Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
Trolling is a art,
I'm going to want to go a lot higher than 1280x768 on a 29 inch monitor.
It might make a nice TV though
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. ;)
'He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot.' - Douglas Adams
PriceWatch has them listed at around $3200.
Never, ever lose a file again. Ever.
No joke. I've got a pair of 19" Dell flatpanels that only run @ 1280x1024. Everything is still too big. I'd like to run them @ 1600x1200. A 29" monitor should run something even higher than that...
If you're only running it @ 1024, or even 1280, it's a waste.
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
Do their heads hurt when they watch tv? Or when they watch fluroescent light tubes? Or when they drive on a flood lighted road by night?
Don't be a stupid geek. Don't invent silly "I'm more sensitive than you and need more expensive equipment" mindsets which ultimately drives up the price for the rest of us.
And why would "IRC junkies" want big screens?
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
The 17" LCD screen I'm currently staring at has a resolution of 1280x1024 - going down to 1024x786 seems a bit of a drop for a 29" monitor. It's probably intended to also allow usage as a kiosk display from a computer, not to be used as a primary monitor.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
I think it's actually intended to be used as a TV/monitor. A 29" TV with 1024*768 resolution is not bad at all I think.
we've been trying to figure that one out for years now. Beautiful 15" 1600x1200 LCDs are available from a number of laptop manufacturers, but desktop LCDs that cost as much as the entire laptop are 20" and still only 1280x1024. Baffling.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Unless you live in Japan and really need the room, I don't see why anybody would want an LCD monitor.
My workstation is dual-headed being comprised of a 17" LCD and a 19" CRT (ViewSonic VX700 (425US$) 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.
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.
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.
Still, seeing this does draw out the 'what if's'.
... 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.)
... but if anybody has done anything along these lines it would be nice to hear about the experience.
Rather than hooking your computer up to a $3,100 29" television to do 1280x768
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
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer