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

[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.

FP

[rudeboy1]

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

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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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

[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.

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?

[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.

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)

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?

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

[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.

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.

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...

[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.

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?

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: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.)

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.