LCD buying considerations

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
J

jake

Distinguished
Nov 25, 2001
236
0
18,680
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Are you other CRT users starting to find it very difficult to ignore the
falling prices and improving specs of LCD monitors? I've been really
pleased for the past year that I've been able to hold off on LCD-itis, to
the point of being completely satisfied with my 21" Sony Trinitron CRT that
currently takes up about an acre and half here on my desk. It's been a
source of pride that I haven't been fawning over LCDs, and I've avoided that
achey feeling of wanting something so badly but not wanting to fork over the
dollars to have it. And beyond that, I'd decided that if/when I do make the
transition to LCD, I was not going to settle for less than DVI, 16ms
response time, and a 20" screen. In that regard, the Viewsonic VP201S has
been looking good, although at $735 I could easily pass on it for the time
being.

Well, that's all changed now. With no-DVI / 19" / 16ms response time LCDs
nearing the $300 mark, it's very difficult to NOT want one. It's making me
question my 20" minimum. I mean, really, is the difference between 19" and
20.1" worth TWICE the money? And what about the DVI? My 9800Pro has DV
output, so should I cling to that criteria? I've read that DVI will make a
big difference if I run the monitor at its native resolution. Is that a
must for optimum quality? I run my Trinitron at 1024x768. Is digital that
much better than analog signal? I've never compared.

You know, the other consideration is that prices will only get lower, and
specs will only get better. If we CRT owners can hold off longer, it's only
gonna get better. Agreed?

jakesnake
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

A 19 inch LCD will be alot shorter horizontally than a 21 inch CRT. A 17
or 19 inch LCD is a 5:4 monitor, a CRT is always 4:3.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Thusly "Jake" <jake@yahoo.com> Spake Unto All:

>Are you other CRT users starting to find it very difficult to ignore the
>falling prices and improving specs of LCD monitors?

No, because I want high contrast, fast refresh (TRUE fast refresh, no
cheating!), and accurate color rendition. Those monitors still cost
about as much as a complete PC.

Ask me again in three years time.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

> No, because I want high contrast, fast refresh (TRUE fast refresh, no
> cheating!), and accurate color rendition. Those monitors still cost
> about as much as a complete PC.
>
> Ask me again in three years time.

Is that how long it will take you to save a few hundred dollars?
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Thusly "Walter" <waltersibbons@hotmail.com> Spake Unto All:

>> No, because I want high contrast, fast refresh (TRUE fast refresh, no
>> cheating!), and accurate color rendition. Those monitors still cost
>> about as much as a complete PC.
>>
>> Ask me again in three years time.
>
>Is that how long it will take you to save a few hundred dollars?

No, it's how long it'll take for monitors with the above specs to
reach a few hundred dollars in price.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Jake wrote:
> Are you other CRT users starting to find it very difficult to ignore the
> falling prices and improving specs of LCD monitors? I've been really
> pleased for the past year that I've been able to hold off on LCD-itis, to
> the point of being completely satisfied with my 21" Sony Trinitron CRT that
> currently takes up about an acre and half here on my desk. It's been a
> source of pride that I haven't been fawning over LCDs, and I've avoided that
> achey feeling of wanting something so badly but not wanting to fork over the
> dollars to have it. And beyond that, I'd decided that if/when I do make the
> transition to LCD, I was not going to settle for less than DVI, 16ms
> response time, and a 20" screen. In that regard, the Viewsonic VP201S has
> been looking good, although at $735 I could easily pass on it for the time
> being.
>
> Well, that's all changed now. With no-DVI / 19" / 16ms response time LCDs
> nearing the $300 mark, it's very difficult to NOT want one. It's making me
> question my 20" minimum. I mean, really, is the difference between 19" and
> 20.1" worth TWICE the money? And what about the DVI? My 9800Pro has DV
> output, so should I cling to that criteria? I've read that DVI will make a
> big difference if I run the monitor at its native resolution. Is that a
> must for optimum quality? I run my Trinitron at 1024x768. Is digital that
> much better than analog signal? I've never compared.
>
> You know, the other consideration is that prices will only get lower, and
> specs will only get better. If we CRT owners can hold off longer, it's only
> gonna get better. Agreed?
>
> jakesnake
>

Have a new LCD monitor that is plenty fast enough for games (14ms) but I
have a dual-monitor set up and still use the old CRT purely because of
the lack of range in contracts (blacks). Put Doom3 on for example and
most of the screen is a shiny jet black. Unplayable. Other games are
much better (HL2 and Riddick for eg) until you get into the shade!

Haven't had time to experiment with the settings and will probably get a
better picture when I do but I suspect I should have looked closer at
contrast ratios and not just speed. Make sure you read up on and check
those ratios.

That said I would not go back to my CRT for surfing/newsgroups/graphics
or my work docs. The CRT just looks dull and blurred in comparison.

--
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity."

Martin Luther King, Jr.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

I have an LCD and Doom 3 and it is playable. Learn how to calibrate a
monitor.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:16:37 GMT, "Jake" <jake@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Are you other CRT users starting to find it very difficult to ignore the
>falling prices and improving specs of LCD monitors?

I bought a cheap one a couple weeks back (Gericom from Aldi for
130UKP), and have been pleased I did. My CRT monitor was 19" and the
LCD is only 15", but to be honest, I really don't miss the lost size
is it is slightly closer to my eyes.

My main reason for getting one was that I was getting eye strain when
using my CRT for a while and that has been vastly improved with using
a LCD.

It is 16ms and the response is noticeably inferior to CRT. I thought
OMG, what have I done when I first played a game on it, but my
eyes/brain got used to it quickly and I am happy gaming on it now.

I bought a 15" because I wanted a native res of 1024x768 and I didn't
want to end up like magnulus making a fool of himself demanding all
games should run smoothly at 1280x1024. Something that has surprised
me is that 800x600 looks good (with FSAA) in games, despite it being
ugly on the desktop, so I often use that res for fill rate limited
games.

Overall, I am glad I made the leap. They certainly aren't perfect, but
for their advantages (eye friendliness, size, lower energy usage) I
won't be going back to CRT's.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Blig Merk wrote:
> 6 ms response time
> http://www.benq-eu.com/Products/LCD/index.cfm?product=516&page=specifications
> There are faster ones on the way.
>

I'd rather have one with full 24bit colour range instead. This monitor
is 262 000 colours dithered to 16.2 million. Almost all super-fast
response time lcd's take shortcuts when it comes to picture quality.
Also, as other people have noted, nice black levels and a 4:3 resolution
would be nice as well...
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Kars" <nobody@nothing.com> wrote in message
news:41f0b28f$1@griseus.its.uu.se...
> I'd rather have one with full 24bit colour range instead. This monitor
> is 262 000 colours dithered to 16.2 million.

For gaming response time is more important. Gaming really isn't yet a
videophile medium, anyways. The dithering is peanuts compared to some of
the visual artifacts that are still part and parcel with PC gaming (how
about a new one- bump map aliasing?). Yes, certain test patterns I can see
the dithering with, but for gaming I mostly don't notice it. Really.

Doom 3 looked fine to me. It was dark, but then it looks dark on a CRT
too. I have played games with high dynamic range rendering (Xpand Rally,
for instance, or Pirates) and I don't really notice the dithering.
Switching between 16 bit and 32 bit color in games, I can definitely see a
difference, so if the dithering didn't work, I wouldn't be able to see a
difference, now would I?

>Almost all super-fast
> response time lcd's take shortcuts when it comes to picture quality.
> Also, as other people have noted, nice black levels and a 4:3 resolution
> would be nice as well...

4x3 resolution can be done on an LCD, you just get a letterbox. In my
experience, Nnidia cards do a better job with this than ATI. It's a moot
point as most games now days support 1280x1024.

Currently, you can have an LCD with good color, or decent response time,
but you cannot have both. The Samsung LCD's are a compromise.

What is really needed isn't a monitor with 1ms response time. They need
a monitor with a even response time curve. Currently, many LCD's out there
will have substantial dips and hills in the curve, causing blurring to be
tinted (I can see this scrolling very fast across a webpage- the lettering
has a red shift). Grey blurring would look more pleasing. We already watch
films that have substantial amounts of blurring in them (play a DVD in slow
motion, and you will see it), but the blurring is even toned.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:16:37 GMT, "Jake" <jake@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Are you other CRT users starting to find it very difficult to ignore the
>falling prices and improving specs of LCD monitors? I've been really
>pleased for the past year that I've been able to hold off on LCD-itis, to
>the point of being completely satisfied with my 21" Sony Trinitron CRT that
>currently takes up about an acre and half here on my desk. It's been a
>source of pride that I haven't been fawning over LCDs, and I've avoided that
>achey feeling of wanting something so badly but not wanting to fork over the
>dollars to have it. And beyond that, I'd decided that if/when I do make the
>transition to LCD, I was not going to settle for less than DVI, 16ms
>response time, and a 20" screen. In that regard, the Viewsonic VP201S has
>been looking good, although at $735 I could easily pass on it for the time
>being.
>
>Well, that's all changed now. With no-DVI / 19" / 16ms response time LCDs
>nearing the $300 mark, it's very difficult to NOT want one. It's making me
>question my 20" minimum. I mean, really, is the difference between 19" and
>20.1" worth TWICE the money? And what about the DVI? My 9800Pro has DV
>output, so should I cling to that criteria? I've read that DVI will make a
>big difference if I run the monitor at its native resolution. Is that a
>must for optimum quality? I run my Trinitron at 1024x768. Is digital that
>much better than analog signal? I've never compared.
>
>You know, the other consideration is that prices will only get lower, and
>specs will only get better. If we CRT owners can hold off longer, it's only
>gonna get better. Agreed?
>
>jakesnake
>
>
>

I hear ya.. I've been eyeing them as well. Dell has a 21" for $639 now
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?sku=320-1578&c=us&l=en&cs=19&category_id=2999&page=external

One thing I was surprised to find out was that a 19" LCD is like
having a 20-21" CRT. (the border around the screen is smaller)

I'm still holding off another year or so.. but yeah.. I'm starting to
pay more attention to them lately. (used to ignore LCD talk completely
because of reported blurryness and smearing..and native resolutions
that force you to play in a specfic resolution that might not be
'playable' with the video card and equipment. (not many games can get
50+ fps in 1600x ya know?..hehe)

Pluvious
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 00:32:39 +0100, Mean_Chlorine
<mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>Thusly "Jake" <jake@yahoo.com> Spake Unto All:
>
>>Are you other CRT users starting to find it very difficult to ignore the
>>falling prices and improving specs of LCD monitors?
>
>No, because I want high contrast, fast refresh (TRUE fast refresh, no
>cheating!), and accurate color rendition. Those monitors still cost
>about as much as a complete PC.
>
>Ask me again in three years time.
>



LCD's dont need to referesh as they do not work the same as CRT's, go do some
read ups..
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Thusly puss@purrpurr.com Spake Unto All:

>>No, because I want high contrast, fast refresh (TRUE fast refresh, no
>>cheating!), and accurate color rendition. Those monitors still cost
>>about as much as a complete PC.
>>
>>Ask me again in three years time.
>
>LCD's dont need to referesh as they do not work the same as CRT's, go do some
>read ups..

Ah, that should've read "response" not "refresh". Sorry for confusing
you.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Mean_Chlorine" <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dmo0v0ld7068n45mke7qht5e6kseu99vbt@4ax.com...
> Thusly puss@purrpurr.com Spake Unto All:
>
>>>No, because I want high contrast, fast refresh (TRUE fast refresh, no
>>>cheating!), and accurate color rendition. Those monitors still cost
>>>about as much as a complete PC.
>>>
>>>Ask me again in three years time.
>>
>>LCD's dont need to referesh as they do not work the same as CRT's, go do
>>some
>>read ups..
>
> Ah, that should've read "response" not "refresh". Sorry for confusing
> you.

Don't worry about it. the rest of us knew what you meant.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Kars wrote:
> I'd rather have one with full 24bit colour range instead. This
monitor
> is 262 000 colours dithered to 16.2 million. Almost all super-fast
> response time lcd's take shortcuts when it comes to picture quality.
>
Well, here is one with 12ms response time, non-dithered 16.7 million.
They only get faster with full 24-bit color from here, but they aren't
going to be cheap:
http://pcworld.pricegrabber.com/search_techspecs.php/masterid=4001241/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom