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!)
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 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.
PriceWatch has them listed at around $3200.
Never, ever lose a file again. Ever.
obviously, you're not a girl.
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
Checkout projectorcentral.com for prices/info and the Under $5k Digital Projector forum for more detailed info.
'He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot.' - Douglas Adams
The Dell 3200MP is 1024x768, and $2000USD list price. Mine should be turning up tomorrow :)
The contrast ratio is 600:1? It better be high- the pixels on this thing are the size of flashlights! What's the point of buying a 29" display if you have to sit three feet away to start enjoying it? Yeah, 29" is a lot of square footage, but you aren't gaining "square pixelage"... which is at least if not more important.
They're a little melty, but damn are they exquisite!
Bought a SyncMaster 172t, after a few reviews swayed my opinion. It's amazing alright, the only thing I'd ask is for the ability to get the brightness lower. I could literally read by the lowest brightness settings with standard wallpaper displayed. The brightness is so much at the lowest setting I am having some eyestrain problems and have been considering getting smoked plastic to hang over the screen. The lowest setting is more than adequate with daylight coming in a nearby picture window. 500:1 contrast is great, as black is pretty near black and it rocks for watching DVD's on, but who actually uses a brightness setting higher?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Actually, the refresh rates are not completely meaningless for an LCD screen, considering both CRT and LCD screens do need to update more or less frequently to show what has change. That figure can be misleading though, once taken the reponse rate of the LCD screen into account. This screen has a 22 ms reponse rate which can translate into about 45 Hz, if I may say so. Once these two figures are put together, a better grasp of how well the screen reponds can be realized.
Please direct all bug reports to
I sit behind two CRT's at work and used to have my home desk crowded by a 16" Sun monitor. The real estated, if not the power bill or adjustability/versatility is a major selling point. They're also very sharp and do fine for games, those like the Samsung SyncMaster 172t with faster refresh rates. Considering 17" CRTs used to run ~700$US, LCD monitors are progressing downward in pricing nicely.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
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.
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)
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.
Now i can see 3"x3" icons for little over $3K... a bargain at twice the price :)
Unless you live in Japan and really need the room, I don't see why anybody would want an LCD monitor.
My workstation is dual-headed being comprised of a 17" LCD and a 19" CRT (ViewSonic VX700 (425US$) 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.
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.
"The guide is definitive, reality is frequently inaccurate."
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
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.
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.
The best I've seen is Formac's Gallery 2010 Platinum with a response of 15ms; that's a really great display all-around.
"Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
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.
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.
Too bad they don't come in 20s. You have to buy a case of 24
please excuse my apathy
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
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