame.)

And if you're talking about something like a game, then your buffer swap rate is irrelevant because the game is free-running anyway. So you're going to have a frame-dropping mess no matter what your buffer swap rate is. In fact, the higher the buffer swap rate, the worse the frame-dropping mess will be. It's true. Do the math.

I don't know where you got the idea that refresh rate matters on an LCD, but it simply doesn't. It's not relevant in the slightest.

Re:sw33t

[gfody]

what are you talking about - buffer swap? the video card swapping buffers has nothing to do with whats getting sent to the monitor. most video cards I know of have a DAC, converting the frame buffer into an analog signal at a specified frequency and interupting the cpu after each scan so your program can optionally wait for the vertical retrace.

an LCD syncs to this signal just the same as a CRT does, just I've never seen an LCD do it faster than 75hz.

also, are you blind? you can't tell the difference between 60hz and 100hz? quake3 arena can run at 300fps on my computer, I can run my monitor at 120hz. q3 at 120fps sync'd.. compare that with 60hz sync'd and even my dog can tell the difference!

arguing it doesn't matter on the lcd? 120 fps looking smoother than 75/60 fps has nothing to do with flicker. it has to do with F-P-S.. personally I dont even notice flicker after 85hz.

oh and noen of this shit has anything to do with any sort of "buffer swap" rate.. that was just you not knowing what your talking about

Re:sw33t

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't understand how your computer works. Let's start at the top.

Your computer sends OpenGL commands to the graphics coprocessor. The coprocessor is actually a rendering pipeline: geometry processing happens first, then raster processing. The last stage of the pipeline is display generation.

The raster processing part of the pipeline draws pixels into a buffer. When it has finished drawing the buffer, it does a buffer swap and starts drawing into another buffer while the display generation part of the pipeline handles turning the buffer into video signals, either digital or analog.

In a real computer system, the buffer swap rate is tied to the vertical refresh rate if you've got one. If you're not driving a CRT, the buffer swap rate in the raster processor is fixed at 60 Hz. Why? Why not.

Of course, your little PC thing is not a real computer system. It lacks the hardware necessary to tie the vertical refresh rate of the display device to the buffer swap rate of the raster processor. That's because you're playing with a toy. Deal with it.

Now, as to the 300 FPS/120 Hz thing. Your little game doesn't run at 300 FPS. It might AVERAGE 300 FPS, but that's not the same thing. Your game does not run at a fixed frame rate. Rather, it free-runs. It takes as much time to render each frame as it wants, and passes each frame to the graphics processor when it's damn good and ready.

But let's say for sake of argument that your game runs at an average of 300 FPS, or 3.33 milliseconds per frame. Your monitor vsyncs every 8.33 milliseconds. Okay?

Both monitor and game start out at t = 0. Game finishes its first frame at t = 3.33. Game finishes its second frame at t = 6.66. The monitor refreshes at 8.33, drawing frame 2. Game finishes drawing frame 3 at t = 9.99. Game finishes drawing frame 4 at t = 13.32. Game finishes drawing frame 5 at t = 16.65. Monitor refreshes at 16.66, drawing frame 5.

See the pattern? You dropped frames 1, 3, and 4. You got to see frames 2 and 5. That's because your vsync and your game engine are out of phase. So you've got a frame-dropping mess. The net result is that the picture that shows up on your monitor 16.66 milliseconds into the game does not correspond to what the game state actually is at t = 16.66. The net result, in other words, is visible, perceptible judder. (It's a technical term. It's kind of like a combination of a jump and a stutter. Hence, judder.) Which is why little boys such as yourself look at a video game running at an average of 120 frames per second and go, "Ew. That looks like crap. I need a faster 'puter to get the frame rate up!" You don't understand that your frame rate isn't your problem. The lack of timing feedback between your display device and your software is the problem.

It would be one thing if your monitor ran at 120 Hz and your game ran at 240 FPS frame-locked to your vblank, because then you'd still be dropping half your frames, but at least you'd drop frames consistently. (The correct thing to do there would be to up the LOD in your engine until you render one frame per vblank, and drop no frames. But silly little PC users aren't savvy enough to do that. They'd rather waste clock cycles drawing frames that they LITERALLY never see.

Now... why doesn't this matter on an LCD? Because you can't see more than 60 FPS. Not consistently. It's simply not possible. When I was working on the F-16 unit training device project for Hughes, we ran our IG's at 60 FPS. For a military man-in-the-loop simulator. For training combat pilots. A situation where life and death is LITERALLY on the line. Why is that? Is it because we couldn't run them any faster? No. It's because the human eye cannot consistently perceive the difference between 60 Hz and 70 Hz, or 70 Hz and 90 Hz, or 90 Hz and 200 Hz. Your eye and brain pretty much top out at 60 Hz.

Now, remember, we're talking about MOTION. Not FLICKER. The eye can detect flicker at rates considerably higher than 60 Hz. But not motion. The parts of the

Re:sw33t

[Anonymous Coward]

Amiga owners would kill for 640x480 at 60hz interlaced! We had 640 x 400 and our eyes bled, and we loved it!

You 640 x 480 babies make me sick.

Re:sw33t

[Suidae]

On a side note, I've noticed that I can actually see the CRT screen flickering at 72Hz when I am looking at it from the side, on the edge of my peripheral vision, but not straight on. Does anyone know why that is?

Different areas of the visual system are optomized for different functions. The center of the retina where receptors are most closly packed is great for picking up detail, the periperal areas are set up to catch motion, to catch your attention.

I don't know if the differences are mostly chemical or neurological though. The brain does only have certain amounts of resources for processing visual data though. There are some simple experiments that demostrate this. One involves viewing in ones perihiperal vision a figure of a 5 composed of small 3's or something similar. Under certain conditions one can see the 3's, under others resource exaustion only allows the larger figure to be seen.

Re:sw33t

[darkgreen]

On a side note, I've noticed that I can actually see the CRT screen flickering at 72Hz when I am looking at it from the side, on the edge of my peripheral vision, but not straight on. Does anyone know why that is?

IIRC, the receptors in your eyes (rods) that are relevant to your peripheral vision are more sensitive to motion and light... that's how you can look at the night sky, and not see some stars, but look away slightly, and you'll be able to track better. They tend to not be as good for colour, so when they kick in at night, things start to look monochromatic.

it's a trick i use to get around in the dark, sometimes... don't look exactly where you're going - you'll actually be able to make your way around better, in some cases.

Re:sw33t

[gfody]

When I was working on the F-16 unit training device project for Hughes..

now I understand.. you think your a rocket scientist - you need to realize that my little pc is faster than anything you ever touched while working at hughs. (welcome to 2003 dude)

also when a game runs sync'd it will throttle the frames it renders to sync with the monitor. so when I run my monitor at 120hz the game is rendering 120fps, it COULD do 300fps but since I wont see those frames the game will use that extra time to process other things. it does not render a frame that I will not see.

theres a definate difference in the way 120fps "feels" vs. 75,85 or even 100fps.. I don't know why people insist that we cannot tell the difference and I'm not talking about flicker as that isn't even really an issue above 85hz.

Now... why doesn't this matter on an LCD? Because you can't see more than 60 FPS. Not consistently. It's simply not possible.

you can tell me that all you want, but I'm going to prefer 120 fps over 60, even if I can't see all the frames I can tell the difference and I like it.

bottom line is my pc is capable of syncing up to 300+ hz, my monitor does 120 so I run the pc at 120. an lcd will not do higher than 75 (even if this number doesn't translate to any sort of vertical retrace or refresh its still holding back the pc)

Re:sw33t

[Anonymous Coward]

you think your a rocket scientist

The F-16 is a plane, dude. Not a rocket.

you need to realize that my little pc is faster than anything you ever touched while working at hughs

It's Hughes, not "hughs." Hell, you could have just cut-and-pasted from my post.

And no, your little PC is not faster. Our base configuration in 1997 was an Onyx R10000 with 16 processors and three InfiniteReality graphics pipelines. That was the little machine, for the Block 40. The next-generation system was a combination of a 32-processor image generator with 8 IR pipelines (4 raster managers each, driving displays at 3200x3100 at 60 Hz) and a 16-processor simexec, plus an 8-processor ECE federate node.

And this was in 1997. The stuff they're doing over there now on the F-22 and F-35 programs is amazing. Blow you away, dude.

so when I run my monitor at 120hz the game is rendering 120fps

No, it's not. Sorry, but Quake doesn't work that way.

it does not render a frame that I will not see.

It renders two frames you won't see for every odd displayed frame, and three frames you won't see for every even displayed frame. (Which is, incidentally, why it looks jerky.)

theres a definate difference in the way 120fps "feels" vs. 75,85 or even 100fps

Sure there is. But it's not necessarily better. It depends on how many frames your game is dropping. If your monitor is running at 120 Hz and your game is rendering an average of 300 frames per second, you're looking at a 2/3 drop pattern, which will give anybody a headache in short order. (Basically, the amount of time that elapses between each displayed is not constant. It's like seeing the world illuminated by a stobe light flickering at random intervals.)

you can tell me that all you want, but I'm going to prefer 120 fps over 60, even if I can't see all the frames I can tell the difference and I like it.

You're confusing redraw with flicker again. Silly newbie. The eye can detect flicker at rates as high as about 200 Hz. Since there's no flicker on an LCD, there's no flicker rate, either. Since your CRT flickers like crazy, you see the flicker even at 120 Hz. (Also considering you must be driving the monitor at something like 600 lines of vertical resolution, you're probably staring at scan lines like nobody's business.)

an lcd will not do higher than 75

I guess I'm just not going to be able to make you understand. The vertical retrace number has NO MEANING WHATSOEVER in the context of an LCD. You don't get that. This may be because you're a child. Then again, it may be because you're a fuckin idiot.

Re:sw33t

[gfody]

I'm not confusing flicker with refresh rate, a crt the monitor 'flickers' at the same rate as the refresh its the whole concept of syncing to the signal. an lcd the screen does not flicker but it still has a dac inside that must sync to the analog signal and refresh its screen - this is the component that is limited to 75hz. in a dvi configuration the signal isn't converted but still seems to limited to 75fps.

No, it's not. Sorry, but Quake doesn't work that way
I'm not going to argue with you any longer because you obviously know everything - hell you even made quake3.

when a program can render 300fps avg, say 160fps minimum - theres an opportunity to run it in sync at a high refresh rate and acheive a better experience. in this case the rendering thread is finished rendering and waiting for the vsync interrupt before it swaps to the frame buffer. this amounts to one frame for every vsync = 120fps for 120hz.

btw, quake does not look jerky for me. perhaps you are not running it vsync'd.

Our base configuration in 1997 was an Onyx R10000 with 16 processors and three InfiniteReality graphics pipelines.
ok, install quake3 arena and see what fps you get.. seriously I'm sure that machine is faster than my desktop as far as extreme parellel computing goes - but we're talking about refresh rates here.

Re:sw33t

[Anonymous Coward]

an lcd the screen does not flicker but it still has a dac inside that must sync to the analog signal and refresh its screen

No, it doesn't. First of all, unless you're using an LCD from circa 1995, there's no analog signal coming into the monitor at all. It's square waves as far as the eye can see, baby.

And secondly, LCD's DO NOT REFRESH. This is the key concept you're unable to grasp.

Also, I really don't understand where you keep getting this 75 Hz thing from. It's 60 Hz, same as mains current. In Europe, it's 50 Hz.

hell you even made quake3

No, but I did fix Id's Origin 2000 one time.

when a program can render 300fps avg, say 160fps minimum - theres an opportunity to run it in sync at a high refresh rate and acheive a better experience

Toy computers like your PC lack the hardware necessary to provide a feedback loop to the graphics coprocessor. It is not possible for your game to sync its frame rate to an external source. There's no external signal input. It's simply not possible.

btw, quake does not look jerky for me

Obviously you are not particularly experienced at looking at visual simulations. You wouldn't know judder, in other words, if it bit you on the ass.

install quake3 arena and see what fps you get

With the OpenGL version of Quake 2, free-running, we got about 1,200 frames per second. That was on 250 MHz R10K's. You can download the binaries from here and see for yourself if you've got an Infinite Reality handy.

we're talking about refresh rates here

Are we? Are we talking about vblank or buffer swap? The point is, of course, that you fail to understand the difference.

Re:sw33t

[gfody]

Toy computers like your PC lack the hardware necessary to provide a feedback loop to the graphics coprocessor. It is not possible for your game to sync its frame rate to an external source. There's no external signal input. It's simply not possible.

my PC doesn't require a feedback loop to sync to the external source. the video card is GENERATING the signal in the first place, it is the monitor that syncs to it.

Are we talking about vblank or buffer swap
your the one telling me my computer is too much of a toy and can't sync it's buffer swap with the vblank. I'm trying to explain that 1) yes it can 2) it looks much better than an lcd because an lcd limits the syncable frames to 75

If a dvi lcd doesn't not refresh its screen then what does it do? are you saying my computer is telling the screen what to show me one pixel at a time? I dont think so

Re:sw33t

[Anonymous Coward]

my PC doesn't require a feedback loop to sync to the external source. the video card is GENERATING the signal in the first place, it is the monitor that syncs to it.

Yes, that's true. How does your little game thing get the video timing? Vblank happens at a regular interval. It's an electrical pulse. How does your toy computer know when the vblank happens? See, it's not enough to know that it happens every 8.33 milliseconds. It has to be synchronized. Where is the signal path that leads back into the CPU? Which pin, exactly, carries that signal?

Your ignorance is crumbling away bit by bit. It's an agonizing process.

your the one telling me my computer is too much of a toy and can't sync it's buffer swap with the vblank.

Yes.

yes it can

No.

it looks much better than an lcd because an lcd limits the syncable frames to 75

No. For the last time: stop saying 75. I don't know where the hell you got 75. The number is either 60 or 50 depending on where you live.

are you saying my computer is telling the screen what to show me one pixel at a time?

Uh? Yes, that's exactly how it works. The video signal path is serial, not parallel. The signal comes down the wire one pixel at a time.

Re:sw33t

[Fry-kun]

I agree with the "more fingers" remark - since the frequency of the monitor is higher than that of an old 13"-er, you'll see many more "shadows" of your hand as you wave it in front of the screen. As for the PPT presentations... why waste money on this monitor if you can buy a decent projector for half (if not third) of the price?

Re:sw33t

[Fry-kun]

well, if you think about it, there are 40 * 25 ms in a 1 s, so you should should be able to get 40 Hz assuming that the 25 ms includes both of the "powerup" and "powerdown" times (sorry, don't know the correct terms of when the pixel becomes lit and becomes dark). 22 ms of this monitor translates to roughly ~45.5 Hz, so the 75 Hz must have come from some other source... i would think it is "comparable to 75Hz on a CRT", hence my original message

Yikkes.. the spcs suck

[catseye]

While a 29-inch LCD sounds cool (suddenly, my 20-inch Apple Cinema Display seems tiny ;) ), those specs are really awful -- a .49 pitch and a max resolution of 1280x768 means the pixels would be huge -- it would be like sitting in front of a stadium jumbotron, each pixel articulated.

No thanks.

Re:Yikkes.. the spcs suck

[GrodinTierce]

If 17" LCD's are 1280x1024, isn't 1280x768 for a 29" goinf backwards? Shouldn't it be more like 1600x1200 (at least) if not 2048x1536?

Re:Yikkes.. the spcs suck

[_xeno_]

I was thinking that too, until I noticed something: it's really a TV. It happens to contain a RGB/DVI adaptor, but from the specs (and the fact that it includes speakers), I think it's really meant to be used as a TV. Which makes a lot more sense - that would be an OK HDTV, but I would agree that it sounds like it would make a really crappy monitor.

The 17" LCD screen I'm currently staring at has a resolution of 1280x1024 - going down to 1024x786 seems a bit of a drop for a 29" monitor. It's probably intended to also allow usage as a kiosk display from a computer, not to be used as a primary monitor.

Re:Yikkes.. the spcs suck

[DJ Rubbie]

That is why they hang the jumbotron way up over there... although playing UT2k2 or Quake or (insert favorite FPS) on one of those can be quite an experience, especially have it 2 meters in front of you... problem is, they might be too pixelated...

Is that the Redeemer? uhh... ARGH!

Re:Yikkes.. the spcs suck

[blair1q]

If the native resolution is 1024x768, then it's still not the perfect HDTV. You'd think once they scaled up to that size screen, they'd fit it to the 1080-line standard and really blow out some eyeballs.

Re:Yikkes.. the spcs suck

[EvanED]

My 19" (CRT) does 1600x1200 nicely. I'd consider 1600 resolution on a 29" monitor abysmal. 2048 would probably be bad...

IBM makes a 22" monitor that does 3840x2400. (Granted, it's $8500...) That would be a nice resolution for a 29".

Re:Yikkes.. the spcs suck

[_xeno_]

I think it's native is actually 1280x768, which is about right. However, I'm not sure - the review is very unclear about it. (It says that the "optimal" PC resolution is 1024x768, a 4:3 mode, but the max mode is 1280x768, a 5:3 mode which is almost a cinematic mode. (DVD widescreen is something like 1.85:1, 5:3 is about 1.66:1.)

But the review is very unclear about the actual aspect ratio or the native resolution, so I could very well be wrong.

Re:Yikkes.. the spcs suck

[blair1q]

Still doesn't allow a native 1080-pixel high picture (about 1900 wide). That's the top resolution of HDTV, and there is maybe one monitor manufacturer in the world actually designing to put that many pixels on the screen. The rest are selling 768-high screens and pretending they're the bee's nads.

Refresh rate??

[Alpha_Nerd]

I'm just curious, but how does an LCD have a refresh rate?? I was under the impression that they did not have them, just pixel response time... Or is the refresh rate 1 / its pixel_response_time??

And it looks nice and all... But really, the resolution would be way to low for my needs. I'll stick with my >$500 19" CRT for now I guess =/

Re:Refresh rate??

[Anonymous Coward]

The refresh rate cited is probably the amount of time it takes for a single pixel to go from 100% off to 100% on. That makes it a misleading statistic, because the majority of pixel transitions aren't straight ON/OFF, and LCD monitors take a longer time to do smaller transitions.

Dan Rutter's got an excellent write-up of another samsung monitor that goes into this issue at some depth here

Re:Refresh rate??

[ChadN]

And on a related note, what is the state of the art for high pixel response time. About two years ago there was talk about modifying the voltage to a non-linear cruve to minimize switching times. For applications we have, we would really need at least 60 Hz (effective) refresh rates, or better. Is there anything on the market that uses the new technology? (hmm, guess I should be asking the industry, not slashdot)

Re:Refresh rate??

[jfroot]

When they say 75Mhz, that is the optimal frequency for the AD converter. All LCDs have this optimum frequency. It will most likely work at any refresh rate, but the AD converter is calibrated for 75Mhz. This is only if you are using an RGB output btw. If you have a graphics card with a DVI out, there is no refresh rate setting.

Re:Refresh rate??

[MSTCrow5429]

You are right, LCD screens do not have refresh rates. Some people do not understand the vast differences between CRT and LCD monitors; they assume that simply because it is a monitor it operates on the same principles. I'll leave it up to previous posters to explain in detail (and I'm not an expert, just advanced).

Re:Refresh rate??

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you meant 75Hz, not 75MHz, right? :)

Resolution

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to want to go a lot higher than 1280x768 on a 29 inch monitor.

It might make a nice TV though

Makes a bad monitor.

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like a great TV, but whats the use in using it as a monitor? Only for visually impaired people would that resolution be useful. If you want a really big 1024 x 768 display then buy a projector and you can project it a lot bigger than 29''.

Snuff?!

[gpinzone]

The response time isnâ(TM)t anything to snuff at...

Uh, exactly what kind of porn did you test this monitor with?!

Re:Snuff?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Any of my porn will look good on this... And that's why the resolution is so low - blur that low quality pixelated porn!

A Better Use of $$$

[nherc]

$3k for a lot of real estate. But I think getting say 2 or 3 17" or 19" LCDs and running them with an extended desktop would allow you to actually be more productive and probably save some money.

Although I suppose this would be the monitor to play Doom III with, IF you have to play it in your office.

I paid $2400 for a Sharp m20x DLP projector and have a PC running it for HDTV and DVD's in my family room. That's a 133" flat screen for even cheaper. ;)

Re:A Better Use of $$$

[JaredOfEuropa]

Exactly! In fact I really prefer extra desktop space (in the form of extra monitors) over higher resolution. I have a 17" (1280x1024) TFT flanked by two 15" (1024x768) ones all running one extended desktop, all of them low cost. I think I paid about $650 for the 17" unit, and the 15" ones go for like $200 now. Working on this setup is a dream come true, and it really does allow you to be much more productive. In fact I managed to get a dual head setup at work as well for that reason.

Sure beats CRTs! After having used crisp TFT displays I will never go back to one. Besides... if you get anything over 17", you'll end up with a freaking dog kennel on your desk. And after having done without it, I found the higher resolutions of CRTs not to be all that useful.

Re:A Better Use of $$$

[suwain_2]

I'm worrying that you're going to cost me a lot of money. ;)

I'm typing this on a pair of 19" CRTs (at 1280x1024 or so, running Xinerama). I've grown to love the crisp, sharp appearance of my laptop's LCD, and find my CRTs blurry and dim compared to my laptop. Plus, now that it's summer, I no longer appreciate the scorching heat they give off.

Each CRT cost me about what a 15" LCD would cost me today. Because I'm running a low-end dual-head video card, I have both monitors at 1280x1024, and they're probably loafing, but the video card is clearly at its limits -- I had it higher, but the right monitor had a horrible green tint. Lowering it made it usable, alhtough there's still a noticable tint if you look from a distance. So in short, although I could in theory be at 1600x1200 across two monitors, I'm nowhere near it. A pair of 15" LCDs, if I bought them now, would have cost me the same amount, but I would have had a sharper, clearer image, a cooler room, and waaaay more desk space. Plus, I was marvelling in the store about how when I was playing with an LCD, I managed to accidentally move it. Trust me, 19" flat-screen CRTs don't move far without a very deliberate attempt to move them. (Also carry a pair of them up two flights of narrow stairs...)

Anyway, I guess I could have summed this all up by saying "I agree." But next time it comes to monitors, I'm thinking a trio (you know you're a geek when you feel cramped with "only" two monitors) of 15" LCDs will be a worthwhile investment. More space (both screen real estate and desk real estate), about the same cost as if I sprung for CRTs, way less heat, and a much nicer image. Not to mention the coolness factor. :)

Re:A Better Use of $$$

[Suidae]

you know you're a geek when you feel cramped with "only" two monitors

Indeed. I have one of those old 1960's brown, metal air-force desks, 5 feet wide and a full 3 feet deep. I've discovered that its quite comfortable to put 4 17" monitors across it. Two computers with dual desktop and Win2VNC, and it works pretty much like one massive desktop, and I still have 10 square feet of desk space to play with.

How I'd love to replace them with LCDs... mmm...

Re:A Better Use of $$$

[mvdw]

Pffft: I see your two computers, and raise you a single computer, 2 video cards, running 3 19" monitors at 1280x1024. Admittedly one of the monitors is an old Sun monitor that is just a trinitron, but the other two are genuine flat-square jobs. I hate coming to work and having to deal with just one 19" monitor. Although, it is only windows at work, so one monitor is enough generally...

3D and Resolution

[turgid]

As 3D continues to become more important, one day we'll have 3D GUIs. To fully utilise their potential, we'll need very high-resolution displays (to take advantage of the depth information). A 29 inch flat screen is cool, but what we really need is much higher resolution at current sizes, e.g. an 18 inch display that does 12800 by 10240.

Re:3D and Resolution

[GigsVT]

You realise that's several times higher res than most printed material, right?

I'd be happy if we got 300 dpi monitors.

Re:3D and Resolution

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www-132.ibm.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/P roductDisplay?catalogId=-840&langId=-1&partNumber= 9503DG3&storeId=1

Re:3D and Resolution

[turgid]

Yes. Printed materials are too low res, and I'm a perfectionist. Antialiasing annoys me. It makes things look blurred.

Re:3D and Resolution

[Anonymous Coward]

As 3D continues to become more important, one day we'll have 3D GUIs.

Wrong. Not unless we create volumetric display devices (or, I don't know, some kind of matrix virtual reality thing). A two-dimensional display gets a two-dimensional interface.

an 18 inch display that does 12800 by 10240

At a viewing distance of 24 inches, that's several times more than the visual acuity of the human eye. The eye can only discriminate about four arc-seconds.

Basically, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Do ya?

Re:3D and Resolution

[Anonymous Coward]

So that's around 600-800 dpi on such a monitor. Isn't that exactly what is wanted? To have resolutions high enough that the eye won't be able to easily distinguish pixels?

Re:3D and Resolution

[turgid]

Isn't that exactly what is wanted? To have resolutions high enough that the eye won't be able to easily distinguish pixels?

Indeed it is. I was under the impression that the limiting resolution of the human eye was about 1 arc second. When I was younger I could quite easily see the pixels on 300dpi laser printer output.

Re:3D and Resolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed it is.

Waste. A waste of effort.

When I was younger I could quite easily see the pixels on 300dpi laser printer output.

Across the room? At arm's length? Three inches from your nose?

That's why we express visual acuity in terms of arc-seconds, not planar resolution.

Re:Yeah, but . . .

[il_diablo]

I think a careful examination of the practical longevity [...] requires more features, not more inches.

Must...resist...obvious...comment.

Silly...

[arcite]

Just make the fonts smaller.

Rating System

[PhilipMatarese]

They use a banana rating system... hehehe.

This kind of reminds me of 321 Contact or Square 1 Television, where a kid went around measuring furniture with a banana.

Re:Yeah, but . . .

[Horny Smurf]

device requires more features, not more inches.

obviously, you're not a girl.

1280 x 768 max?

[fudgefactor7]

"the maximum is 1280 x 768 @ 75Hz."

For 29" display I expected higher resolutions to be available. Is it just me or is that a bit on the low side?

Re:1280 x 768 max?

[NerveGas]

I've used a similar-sized monitor in 1280x1024. For regular computing, it's a waste of money - you could pick up a smaller monitor with a higher resolution, and be better off.

The two really good uses for a large monitor with that low of resolution are (a) computing for the visually impaired, and (b) watching movies.

steve

Re:1280 x 768 max?

[MsGeek]

That's the resolution on my Envision 15" LCD monitor. As the kids say, that is t3h sux0r.

Right now, the best LCD screen I have ever experienced is the one on my PowerBook G3 Series 2 laptop. Beautiful. No dead pixels, gorgeous color. The Envision is nice but not as good as this.

Nice TV.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure it makes a nifty TV, and dual use hardware is certainly lovely, but unless you're buying a large monitor to compensate for poor vision, why in the world would you buy a 29" monitor with a resolution that tops out where most people run their 19" CRTs and 17" flats?

Re:Yeah, but . . .

[ryanwright]

No joke. I've got a pair of 19" Dell flatpanels that only run @ 1280x1024. Everything is still too big. I'd like to run them @ 1600x1200. A 29" monitor should run something even higher than that...

If you're only running it @ 1024, or even 1280, it's a waste.

You can't see through it

[Anonymous Coward]

While the monitor certainly seems outstanding, it could at least be transparent, so that you could put it in front of a window overlooking the newly-rained-on trees so that you could see the wetness-intensified greens through the lines of your code.

Are you fucking insane?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the *fuck* would you need that kind of resolution for some

1024 max? Gimme a break.

[W2k]

At 1024x768 maximum resolution this monitor is useless for use with a computer. Would make a nice TV though. Well, I suppose you could play games on it .. but Windows at 1024x768 is just painful to watch. And considering what it costs, and its sheer size, I don't see many people using this as their primary monitor. The cost alone would prevent anyone sane from bringing it to a LAN.

I for one would love to have an LCD monitor rather than my bulky CRT, but I'm waiting for those 20" beauties that at least support 1600x1200 to drop in price.

Re:1024 max? Gimme a break.

[Anonymous Coward]

Insanely enough, most people STILL run Windows at 1024x768 OR LOWER!!! I do on my 15" LCD display, and it works just fine, I personally would prefer 1280x1024 for CAD, but all other applications still work fine for me. Apart from the sheer "look how high resolution I can run my monitor" wow factor, I've yet to see any measurable gains in productivity from making the pixels display on my monitor any tinier.

I can usually work on only one task at a time so why would I need a massive resolution to clutter with stuff I can't pay attention to when I can put what I'm working on maximized onto the entire resolution of the monitor?

At work I still have a tough time convincing people not to run 17" LCD displays at 800x600 (they natively run at 1280x1024) which gives me a headache just looking at the distortion it creates!

They argue that at 1280x1024, all their icons are smaller and the text is smaller. What I end up doing is changing their resolution to 1280x1024, then upping their icon size (and the sizes of their desktop items), then upping their text size. Then in WinXP I turn on Cleartype and, presto, the next day they come in and THANK me for making their display look clear again. Of course, the previous day, they were bitching their asses off not to increase their resolution.

People are dumb!

Re:1024 max? Gimme a break.

[aonaran]

If you think 1024 is bad in Windows try it in Linux.

I had my 17" CRT at 1280 but my girlfriend kept complaining about it hurting her eyes and messing with the contrast and brightness to compensate (at that resolution it was running at 60Hz, which is fine if you use it in the dark or by the light of a halogen desk lamp like me, but if you turn on the florescent overhead it does hurt. ...anyway, as a result I've had to move it down to 1024 so we could get decent refresh rates.
I'm now really wanting a new monitor. (I thought 1280 was low, but 1024 is killing me) I'd like to see 1600 or higher in an LCD that was somewhere close to my price range, but it looks like that's not going to happen any time soon. :(

Where's UXGA ?!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand why I can get a Dell laptop that
is UXGA, but I can't get a UXGA LCD monitor for my desktop. Until I can, I'm going to run 1600x1200 on my 19".

Re:Where's UXGA ?!

[NMerriam]

we've been trying to figure that one out for years now. Beautiful 15" 1600x1200 LCDs are available from a number of laptop manufacturers, but desktop LCDs that cost as much as the entire laptop are 20" and still only 1280x1024. Baffling.

Re:Where's UXGA ?!

[Anonymous Coward]

My 20.1 Dell LCD is 1600 x 1200. They are a little over a grand. I bought the 19" first( smaller foot print ), but the native pixel res was 1280x1024 and it has a larger pixel spacing which is noticable upon inspection.

Re:Where's UXGA ?!

[MeerCat]

I don't understand why I can get a Dell laptop that is UXGA, but I can't get a UXGA LCD monitor for my desktop

Part of the problem is that a DVI single channel tops out at 1280 x 1024, so to go above this using DVI requires two channels, which can be done with a standard cable, but is only recently becoming available on retail cards (GeForce 4 Ti4200 and above, ATI 8500 and above, various very expensive workstation graphics cards). Older cards with DVI only have a single channel.

Laptops use proprietary digital connections and specialist graphics cards, so don't suffer the same problem.

So basically, LCD displays with higher resolutions have been limited to analog (yuk at those res) or tellig you to get a specialist card.

On the other hand, I have a nice Iiyama AU4831D 19 inch LCD display running UXGA 1600x1200 - driven by an GeForce 4 Ti 4200, and thanks to nvidia's drivers all this runs fine on Linux and Xfree 4.3.0. Here in the UK, this monitor is now about £650 ($1,000), less than a laptop with a similar res screen.

--
T

Re:Where's UXGA ?!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have an inspiron 4100 with a 14" UXGA panel, and it gives me such a hard-on when I look at it. That .18mm dot pitch is beautiful. I could never understand why someone would want a bigger panel without the increase in pixels that would actually allow you to display more information.

Re:Where's UXGA ?!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's expensive to make a large flat panel with a dead pixel. Very expensive. The bigger it is, the more it costs them to lose a (sub)pixel/transistor. They only have one chance to get it right during production, and even a bit of dust can mess it up. The fewer/larger pixels, the lower the likelihood that it will have a bad pixel. Thus, it doesn't make economical sense at this point to make a massive display with high resolution. Unless you want that $3000 display costing $5000 and coming with a few dozen bad pixels ;-)

DLP

[truthsearch]

I've been considering getting a good DLP projector, but it seems the good ones are very expensive. Where did you find one for under $3k? How's your experience been compared to LCD and/or CRT? For $3500 or less it's possible to get a 42" plasma, so I'm debating.

Re:DLP

[nherc]

I have a BEAUTIFUL 133" picture projected onto a 16:9 screen for $1k less than your plasma. You need to think about what you really want. A theater experience and peoples jaws dropping or an over priced flat conventional TV?

Checkout projectorcentral.com for prices/info and the Under $5k Digital Projector forum for more detailed info.

Re:DLP

[Chmarr]

The Dell 3200MP is 1024x768, and $2000USD list price. Mine should be turning up tomorrow :)

Re:DLP

[F1_Fan]

DLP units are sweet. The one from work did a good job projecting Office Space on my wall at home ;)

Word from the IT guys is that the bulbs are like, CDN$1000. Dunno if that's true but if it is then I'd be rethinking the use of DP for more than casual Powerpoint purposes.

Re:DLP

[cens0r]

the average bulb is between $300-$600 USD, and under casual conditions will need to be replaced yearly or so. kind of a bummer.

Re:DLP

[Anonymous Coward]

Er, I want to be able to watch TV in normal ambient light. And unless you have 3000 ANSI lumens and a very expensive screen to go with it (which for under $3000 you don't) you can't.

Yes, you're the only one

[Anonymous Coward]

The HDTV Plasma blow the LCD stuff away.

Not even a contest.

Re:Yes, you're the only one

[modecx]

The HDTV Plasma blow the LCD stuff away.

Yeah, even literally. Some of those plasmas have some damn noisy exhaust fans. If I had to sit near one of those every day, I'd go postal.

Plasma's cool and all, but I don't think the world of it like some people out there.

Re:Eek Ork Ah Ah

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod child up +3 Informative +1 underrated -1 offtopic!!

1280 x 768 @ 75Hz.

[denisbergeron]

That's simply stupid !
why not 1600x1200 or more 2048x1536 !
1280x768 I can have that with a 15 inch 200$ LCD Monitor!

Re:1280 x 768 @ 75Hz.

[Anonymous Coward]

True! Bestbuy had a MAG monitor 19" 1600x1200
max res. for 250 last week !

Re:Yeah, but . . .

[rtaylor]

They purchased LCD enlargement from some spammer, but they didn't read the warning that the LCD may not look so good afterward.

Its a TV really...

[ajiva]

I think this thing was really meant to be used as a TV. Notice the component inputs. Yes it has DVI, but that's just a side benefit. The real advantage is hooking up a consumer DVD player and enjoying progressive scan, widescreen DVDs.

am I the only one that sees the irony here

[calethix]

Thereâ(TM)s no question in my mind that most of you, if it was possible, would love an LCD plopped in front of you rather than a conventional CRT which hogs up 50% of your desk space, well, what if it was not only an LCD but one which is larger than most of your mates home TV? With a viewable area of 29â

In one sentence, they're complaing about how much space CRTs take up on your desk and the next is about 29" of LCD goodness. I'm not sure that would even fit on my desk. :)

Re:am I the only one that sees the irony here

[fastdecade]

In one sentence, they're complaing about how much space CRTs take up on your desk and the next is about 29" of LCD goodness.

Well yeah they don't say it too clearly.

But they do have a point buried in there somewhere ... if you've got to have a 29 inch screen, you'll save half your desk space by plumping for LCD rather than a CRT, assuming you have a big enough desk to fit either!

Re:am I the only one that sees the irony here

[calethix]

Wow, i got modded +5 funny an no one even commented on me accidentaly getting my italics messed up. What's slashdot coming to these days? :)

Re:Yeah, but . . .

[weave]

Or a 15" laptop monitor at 1600x1200.

Oh well, reminds me of some user here who wanted a 20" LCD that was native at 1600x1200 and then wanted us to set it at 1024x768 since it was too hard to see. Insane...

1024 x 768 is worthless...

[Futurepower(R)]

1024 x 768 is worthless for a big display of a computer screen. Buy a cheap 1024 x 768 LCD and sit closer. Pixels are everything.

Re:1024 x 768 is worthless...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pixels is NOT everything. when you sit closer, your eye strain increases. Having used high end 21" CRT for 7 years, I wouldn't do 1600x1200 for 21" monitors because of the eye strain. When you sit in front of the monitor, you shouldn't be able to touch it with your extended arms. This is important as we sit here 10+ hours a day.

Higher?

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of a 29 inch monitor, try a 20 gram bad of Marijooana!

Viewing angle - I'm skeptical

[geekd]

I very much doubt the given viewing angle of 170/170.

That's almost all the way off to one side. Most LCDs look like crap from there.

Sure, you can see whats on the screen, and it's still readable, but the contrast and brightness go way down.

Re:Viewing angle - I'm skeptical

[Macgyver7017]

Not necessarily, my buddy just bought a dell notebook, and i can watch a movie at about 170 degrees off... and the colors are all there, just like you are looking straight at it, except of course the skewing because of viewing it an an extreme angle. the colors and contrast and such are all great at the angle, however.

Re:Viewing angle - I'm skeptical

[router]

My Samsung 191T is perfectly visible with negligible color shifting or brightness/contrast change from damn near 90 degrees off-axis; top, bottom, left, right (it tilts to do portrait or landscape). I believe the 170 degree figure. My laptops don't have nearly that viewing angle (IBM T20 and T21). The samsungs are pretty freaking cool man. I don't usually blow 800 bones on computer hardware, but this thing is pretty damn cool.

andy

Re:Yeah, but . . .

[killmenow]

Who would run an LCD that big at 1024?

I don't know...Mr. Magoo?

Re:Yeah, but . . .

[bob65]

I think it's actually intended to be used as a TV/monitor. A 29" TV with 1024*768 resolution is not bad at all I think.

Rant: FUXGA!

[Tackhead]

> If you want ultimate pixel counts, check out the T221 22.2" from IBM. For $8400, you too can have a native QUXGA-W(3840x2400) resolution. Dot pitch is a microscopic .1245

XGA, SXGA+, WUXGA, QUXGA, WTFUXGA!

For Chrissake, why can't flat panel and laptop manufacturers just say the goddamn screen is "640x480" or or "1024x768" or "1280x1024" or "1400x1050" or whatever the fucking resolution is, rather than inventing a new resolution for every oddball configuration the latest LCD screen happens to be.

(I hate shopping for laptops on sites that just list the acronym and not the damn resolution!)

Re:Rant: FUXGA!

[takotech]

I thought that too but then it started to make sense:

• VGA: 640X480
• SVGA: 800X600 <- Super VGA
• XGA: 1024X768
• SXGA: 1280X1024
• SXGA+: 1400X1050
• UXGA: 1600X1200 <- Ultra XGA
• UXGA-W: 1920x1200 <- Ultra XGA - Wide(16:10 ratio)
• QUXGA-W: 3480X2400 <- Quad Ultra XGA Wide

So, basically, this thing has room to show 4 native HD(1920x1080) pictures at once, a la Brady Bunch style and still have room left over. That's pimp.

Re:Rant: FUXGA!

[Anonymous Coward]

So, basically, this thing has room to show 4 native HD(1920x1080) pictures at once

That's why it was invented. The folks at LLNL (Lawrence Livermore, for those not in the know) wanted to watch four 1920x1200 images at once. I don't know why, exactly. So they contracted with IBM to build "Big Bertha," a monitor that could do just that.

When IBM first showed off Big Bertha at Supercomputing 2000, they wanted $20,000 for it. Some people bought 'em at that price, too, which is the truly amazing part.

Review Sites

[Accord MT]

Is it

Next->

[ADVERTISEMENT]

me, or

Next->

are these

[ADVERTISEMENT]

Next->

review sites

Next ->

[ADVERTISEMENT]

really annoying?

Re:Review Sites

[damiam]

If it bothers you, read it on one page without ads.

Re:Review Sites

[cerberusss]

*right-clicks*
*picks "Block Images from this Server"*
*punches ctrl-R*

Aaah the wonders of Mozilla.

There are better choices for computing

[Tyrdium]

The NEC 1760V (Tom's Hardware Guide here)is a 17" display with the same resolution and a 16 ms pixel response. It can be had over at newegg for 430 bucks. Granted, the contrast ratio isn't as good at 450:1, but it should be good for everyday use. Lastly, the dpi is a hell of a lot higher, and a good resolution for viewing it at, instead of 1280 x 1024 on a 29" display. The Samsung would be good for watching TV on, but a larger plasma display can probably be had for around the same price.

Re:There are better choices for computing

[SCHecklerX]

The 1760V from NEC SUCKS!

Maybe I was unlucky and got a bad one (last they had at the store...I too bought this based on the Tom's hardware review...which ONLY looked at the thing from playing quake...not from how well text looked when doing real work), but mine took HOURS of fussing around with the fine tuning to get it crisp. Then as soon as you flip resolution (ie, to play quake at 1024x768...I only have an Athlon 900), and come back, Major blur all over the screen.

I took it back. Picked up the sony 17". The sony isn't quite as bright (So what, I use computers here in a dark room anyway and still had to turn it down), and the response is supposedly slower, but I do not see it, even when playing RTCW and Quake, but it is CRYSTAL CLEAR. I adjusted it ONCE. It locked on and has been sharp as a razor ever since.

If all of the 1760Vs are as crappy as the one I got, I'd highly recommend anybody considering one steer clear of it and go with the sony 17", which actually does provide a very crisp display at its native resolution.

Re:There are better choices for computing

[realdpk]

I love my 1760V. I haven't experienced the problems the other poster mentioned (sorry bud) The response time is excellent and makes all the difference in the world. It is definitely VERY bright - I had to turn down the settings to about 25-30%.

My only complaint about it was that it is 1280x1024 instead of 1280x960. That's really more of a complaint about all LCDs in general.

A shareware utility called Powerstrip took care of this for me with these settings:

screenshot

Now I get tiny black bars above and below when I'm playing games that have 1280x960 but don't have 1280x1024 *cough Battlefield cough*

Re:There are better choices for computing

[Tyrdium]

Odd, the one I saw in Micro Center looked fine. It may just be resetting things on a resolution change...

Re:There are better choices for computing

[Ryan Amos]

Yeah, IMO gaming sites bitch way too much about response time when it's barely noticible. I used to play a LOT of counterstrike and I have a ViewSonic VX900 (mid-high end 19" LCD; probably about a year old.) It's only got a 25ms response time but I can't notice any motion blur. At all. I'd say go for the LCD that looks best, not the one that gaming sites say has the best response time. We all know gaming sites are obsessed with tech specs and benchmarks as opposed to real world performance anyway. Any LCD you buy is going to look a hundred times better than any CRT you buy anyway. I can't even use my old 21" CRT as a second monitor, it looks so bad in comparison to the beauty that is this 19" LCD. Anyway, if you're looking for an LCD, just get one with the best features and the resolution you want. It's still gonna look WAY better than your CRT, and you'll be happy.

Not too surprising...

[FasterThanLight]

The contrast ratio is 600:1? It better be high- the pixels on this thing are the size of flashlights! What's the point of buying a 29" display if you have to sit three feet away to start enjoying it? Yeah, 29" is a lot of square footage, but you aren't gaining "square pixelage"... which is at least if not more important.

Re:Not too surprising...

[stratjakt]

Because its a display for HDTV, not a desktop monitor. How else do you explain the component inputs?

SyncMaster 172t

[ackthpt]

Samsung is the innovator of Display Technology, Their LCDS are top notch.

Bought a SyncMaster 172t, after a few reviews swayed my opinion. It's amazing alright, the only thing I'd ask is for the ability to get the brightness lower. I could literally read by the lowest brightness settings with standard wallpaper displayed. The brightness is so much at the lowest setting I am having some eyestrain problems and have been considering getting smoked plastic to hang over the screen. The lowest setting is more than adequate with daylight coming in a nearby picture window. 500:1 contrast is great, as black is pretty near black and it rocks for watching DVD's on, but who actually uses a brightness setting higher?

Re:SyncMaster 172t

[purduephotog]

wait till you've had it for a few thousand hours and the brightness starts to fall off. Then you'll slowly be increasing the brightness until, one day, poof.... you have to get a new one :)

Re:SyncMaster 172t

[Rolo Tomasi]

Did yours whistle? Mine emitted a kind of high-pitched whistle/whine. I called Samsung service, and they said it's normal. Yeah right, you could hear it from the next freakin' room! Also, Counter Strike was unplayable because of the heavy smearing. DVDs and desktop apps looked good, though. I disagree on your description of "black is near black", it's exactly the same murky grey as with other LCDs. It's a limitation of the technology itself. Anyway, I returned it for a refund the same day I bought it. Regarding the brightness: the CCFL lamps in TFTs generally have a half-life of about 50,000 hours, so expect to turn the brightness up in a few years.

Re:SyncMaster 172t

[KyleCordes]

I have two 191T's, and am extremely happy with them. I also leave the brightness turned down pretty far.

Feeding both with DVI, the image quality is far more sharp and steady than any CRT I've used.

Re:SyncMaster 172t

[ackthpt]

Feeding both with DVI, the image quality is far more sharp and steady than any CRT I've used.

With recent addition of an ATI AIW 9700 Pro I'm using DVI, too. Image is so sharp it'd be kinda nice to fuzz it a little, but there's probably a setting somewhere to do that. At 1280x1024 it's everything I've ever wanted.

Plus, the good thing about LCD is when they say 17" they mean it, where 17" CRT is usually an inch smaller display.

Harry Potter, Wizard, dead at 13

[Anonymous Coward]

I just heard some sad news on talk radio - High Practitioner of the Magik Arts Harry Potter was found dead in Hogfarts Majik Massage this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to thousands of children riding 'magic' plastic brooms from Target and Walmart while saying, "Wook aht me! I'm Hawy! I'm Hawy PODDAH!!". Truly an Britishy icon. He loved this Samsung monitor, even though the pixels were bigger than his friggin' head.

Optimal resolution?

[bob65]

"The optimal resolution while in PC use is 1024 x 768 @ 75Hz although the maximum is 1280 x 768 @ 75Hz." If this is an LCD screen, why is the optimal resolution not the maximum resolution? Or is it capable of actually scaling down signals that are larger than it can physically support?

Re:Yeah, but . . .

[Horny Smurf]

But CmdrTaco said it was impressive! Are you saying he juat adds inane and meaningless one-line comments, and doesn't actually read (or comprehend) the articles?

hdtv native resolution

[TFloore]

As so many other's have commented, it's not a computer monitor. It's a TV that happens to do double-duty as a computer monitor.

Now, my problem with it is more with the TV capabilities. Specifically, with the native resolution, interestingly enough.

It's max resolution is 1280x768 as a computer monitor. This tells you what the native TV resolution is, also, and I'm disappointed.

It's native HDTV resolution is 720p. (At least, I assume from the specs it is, I'm too disappointed to bother checking the product specs on the manufacturer's website, and this review doesn't mention native hdtv resolution specifically.)

In order for it to display a 1080i signal, it has to downsample it to 720p. I'm not terribly happy with that. Though I might, if forced, admit that most hdtv displays use 720p as their native display resolution, and either downsample 1080i or upsample 480p to display in the native format of the tv.

I'd rather have seen 2048x1280 max for the computer, and give native 1080i hdtv. But I suspect that would more than double the price. Probably *way* more than double the price.

Re:hdtv native resolution

[Jeffrey Baker]

You would have rather seen that? 1080 is shit shit shit. 720p looks entirely better. There is essentially no reason for 1080i to exist at all.

2048x1280 means 6.6 million thin film transistors, and if even one of those transistors is inoperable people like you will bitch and whine that the pixels are stuck on, and therefore LCDs are crap.

Samsung has made a nice compromise by producing an LCD monitor that is both huge and manufacturable. I'm not expecting the crowd here on small-minded-naysayers.com to appreciate it though.

Re:hdtv native resolution

[cens0r]

I was under the impression that most videophiles say 720p is acutally better looking than 1080i. I'm pretty sure it actually contains more information. But very few displays actually show everything in their native resolutions, there are always compromises. For instance the toshiba TV's use a native resolution of 1080i. They convert 720p - > 1080i. They also convert 480i (NTSC) and 480p (DVD) into 540p.

Re:hdtv native resolution

[badasscat]

You would have rather seen that? 1080 is shit shit shit. 720p looks entirely better. There is essentially no reason for 1080i to exist at all.

(spit-take)

There is no reason for 1920x1080 resolution to exist when we have 1280x720? What the heck?

That's like saying "there's no reason for anyone to run a PC at 1024x768; 640x480 is entirely better." Oh, you mean the interlacing? Get a real TV. It's like people who complain about an LCD's 60hz refresh rate. Since an LCD's pixels are never actually blank, it's meaningless (except for frame rates in games, but there's no HDTV signal with a frame rate higher than that so the point is moot here). HDTV interlacing is also essentially meaningless if you have a decent TV set. It's not the same thing as CRT-based interlacing on an NTSC set.

1920x1080 is significantly higher resolution than 1280x720. It's obvious when you look at the real numbers - more obvious than if you just look at "720p" vs. "1080i". And it's obvious if you see 1080i material vs. 720p material on a good HDTV set.

Re:hdtv native resolution

[Anonymous Coward]

I was under the impression that most videophiles say 720p is acutally better looking than 1080i.

Anybody who would use the absurdly pretentious term "videophile" probably would say that 720p looks better than 1080i. They're wrong, though.

I'm pretty sure it actually contains more information.

Nope. Neither in terms of pixels delivered per frame nor in terms of pixels delivered per unit time.

In terms of pixels per frame, 1080i is 1920 pixels by 1080 pixels. That's 2,073,600 pixels. 720 is 1280 by 720, or 921,600, less than half the pixels.

In terms of pixels per unit time, 1080i delivers sixty fields per second, or thirty frames per second. That's 62,208,000 pixels per second. 720 delivers 60 frames per second, or 55,296,000 pixels per second. In other words, 1080i delivers about 11% more pixels per unit time.

For instance the toshiba TV's use a native resolution of 1080i. They convert 720p - > 1080i.

That's not actually a lossy conversion. (Well, you lose a little sharpness, but no actual resolution.) Converting 1080i to 720p is a downconversion, but 720p to 1080i is an upconversion.

Re:hdtv native resolution

[Anonymous Coward]

1080 is shit shit shit. 720p looks entirely better.

You are out of your mind. The fact is that the vast majority of content shown on TV originated at 24 fps. This is true now, and will continue to be true. If it was captured on 1080/24p or on film, a 1080i transfer of that material will look visibly superior to a 720p transfer.

To see this, all you have to do is compare ABC's prime-time broadcasts to CBS's. Compare an episode of "The Practice" or "Alias" to "CSI" or "JAG." It's night and day. 1080i is visibly sharper.

Now, under certain circumstances content transferred to 1080i from 24p can show artifacts inserted by 3:2 pulldown, but these are invisible until you start looking for them. So don't look for them.

Re:hdtv native resolution

[Anonymous Coward]

The real resolution of 1080i is 960x540 - interlaced. Kind of like an interpolated scanner resolution, or buying a $19.95 fresnel lens on eBay to make your TV "wide screen".

It's obvious you've never looked at a display capable of these resolutions.

Take all the spit you want, ass.

Re:hdtv native resolution

[iainl]

1080i is a fudge resolution for CRTs, frankly. CRTs like interlaced signals, and I've yet to even see one that has either the horizontal bandwidth to be displaying anything like square pixels at that resolution, or will de-interlace it to 1080p.

LCD screens just plain don't do interlace, so 720p is the sensible option on them. Its also why my little 15" LCD TV deinterlaces everything, even when there is stuff I wouldn't want it to.

Relevant advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

The add in left-hand column,
"For all your small form factor needs..."

A terrible review

[Christ-on-a-bike]

What an awful, unreadable review! It's got no style, the punctuation and grammar are poor, and it's uninformative. This is why people would rather trust a dead tree review which costs money. Look at this:

Thereâ(TM)s no question in my mind that most of you, if it was possible, would love an LCD plopped in front of you rather than a conventional CRT which hogs up 50% of your desk space, well, what if it was not only an LCD but one which is larger than most of your mates home TV?

Blech. Great sentence. And then there's his propensity for redundant commentary:

under the mentioned goodies, within the full Styrofoam encasing, we find the LTM295W LCD monitor/TV. To furthermore ensure its safety we find it covered in wrapping.

Not to mention his toadying:

In closing I must commend Samsung on a job well done.

And the fact that in a thousand-word review, the display itself is reviewed in only a couple of sentences:

I am pleased to say that during extensive gaming in both games, we encountered no ghosting whatsoever.
...
In each of my selections, the video was extremely crisp and with the adjustability of the brightness, it was always more than bright enough with some to spare.

Chris Allen, don't give up the day job. I really hope this isn't your day job.

Re:A terrible review

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this really surprise you? It's particularly amusing to hang around console-gaming forums. There are legions of teenagers claiming to be editors for various websites. Most of them have the writing skills of a tennis shoe.

Much like the Indian who sheds a tear for the environment, I am the anal retentive white guy who sheds a tear for language skills.

Wrong Resolution!

[Ramjet350]

I don't know where they are getting there specs but straight from Samsung's website: Samsung Wide format Progressive scan 6.8M pixels 350 cd/m2 500:1 contrast ratio 170'/170' viewing angle 1900 X 1200 resolution Virtual Dolby sound Detachable speaker PC capable PIP & Double screen AV wireless solution(option)

fantastic!

[pixelated77]

Now i can see 3"x3" icons for little over $3K... a bargain at twice the price :)

Dude, try a T221 from IBM

[Hollinger]

If you want a REAL LCD, check out the IBM T221 Flat Panel.

Let's see... specs...

* 22.2-inch viewable image area
* 3840 x 2400 addressability (QUXGA-W)
* 9.2 million total pixels, 204 pixel density per inch (80 per cm)
* 16.7 million colors, 8-bit drivers
* Two models, one with a modified graphics adapter, and one with DVI cables for attachment to DVI graphics adapters
* Tilt stand
* Detachable Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA) standard mount size (100 mm) stand
* Available in stealth black

This sucker requires four DVI connectors. Check out the various reviews.

Re:Dude, try a T221 from IBM

[niko9]

Once you read the reviews, you will quickly find out that this is a specialty monitor. Even with the four DVI connectors utilized, your max refresh rate is 41Hz.

This thing is great for medical imaging and scientific applications. Even most high end consumer cards don't support it's native resolution.

Now IBM used to make the T210. 2048x1536, DVI, analog, composite and component, with built in PIP. Cheaper than a T221 (IIRC $3000) and much more suited for home use.

But, alas, it has been discontinued.

BTW, there's a T221 up for bid on IBM's eBay global financing site. Starting bid only $1999.00

Re:Dude, try a T221 from IBM

[Lazy Jones]

Iiyama has also a model with the same (IPS) panel: AQU5611DTBK. It's slightly cheaper, but still very pricey.

It only has a 50ms refresh rate though - not suitable for games or movies.

Re:Dude, try a T221 from IBM

[Exiler]

I thought a film (as in actual chemical film goodness) only ran at 30 or so FPS?

Re:Dude, try a T221 from IBM

[rmdyer]

If I play Doom 1 in 320x200 on this monitor will I get a headache?

-1 cent.

Re:Dude, try a T221 from IBM

[ctar]

d00d, This Sun 24" Flat Panel kicks your IBM's ass...(Also see on Sun's website)

Why doesn't somone do a review of this thing? And, where have you geeks been? This thing's at least a few months old...

Yes, you are.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll still take a 24 inch CRT any day of the week. I don't live in a car, I can spare the 1.5 cubic square feet of backspace that a CRT requires.

Poor review

[illumin8]

I'm not sure how much I would trust a review of a widescreen television from someone that doesn't even know how to enable 16:9 widescreen mode on their DVD player...

My god, if you look at the picture of the Monster's Inc. screenshot you can tell he is running it in standard 4:3 letterboxed mode from his DVD player, which is further stretching the image to 16:9 dimensions... Ugh!!!

Also, why not run the PC in 1280x768 mode as well? LCDs do not perform very well unless you run them in their native resolution. It would have been nice if he ran DScaler and scaled up some 480i sources as well.

Half of the benefit of one of these TV's is their ability to properly display the full picture information on 16:9 anamorphic DVDs.

Anonymous reader?

[Anonymous Coward]

An anonymous reader noted a review of the Samsung LTM295W. Quick excerpt "The contrast ratio of 600:1 is amazing, and takes the cake for being the highest Iâ(TM)ve seen to date here with the site.

I'm glad you didn't make this advertisement on Slashdot too obvious... :D

Any gaming-useful flats yet?

[praedor]

I would LOVE to dump my bulky CRT and save desktop realestate with a flat-screen (assuming the price is less than my mortgage) but I do like to play games now and again. Though I have looked at and priced some nice flat LCD screens I end up blowing it off because I worry about the response time with games.

Are there any flat screens out there yet that are actually not too bad to use when playing a game (RTCW, Unreal II, etc)? It seems a waste to go for a nice video card and then saddle oneself with an otherwise nice flat screen only to lose virtually all the benefits of your pricey video card.

And then there are those Dells I see advertised in commercials with flat screens. I keep thinking, "I KNOW they have good vid cards in there (for gaming) yet they are sticking a flat screen in the package too. What are they thinking?"

Am I wrong on this?

Re:Any gaming-useful flats yet?

[90XDoubleSide]

You just need to look at the response time when you buy an LCD; you want around 20ms to really eliminate streaking in games and video. Most cheap LCDs will have a 35-50ms response time, which is almost unwatchable; Samsungs are around 25ms, which is quite a lot better, and will work in most situations.

The best I've seen is Formac's Gallery 2010 Platinum with a response of 15ms; that's a really great display all-around.

Re:Any gaming-useful flats yet?

[Synn]

I have a Sony SDM-X82, which is a 18in LCD that runs native in 1280x1024 that works with games just fine.

Just get a LCD with something in the area of a 20ms response time.

Waiting for concave, curving screen.

[kobotronic]

I want something like this : (crappy lame untextured quick 3D doodle - a large monitor about the size of the Panasonic, but it should curve slightly inwards.

This would allow more monitors to be put side by side forming a giant panoramic screen. One benefit of such screens would be uniform eye-to-screen distance which should greatly reduce eye stress (since you won't have to refocus when looking at a different part of the screen.)

The actual optimal resolution of the screen should be determined by intended viewing distance : Individual pixels would still need to be discernable at a distance of about 3 feet, which makes me think the Panasonic resolution is only slightly under par.

The curving screen technology will almost certainly be available with the advent of OLED screens - perhaps even with semi-flexible, adjustable curvature.

Re:Waiting for concave, curving screen.

[Jeff DeMaagd]

The curving screen technology will almost certainly be available with the advent of OLED screens - perhaps even with semi-flexible, adjustable curvature.

I've seen ads for them a year ago. They are projection screens intended for CRT type projector. Supposedly they have adjustments that work well to make things look right on a curved screen. CRT projectors are great for high projected resolutions (1920x1080 possible on 9" tubes), but not so great on cost or brightness.

Re:Waiting for concave, curving screen.

[Suidae]

Individual pixels would still need to be discernable at a distance of about 3 feet,

Hey, keep those visible pixels away from me. If I want to see visible pixels, I'll use the zoom button. Give me a 2000dpi display and quit making GUIs think in pixels.

That would make you...

[zipwow]

Must...resist...obvious...comment.

That would make you the only one, I think...

-Zipwow

Samsung's Take on the Resolution Issue

[rlsnyder]

After reading the repeated posts on the lame resolution, I decided to see what Samsung has to say on their site. Well, basically, they DON'T advertise this thing as monitor. It's not even listed as a product on their site with other monitors.

It's a TV; they market it as the "Bedroom Home Theater" unit. So, the fact that the review keeps refering to it as a "Monitor" or a "Monitor/PC", and listed it on the Monitor section, is a little misleading. Sure, you can USE it as a monitor. I could also drag race a Winnebago, I suppose.

The PC Monitor market is not what the the manufacturer is targeting, so this whole "resolution is too crappy for a Monitor" thing is kinda irrelevant.

When will the price come down?

[El]

At #3139, it looks like this monitor exceeds the values of all 6 of my computers combined...

Re:When will the price come down?

[El]

It also costs twice as much as my 42" projection TV...

Re:FUXGA you!

[Anonymous Coward]

The "The Brady Bunch" title screen had nine sections, not four! Idiot!

Yeah, but the style was still the same... idiot!

Re:Yeah, but . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

is this from personal experience?

I assumed dick pills just made you walk around with a semi-stiffy all the time (so you look bigger when taking a piss, but aren't any bigger erect).

22ms response time == 45 fps...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not very good for games.

omigod omigod omigod...[NO CARRIER]

[billimad]

can you imagine a beawolf cluster of these?

You mean like this?

[mookoz]

http://www.asktog.com/starfire/starfireHome.html

This was a concept that Sun did back in 1995, long before Microsoft ripped it off for their Office of the Future stuff.

Re:You mean like this?

[kobotronic]

Yeah, something like that. The Starfire thing looks interesting, from the still on that page it appers they envision a desktop that also extends horizontally onto the physical desk, which may be somewhat useful, but I think a wireless tablet with a chunk of screen space on it would serve mostly the same purpose and provide a bit more mobility. I don't imagine many people would want a huge monolithic desk with everything locked into one position.

Btw, the movie "Toys" also had some gaming consoles with curving screens. The idea isn't that far out, it's rather obvious, but current CRT and LCD technology doesn't allow it yet. That's why I'm saving big investment in desktop screens until OLED starts to become a big player.

Re:You mean like this?

[mookoz]

Funny you mentioned the wireless chunk, that's in the video as well (there's a still of that if you dig deeper in the page). Actually the woman in the video holds the tablet in the air and moves it around, panning on a larger virtual screen. She also uses the tablet as a 3-D controller, tilting models and whatnot.

Wake Up Robb

[fm6]

This isn't a monitor, it's a TV.

But it's called a monitor... ;)

I basically agree with you. This is something I've been seeing for years: you take a fancy TV set, add some DVI and/or SVGA inputs, and try to sell it as a "monitor". Lots of people who don't know any better will buy it without thinking to look at the specs, particularly the resolution.

This is standard practice -- basically dishonest, but too comon to get your blood pressure up over. What does bother me is that Robb Malda, of all people, was lazy/sloppy enough to post this story without running it through his BS/Lameness filter. I mean, come on, Robb, not only are you helping hype a worthless product, you're linking a lame "review" that consists mainly of reguritating the installation manual!

Re:Wake Up Robb

[maeka]

Uh, they are called a monitor when they don't have a TV tuner built in. It has nothing to do with adding DVI and/pr SVGA to a TV. It has everything to do with NOT adding a tuner. Most high-end audio/video equipment is single purpose components - separate amps, separate pre-amps, separate tuners, ...

This is NOT a dishonest pratice - this is the way most people buying on that end of the market want it. There were monitors before PCs, and there will be monitors if PCs disappear.

Re:Wake Up Robb

[fm6]

Jeez, RTFA. Or Google "LTM295W". It's a fucking TV, the kind with a TV tuner.

Anyone else think that LCDs still suck?

[swordgeek]

I can't stand 'em. The image is always gritty and pastelly, no matter WHAT angle you observe at, and REGARDLESS of the quality. The very very very best LCDs cost almost as much as a plasma display, and not only do they not hold a candle to a plasma, they don't even stand up against a moderate CRT.

Yeah, space is nice. I'll get a low-depth 30" flat-surface CRT for less than a third the price, and have a better display to watch movies and games on.

Anyone else?

As a computer monitor, this is a piece of crap

[neves]

1024 X 768? Are you kidding? A monitor worth the money would give you at least 1600 horizontal pixel. It would allow to open at the same time two browser windows with 800px each. Great to compare information in two different web pages (as when you are buying for a new monitor).

A 29'' monitor with 1024x768 just give you bigger pixels. You can't have more information in your screen at the same time. You won't be more productive, just less money.

Re:As a computer monitor, this is a piece of crap

[Doppler00]

Yes, I'm super confused about what the author wrote.

He said:. "The optimal resolution while in PC use is 1024 x 768 @ 75Hz"

But the screen has a 16:9 aspect ratio, and a maximum of 1280x768, so why would anyone run it at 1024x768 on a PC??? This would just give an UGLY blurry image, or worse it would be in a small box with black bars around all 4 sides.

At a price of $3000, you'd be better off getting a plasma screen.

what's the use....

[the-build-chicken]

of having more realestate if it just means that you have bigger text/icons?

Re:Yeah, but . . .

[nmg196]

It's a television - not a monitor (hence the words "television" in the article and on the manual) but you can use it on a PC. 1024 is easily enough to view PAL TV (720x582 lines) or even the lower resolution American system (NTSC) which I think is effectively 640x480 maximum. No wonder TV looks fuzzy when you go to America - I hadn't realised there was such a difference until I checked the stats.

If you want a monitor, there are much higher resolution LCD displays available. It's only 21" but the Eizo L985EX is very well reviewed.

Pixel size !

[buserror]

1280x768 on 29" ? what a joke!

Only good thing I can think of is that if you have a dead pixel you can replace it yourself with a screwdriver, while drunk!

My Apple Cinema Display 23" 'native' (non stretched) is 1920x1200; now thats desktop real estate.

Re:Yeah, but . . .

[rkz]

he was getting a blowjob, see my sig for details

You know what my girlfriend said when I got this?

[imaniack]

oh... your monitor is SO big!

Project!

[Nihilanth]

At that price point, why not just get an LCD projecter? Many of them have excellent contrast ratios, and can accept input from everything the samsung display can. Additionally, the ability to see an image clearly at about 51' diagonal is pretty neat (especially if you spend a lot of time lurking around your local theatrespace).

What is he smoking?

[Stonent1]

This is the first monitor/TV of this size that Iâ(TM)ve worked on, which sports DVI and not RGB. The upshot is that youâ(TM)re getting better quality; the downside is that itâ(TM)s tagging a couple hundred dollars onto the final price.

Removing RGB means no need for a DAC chip to convert the analog signals into digital for the LCD. Since DVI can communicate directly with the screen basically. Wouldn't that make it cheaper?

Re:Yeah, but . . .

[ryanwright]

I once upgraded a user to a 17" monitor (back when 17" CRTs were expensive). She complained that it was "blurry" and "hard to see". I saw nothing wrong, but replaced the monitor anyway. Same complaint. A coworker, not knowing I'd already replaced her monitor, replaced it again. Same complaint.

We finally figured out the problem: We had switched her from 640x480 resolution on a 15" monitor to 800x600 on a 17". She couldn't see anything at 800x600. (!) How this woman drove to work every morning without killing everyone else on the road is beyond me.

We gently suggested she get her eyes checked. In the end, her screen resolution was set back to 640x480 and she was happy.

This Bad Boy is Better

[cheshiremackat]

Time to drool... The IBM T221 LCD Monitor is really the ultimate 'big screen' LCD...

A 22.2 inch wide LCD (not the biggest) but has a QUXGA-W or 3840x2400 resolution! The resolution is powered by 4(!) DVI interfaces... meaning 4 video cards... imagine 4 Quadro FX videocards powering this badboy...

there is an excellent review @ theinq... www.theinquirer.net/?article=8578

The only downside is the $8400 pricetag! :)

-CMK

Re:This Bad Boy is Better

[Anonymous Coward]

With a refresh of 40hz? Woop ti fucking doo!

Re:Yeah, but . . .

[gfody]

interesting, somebody read the article

maybe not

Sceptre is very nice

[jgoemat]

I found them on http://www.pricewatch.com. They had nice attributes and an excellent price, so I bought their 19" model (X9G I think) with 1280x1024 resolution. The picture is fantastic, I just wish it had a better response time, you can't really play first person shooters on it. I use it mainly for work though and have a 19" crt for gaming :)

Imagine

[Anonymous Coward]

your own personal drive in when using a beowulf cluster of these!

Re:Yeah, but . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

No wonder TV looks fuzzy when you go to America

Seen HDTV? No? And you probably won't for quite some time either since all you guys on the other side of the pond can't seem to agree on a standard. Meanwhile, we've got 4-5 broadcast HDTV channels in every major urban area... Nyah!

Confusion regarding resolution

[podom]

Samsung's international website lists the following specs for this model:

Wide format
Progressive scan
6.8M pixels
350 cd/m2
500:1 contrast ratio
170'/170' viewing angle
1900 X 1200 resolution
Virtual Dolby sound
Detachable speaker
PC capable
PIP & Double screen
AV wireless solution(option)

6.8 million clearly refers to sub-pixels. The US website, on the other hand, lists these:

HDV Monitor
Wide aspect ratio
Built-in NTSC tuner
DVD/DTV/PC capable
Split PIP with side-by-side feature
High resolution panel (1280 x 768)
600:1 contrast ratio
Brightness 450 cd/m?
20-watts audio total
Viewing angle 170(H)/170(V)
Response time: 22ms
Lamp life: 60,000hrs
Built-in swivel base

I'm wondering if they are selling two or more versions of this monitor in different places with the same name. I would much rather have the 1900 x 1200, myself.

Several online retailers I've found list the first set of specs. It makes me wonder if they're lazy and didn't do their homework, or if they're actually selling a higher resolution version of the panel.

-podom

I think I just came

[Anonymous Coward]

Nine million pixels in 3840 x 2400 QUXGA (?) full-color glory. CH-RIST I need to win the lottery.

What if ...

[Glonoinha]

Still, seeing this does draw out the 'what if's'.

Rather than hooking your computer up to a $3,100 29" television to do 1280x768 ... what if you were to mount four 18" LCDs in a 2x2 square on the wall. Granted you would have a 1.5" wide + (plus sign, made of the borders of the LCD) in the middle of the whole display but it would be a 36" diag display capable of 2560x2048 resolution, at a cost of about HALF (figure 4 at $400 if you catch them on sale.)

The only trick then becomes getting four video cards (most likely an AGP and a PCI card, both with dual video out, nVidia style) to cooperate and treat the displays as one giant virtual display in a 2x2 arrangement.

Not that I have an extra $2,000 laying around to experiment with four displays and two new video cards ... but if anybody has done anything along these lines it would be nice to hear about the experience.

Re:What if ...

[John_Booty]

That's an interesting idea. I can think of a better way to do it, though. One problem with LCD's is the viewing angle. Viewing angles are getting better all the time, but at normal viewing distance some of those 2x2 monitors would look like crud. Also, usually the wall is a little too far away from the edge of your desk where you sit... you usually want those screens about, what... 15 inches from the end of your nose? One more thing... it's a lot easier to swivel your head left/right than up/down... you'd get tired of looking at the upper two screens in the 2x2 grid real quickly.

Probably the most "ideal" multi-monitor arrangement is to have them side-by side right on your desk! This way you can angle them into sort of a shallow u-shape and tilt them upwards a bit so you're getting ideal viewing angle!

If you want to get fancy, get some VESA mounting arms for your monitors so they're floating above your desk and can be easily rearranged at will. :P
Ahahaha.. like either of us can afford this! I should stop thinking about this now... although I have two 18.1" LCD's side-by-side already... I shouldn't complain! (still paying off the credit cards though...) :P

Re:What if ...

[sql*kitten]

The only trick then becomes getting four video cards (most likely an AGP and a PCI card, both with dual video out, nVidia style) to cooperate and treat the displays as one giant virtual display in a 2x2 arrangement.

Dual and quad headed workstations are pretty common in financial services. We use 'em all the time in dealing rooms, where traders have got to have lots of charts and data up at once, and obviously the developers working on that software use them too.

I agree that 1280x768 is pretty feeble on a 29" display... I have a 15.1" display on my laptop that is perfectly comfortable at 1400x1050. This display isn't suitable for use on a workstation, maybe as a wall-mounted display for a room or something.

Re:What if ...

[jfisherwa]

You can remove the casing off of an LCD (much more safely than you could a CRT) and get that 1.5" gap down to 1/4" or less. :)

people are idiots

[onya]

the only thing lcd monitors have going for them as far as i am concerned is that they are easier to move around than crt monitors. this might be an issue if you're lugging a 21" screen to a lan, and if you're going to a lan you'll probably appreciate the wank factor of an lcd. but i'm not. and dan agrees.

Re:Yeah, but . . .

[dammad]

It's a TV.. If you want a monitor check out the 241MP Silver. It includes a modular tuner AND 1920x1200 resolution with 500:1 contrast.. http://www.samsungusa.com/cgi-bin/nabc/product/b2c _product_detail.jsp?eUser=&prod_id=241MP-Silve r

I got you beat

[Anonymous Coward]

Shit, my 15" laptop LCD does 1600x1200.

This monitor is a POS for sure. 1280x1024 MAX?! WTF?! Idiots.

Horrible picture

[heroine]

Notice the only photograph of the monitor displaying something is a blurry 640x480 thumbnail with the viewable area of the monitor taking up a small portion of the center of the picture. The reason is Samsung LCD panels suck. Their picture is real blurry. No consumer shopping network would ever show you what it really looks like.

At that native resolution...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

...I suspect so

If I read that right, the max resolution is 1280x768. That's very poor for a monitor that size. I run my 19" CRTs at home and work at 1152x864 and 1280x960. There's not much point having all that extra screen real estate and clarity if you don't have the resolution to match, so I'd be looking for something like 1600x1200 or 2048x1536 as a native resolution on beasties like this. 1280x768 is the worst of both worlds: it's low res so you can't display much but big screen so your eyes have to track a long way. :-(

I'll take one. Where do I send my first born?

[kramer2718]

no text

lame

[samantha]

It is a 29 inch monitor and can't manage even 1600x1200? Why on earth is this piece of krap even mentioned here?

Re:SyncMaster 172t (Whistle)

[ackthpt]

Nope, no whistle, no buzz, no whine. 3 stuck pixels, but the only time I notice them is when watching DVD's in Widescreen. For the money, what I got, I'm not complaining. No problem with smearing and black is blacker than any monitor I've ever seen (save those pretty cool ones Apple had ages ago, for the IIgs) Maybe the low setting I have the illumination on will extend that. My Sony Vaio PCG 505tx (on loan to friends in Oz) was ~4 years old and still going strong.

granted the monies is there...

[dimmerLight]

...LCD data projector and a decent 21" monitor would be a better buy instead. If you sit in front of this Samsung the pixel is probably as big as your nostril. The pixel pitch you need for your dollar, unless your mama monkeys the money, is less than 0.3., which means 1280/1024 goes as far as 19 inch, 21 inch being the absolute maximum for that resolution. Even better, 1600/1200 would have to go with the 21 inch and up. The rule is for a dollar per pixel width you can get a very nice monitor to get your job done.

In lieu of TV there's nothing better than (sony) data lcd projector (for 400 bucks used, 2K and some new) and the screen size depends on how tall your house is and it serves good hooked up to either playstation or xbox (either for games or DVD). Say hello to Halo.

(I kinda like the idea of working on the couch and staring at a monitor 10 feet away, fooling myself that it's just a TV and my keyboard just a tray, but my lap is not big enough for all my stuff).

Re:Yeah, but . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a TV that you can attach a computer to. I thought that was pretty obvious.

Re:Yeah, but . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll take NTSC's slightly lower resolution to get a 60 Hz refresh. PAL's 50 Hz refresh is too flickery for me. Gives me a headache.

60Hz, pfft.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, to continue the pissing contest:

Good thing most new PAL TV's sold are 100Hz then.

Re:60Hz, pfft.

[Anonymous Coward]

The only think that "hertz" after buying a PAL tv is your wallet. All that VAT and tarrif bollocks, just to watch Benny Hill!

As the scotsman said..

[StikyPad]

If it ain't plasma.. it's crap. Or was that scottish...? I'm sure the Scots would have used plasma though.

Re:As the scotsman said..

[Valdrax]

If it ain't plasma.. it's crap. Or was that scottish...? I'm sure the Scots would have used plasma though.

And if it is plasma, it's burned-in crap. Seriously, you don't want to use a plasma screen as a monitor. While they have amazing contrast ratios and screen resolutions, the burn-in problem is an ever-present one, even if you're using it as a TV. The little logos that stations use to identify themselves frequently cause problems for plasma screen owners.

Review of its kid brother

[Daniel Rutter]

I checked out the (somewhat more practical, and higher resolution) SyncMaster 172T the other day. The review's here. Among a large number of other things, I actually had a go at measuring the contrast ratio.

Them weird abbreviations

[bazmonkey]

(Yes, this is off-topic)

Some abbreviations are just simple: IBM, DEC, SCO...


Some abbreviations make words: Laser, GNOME, RAM...


Some make you think "What weirdo is out there that thought up THAT?": HURD, QUXGA-W.

Wow!

[The Spoonman]

Imagine how clear the pr0n would look!

Someone had to say it....

So?

[RhettLivingston]

I really don't understand why everyone wows these things. I use two 19" monitors at 1600x1200 with small fonts. They cost me $250 a piece because I had to find monitors with a good enough dot pitch to truly display 1600x1200. Every once in a while I have to focus one of them, but other than that, they are crisp and clear. So, for $500, I have 3200x1200 resolution and reasonable enough surface area that I never have to print anything out (which is good because I've never bothered to buy a printer).

I've looked at flat panels as recently as a week ago and the best price I could find on a 1600x1200 flat panel was about $1300. So, the price ratio is still running about 5:1. For what? Not having to focus as often? Greater distortion (I'm one of the 30% of the population that sees flat surfaces as curved at the edges)? To save about 3 square feet of space that only costs $80 a square foot?

As near as I can tell, its still nothing but coolness that is selling these things. The sad part is that several very promising developments including one that promised 5" deep CRTs have been set aside for the joy of having stuck on pixels and a lighter wallet.

When they start printing displays in rolls at 300DPI (IBM research has proved that a denser DPI does more to save the eyes than higher refresh rates), maybe we'll have something. Until then, I wish they'd get away from this path. Its getting harder and harder to find CRTs with the proper dot pitch. I think they have been reducing them so that the LCDs don't look so bad.

I am not too interested...

[earthforce_1]

Until I see an LCD display with higher resolution that the 21" Sony CRT I am typing this on. I am currently running 2048x1536. Anything less than 1600x1200 absolutely does not cut it in my books, perhaps because I was using mac classic with the teeny low res B&W screen for so long.

Re:Yeah, but . . .

[Sycraft-fu]

NTSC is speced at 720x480, or at least that's what NTSC DVDs are stored at.

Re:Yeah, but . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

There are several 20.1" displays currently available that have a native resolution of 1600x1200, some of them at semi-affordable prices.

1280x1024 is not a particularly useful resolution, it isn't even the same aspect ratio as other resolutions. If the display itself is fixed to have square pixels, some full-screen programs will show up wrong, if not, everything else will show up wrong.

touch-screen cybersex toy

[Anonymous Coward]

imagine a touch-screen THAT big ...
woah! here we come cyber-sex.
just lay it flat on the floor and then lie ontop of it ;)

Specs are worthless...

[Anonymous Coward]

... unless he actually verified them.

For example the reaction time is often simply false.

PowerBook

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, when does Apple release the 29" PowerBook?

Who is this for?

[aonaran]

What is the target consumer group for this product?
It has to be the lowend flatpanel HDTV market.

At a max resolution of 1280x768 and optimum of 1024x768 (??? on a 16:9 screen ewww!) the resolution is too low for large screen PC users those resolutions are ok for 17" but if I was buying anything bigger I'd expect better resolutions than that. ... not to mention .49 pixel pitch? you need to be sitting back from this monitor to be comfortable with that, so this is definitely a TV grade monitor.

I agree.

[Futurepower(R)]

I agree it is better to sit farther away.

Sceptre doesn't make the glass

[Crazy Eight]

They wrap OEM panels with the support electronics and enclosure. That's how you're able to get a good monitor for a good price.

Panasonic

[Tighe_L]

True Panasonic does not make computer monitors, but their LCD modules and LCD TVs are top notch. The LCD in this artilce is primarly a TV set, not a computer monitor. That is why I puting Panasonic in second place.

I think that many manufactures use Panasonic LCDs in their monitors.