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.
Am I the only one that couldn't make any sense of those specs?? Man technology moves fast! ;)
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
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.
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
Who knew abstract numbers could be so sexy?
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!)
Am I the only one drooling over this monitor?
I have often regretted my speech, never my silence.
-Xenocrates
Unless you live in Japan and really need the room, I don't see why anybody would want an LCD monitor.
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,
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!
They cost over $3000(usd), pricegrabber link
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.
That's gotta have some real big pixels. My 23" Apple LCD has 1920x1200!
If you looked at the article, you would see the lowest price is about $3100.
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.
What did the walrus say to the penguin? "No soap, radio."
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 =/
I'm going to want to go a lot higher than 1280x768 on a 29 inch monitor.
It might make a nice TV though
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''.
The response time isnâ(TM)t anything to snuff at...
Uh, exactly what kind of porn did you test this monitor with?!
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
I think a careful examination of the practical longevity [...] requires more features, not more inches.
Must...resist...obvious...comment.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
Just make the fonts smaller.
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.
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.
Corporate Gadfly
Jonathan Archer: the most beaten up Enterprise captain in Star Trek history
PriceWatch has them listed at around $3200.
Never, ever lose a file again. Ever.
obviously, you're not a girl.
Ah, well in that case I'll buy 20.
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.
"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?
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
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.
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.
Quality, performance, value; you get only two, and you don't always get to pick.
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".
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.
Developers: We can use your help.
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
am i the only one who thinks these things cost too much?
you could save yourself $2800 by getting a 19'' and moving your chair 3 inches closer to the screen.
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
That's simply stupid !
why not 1600x1200 or more 2048x1536 !
1280x768 I can have that with a 15 inch 200$ LCD Monitor!
Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
They purchased LCD enlargement from some spammer, but they didn't read the warning that the LCD may not look so good afterward.
Rod Taylor
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.
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.
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!!!
Please direct all bug reports to
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 for a big display of a computer screen. Buy a cheap 1024 x 768 LCD and sit closer. Pixels are everything.
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.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
At $3100 this 29'' is way overpriced. You'd get a much better deal out of the 42'' Gateway Plasma TV.
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.
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.
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!)
Is it
Next->
[ADVERTISEMENT]
me, or
Next->
are these
[ADVERTISEMENT]
Next->
review sites
Next ->
[ADVERTISEMENT]
really annoying?
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.
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.
They're a little melty, but damn are they exquisite!
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?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
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.
Please direct all bug reports to
"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?
You realise that's several times higher res than most printed material, right?
I'd be happy if we got 300 dpi monitors.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
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.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
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.
when religion is no longer the opiate of the masses, governments will resort to real opiates.
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?
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?
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)
Now i can see 3"x3" icons for little over $3K... a bargain at twice the price :)
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.
Michael C. Hollinger
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.
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
Yes. Printed materials are too low res, and I'm a perfectionist. Antialiasing annoys me. It makes things look blurred.
Stick Men
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?
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
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.
Must...resist...obvious...comment.
That would make you the only one, I think...
-Zipwow
I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
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.
At #3139, it looks like this monitor exceeds the values of all 6 of my computers combined...
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
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?
Not very good for games.
can you imagine a beawolf cluster of these?
This was a concept that Sun did back in 1995, long before Microsoft ripped it off for their Office of the Future stuff.
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!
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?
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
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.
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
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.
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.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
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.
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.
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.
he was getting a blowjob, see my sig for details
There is no god
oh... your monitor is SO big!
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
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).
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?
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.
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
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.
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 :)
Too bad they don't come in 20s. You have to buy a case of 24
please excuse my apathy
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
We're wanted men. I have the death sentence in 12 systems!
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
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.
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
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.
...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. :-(
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
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.
no text
http://yetanotherpoliticalrant.blogspot.com
It is a 29 inch monitor and can't manage even 1600x1200? Why on earth is this piece of krap even mentioned here?
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.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
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).
If it ain't plasma.. it's crap. Or was that scottish...? I'm sure the Scots would have used plasma though.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
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.
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.
You don't need Geeksintraining if you're on Slashdot.
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.
(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.
The only think that "hertz" after buying a PAL tv is your wallet. All that VAT and tarrif bollocks, just to watch Benny Hill!
Imagine how clear the pr0n would look!
Someone had to say it....
Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
http://www.workorspoon.com
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.
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.
My rights don't need management.
NTSC is speced at 720x480, or at least that's what NTSC DVDs are stored at.
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.
Stick Men
What is the target consumer group for this product?
... 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.
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.
I agree it is better to sit farther away.
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.
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?
Did you know that "FTW" ("for the win") is a direct translation of "Sieg Heil"?
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
Did you know that "FTW" ("for the win") is a direct translation of "Sieg Heil"?
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.