Slashdot Mirror
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."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
I still think CRTs are better, ESPECIALLY for the money, and the clarity, color, etc.
Raging in an online forum won't do anything for the world around you. To see change, you must take action.
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.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
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.
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.
Bears don't normally eat things that talk and move backwards.
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.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
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.
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.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
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...
///<sig