Budget LCD Monitor Round-up

An anonymous reader writes "FiringSquad has just posted a new 8-monitor budget LCD round-up. It starts off like a traditional review, but their discussion of color accuracy is the best I've ever seen."

Comments

DVI vs Analog

[ackthpt]

It starts off like a traditional review, but their discussion of color accuracy is the best I've ever seen."

Sure, but like their discussion of DVI I do have at least one issue regarding analog-DVI. I have a DVI monitor, which also works on analog and noticed the difference when hooking up the DVI cable (when I got my ATI AIW wizzo graphics card) Analog offers a softer image which may be more desireable. With DVI I can tell subtle shades from pixel to pixel, tiny as they are at 1280x1024, yet with the softening of lossy D/A/D conversion it's far less obvious. The only real downside being fuzzier letters. Letters already can be a pain because of the anti-aliasing attempt to split a 1 pixel vertical line between two columns of pixels, especially if you're like me and run at high res and small fonts.

I'm still using a Samsung 172t (w/500:1 contrast ratio, w00t) 2.5 years old and only 3 stuck pixels, no pixel smearing, either. Only downside is I can no longer pile things on top of a monitor.

Those images would have been slightly more convincing without the severe jpeg compression, BTW.

should have used a nice picture like this

Re:DVI vs Analog

[imsabbel]

So you like blurry images.

Be happy, with Longhorn you can apply a gausian blur pixel shader on you whole desktop, than everything will be fina again :)

Re:DVI vs Analog

[Waffle Iron]

The only real downside being fuzzier letters. Letters already can be a pain because of the anti-aliasing attempt to split a 1 pixel vertical line between two columns of pixels, especially if you're like me and run at high res and small fonts.

Maybe your analog LCD input isn't synched properly. Mine has an auto-synch button, but it only synchs perfectly when I'm displaying a large bitmap of alternating white and black 1-pixel vertical stripes that I made just for that purpose.

Without the bitmap, after auto-synching the fonts look "good", but there's still room for improvement. Using the bitmap makes a big difference on the sharpness of the fonts when using sub-pixel sampling. The display tends to drift over time, and I have to resynch it every day or two.

(If you pull up a large stripe or herringbone bitmap, you'll also see aliasing and "dancing" patterns unless the LCD clock is perfectly locked.)

Re:DVI vs Analog

[DaveJay]

Analog offers a softer image which may be more desireable.

For me personally, this trend towards anti-aliased fonts is just making it harder for me to focus on small letters. I run a DVI monitor, and my wife runs a much newer and more expensive VGA monitor (both LCDs, natch) and I'd much rather use mine than hers for the same reason that the parent suggests it should be the other way around.

But then, I'm an old man in my 30s, so maybe my eyes are just bad...

Re:DVI vs Analog

[iabervon]

Anti-aliased stroked fonts just aren't as good as a good bitmapped font. On the other hand, they're a whole lot better than a bad bitmapped font or a non-anti-aliased stroked font. If you need to scale fonts, the current trend is a great improvement; otherwise, it's worse.

Re:DVI vs Analog

[paulius_g]

I've bought many LCD monitors for my custommers. To tell you the truth, I've noticed no difference in contrast or colors. Everything is cristal clear.

On the other hand, EMI interface may be causing ghosting or blurring on other monitors. At my school, we have many CRT monitors with ghosting issues.

Re:DVI vs Analog

[Idarubicin]

Only downside is I can no longer pile things on top of a monitor.

Sure...but now you can pile stuff behind the monitor. There's a good cubic foot or more of volume that you can fill with anything you want--and it has less gravitational potential energy, so it's less likely to fall and crush you.

Re:DVI vs Analog

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you happen to have any example or test images I can try?

Re:DVI vs Analog

[ackthpt]

Sure...but now you can pile stuff behind the monitor. There's a good cubic foot or more of volume that you can fill with anything you want-

Which is where my subwoofer resides.

-and it has less gravitational potential energy, so it's less likely to fall and crush you.

Where's your sense of adventure?

Re:DVI vs Analog

[Doppler00]

With DVI I can tell subtle shades from pixel to pixel, tiny as they are at 1280x1024, yet with the softening of lossy D/A/D conversion it's far less obvious.

You mean DVI reproduces the image so accurately, that it actually makes out detail that is ACTUALLY in the original image that you would not like to see?

If you wanted a "softer" image, I'm sure there are probably some video card settings you could probably tweak to emulate this. Or, you could run at a resolution slightly lower than the native resolution, thus forcing the LCD to attempt to interpolate and blur the picture.

My main issue with analog connections to LCD's isn't so much the blur, it's the ghosting that I see around high contrast images. I still think it's more a matter of ignorance that people don't connect the DVI cable or buy one. Same thing with people using floppy drives instead of USB memory.

Re:DVI vs Analog

[Grab]

Alternatively you can smear your screen with Vaseline...

Grab.

Re:DVI vs Analog

[KozmoStevnNaut]

If you're using Windows, open Paint, go to Image->Attributes, put in the correct resolution and select Black And White instead of Colour.

Now, one of the colours you can select should be a black and white checkerboard (6th from the right on the bottom, I think). Use the Fill With Colour tool and use it on the image, and there you have it: a pixel-perfect black and white checkerboard, which is perfect for adjusting analogue-connected LCDs.

Now you just need to display it full-screen. Allow me to recommend IrfanView.

Re:DVI vs Analog

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks! Useful when using monitors other than my own too.

FP

[rudeboy1]

I still think CRTs are better, ESPECIALLY for the money, and the clarity, color, etc.

Comment & mirror

[winkydink]

I agree, this is an excellent article and really clarified a lot of things for this CRT user.

Oh yeah, there's a mirror of the full article (no missing pages, I swear!) here

Re:Comment & mirror

[molnarcs]

I created a journal entry for would be LCD buyers where I might answer some further questions about various LCD technologies, give some tips about settings for linux/unix, etc. (I'm the maintainer of a site that collects information about various models: links to reviews, the panel used in them (there are far fewer panel manufacturers than monitor vendors) etc.)

what to look for.

[Kaamoss]

Personally, if I'm getting a monitor I want it to be dvi and have a very fast response rate. I think that the majority of people buying monitors have no idea what most specs even mean. Tom's hardware had a good article on this not too long ago http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20040226/ Doubt most of the slashdot crowd would find much new information there, but perhaps some will.

Someday, someday....

[otis wildflower]

... Xinerama for Xorg will work properly with OpenGL, so I can buy 3 cheap monitors and have TONS of FPS peripheral vision and GL flying toaster room.

Re:Someday, someday....

[Anonymous Coward]

so I can buy 3 cheap monitors and have TONS of FPS peripheral vision and GL flying toaster room.

1994 called, they want their flying toasters back.

color accuracy

[Anonymouse Cownerd]

where color accuracy really is important, people still use CRT. you just cant get pure black on an LCD screen, and most colors are just washed out compared to CRT.

it's just how the technology is.

Re:color accuracy

[tverbeek]

And yet Apple, whose systems are dramatically preferred by chromatically-fascist graphic designers, sells CRTs only to their low-end eMac customers. I use a CRT and an Apple LCD side by side on my PowerMac, and I find the color reproduction on them roughly comparable, at least for my purposes. Having the appropriate color calibration profiles installed in the OS makes at least as much difference for accurate reproduction as the type of display/printing technology used.

Re:color accuracy

[doombob]

Ah yes, and of course there's also the fuzzy feeling you get inside knowing that you're bathing in the warm glow of so much more electromagnetic radiation.

Re:color accuracy

[That's Unpossible!]

FYI calibration profiles aren't something unique to MacOS. I've had these available to me on most of my high-end cards on my Windows machine for years. However, as I don't work in the graphics/print industry, I've never needed to use them.

Re:color accuracy

[molnarcs]

That should be moderated as disinformative. What you claim is no longer true. True, you'll never get perfect black on cheap tft monitors with tn+film panels. But you'll get very good black - as good as your better-than-average CRT - on a samsung 193p (or dell 1905fp, which has the same panel).

It all depends on what kind of panel type it has.

• TN+film panels: they are the fastest, and on the new lesser than 12ms response time monitors you'll not see any difference b/w a crt and a tft. Downside is that they don't have good blacks (although there there are some good quality tn+film panels that are not that bad) and they have a narrower viewing angles.
• S-IPS panels (APPLE uses S-IPS exclusively) - they are slower than tn+film, but have wider viewing angles and better blacks (although they take on a bluish/violet tint viewed form extreme angles).
• MVA/PVA good viewing angles, good color reproduction, good blacks, slowest (not good for FPS games). PVA is Samsung's own variant of MVA, and it is supposed to be better than traditional MVA panels, but lately various panel manufacturers (AU Optronics, Fujitsu) improved on MVA - Premium-MVA, S(uper)-MVA etc.

Here is some info about the type of panels some monitors have.

Re:color accuracy

[jon3k]

Not even close. The CRT they tested, which, admittadly isn't the greatest of the great, had a contrast ratio of (now sit down for this one) ...

9,415 to 1.

Yeah. Read it again. Nine thousand, four hundred and fifteen, to one.

A great LCD is in the 800:1 range.

Re:color accuracy

[SoTuA]

whose systems are dramatically preferred by chromatically-fascist graphic designers

who buy PowerMac G5's with NO MONITOR and then proceed to hook up whatever satisfies their chromatic fascism.

Re:color accuracy

[floodo1]

sorry d00d but "chromatically-fascist graphic designers" use color calibrated crts

Re:Color Accuracy

[SilentScream]

I recently purchased one of those ColorPlus Spyders, too. Then I ran into this comparison of some of the monitor calibrators currently on the market:

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/monitor_calibra tion_tools.htm

Dry Creek Photo concludes that it is better than nothing (and better than visual calibrators like Adobe Gamma) but the worst of the bunch. The newer Colorvision "Spyder2" is apparently much better and still under $200.

There are even better calibrators from Monaco and GretagMacbeth but the price tag is higher, too.

Re:color accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

This is because chromatically-fascist graphics designers are also likely to scoff at Apple monitors, and opt for more expensive models.

Still, the fact of the matter is that most LCDs can't display more than 24bit color (not that this is a problem for most people). When you're working on 48bit production graphics you get blurries from the downsampling.

Re:color accuracy

[John Miles]

Perception is logarithmic, though. That is 30 dB of dynamic range versus 40 dB -- not such an impressive ratio.

Personally, I don't understand how contrast measurements are meaningful on CRTs. Not many people use them in a totally-dark environment, so their visual dynamic range will be severely curtailed by room light reflecting off the phosphor. What makes reflected room light somehow better than LCD backlight bleedthrough?

In any real-world environment, the best LCDs are much nicer to work with than the best CRTs. I've spent thousands of hours in front of both.

Re:color accuracy

[rapidweather]

I'm using a 17 inch Dell Ultrasharp, and find that it does as good a job as I need. I have an old ADI Microscan 4V that I use for production work, but wish I could use this Dell more often. I share that box, so can't get to use it 24/7. I note that Dell charges $349.00 today for this monitor, I paid much more for it a year or so ago when I bought it with the Dell system. Have not noticed any dead pixels. The colors look very good to me.

Re:color accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

...or color-calibrated LCDs, dood. And whether they use CRTs or LCDs, when it actually matters, they don't trust either; that's what printed proofs are for.

Re:color accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

I happen to have mod points today and was going to follow your advice. However, I couldn't find the 'Disinformative' choice. Is that something that the editors have recently removed? :-)

Re:color accuracy

[imsabbel]

Well, but they only test ansi contrast, which is USELESS.
Sure your monitor is dark if nothing is displayed...
but how dark are black areas near bright ones? The phosphor happily emmits in all directions and pulls down the actually usable contrast to 300-800:1

Re:color accuracy

[jon3k]

Personally, I don't understand how contrast measurements are meaningful on CRTs. Not many people use them in a totally-dark environment, so their visual dynamic range will be severely curtailed by room light reflecting off the phosphor. What makes reflected room light somehow better than LCD backlight bleedthrough?

Don't forget, room lighting has the same affect on an LCD. So, the higher contrast and better (best?) color reproduction you can start out with, the better.

In any real-world environment, the best LCDs are much nicer to work with than the best CRTs. I've spent thousands of hours in front of both.

As have I, and I disagree entirely. Actually I don't know if I have *thousands* of hours staring at an LCD. Easily hundreds, thousands may be stretching it for me personally.

Re:color accuracy

[molnarcs]

Well, I wouldn't mod it down - what gp said is a common stereotype associated with lcd monitors - so I don't think he or she had an evil intent or something :) - that stereotype was true a few years ago, but no longer. :)))

Re:color accuracy

[Sycraft-fu]

Well here's something for you to try: Get a CRT that's of a comparable price and see how it looks. Looking on Apple's site, looks like their 20" LCD is going for $1000. Ok, so for that money (less actually) you can get yourself a Lacie Electron Blue 22" CRT (20" viewable). Go and compare those two, and tell me which one has better color. For an even better demonstration, get a hardware calibrator and calibrate both first.

Yes, a high end LCD will beat out a low end CRT, espically if said CRT is old (they fade in brightness) but currently, CRTs can't be beat for accurate and vibrant colour.

In fact if you look in teh displays part of Apple's site, you'll notice they sell Mitsubishi Diamond Pro monitors, which are on par with the Lacie for quality (Lacie uses NEC tubes).

There's no question that LCDs, particularly some types of them, give much better colour than they used to, but at a given price point, you'll still get better colour from a CRT. Up to you to decide if the other LCD advantages are worth it.

Re:color accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

The 20" Apple Display is a low-end panel. If you want to compare LCD to CRT, try a 23" Apple Display.

Don't forget, LaCie are also making the LCD equivalent of their Electron Blue: http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?pid=1050 3

Re:Color Accuracy

[gbulmash]

I didn't see the lower-end consumer model mentioned. They did say that the Spyder 1 wasn't that good, while the Spyder 2 was better, but I'm not aware that the ColorPlus is a re-branded Spyder 1.

Do you have a reference that states that explicitly? A quick googling around hinted it might be, but I didn't find anything conclusive.

- G

Re:color accuracy

[John Miles]

Don't forget, room lighting has the same affect on an LCD. So, the higher contrast and better (best?) color reproduction you can start out with, the better.

No, not really; the unlit areas of my LCD look black with a little bit of diffuse light reflecting from the anti-glare fascia. The unlit areas of a CRT look... gray.

Black is better than gray.

Of course, in a dark room, the CRT does indeed look darker, and its limited light-emission capaciity is no longer a handicap compared to the much-brighter LCD. But I don't work in a cave, so the LCD wins the real-world contrast competition.

As have I, and I disagree entirely. Actually I don't know if I have *thousands* of hours staring at an LCD. Easily hundreds, thousands may be stretching it for me personally.

Most people who prefer CRTs over LCDs seem to be those who have used nice CRTs and crappy LCDs. Certainly, I would not care to use nine out of ten LCD models on the shelf at CompUSA, myself. And I do know one guy who has some sort of persistence-of-vision issue that makes LCDs look terrible to him, though. It may not be possible to make everyone happy with an LCD, but for most people, they are the best choice.

Re:color accuracy

[jon3k]

but for most people, they are the best choice

Huh? What? For most people its the best choice? Paying two, three, four times as much as a CRT is the best choice for "most people" ? I know you can't specifically be speaking about the quality of the monitor either. You do realize that CRT monitors have anti-glare coatings (or something) nowadays, correct?

Re:Color Accuracy

[rezonat0r]

ColorPlus indeed uses the original Spyder hardware, which is quite dated and did not perform very well even when initally released.

The new Spyder2 hardware is much better, about 5x as sensitive, and can be had for $150 (list $199). Very accurate, works great.

Re:color accuracy

[John Miles]

Huh? What? For most people its the best choice? Paying two, three, four times as much as a CRT is the best choice for "most people" ? I know you can't specifically be speaking about the quality of the monitor either.

I don't think those price ratios are realistic in today's market. The best CRT I've used was the 21" Hitachi SuperScan Supreme, which cost me about $2300 circa 1995. I flew to Comdex that year specifically to find the best monitor on the market, price no object, and the Hitachi ended up on top.

The best LCD I've used is the $800 Samsung 213T on my desk now. You can spend more for a bigger display, but it won't offer higher visual quality, just more pixels.

I haven't priced high-end 21" CRT monitors for several years, but I would be utterly amazed if an $800 21" CRT is anything but junk. They don't have the economies of scale they once enjoyed, and CRT foundries have been going the way of buggy-whip factories for several years now.

You do realize that CRT monitors have anti-glare coatings (or something) nowadays, correct?

Yep. They do a good job on specular reflections (as do the outer layers of an LCD), but they do nothing for diffuse light. Gray still looks gray.

Re:Color Accuracy

[SilentScream]

Check out this product page at Colorvision.

http://www.colorvision.com/profis/profis_view.jsp? id=281

Click on the tab that says "Compare" and you will see that the ColorPLUS package includes the "Spyder" hardware and the other packages include the "Spyder2" hardware.

If you look over the photos you can see the sensors have a different physical designs.

The software package they tested the Spyder with was apparently different than the software in the ColorPLUS bundle but I strongly suspect that the weaknesses are more related to the sensor than the software.

Re:color accuracy

[jon3k]

I've got a 22" Viewsonic P220fb at home, and a pair of Compaq P920 19's at work where I'm posting this from.

Here's the viewsonic: http://www.viewsonic.com/products/desktopdisplays/ crtmonitors/proseries/p220f/

I paid about $320 for it, refurbeed, in perfect shape (retail is $650, as noted on the site).

Absolutely gorgeous monitor, and I haven't seen an LCD that can come close. And yes, I actually do work in the dark. All monitors obviously look much better in the dark. When I try it at work, people just think I'm weird. :)

Re:color accuracy

[John Miles]

That Viewsonic does look like a great solution for a low-light work environment. I'm surprised they're that cheap. It doesn't make sense for large CRTs to have come down that far in price, unless I'm missing something. (scratches head)

Re:color accuracy

[jon3k]

Looking at the stats, the Samsung 213T looks like a very nice LCD monitor. Still only a 500:1 contrast ratio (versus several thousand for a good CRT, and I have no idea how much the lighting argument can really play into this). It will also only do 1600x1200, and only 16.7M colors? That seems odd to me. Is that 24bit color?

And remember, you can pick up two (2) p220fb's, refurb'ed, grade A, for less than a single Samsung 213T. Although it isn't really fair to compare the new vs. refurbished price. So we'll say $150 cheaper, retail, for a p220fb versus a Samsung 213T.

Now, honestly, which one is best for "most people" ? For the average person, I say, save your money, pickup a decent 17-19" CRT monitor.

Re:color accuracy

[John Miles]

Looking at the stats, the Samsung 213T looks like a very nice LCD monitor. Still only a 500:1 contrast ratio (versus several thousand for a good CRT, and I have no idea how much the lighting argument can really play into this).

I'd suggest going by Fry's or CompUSA and taking a look at one to see what you think, but unfortunately, retail stores usually use analog connections through distribution boxes that look just plain awful, and their lighting conditions are nothing like what anyone would have in their home or office. If you have a chance, look at a 213T with a DVI connection sometime.

It will also only do 1600x1200, and only 16.7M colors? That seems odd to me. Is that 24bit color?

Yeah, you don't want to run an LCD at any resolution other than its native pixel-array size. Otherwise it has to resample the video signal, which looks terrible at best. Naturally, manufacturers don't tell people this. As far as I know, LCDs are indeed limited to 8 bits per RGB component per pixel.

A 22" diagonal 4x3 monitor with 0.24mm dot pitch probably works out to a shadow-mask resolution of 1600x1200. It may accept higher-resolution signals, but the shadow mask or aperture grille is the real limiting factor. Then there's the inevitable image degradation you get from running such a high-bandwidth analog signal through a multiconductor cable.

Re:color accuracy

[kerrle]

It's difficult to judge any monitor at retail locations; as you mentioned, the signal quality is usually terrible, but it's more than just that.

The overhead lighting is usually way brighter than conditions where the monitors will actually be used, any they're almost never calibrated at all - just go to the TV section and see how many high end plasma and LCD TVs are running a 4:3 image stretched across a 16:9 field - wouldn't make most non-tech people all that interested.

Re:color accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be noted that todays LCD monitors can only output 32 bit colors and 255 levels of brightness. Thus making them pretty much useless for games 2+ years from now as most games will have HDR lighting and (a little longer) 64 bit color depth.

I think LCD are great for offices or home users who just surf the web and the casual PC stuff. But they are in fact very bad for high end driven applications. I'm speaking mainly of CAD/CAM applications and 3D modelling/animation (as well as games of course). Of course they are also shite for video editing, but then again a serious editor uses a NTSC monitor.

Anyway, an important fact to remember about LCDs is that they have hardware limitations. Dead pixels, max 32 bit color depth, generally a low number of brightness/contrast levels (even 400 is shite with HDR), fixed resolution and ussually lower sharpness than professional CRTs.

Anyway, if you need proof try naming 1 professional CAD/3D user, using an LCD.

Re:color accuracy

[alexo]

Unfortunately, all budget LCD screens with 20ms response times have 6-bit panels and use dithering to approximate colours.

Re:color accuracy

[dbIII]

Most people who prefer CRTs over LCDs seem to be those who have used nice CRTs and crappy LCDs

There are a whole lot of reasons. If you use multiple resolutions a CRT is better, if you use high resolutions a CRT can get you there at less than ludicrous prices. Fuzzy dots are better than square blocks some times, and worse at other times. The ten year old monitor in front of me could be replaced with a 19 inch LCD for not a huge amount of cash, but I would have to get used to doing things at a lower resolution, and I could get a very nice 21 inch CRT for less.

Re:Color Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Who needs hardware? Check out colorwizzard (formerly colorific) from ecolor.com. It has the added advantage of measuring *your* lighting and visual response.

Re:Color Accuracy

[ErikZ]

I would of thought the type of printer you use would be more important. Or do you have your work sent to a print house?

Re:color accuracy

[pipingguy]

I use two Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 920s (3 years old) and they are very nice desk-hoggers. But while setting up my son's new 17" Samsung LCD ($220 CDN) I was very impressed with the visuals. Maybe some of it was the novelty of working with an LCD screen for a change, and plus I am somewhat colour-blind.

Re:color accuracy

[RedWizzard]

9,415 to 1.

Which they calculated by dividing 94.15 by 0.01. The problem is, what if that 0.01 isn't accurately measured? If it's really 0.014 then the contrast ratio is 6700:1, a difference of 30% from their figure. My point is that because of the way that ratio is calculated it's likely to be very inaccurate. A bit more precision in the measuring would have been good.

So yes, CRTs have great contrast. But take the actual numbers with a lot of salt.

Re:color accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you use multiple resolutions a CRT is better"

Why would I do that?

Re:color accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

LCDs are more expensive than CRTs -- uh, duh.

This got modded +5,Informative? WTF?

In other news, wireless cards cost more than ethernet cards, DVD burners cost more than CD burners, and wireless optical mice cost more than the plain old piece of shit that came with that Packard-Bell 10 years ago.

Re:Color Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

This is cool -- they have a CRT and LCD evaluation tool that will let you measure how your monitor is set up.

Re:color accuracy

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

I just switched from a Sony 19" G420 CRT to a Samsung 17" 173P LCD. I find the contrast and colour to be about the same. Better if anything. The clarity, is of course, incredibly better.

Many people who care about colour are now using LCDs. Perhaps people in a big printing house or photo lab will still be using CRTs for a while, but your average designer will be fine with an LCD.

Re:color accuracy

[sessamoid]

Looking at the stats, the Samsung 213T looks like a very nice LCD monitor. Still only a 500:1 contrast ratio (versus several thousand for a good CRT, and I have no idea how much the lighting argument can really play into this).

The ambient lighting thing is pretty big. My LCD monitors (Dell 2001 FP) seem to reflect considerably much less ambient light than my CRT (pretty good Hitachi 19" tube). I don't know why, but it's subjectively a large difference. In a bright room, the LCD has much better real world contrast than the CRT. In a pitch black room, the CRT wins, but that's not how I use my computer.

Re:color accuracy

[dbIII]

"If you use multiple resolutions a CRT is better"

Why would I do that?

A couple of examples - games and displaying video files. A CRT does it in it's native resolution (eg. switch to 800x600 or 1080xWhatever for a CRT projector showing video) while an LCD has to fake it with partial pixels.

For instance, every time I start up Neverwinter Nights the game switches resolution - there are plenty of games which may not have a mode at your LCDs native resolution.

At work I do neither, just read lots of slashdot, so the ability to change resolution is not important.

Re:color accuracy

[that _evil _gleek]

I think the discussion about vga vs dvi was actually limited to LCD and not CRT. They talk about a DAC, but make it sound like its in the monitor, which is wrong it in the video card, I guess LCD's would have to do a analog to digital back again,but crt's wouldn't . Anyway analog to digitial isn't DAC, it would be ADC wouldn't it? Analog color as an advtange only be realized on CRT , and the advantage might not be readily apparent to those who didn't know CGA , EGA, HGA... The VGA wasn't better at 4 color graphics than CGA was, it wasn't better than EGA at 16 color, what it was good,
at, was being good enough to take os through multiple color depth improvements. You couldn't just add more ram
to your EGA card and get a better color depth, with VGA you could.

Is 24bit color really good enough? I know I could run an old VGA CRT monitor at 32bit color depth, if I cared to.
I have since replaced that monitor with an LCD, and the the only CRT I have an IMac DV, I don't see the a 32bit option,
I don't think I can see a difference now ... but 2 things.. Color perception is variable, some people are color blind, mine is actually a little better than most.. I'm wondering if, as 3 day worlds get increasing more and more lifelike, whether 24bit
will still be good enough.

Re:color accuracy

[02bunced]

I agree; I know someone who is a proffessional artist, with briefs from companies like MacDonalds, who only ever uses LCD screens. The convenience and quality of them are beyond what he would get from a CRT, and the added advantage that much less desk space is used

Re:color accuracy

[molnarcs]

True. Question is: does it really matter? You won't see the difference anyway :) Otherwise, usually the very fast (sub 16ms) tn+film LCD screens are 6 bit. To the best of my knowledge, all MVA/PVA/S-IPS panels are 8bit.

Re:color accuracy

[wirehead78]

My wife is a graphic designer for a local ad agency. They all use Macs, mostly G5s, but not a single one of them uses an LCD screen. They all have humongous CRTs.

Re:color accuracy

[Wdomburg]

Obvious answer is anyone doing web design.

Re:color accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

> It doesn't make sense for large CRTs to have come down that far in price, unless I'm missing something.

LCDs. They had to drop the prices of CRTs to compete wth LCDs.

Re:color accuracy

[cwg_at_opc]

it's been posted here before(searched but couldn't find it); an extremely in-depth series of articles(four sections) from ExtremeTech: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1752639 ,00.asp/ covering display technology and colorimetry written by Dr. Raymond Soneira, author of DisplayMate.

Re:color accuracy

[Electrum]

Obvious answer is anyone doing web design.

Not really. Smart web designers simply change their browser size. WindowSizer from this page works nicely.

/.ed already

[Yeldarb-7]

Here's the Mirrordot link:

Re:/.ed already

[Anonymous Coward]

Great mirror

of the first page

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Duh, analog of course.

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody who's into real audio could have told you. After years of horror with CGA/EGA, we finally had a relief with good old analog VGA. Now people are telling you that DVI is the thing, but we know better of course. Don't worry, I'm already working on a nice DVI to analog converter based on radio valves for the real computer lovers.

Re:Duh, analog of course.

[Jeremy Erwin]

When the Apple IIgs came out, many of the early reviews had sidebars explaining why a "analog RGB monitor" was better than a "digital RGB monitor"-- an analog CRT could display 4096 colors, while a digital monitor was limited to, IIRC, 64. Some Apple IIe users already had RGB monitors, but those were typically digital (EGA), and thus incompatible with the GS.

IIRC, the EGA connection was a parallel interface. Increasing the number of colors would mean increasing the number of signaling lines, which would all need to be kept in sync, and free from interference. Serial interfaces would be too slow, and so analog rgb monitors were popularized.

Since that time, serial technology has improved to the point where a switch back to digital is now possible.

Re:Duh, analog of course.

[speculatrix]

to respond to the troll... DVI is great! Firewire too!

but HDMI will be the adopted standard in the long run? Why? because it allows encryption of the video signal, which the content providers (MPAA etc) demand in order to release high definition video formatted movies.

Re:Duh, analog of course.

[Anonymous Coward]

If by digital RGB you mean RGBI (Red, Green, Blue, Intensity), those had 16 colors. (4 lines, 2^4 = 16)

I have one of those, and use it with my C128. (and I'm so happy I could *ahem* rescue it from being thrown out)

I believe RGBI was used with CGA, don't know about EGA. I just know that my monitor does regular analog VGA as well, so it could be that EGA, being the "in-between standard" used RGBI too. (Or did it use analog? Nevermind.)

Re:Duh, analog of course.

[Jeremy Erwin]

EGA monitors supported 64 colors: four different intensities for each of red, green and blue.

Re:Duh, analog of course.

[Kiryat Malachi]

RGBI was CGA only. For EGA, they threw away intensity and allowed 2 lines per color (R1R2G1G2B1B2). 2^6 = 64. But it was still digital RGB.

laptop LCDs

[_ph1ux_]

Does anyone have any insight on what I can do with a slew of Laptop LCDs that I have...

I have about 20 Laptop LCD screens that I would love to be able to use, but it looks as though you need to get a $200.+ controller for these screens in order to use them as "monitors"? Is this true? Is there any cheap/free way to put these things to use.

Re:laptop LCDs

[LWATCDR]

Simple sell them on EBay. A lot of old notebooks are perfectly fine except they need a new LCD. You might be surprised how much money you will get for them.

Re:laptop LCDs

[the pickle]

It's true for all but a very few panels (for sufficiently small values of "very few"). Unless you can find a laptop panel that is literally the exact same model used in a monitor, you're pretty much SOL.

It's not for lack of trying, either. Believe me, you're definitely not the first person to want the ability to do this. Really unfortunate, IMO, but a fact of life :(

p

Re:laptop LCDs

[billtom]

I've never used it myself, but I've heard good things about this:

It's software that you run that lets any computer (usually extra laptops) act as secondary displays for a system, operating over a network.

It's $35.

Re:laptop LCDs

[Storlek]

There's no way to just plug an LCD panel into a video card because it works on a lower level than a vga/dvi signal; there has to be something in between the two to adapt the signal to the LCD's resolution and generally do some black magic. In short, yes, you do need to get a controller, but it's still a bit cheaper than buying a whole new LCD, and on top of that it's a learning experience, and something fun to do in your spare time.

This page might be useful reading.

Re:laptop LCDs

[adonoman]

You probably meant MaxiVista.
I've used it and it's pretty decent.

Re:laptop LCDs

[happyfrogcow]

Embedded electronic picture frames in a wall? Make them like windows, render different views of a 3d worlds for each side of a room. Even make subtle looping animations for them, clouds flying by, water rippling, sunsets, etc. It's something I've wanted to do, but never have time, energy, or an abundance of LCD displays.

$200 controller does indeed sound prohibitive, though

Re:laptop LCDs

[Beavbo]

You could take the screen and mount in on an old overhead projector like some of my buddies did to make themselves nice little cheap movie projector. Pretty great little project they put together for very cheap.

Re:laptop LCDs

[billtom]

D'oh! Didn't preview. Yeah, MaxiVista.

Re:laptop LCDs

[Esine]

Umm, doesn't X11 (X.Org at least) have this feature?
You can connect to other remote screens via network, etc.

Re:laptop LCDs

[Anonymous Coward]

If you still have the laptops they came out of you might be able to salvage the driver ciruits. I've had a few occasions (with somewhat simpler electronics) where I've found that a piece of the original board did exactly what I needed.

Re:laptop LCDs

[Displaced Cajun]

Uhm... do ya do any target shooting? Hahahahaha

Re:laptop LCDs

[dangitman]

Yeah, this is exactly what I want to know. I want to build a cheap "video projector" by removing the LCD from a laptop, removing the rear of the display and backlight. Then, put the LCD on an old overhead projector.

Anyone have instructions for a laptop-to-VGA conversion? or for that matter, any info on disassembling laptop screens?

Re:laptop LCDs

[Anonymous Coward]

Google's cache of said site.

Interestingly enough here's a quote: If you're on a budget, buy an already put together LCD monitor from the store. It's going to be a lot cheaper.

Re:laptop LCDs

[owlstead]

Unfortunately a lot of LCD monitors are pretty crap, though they have fastly improved the last two years. People tend to look at processor specs when buying a notebook. Ever seen an ad that displays the viewing angle for a laptop screen? Neh, I'm not interested.

Re:laptop LCDs

[Phil Gregory]

A similar but GPLed program is synergy. It's not quite as featureful as MaxiVista, since it just shared the keyboard and mouse between computers, while MaxiVista appears to be able to move windows around, but I find synergy to be very useful.

--Phil (Typing on a Linux computer with a keyboard attached to a Windows computer)

Why no digital DVI only budget monitors?

[hirschma]

It seems that the cheapest monitor to make these days would be pure digital - digital DVI support only.

Instead, budget monitors come with analog only - which means more complex support circuitry, A/D converter, etc. than what it takes to support digital input.

Since almost all video cards come with one DVI port these days, at least, why not ship something that would be better, cheaper, and likely, more profitable? How about flipping things around and making the analog input optional (and more expensive)? I guess that would make too much sense.

jh

Re:Why no digital DVI only budget monitors?

[LWATCDR]

Simple.
Lowest common denominator.
All video cards come with an analog port or a DVI to analog adapter. So if you have to pick one port analog works with the largest selection of cards.

Re:Why no digital DVI only budget monitors?

[Meumeu]

I guess they make more money if they force people who want DVI to buy a more expensive monitor, DVI gives them a reason to set higher prices.

Re:Why no digital DVI only budget monitors?

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Also make sure to have the latest drivers for your Network Interface NIC Card.

Re:Why no digital DVI only budget monitors?

[lakeland]

Yeah, pretty much. Though in a few years time (five? less?) I think you'll see this flip. Analogue is more expensive to make, but you'll sell more because more people will be able to buy it. However soon a large enough percentage will have digital that you'll be able to sell an almost equal number and you'll see digital only on the cheapest options.

Computers aren't the only thing that works this way, try buying uniodised salt for instance, or blackcurrant concentrate without added sugar. It seems conventional manufacturing makes it cheaper to always do things the same way than it is to offer a less refined product for the few consumers that want it.

Re:Why no digital DVI only budget monitors?

[Fortress]

My guess is onboard video. In the PC world, onboard video is 100% VGA connector. Not everyone wants/needs an expensive video card.

Re:Why no digital DVI only budget monitors?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems that the cheapest monitor to make these days would be pure digital - digital DVI support only.

No. The cheapest monitor to make is the one you can sell the most of (and thus mass-produce the most of). Still LOTS of people out there with VGA only.

Re:Why no digital DVI only budget monitors?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the UK monitors with DVIs are taxed as televisions (DVI is a TV-input standard as well as for PCs) and those with only analog are not. I thought this explained the price difference in the UK, but perhaps there's also an element of lowest-common-denominator bulk manufacturing reducing prices on the analog-only ones. Though it really is only a connector so I can't imagine it making more than $5 difference to have DVI as well as analog.

Re:Why no digital DVI only budget monitors?

[wmshub]

Actually, it sort of makes sense.

Analog input on a digital monitor is pretty much required. If you leave it out, you'll have angry customers who buy it for their non-DVI card. So by adding DVI, you will not save any money.

On top of that, DVI isn't as cheap as you might think. Adding any connector to a system means extra pins on the chips inside, and those aren't free...often today the pins cost more than the logic on the chips. So even though digital is the "native" format for an LCD monitor, it still costs more.

Sum it up: Analog = required, DVI = optional and not as cheap as you might think. For a cheap LCD monitor, it's not surprising to see only analog.

Re:Why no digital DVI only budget monitors?

[Dogtanian]

I guess they make more money if they force people who want DVI to buy a more expensive monitor, DVI gives them a reason to set higher prices.

BINGO.

Suppose it costs a lot of money to develop a monitor, and a company is relying on profits from expensive (high profit-margin) models to make that back.

Of course, most people can't afford that, and are choosing between low-end monitors. The company could make their low end LCDs more competitive by including the new technology (assuming the production cost is not high); but that would result in cannibalisation of sales of their expensive monitors.

But... if they do something like not including DVI input, the low-end users aren't too bothered, and professional users still buy the expensive models. Result; company makes its development money back, and those that genuinely wouldn't have bought the expensive monitor anyway get better performance than they would have otherwise.

Re:Why no digital DVI only budget monitors?

[That's Unpossible!]

I bought a DVI-only LCD about 5 years ago. It was an IBM T55D, and cost me $1000. I mention this because it was more expensive than the analog LCDs at the time, and also at the time, I do not remember seeing any Analog+DVI monitors. It was either analog OR DVI. Yet it was more expensive.

So what I'm getting at is if the DVI-only monitors weren't cheaper than analog-only monitors then, why would they be now?

Re:Why no digital DVI only budget monitors?

[poot_rootbeer]

Since almost all video cards come with one DVI port these days, at least, why not ship something that would be better, cheaper, and likely, more profitable?

Most if not all NEW video cards come with at least one DVI output these days, yes, but that still represents a minority of the video cards that are in use.

Retailers don't want to deal with the hassle of customers who try to buy, and then subsequently have to return, a cheapo digital-only LCD display as an upgrade for their four-year-old PC with a VGA port on the back of it. The decision not to offer such products right now is likely more market-driven than technology-driven.

Wait a couple years, when DVI-digital is not only state of the art but also ubiquitous, and I'd expect more digital-only LCD displays to show up on the market.

Re:Why no digital DVI only budget monitors?

[Anonymous Coward]

...because it is probably still the case that the bulk of all video connectors on video cards or mobos are still VGA connectors, that's why.

Re:Why no digital DVI only budget monitors?

[MoralHazard]

1) EVERY card has a VGA output. Most onboard video solutions ONLY have a VGA output. Customers like flexibility.

2) Hardware costs in an LCD monitor are almost entirely in the LCD screen itself. The rest of the hardware is pennies in comparison. So even leaving out some extra electronics is a tiny, tiny cost savings.

3) The cost of hardware manufacturing has only so much to do with how something is built. More important, especially in the long run, is how many of something you can sell. Large volumes bring costs down, sometimes by a huge amount. VGA analog hardware has been on the market for more than 15 years, with gazillions of parts sold.

Take serial/parallel ports as an example. Despite the introduction of "legacy free" products in the last couple of years, almost every motherboard sold today still has these ancient devices, including the on-board logic to make them work. They'll disappear eventually, but it doesn't make enough of a cost difference right now to remove them.

Re:Why no digital DVI only budget monitors?

[mtphoto]

You need an A/D converter either way. The piece of glass with all the pixels in it still takes an analog signal.

Re:Why no digital DVI only budget monitors?

[tepples]

Also make sure to have the latest drivers for your Network Interface NIC Card.

If you're lampooning the redundancy, then consider that 1. redundancy clarifies, and 2. trademarks should always be used as adjectives.

Re:Why no digital DVI only budget monitors?

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Is DVI trademarked? If so, why would he add Digital in front of it? Digital Digital Visual Interface?

Re:Why no digital DVI only budget monitors?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most LCD panels (the actual display, not the plastic case, power supply, and interface board) actually use LVDS for their input format. DVI is a bit of a bitch to handle from a signalling perspective, so it would not surprise me if the hardware to decode DVI into LVDS was more complicated than that to digitize a VGA signal.

That said, I really wish they'd stop doing it. DVI should have killed off VGA in terms of dominance by now, it can still carry the analog signal over the DVI-A pins, and the digital signal kicks the shit out of VGA on LCDs.

Re:Why no digital DVI only budget monitors?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, this thread is pretty funny. Here's the actual answer!

There are several types of DVI plug, but the makers of DVI wanted to make it easy for people to use VGA with it, so some of the pins in the DVI plug are just VGA.

As per the spec, and as more most DVI monitors, they accept VGA input via these pins in the middle DVI plug. This is so that they can make these cheap converter plugs.

So the idea that you'd build a DVI monitor without a VGA converter and it'd be cheaper in parts would be against the spec.

There's nothing more minimum than DVI with VGA pins, that's the answer.

Re:Why no digital DVI only budget monitors?

[Breakfast Pants]

The pins don't cost more than th elogic on the chips... It's hooking up the macro scale pins to the (nearing) nano scale logic that makes it expensive.

Color Accuracy

[gbulmash]

Regarding color accuracy, I recently purchased a Pantone "Color Plus". It's a cool little device which hangs (on LCD/Laptop) or sticks (via suction cups on a CRT) over your screen and plugs into the USB port. Using their software, you can test the color accuracy of your screen and generate an .icm color profile to help your monitor be more color accurate.

These types of things can cost major buckage, but this is their consumer version and can be picked up for sub-$100.

I just started a little home-based start-up and I'm doing a lot of graphics for print (not a graphic designer, just being my own in-house ad department) and though subtle, I found the difference invaluable in getting my collateral to come out looking like it did on the screen.

- G

3?

[IamLarryboy]

"When it comes to a great picture there are two elements that come into play. You want the image to be rich in color, constrasty, and sharp. The other element that comes into play is the speed of the LCD and its ability to handle motion."

When it comes to a great picture there are two elements that come into play. You want the image to be rich in color, contrast, ... and sharpness. The three, the three elements that make a good picture are color, contrast, sharpness, ... and speed. The four, the four elements that make a good picture are color, contrast, sharpness, speed, ... and its ability to handle motion. The five, The five elements that make a good picture are color, contrast, sharpness, speed, and its ability to handle motion.

(With apologies to Monty Python)

Re:3?

[Anonymous Coward]

Was that Monty Python, or was that Steve Martin playing Nathan in 'The Jerk'?

Re:3?

[martian265]

It was the Monty Python skit "Spanish Inquisition". http://people.csail.mit.edu/people/paulfitz/spanis h/script.html

ForMac

[blogeasy]

I always liked the "Gallery" products from ForMac even though they cost a little more ($599) than the economy monitors. I've had one for several years now with my PowerMac and the quality remains great. I wonder how it would stack up against these economy monitors.

How about...

[Rui Lopes]

... a budget LCD screen with good resolutions. usually they are crappy. my 1500 euro asus laptop offers me 1400x1050 @ 14.0". Haven't seen similar resolutions in desktop LCDs, unfortunately. except apple's cinema displays, *of course*.

Re:How about...

[toddestan]

except apple's cinema displays, *of course*.

Apple sticks to right around 100DPI, and there are plenty of 100DPI panels on the market, like my 1600x1200 20.1" Sony LCD.

Re:FP

[Datamonstar]

WHy is this off topic? I have always thought this since the LCD market took off a few years back.

Re:Piling Things

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome, Please Sign In

No thanks.

the best?

[TrippTDF]

It starts off like a traditional review, but their discussion of color accuracy is the best I've ever seen

You mean they use pr0n images for testing?

Re:the best?

[Dogtanian]

>> It starts off like a traditional review, but their discussion of color
>> accuracy is the best I've ever seen

> You mean they use pr0n images for testing?

Joking aside, pr0n is one of the things that *really* shows up poor LCDs. I have a 5-year old Compaq laptop, and whilst the colour saturation and viewing angle is pretty poor by today's standards, it's fine for almost everything I want it to do.

Throw some pr0n at it, however, and it looks *horrid*. What does pr0n feature lots of? Skin. Skin tones on this thing look really unnatural, and on top of that, the gentle gradiations really show up quantisation of the image.

So, yeah. Pornography *is* actually a good test of a monitor.

Re:the best?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hi boss! Oh, that. Well, I'm ... uh ... testing the monitor! Yeah, that's what I'm doing. Testing the monitor. Nothing like those skin tones, you know."

Re:Piling Things

[LearnToSpell]

Heh. Nice touch that, replying to a NYTimes-link article with a registration site.

Re:FP

[ShieldW0lf]

I agree. And after reading the article, it appears that we are both right. Basically, the visual quality of LCDs doesn't suck nearly as bad as it used to... they're almost as good as CRTs now.

Personally, I still don't like them. I still notice the ghosting effects. They're less pronounced yes, but that's like comparing a deep gouge with a faint scratch. If you're staring at the thing all day, it's still annoying. Same thing with dead pixels. It only takes one for me to not want to use the monitor anymore.

I think I'll go grab some new CRTs this weekend before they're all gone.

DELL UltraSharp 1905FP

[nubbie]

Another awesome monitor! I order one last month after reading a great review. Great price $600 CND shipped to my door.

Told some friends about it, next thing I know they have a bulk order for 10 into Dell. $470 CND, each! =p

Re:DELL UltraSharp 1905FP

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a really great screen. I am running 2 of them in a dual setup over DVI using a XFX 6600GT
(one of the few cards having support for 2 DVI outputs)

Envision

[kevcol]

For someone looking for a budget 19" LCD, a great one is made by Envision. Fry's was selling them for sale about 2 months ago for $350 which was reasonable alone for that size but also had one of those $50 rebate deals. I got my $50 a couple days ago, and the monitor is fantastic. They had a 17" model by another manufacturer there that day for a little less but when I looked at the reviews, they were all negative. Then I read the Ensonic reviews and people were raving about them. I bought it and was very pleased.

Fry's online presence, Outpost.com no longer carries the 19" one, though they did at the same time they had the sale I bought mine on.

Re:Envision

[blackmonday]

I have that same monitor, and got it for $300 from Fry's just like you. It's a great monitor. The sales jerk at Fry's was trying to get me to buy a higher priced Sharp branded monitor, but I stuck to my guns. He lied to me about the speed and the warranty. It comes with a 3 year warranty, amazing for a computer monitor. It has DVI and analog, and tilts into portrait mode. I highly recommend it.

Re:Envision

[Anonymous Coward]

I had to use my Envision warranty a couple years ago. No problem. I didn't have a receipt or box and the screen was about 18 months old. They replaced it in just a few days.

Joe

Re:Envision

[Anonymous Coward]

The Hyundai ImageQuest LD90+ is loads better than my old crt. It's easy on the eyes, crisp bright colors, 8ms response time. On top of that it's the same core as the samsung 19" 8ms response monitor. Since I am in front of a computer most of the day (who here isn't) the greatest thing is the flatness and less eye strain. Gamers need 19"... also really has no ghosting at all. Another thing I noticed is my room is a lot less cooler now. For $370 its well worth the money imho.

Re:Envision

[NaDrew]

The sales jerk at Fry's was trying to get me to buy a higher priced Sharp branded monitor, but I stuck to my guns. He lied to me about the speed and the warranty.

Wait, a Fry's salesperson lied to you? That would imply their hiring practices are somehow deficient...

From the article

[jayhawk88]

Color accuracy is actually extremely important for gaming too. Think about how much time you spend making sure your GPU isn't faking its anisotropic texture filtering.

Easy there Geordi. Maybe I'm just not a "hard core" gamer anymore, but it sounds to me like someone needs to step outside for a reality check.

Re:From the article

[nexex]

how much time you spend making sure your GPU isn't faking its anisotropic texture filtering

uhh - none :)

Re:From the article

[Dogtanian]

> Easy there Geordi. Maybe I'm just not a "hard core" gamer anymore, but
> it sounds to me like someone needs to step outside for a reality check.

Ever see the episode where we get to see through Geordi's visor? Extremely unnatural colour rendition *and* horrible smearing. I'm not sure I'd trust him to judge this kind of thing.

And have you ever tried "stepping outside" on a starship? I don't recommend it.

Re:From the article

[Eric Savage]

I stepped outside as you recommended, but I found that the contrast was way too high and the lack of a soundtrack was a bit disturbing. The 3D was fairly impressive though, and don't even get me started on the physics engine. I ran around throwing bottles at people and they had even better reactions than Half-life 2 did. It was all just eye candy though, as I spent hours looking for weapons and ammunition but was unable to find anything more advanced than a rather unwieldy sharp metal pole, which I obviously didn't spend enough skill points on during character generation. Overall, I'd give it a 6/10, it has promise so let's hope there's an expension pack coming.

Re:From the article

[Anonymous Coward]

Hah! Grand Theft Auto was great.

Soo... Yeah... Anyhow, I'm in jail now - where's the reset button?

TFT-Panels table

[molnarcs]

I bought a viewsonic vx912 a few weeks ago. Prior to buying, I bumped into a forum discussion about various technological aspects of different panel types (tn+film, S-IPS, mva). It was an interesting topic, and after a joined in, we decided to compile a table that shows what type of panel each specific monitor has. You can see the results here. (it is in Hungarian, but the table should be still readable and useful). It is still at a BETA stage, and it's aim is to help would-be customers to decide which monitor to buy. For instance, sometimes you will find exactly the same panel in two different types of monitors - and you will be surprised at the lenght some manufacturers (notably LG) goes in lying about their specs. Anyway, I hope that link is useful.

Re:TFT-Panels table

[Anonymous Coward]

What part of their specs are they lying about? Wondering what to look for.

Re:TFT-Panels table

[molnarcs]

What part of their specs are they lying about? Wondering what to look for.

Every part :) Response time for instance: if you see 12ms, that doesn't apply to the whole color spectrum. It might be true for grey to grey, but red to blue for instance might be 16 or 20. You never know how they calculate the given response time (average? fastest? greytogrey?). Or think of the 178degree viewing angle - lol - why not 180? Oh, you would only see the edge of the monitor... just imagine how much you can see of the picture from 89 degree. Basically every spec :) That's why it is important to know the specs given by the panel manufacturer ... not that they are not lying or something... they are, but at least you can see how various vendors using exactly the same panel like to make some hilarious claims.

Re:TFT-Panels table

[ttsalo]

The response time is measured only for white->black (IIRC) transition. For other than the extreme colors, it can be 2-3 times that. Tom's hardware has some response time measurements for the whole brightness range.

Then the viewing angle measurements are so useless it's not even funny. They apparently measure the angle where the contrast ratio stays above 1:5 and then come up with something like 170 degree viewing angle. They should measure the angle where the contrast ratio falls to half the original straight-on ratio, that would be more useful. Even better would be curves with contrast ratio vs. viewing angle in both horizontal and vertical. In my 2002 vintage laptop LCD, the black starts turning noticeably grey if you look at the screen from outside of about 10 degree vertical angle (in horizontal it's much better).

Re:TFT-Panels table

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting that there are no meaningful standards. I wonder how long they can get away with this before lawsuits or regulation catches up (if they do).

Budget Display

[buckhead_buddy]

Making judgements on budget flat panels is much harder than the pricier brands in my experience. Budget brands get their LCDs cheaply by saying they'll take a manufacturer's leftovers that fail the quality standards of the bigger name customers. That doesn't mean that all of their budget displays are bad; the budget buyer gets quite a number of perfect displays and almost perfect displays because they have to get something delivered.

For a brand that has high quality assurance standards evaluating one or two displays can be an effective evaluation, but reviewing a budget display this way is meaningless. When you're looking at brands that don't have quality standards and good return policies, then statistics like failure rate, customer satisfaction, and other non-visual stats can tell you whether it's a good risk to put your money down or not. You may get a great monitor; you may get something that's crap. But unless you're looking at the actual monitor you're going to buy in person, its the other stats that are going to tell you what your odds are of getting a great display for dirt cheap.

wtf

[Anonymous Coward]

what is the software called dumbass?

Real World Example

[FractusMan]

I read over their review, and that was indeed the best discussion on colour calibration I've seen in a review. I'm using the Samsung 127x myself, the one that ranked in at number five, I think. It is bright - too bright, most people find, on the default 'Internet' brightness level. However, it comes with software (Natural Color) that lets you calibrate it yourself without the need for a colorimeter. Naturally it's not going to give you the same accuracy as one, but it uses a clever trick to get you to set it to your own comfort level with colours.

That said, I do not notice the blue tint they talk about, and I've used more than a few LCDs. This is the only one I've been able to use for gaming, and not just because it has absolutely no lag or shadowing or ghosting in even the fastest paced games (Like UT2004 or Serious Sam), but because the colours are vibrant and the contrast is very nice.

But, that's just my own experience out in the real world.

Re:Real World Example

[pipingguy]

too bright, most people find, on the default 'Internet' brightness level.

If there is some theoretical "internet brightness level", where do AOL users rank?

Personally...

[imemyself]

One of the biggest things that keeps me from considering an LCD (in addition to the extra cost of course), is that equally sized LCD's can't do anywhere near the resolution of the same sized CRTs(that cost less). My 17" CRT does up to 1600x1200. The max I've seen a 17" LCD do is 1280x1024, which is fine for desktop work but for gaming/design/etc it is really lacking. I haven't even seen a 19" that can do more than that, which really makes them pointless, because if you stretch 1280x1024 pixels out over a 19" screen vs a 17" screen its gonna look worse. The few 21" LCD's I've looked at can only do 1600x1200. While that isn't any worse than most 21" CRT's can do, a 21" CRT will cost atleast 1/3 the price, probably closer to 1/4. I don't move my monitor around too much, so I don't think the weight is that big of a deal.

So, basically, to get an LCD that can do what my CRT can, I'm going to have to pay 7 to 8 times as much, and it still won't have the pixels/in. that my CRT can do.

And honestly, my eyes hurt when I use an LCD, not a CRT oddly enough.

Re:Personally...

[Sporkinum]

Agreed! I have a 20" CRT that has great picture, does 1800x1440, and can be bought used for $100.

I even drag it out once every other month to our LAN gaming events.

I guess budget is all relative if you are a cheap bastard like me.

Re:Personally...

[atteSmythe]

Yeppers. The gist of the article was basically, "LCDs are great! Your next monitor will be an LCD, I guarantee it. In fact, LCDs are so wonderful, they're almost as good as CRTs!"

I'll admit that they're smaller, lighter, and don't flicker. Other than that, they're more expensive, harder to read text on, and don't have as good resolution as CRTs.

Re:Personally...

[morzel]

I'm typing this on a 1600x1200 15" LCD, so they definitely do exist. (If you're wondering: it's attached to my nearly 3yo Dell Laptop).

Without DVI on a CRT, bumping to higher resolutions also increases fuzziness due to the analog connection. For my digital photos I have a 22" iiyama doing 1600x1200 using a quality BNC cable on a Matrox card (which incidently still has one of the best DACs, despite being 8 years old!). While my LCD can't touch the color reproduction of my CRT, the sharpness of the image is equal or better than the CRT.
And if you want to go really hardcore on resolution, a (really bloody expensive ;-) LCD is the way to go... Do you know a 22" CRT that can do 3840 x 2400?

Re:Personally...

[josh_miller]

It's all about where to store the cat.

My cat loves sleeping behind the LCD. Right next to the transformer for extra cat warming action.

When I had a CRT there just wasn't enough desk space for cat storage, and not enough heat generated for cat warming.

It's made the extra cost, loss of resolution and loss of color fidelity all worthwhile!

Re:Personally...

[jbr439]

Agreed. I run my 19 inch CRT monitor at 1400x1050. All I want is an 18 or 19 inch LCD monitor that can do the same resolution. I am yet to see such a beast. I cannot, for the life of me, see the point in buying a 19 inch LCD monitor to run at 1280x1024 (not even mentioning the odd aspect ratio) when I can buy a 17 inch LCD to do the same.

Is this really asking to much?

Re:Personally...

[mindstrm]

Laptops with 15" 1600x1200 panels are becoming really scarce. I think Dell still has them, but Toshiba, for instance, has dropped them.

Why? I personally saw many people opt for lower resolution displays (an act inconcievable to me) because the text was "too small" on the high res display. Sales probably dropped because of it.

1600x1200 on 15" was a great density (napkin says 130dpi).

My 23" Apple Cinema HD is 1920x1200.. works out to about 100dpi. Big difference.

IN fact, I can't seem to find any other LCD in production, other than on laptops, that has the DPI ratings of your laptop.

Do you know a 22" LCD that can do 3840x2400? (200dpi)

Color reproduction on new high end LCDs is just fine, and easier to keep calibrated.

Re:Personally...

[vigilology]

The only thing in the way of me buying TFTs is the dead pixel return policies.

Re:Personally...

[Pinback]

Until recently, my thoughts were similar to yours.

When I finally was equipped with a company supplied laptop, I began to see how blurry my old 21 inch CRT had become.

Six months later, I put a 19 inch LCD (DVI-D) on my A7N8X-VM/400 at home, and now my personal 19 inch CRT looks blurry in comparison as well.

I don't yet know how long LCDs stay fresh, but I do know that CRTs get increasingly blurry over the years.

Re:Personally...

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

"My 17" CRT does up to 1600x1200."

No, it can't. It may be able to *sync* and *scan* at 1600x1200, but it can't actually display that resolution.

The shadow mask (or aperture grill, as the case may be) on your monitor probably doesn't go anywhere near 1600x1200.

You're basically using an analog version of antialiasing.

Re:Personally...

[logicpaw]

It's all about where to store the cat.
My cat loves sleeping behind the LCD. Right next to the transformer for extra cat warming action.
When I had a CRT there just wasn't enough desk space for cat storage, and not enough heat generated for cat warming.

The cat goes right on top of the CRT monitor, a nice warm spot where she can wave her tail in front of the web page you are trying to read...

...until the whole thing catches fires due the accumulation of cat fur under the vents around the high voltage components.

Re:Personally...

[pipingguy]

I haven't even seen a 19" that can do more than that, which really makes them pointless, because if you stretch 1280x1024 pixels out over a 19" screen vs a 17" screen its gonna look worse. The few 21" LCD's I've looked at can only do 1600x1200.

I do CAD regularly and can't tolerate 1600x1200 (maybe it's just my older eyes though - I don't need glasses yet). Just how tiny do those icons and text have to get? If you need more screen area, just opt for dual screens.

Re:Personally...

[shadowbearer]

I found a solution for that (works for my three cats at least). Get some exanded metal mesh from your local lumberyard - the same stuff often used as plaster backing and under floor tile. It's like a sheet of sharp edges.

Some window screen underneath it helps with the cat hair (the only constant in a household full of cats :-) I must have more window screen around and inside my computers than I do on the windows!

I cut some pieces big enough to fit on the back of the monitors, and the cats won't sleep up there (they refuse to walk on it either).

YMMV of course :-D

SB

Re:Personally...

[ChrisMaple]

A CRT with a 0.24 mm dot pitch (diagonal) has a horizontal dot pitch about 0.20 mm. A 17" CRT has a viewable horizontal measurement of about 12.7".

12.7 x 25.4 / 0.2 = 1612.9.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot_pitch/

Re:Personally...

[Absoluttt]

Look no further than a Dell 4100 Inspiron. = Done.

Re:Personally...

[drsmithy]

My 17" CRT does up to 1600x1200.

Oh, man, your poor eyes.

Personally, I won't take my 19" LCD over 1152x900 (or whatever that weird res is). Anything higher and I get headaches from having to squint at the screen all the time.

If you want more screen space, get dual screens. That's why I have dual 21" LCDs at work ;).

Re:Personally...

[R.Caley]

I cannot, for the life of me, see the point in buying a 19 inch LCD monitor to run at 1280x1024 (not even mentioning the odd aspect ratio) when I can buy a 17 inch LCD to do the same.

I'm replacing a 1200x1024 19" CRT with two cheap 1200x1024 19" TFTs. I've worked on 17" TFTs of the same resolution and decided tha I preferred the 19".

With antialiasing etc. in modern display subsystems, you can get perfectly nice text with fewer pixels than you once would. That could let you draw smaller (and hence more) text on a 17" display, but that may shrink the physical size of the text below what you'd like, especially if you are getting older (sigh!) and are looking at it all day.

Blow the screen up to 19" and for the same pixels/char you get bigger characters.

So, if your main need is basicly lots of windows full of text side by side (programming for instance), a 19" may make sense. I also like a display which takes up a good proportion of my field of view. All very personal, like picking a chair.

BTW, if anyone is interested, I looked around and the best bang-per-buck I could find was the AGNEOVO F419. I have one as a second display on my games machine and it's really quite nice for the price for text based work. Really bad blurr in Doom3, but I expected that and only tried it for a laugh. (just under 200 quid/$375, and anyone pointing out a better UK price will be strangled:-)).

Re:Personally...

[jez9999]

The problem for me is that LCDs suck royally for different resolutions than the intended one. Why isn't more research being done into making LCDs better able to look good in several different resolutions? 1024x768 is all well and good, as you said, for the desktop, but some of us still like to play games (DOS, emulated, and of course new) at fullscreen, and they're not all gonna look good (or have the option of being played) at one single resolution.

Re:Personally...

[morzel]

because the text was "too small" on the high res display

A lot of people don't know that you can easily adapt the font settings for the density. The text size of slashdot is the same on this LCD and another lower resolution LCD. Only are the characters a lot clearer on this screen :-).**

Do you know a 22" LCD that can do 3840x2400? (200dpi)

IIyama sells an LCD monitor which is primarily focused on the CAD target market (hence the $9K MSRP tag). See here.
Not exactly a budget solution, but it's possible.

** Websites that use a fixed-pixel font size of course not included...

Re:Personally...

[aliquis]

Uhm, because you can't? How would you solve it? You could of course have a lot more transistors and group them by 2, but i guess they don't have the technology or the consumers don't have the money. And i guess many layers for different resolutions isn't an option either.

Different types of LCD: big deal or not?

[billtom]

I read this article, LCD Guide, that goes into great detail on the different types of LCD monitor (apparently there are three different types of underlying LCD technology). The article makes the point that each type of LCD technology has differing strengths and weaknesses (eg. response time vs. color fidelity vs. viewing angle, etc) and that there is no best technology.

However, I've never really seen this information anywhere else in other LCD reviews. So I'm not clear if the points that the X-bit labs article makes are really important or whether the writer is just a specialist making a mountain out of a molehill.

Anyone know?

Re:Different types of LCD: big deal or not?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a good point. If you read the FiringSquad article (they have been up and down. Odd because they normally handle slashdotting well) they actually make reference to the Xbit labs article. FiringSquad does go into more careful color discussion though.

Re:Different types of LCD: big deal or not?

[be-fan]

No, it really does matter, mainly in color quality and refresh rate. S-IPS is what I'd get these days, for the simple reason that it has good color quality and acceptable refresh for most tasks.

Re:Different types of LCD: big deal or not?

[evilviper]

Viewing angle is an issue, the larger the display is, the further you will be sitting away from it, and if you want to let other people watch it too. It's important in some cases, but most people won't care much when getting a monitor... An LCD TV is a different story.

I wouldn't worry about color fidelity, unless you are doing professional graphics work, so I would consider that a mole hill.

Response time, however, is a BIG issue that is keeping many people from using an LCD. You can't read text on a web-page as it is scrolling (just an ugly blur) and gamers go into a fit if their $1,000 graphics card is just outputting blurry images because of their LCD. With standard video (24FPS) people with better eyes can tell that it's bluring, but most people don't notice.

LCDs not worth extra $$$ for many

[DrunkenTerror]

I just bought a nineteen-inch CRT last month for $150, and it plays games, does Photoshop, and shows DVDs just fine. People have been fortelling the death of the CRT for a while, but LCD is still too expensive, relative to CRT tech, for cheap/frugal/poor folks. A lot of us just don't see the value of a LCD screen (space, heat) justifing the higher cost. I certainly don't think LCD monitors look any better that time-tested CRTs.

I read what I could of the article and thought the author was exaggerating the benefits & performance of LCD screens. The author then tried to confuse the reader by bringing up the different technologies LCD's use and making incomplete comparisions between them. That was my take, anyway.

Re:LCDs not worth extra $$$ for many

[nexex]

I have a CRT at home, LCD at work. The LCD is so much easier on my eyes its incredible. Next time I look for a new monitor for home, I will probably favor on LCD for this reason.

Re:LCDs not worth extra $$$ for many

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should look into a high end CRT? For the price of a mediocre 17" LCD you can get the best 19" CRT that money can buy. Do you use a diamondtron at work? I can't use budget CRTs anymore after upgrading at work and home. I couldn't justify paying double for a comparable LCD.

Re:LCDs not worth extra $$$ for many

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop using a monospaced font ("Code") to post normal text messages. It's fucking annoying.

Re:FP

[Anonymous Coward]

hey you are on slashdot.... what else did you expect?

Re:FP

[SerialEx13]

I agree when it comes to money. A budget LCD is still more expensive than a budget CRT where I live.

I've thought of switching to an LCD monitor, but the 1280x1024 maximum resolution keeps holding me back from most of them. The only ones that tend to go higher than that can easily cost 1000% more than the equivalent CRT that does.

When a reasonably priced LCD that can do 1600x1200 or greater comes out, then I will be interested.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Working Mirror

[pwthoma]

Slashdot this Mirror

You've got a flaw in your reasoning....

[aetherspoon]

Minor one, but I thought I'd point it out anyway.
CRTs are measured by total diagonal length - a 17" CRT may only have a 15.7" viewable screen.
LCDs are measured by viewable diagonal length - a 17" LCD has a 17" viewable screen.

So when you compare prices, it is more accurate to compare 19" CRTs to 17" LCDs.

Re:You've got a flaw in your reasoning....

[evilviper]

So when you compare prices, it is more accurate to compare 19" CRTs to 17" LCDs.

19" CRTs have a viewable size of 18", not 17", so you're halfway in-between either way you compare it.

I love LCD displays

[hattig]

Note: I don't play games that often, and when I do, they aren't usually the type to require ultra-fast refreshes.

I've got two LCD displays, a 20 month old budget 15" display, and a 16 month old 19" AG Neovo F-419. The latter is, of course, way superior in every way and what I use all the time. I think it has good colour reproduction and IIRC the contrast ratio was 700:1 which is pretty good too.

I use the 19" with the DVI output on my main box, and the VGA output on my Linux development box. I've found that a good way to "auto adjust" the analogue input is to have a background pattern that is a white/black dotted pattern (as you can set with xsetbg or one of those X11 programs automatically). When I use one of these, the input is nearly as sharp as the DVI input. If the background is a low contrast smooth image, it really can't get enough data to adjust the image well.

The 15" budget analogue monitor? I wish I hadn't purchased it. It was a waste of money. Today I could get a 17" DVI monitor for the same price, and I'd be a lot happier. Oh well, you live and learn. It does the job on the other computer, and only has one stuck subpixel IIRC.

I just picked up a Samsung 915n

[sgant]

There was a one day sale over at Newegg and I just picked it up.

I was coming from a CRT monitor...then I switched to this thing and WOAH. I'm in love.

The thing is bright, very very fast (8ms) and big (19").

Yes, it only comes with an analog connector...but to tell the truth, I doubt it could get clearer, sharper or brighter than it is now. This thing is great.

It's like looking through a window...a very clean and clear window.

Re:I just picked up a Samsung 915n

[hypa]

Trust me, it would be sharper and clearer if you used DVI... :)

Re:I just picked up a Samsung 915n

[sgant]

Sharper...maybe...clearer? Nah.

Also, if you RTFM, you'll see that the 915n came in second overall and the only thing holding it back was because they were crying that it didn't have a DVI connector. That's it.

Re:I just picked up a Samsung 915n

[Anonymous Coward]

I also just picked up a 915N

how old is the monitor on my desk? hmm.... 23 hours?

ok. ya, it's not pixel sharp. I need that for when I stare at the monitor all day, but I find that with a decent font and good enough clocking, it's pretty damn good.

for what I paid -- I'm 100% satisfied.
Is it the perfect monitor? no idea and I don't care. It's a lot better than my 15" crt :->

oh, ya, bought it at newegg :-> too

Re:I just picked up a Samsung 915n

[ackthpt]

I was coming from a CRT monitor...then I switched to this thing and WOAH. I'm in love. The thing is bright, very very fast (8ms) and big (19").

I was determined to go LCD on my next monitor, a few years ago. I was leaning toward an NEC, but then I checked a few more reviews and they just couldn't get enough of the 172t, so I got it. In particular for the 500:1 contrast ratio, which kicks ass.

Yes, it only comes with an analog connector...but to tell the truth, I doubt it could get clearer, sharper or brighter than it is now. This thing is great.

It will look great, it'll be sharper, marginally, with DVI, but the only problem I've experienced is too sharp an image, with high contrast, can cause a lot of eye strain, where softened images tend not to.

It's like looking through a window...a very clean and clear window.

My wallpaper is from above Texas Spring Campground, in Death valley. It is almost as good as standing there. Death Valley at sunrise.

Mutliple screen resolutions?

[antdude]

Do thee newer LCD monitors still have problems with non-native screen resolutions (games, testing, etc.)? I still use CRTs because I use various screen resolutions. I dislike the stretch features in LCD monitors because of bluriness and uneven pixels. Is this still a problem with newer models?

Re:Mutliple screen resolutions?

[tverbeek]

Do thee newer LCD monitors still have problems with non-native screen resolutions...

Yes, and they will for the foreseeable future; it's the nature of the technology. CRTs are inherently analog mechanisms, capable of (in theory) continuously variable scan frequencies. LCDs are inherently digital, with a fixed grid of pixels, and they mimic resolutions that don't match that grid by antialiasing/interpolating (i.e. faking it).

The only way LCDs can produce sharp displays at resolutions other than the physical grid they were manufactured for is when that grid is such high resolution that the lower resolutions are whole-number factors of it: e.g. a 2048x1536 LCD could do a good 1024x768 by using four physical pixels per data point... but it'll suck at 1280x1024 or 800x600. Build an LCD with resolution equal to the least common multiples of 1280/1024/800 x 1024/768/600 with the appropriate ratio, and it'll do all them without fuzziness.

Re:Mutliple screen resolutions?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to have to disagree with the earlier replies. My Dell 2005FPW does lower resolutions beautifully. I think it's doing at least bilinear interpolation, and I'm sure there are other displays out there doing at least as well. Dell isn't exactly known for expensive special features. Why not go check out some real monitors at a store, with your own eyes?

Samsung is pretty solid

[digitalgimpus]

This article basically confirmed my findings.

I got a Samsung SyncMaster 910T for under $400 after rebate (pretty decent for a 19 inch LCD).

The quality is really very good. I don't do photoshop or graphic design, so it's "good enough". I honestly don't see a difference between a CRT and this display.

It's got VGA and DVI input.

Oh yea, I'm posting this experience based on hooking up via VGA through a KVM switch. I'm not even using DVI.

IMHO I consider it a "great buy". It's a solid display and it's very affordable.

Re:Samsung is pretty solid

[henni16]

Hey...maybe you are able to answer a question about that display if you have the time?
I want to buy an 19 inch LCD myself and my favorites at the moment are the Iiyama 481
(because of the S-IPS panel, it's slightly cheaper and I read lots of (credible) good test reports about it)
or maybe the Samsung 910T (more features, probably better picture quality because of ?VA panel)

The things I have in mind:

• most important: can you use it with Linux?
  That is: newer Samsung displays come with a windows-only "MagicTune" software to tune the picture and AFAIK
  some of the monitors don't have all the buttons to access the same functions without the software (example: the SM 193P)
• Did you watch DVDs or TV on it? I guess it is fast enough for that...or not?
• Do you occasionally play games?
  Have you by any chance tried the Wing Commander Privateer Remake (can be found on sourceforge) that was mentioned on slashdot a few weeks ago?
  Or some RPG like Neverwinter Nights (being the only somewhat graphically demanding games I play from time to time)?
  Usually you only find experiences with "first person shooter" games on LCDs; and I'm not sure how big the differences are (regarding display speed requirements) between a FPS and for example space battles on a dark background like in Privateer Remake..

Any related first hand experiences are greatly appreciated :-)

Re:Samsung is pretty solid

[digitalgimpus]

1. Will work with linux. Not sure about that "pivot" software... don't use it personally. Just liked the display itself. That feature is useless to me.

2. DVD's on occasion. As good as any other LCD I've ever seen. More than adequate.

3. Good for casual gamers. Real hard core gamers may complain (as always). IT's never good enough for them.

Re:Samsung is pretty solid

[henni16]

Thank you :-)

/.'ed

[flacco]

it seems firingsquad has been executed.

pay now or pay later

[r00t]

Heat costs money. First you pay to generate it,
and then you pay to eliminate it. (and for the
wise guy living up north, heating your place with
heating oil is lots cheaper)

Then what will you do when the display is old?
I hope you don't dump it in a river somewhere.
Many places charge about $50 to take an old CRT.

Not exactly right...

[Jott42]

The article states that: "The way to think about it is that on a chart of all possible colors, the 6500K color temperature is actually a line of white whereas D65 is a specific point of white."

This is definitly false. In all the color charts that I have seen, the range of possible black-body colors is a line, but at black-body radiator at a certain temperature is as much a point as the D65 standard. The difference is that the D65 illuminant includes an UV component, which will change the way printed colors appear to the human eye. I fail to see that the article makes a good case for using the D65 illuminant as the reference standard.

Furthermore, a cooler temperature will appear redder, not bluer. And the colors percieved is ass much due to our brain as to the spectrum hitting our eyes. So which color temperature that is the correct one for monitors depends on where the monitor will be used, especially on the color temperature of the room lighting.

Re:Not exactly right...

[ian mills]

Furthermore, a cooler temperature will appear redder, not bluer.

6500k is "warmer" than 9000k, despite being a lower number. And 6500k is redder than 9000k. Thats why its called "warmer." Color temperatures and warmth have nothing to do with the number and everything to do with how they look.

Re:Not exactly right...

[Jott42]

You are exactly right when talking about colors or the "feel" of a lighting design.

But when talking about color temperature, and the article states that "adopt a cooler temperature for white", we talk about a temperature in Kelvin, where 0 is commonly regarded as very cold, and a temperature in the tousands as considerable hotter.

strange desire you have there

[r00t]

Maybe you are using broken old software that can't
work at native resolution. Ditch that crud.

Fonts, icons, buttons... all should scale as you
desire. Set them to occupy many pixels instead of
setting your monitor to have big fat pixels.

Really, there is a well-known software solution to
your problem. As an extra benefit, text will have
better-shaped characters.

Re:strange desire you have there

[antdude]

This is mainly for games. I used a 20" LCD monitor that is native at 1600x1200 resolution. Obviosuly, I want to shrink this for games and testing.

Re:Disregard Previous Post

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you need to make your emoticons a little more complex. Try shooting for something 8 characters long, that'd do it.

Ag Neovo

[dc_genevieve]

It is too bad that they did not include an Ag Neovo monitor in the comparison. Although they are not well known, they make extremely affordable monitors. I am quite happy with the Ag Neovo I have and they tend to be highly rated in the customer reviews. It would have been interesting to see how they compared.

Re:FP

[badmammajamma]

Personally, I can't stand CRTs anymore unless they are the fairly expensive ones. The cheap ones have refresh rates that drive me out of my mind. I can't stand them and they give me horrible eye strain. I also don't like the extreme color fading that happens with CRTs over time. Oh, and fucking around with screen shapes and intense blurring problems on the edges with CRTs is also seriously unfun.

CRTs have some advantages but they are almost nil when you compare them to a GOOD LCD monitor (speed is about the only thing a CRT beats a modern LCD on). The only valid reason to have a CRT today, imho, is if you're a gamer. Although, I'm a gamer and I get by just fine with my LCD.

Price points

[tepples]

Most people who prefer CRTs over LCDs seem to be those who have used nice CRTs and crappy LCDs.

In other words: "Most people who prefer CRTs over LCDs seem to be those who have used CRTs and LCDs sold at the same price."

Re:Price points

[John Miles]

Yeah, I'd buy that, at the low end of the market. Medium-sized CRT monitors in the competent-but-not-stellar range are pretty cheap these days, while you won't find an LCD of acceptable (IMHO) quality for less than $600-$700 retail.

If I had $400 to spend, it's entirely possible I'd go the CRT route. At $800? No way on Earth.

Re:FP

[molnarcs]

You agree? Well, for how many years are you planning to use your monitor? If I assume at least 3, than you can calculate how much the energy consumed by your CRT will cost you. My vx912 LCD: ~35W A 20" CRT (the equivalent of 19" LCD): ~120W. Do the math. :)

Costs are not what you seem to think.

[Shivetya]

At least in the states you can get the Dell 2001FP for as low as $475 if you catch the deals right. Its 20" with 1600x1200 and a very good monitor (I use one). New 20" CRTs are in the same range if not higher at times. It seems the LCD market gets closer in price difference the bigger you get, up to a point.

The big thing I see between LCD/CRT is that if your into photography/graphic design I would stick with a high end CRT.

My only beef with my 2001FP is that with DVI I cannot control contrast which does make a difference.

Re:Costs are not what you seem to think.

[mplex]

My only beef with my 2001FP is that with DVI I cannot control contrast which does make a difference.

You have to adjust the contrast in software. If you have an NVidia card, it is under the display settings on the video control panel in the custom section.

Re:FP

[Anonymous Coward]

Well define better. It is true that, for some applications, CRTs are still better. At the same time I've got a brilliant 19" LCD now which requires less space and energy than a CRT would do.

Mind though that I'm neither a gamer nor would I get me anything but a CRT for watching videos right now. Still CRTs are a dying species for sure. After all you can't produce a monitor for nothing and the less people become willing to pay for a CRT the less interesting their production becomes.

Last but not least LCDs do become better, too and even the cheapest ones are often better than those crappy CRTs many companies put onto peoples desktops in the past.

Re:FP

[bleckywelcky]

You touched on all the problems with CRTs for office work. That is why I switched to an LCD for those tasks. I like the crispness of the picture, the thin profile for moving around, the constant performance of shading, colors, and lighting across the LCD. However, for games I would still like to fire up a good quality CRT. Sure, you can pick up a CRT for $100 or $150, but it is gonna be a piece of crap compared to an LCD or a $250 to $300 CRT.

Mod Parent down - from the article!

[Laebshade]

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/budget_lcd_roundup _0405/page3.asp

It makes sense for DVI to be better. With DVI, images are inherently sharp because each pixel on the monitor reflects one pixel from the computer. In fact, there is no reason why non-DVI LCD panels should still exist since all LCD panels are inherently digital. An analog-only LCD panel actually requires additional circuitry to convert the information back to the digital format - with DVI, there's a direct connection. More importantly for you, there's no meaningful price difference. The cheapest 17" non-DVI monitor is $205 and the cheapest 17" DVI monitor is $220. If your budget is so tight that you cannot afford the $15 difference, you shouldn't be spending your money on computer equipment in the first place. If there's one absolute of buying an LCD monitor, it is to get a monitor with DVI support. As long as you stick with a DVI panel, your monitor will be sharp.

Far better review

[Hackeron]

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20050215/ lcd-01.html

I chose the BenQ FP937s+ as its by far the most impressive at its price. You'll notice no BenQ monitors are mentioned in the roundup, dispite them producing some of the best displays for the price.

Re:Far better review

[Hackeron]

Hey, and the BenQ FP937S+ which is cheaper than DVI lacking Samsung 915N (atleast here) has DVI. Seems this roundup could have easily recommended this 19" if their heads werent so far up their asses. 3 Samsungs, 2 Viewsonics, and not a single Benq, shish!

Re:Far better review

[evilviper]

Benq and Acer before them have a long history of producing junk that dies quickly. Sure, it'll be a little cheaper, but you better have bought that extended warranty with it, because I wouldn't expect it to last more than a year with even moderate use.

Re:Far better review

[Hackeron]

Errr, you get a 3 year manufacturer's warranty with BenQ, and they have a far superior dead pixel policy than most competitors (if there's a dead pixel anywhere near the middle, they'll replace).

Mine came with 0 dead or stuck pixels and I've read upward of 100 customer reviews where not a single customer had even a single dead pixel or stuck pixel.

Sure you can get the warranty extended to 5 years, but I think 3 is more than enough, Samsung give you 1 year by comparison!

Re:color accuracy and luminance ranges.

[purduephotog]

We calibrate monitors at work that are designed to precisely match the human visual system- 4 cycles per degree and luminance matched to boot.

Greyscale monitors should have a dynamic range of .20 to 70 fL. Color can't do that at all, so a more typical range is .15 to 35 fL.... and even MOST color monitors can't do that... which means they get down-graded to about 30 fL if they're capable.

I'll let you figure out the contrast ratios for that ;)

However the curves are nearly as important. Most of the newer LCDs are coming out with programmable gain control within the monitor: This means that you can upload a corrected 'viewing' lut to the LCD and still get a little software lut in the video card. These are few and far between (Eizo panel, IBM's high end 10K$ one, and a few others come to mind) but they may suffer from 'gain' errors, where non-linear curve shaping occurrs due to where the designers put the amplifier breaks.

LCDs have one of the wierdest spot function because the pixels are square. They don't match the human visual system since there is no 'decay' to the image- your eye continually integrates the same patch over time (as opposed to CRT that immediately dies off in brightness). Some manufactures are using temporal dithering to compensate (3 pixels 'blur' over time to give you the appropriate value) or some form of backlight flickering.... which make these all a bitch to calibrate (please note this is one of my current assignments...)

Lastly, backwash of light on the walls should be consistend and dim. I think it's recommended from 2 to 4 fL of light reflecting off of a neutral grey surface. My room at home that I work on photographs with is 'silver screen' grey, has tungsten bulbs in blue sconces that works out to be about 6000K.... close, and close enough for my work to match prints in.

LCDs are wonderfull small, bright, and very sharp, but simply do not yet offer the potential for high end critical work. I would gladly put an LCD next to my CRT anyday... and keep ti for all of my text documents, coding, whatnot. For photos, I'll take my lambertian CRT (since LCDs don't yet ship with a head brace to lock down the view angle).

Re:FP

[Anonymous Coward]

I am running each of my two $300 monitors each at 1800x1400.

Wake me up when I can do that with LCD monitors that can do that is $500 a piece and have the same setup that is not wider than my desk.

Mitsubishi Diamond Pro

[purduephotog]

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A= details&Q=&is=REG&O=productlist&sku=266546

Now this is a monitor that rocks. We use'm all the time... excelent configuration, great luminance, and perfect spot size.

Oh yeah, and it kicks the ass out of the 4Kx3K IBM flat panel that we paid 10K$ for.

Tools for color correcting?

[Anonymous Coward]

Comparing my ThinkPad T42 with my Samsung SyncMaster 900NF only confirms it. My CRT just got much more vibrant colours, while the T42 LCD looks flat/pastel'ish.

And since I don't have any colour correction bottons to push, then what do I do? I've tried fiddle around with the Radeon gamma-correction thingy, but I can't seem to hit "light skin", and especially 'red' stays 'flat'.

Any colour utilities that can guide one through, just to help a bit on the colours?

My bet it's their business model.

[Anonymous Coward]

Since digital is supposed to be better, they charge a premium for it, which more than offsets the costs of adding analog handling to the cheaper models.

Re:FP

[Anonymous Coward]

"It depends."

Are you short on space? For a lot of people, being able to save space is worth a lot. CRTs may have good quality, but there's no debate they're *big*. Really big.

Want a big screen? CRTs may not be an option. The biggest I've seen are 21" (which means they're really about 19", right?). Apple has a 30" LCD (which has gotten rave reviews). Sure, you can put two CRTs side-by-side, but then you have a few inches of bezel in the middle of your workspace. (You can put LCDs side-by-side, too.)

Want something that's reasonably portable? CRTs aren't.

For a lot of people the smooth (no flicker) and clear (sharp pixel edges) picture on an LCD is a lot easier on the eyes. They're also much quieter than CRTs.

So basically, "for the money" is the only reason I'd get a CRT. (And apparently I'm not alone in preferring LCDs...)

Re:FP

[SerialEx13]

You are very right, there are costs with running the device. I haven't looked into how much of a difference there would be. It would have to be at the very least a couple hundred dollars cheaper to run the LCD over those years for it to be financially cheaper -- if I was using a common resolution such as 1280x1024. The problem for myself is that I want a higher resolution and LCDs just don't seem to provide that unless if I got over a $1000 to spend.

Re:FP

[toddestan]

I tried to use energy costs to justify my 1600x1200 LCD, but that just doesn't work when the LCD costed about $1000, and the CRT was already paid for. But I bought the LCD anyway, and haven't looked back. You can get a Sony 20.1" 1600x1200 resolution LCD for $700 now.

Re:FP

[dwin902]

I agree. For color accuracy, flexible resolutions, and ESPECIALLY black levels, CRTs are still on top. I wouldn't dream of watching a DVD on an LCD; all the shadow detail gets lost. True blacks just aren't possible with LCD tech.

Re:FP

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Colour, yes. Clarity, never.

Clarity is the main reason I switched to an LCD, and not even the most expensive, high-end CRT is going to match the crispness of even the most budget LCD.

Not an issue of money only! Much more to it

[Nik13]

Yes, money is an issue but it's FAR from being the only one.

-CRT has no dead/stuck pixels
-CRT has no set resution (higher res, too)
-CRT has much better contrasts
-CRT has better color accuracy to some extent (my basic Eye-One calibrator doesn't work with LCDs either)
-No response delays (and tests tweaked to get faster results)
-Better viewing angles
(...)
I'm not sure about useable life either. Good CRTs lasts quite a while.

Of course money is also an issue. I got 2 *nice* (recent, calibrated and not refurbs either) 21" trinitrons on my photoshop PC for 400$ CDN very easily. Now to replace this with "good" 21" LCDs I'd be spending many times that much - for MUCH worse displays IMHO. Yes, I'd have some desk space back, but there's just no reason to spend an extra couple thousand $ or more for a much lesser product. It's not just a question of being cheap/frugal/poor. Even if one had the money, why waste it on a inferior product? I'd much rather spend those $$$ on some really good stuff that I need like good nikon glass instead of spending it to get lower quality stuff. I call it spending wisely - not being cheap. (Although it's true enough that for some people LCDs are too expensive) LCDs are WAY overhyped lately, it's incredible.

Also, we have a lot of high priced LCDs at work (some 17" that cost like 700$) that have VERY crappy picture, I have a hard time reading text on them... I haven't spent much time playing with them, but I've been very unimpressed by them overall...

Re:Disregard Previous Post

[Anonymous Coward]

Why stop there? >:-P ( o Y o )

When will LCD monitors have a heated platform?

[Anonymous Coward]

Until someone produces an LCD monitor that comes complete with a heated platform as standard I am afraid my feline companions will refuse to let me migrate from CRT technology.

Product landscape viewer

[pesc]

There is a Swedish on-line shop that has an excellent product landscape viewer here.

This is a Java applet that lets you turn a number of knobs to find out which screen matches your need. Very nice! And don't be intimidated by the Swedish on the site, it's not that hard to understand! ;-)

Re:FP

[Anonymous Coward]

I can have two 20" LCD monitors hooking up to one PC and still have plenty of desk space left :)

Try that with your two 20" monitors

Looking forward...

[displaced80]

I definitely like the idea of LCD screens. I got a widescreen 17" LCD TV from Ebay. Cheap 'n cheerful, not startling quality, but serviceable. So that's got me hooked on the benefits of LCD, but aware of the downsides.

They also appear to my sense of simplicity. I like the idea of ditching those analogdigital conversions. Straight-through digital signalling's what I'd like to have.

So, my criteria are:

- At least 17" viewable diagonal
- 16:9 ratio. I really dislike 4:3 these days.
- Suitably high resolution, and a resolution which makes sense for the aspect ratio.
- Good DDC (or whatever) support, so that the attached machine properly identifies the widescreen resolutions.
- Response time of maximum 8ms. Preferably 4ms.
- DVI input
- £250 price tag maximum.

Why not wait for OLED monitors ?

[jchuillier]

Hello, Given into consideration that LCD is ALREADY an obsolete technology since the future lies in OLED, why not wait another 2 or 3 years and buy an OLED display when the price comes down ? After all for a VERY cheap price you can get an IIYAMA CRT monitor which WILL last for at least 3 years (that's their warranty time) and in 3 years you buy an OLED stuff. Look at what happened to the hasty people who bought plasma screens for their TV's.... Here's a link on an article on the subject, interestingly they say that in 3 years the technology should be ok http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050105-4500 .html

But CRT's have downsides:

[MtViewGuy]

1. They consume 3-4 times the power of LCD's for the same display area.

2. They generate a lot of heat.

3. They tend to take up way too much desk space.

4. Getting the display geometry right takes a lot of finicky adjustments, many of which are beyond the understanding of many computer users.

If you get a top-quality LCD from the likes of Samsung, it's hard to go back to a CRT monitor.