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)
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
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
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.
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
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
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.
it's just how the technology is.
http://www.rayn.net . Funny. Stuff.
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.
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.
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
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
Start a happiness pandemic
"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."
... 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.
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,
(With apologies to Monty Python)
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.
Browse the Information Directory
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Every time you post an article on Slashdot, I kill a server. Think of the servers!
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?
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.
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.
--- Ãther SPOON!
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.
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.
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