What makes a good quality monitor?

[Vimp]

Please awnser as many of my questions as you can, thanks.

I've been looking at alot of different monitors and noticed some things. The things I've always looked for when looking for a good monitor, aside from the cheapest possible, is the max resolution and the max refresh rate at the max res as well as the dot pitch. These are basicly the most prominent info found for monitors at stores, along with the size of the monitor. However I notice that you can find 2 monitors with very simelar specs if not the exact same from the same company and yet you can have pretty significant price differences. So I was wondering what else determines a good monitor? Theres obviously something else thats making certain monitors more expensive then others of the same res, refresh and dot pitch abilities. Anyone know what it is? One thing I have noticed that seems to be consistent between the higher cost monitors is that they tend to have more video input bandwidth. Most seem to have around 200mhz while some of the really cheap ones have like 175mhz and some of the really expensive ones have like 350mhz. Does anyone know the importance of this feature? What effect does a higher bandwidth have? And is that one of the main things thats making expensive monitors more expensive or is it a combination of things? I'd really like to know just what effect the bandwidth has and whether it is worth it to get monitors with a higher bandwidth considering how more expensive they seem to be.

Im looking to get a 17" or 19" CRT monitor for some wheres around $250CN($195US) or preferably less.

Also I've heard that for CRT monitors 85hz is the minnimum for optimal use as far as your eyes go. However I'm wondering if LCD monitors also require the same level of refresh rates to not damage ones eyes? Also, is the radiation from CRTs of any concern? I'm on my computer alot and Im concerned that the radiation from the monitor could be having negative effects on me. I've heard that LCD monitors don't emit any radiation so is that one of the main reasons to get an LCD monitor?

I guess I have two main concerns here. I want the best image quality monitor I can get for the cheapest I can. However Im also concerned about getting a monitor that is healthiest for my eyes and whatever else might be harmed. Is this second concern of mine simply paranoia or are there some actual health differences between different monitors? For instance if I just bought a really cheap monitor am I really hurting my eyes uneccesarily or having excess radiation emitions simply to save a buck or are cheaper monitors just as heathy as expensive ones?

*How many questions can you find in this post? 😉

 

[Vimp]

Any help here would be much appreciated. Shame this forum dosn't get many posters in it though.

 

[Pauly]

1) this forum sucks, a vbulletin could boost the activity
2) if monitors were unhealthy they wouldn't be able to sell them
3) best image quality, well this is very subjective, u will need to see the monitor in the shop for that. Although dot size between 20-25 help.
4)There is no reason to get a LCD, only if u want to save energy or space, besides that CRT is still a better monitor.
5)radiation - if that scares u, better throw away your cellphone/GSM
6) Yes, u need 85hz, don't go for anything less (less stable image.
7)There is a review of CRT 19" monitors (2002) they explain about tubes etc, better read that. Some technology is better and more expensive to produce.
8)Few monitors for use in CAD development envirment are expencive because, because lines/curves are very precise.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by pauly on 01/24/04 11:44 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[phsstpok]

Good means different things to different people. To me cheap, or rather, inexpensive is pretty important.

I only needed a monitor for a bedroom setting, television viewing, web browsing, and gaming. Pretty much in that order. My price limit was also about $200 (USD) and it had to be at least a 19" monitor. A year ago (when I was looking) there wasn't much to choose. Today there are many more monitors available in that price range.

Other than price things important to me are sharpness, color, and brightness. Sharpness is obvious. As for color what looks good to me is all I need but sometimes you have to watch out for uneven color, dull or bright areas. Oh, convergence is important. You may see specs on this but look at the display. If text is malformed or the text seems to bleed color near the corners of the display then pass on that monitor, unless it has convergence adjustments, in which case try the adjustments. Brightness, well as long as as the CRT can produce brightness a little higher than comfortable that is all I need. (I need to see the display. I don't need to illuminate the room!) Whenever possible it's best to actually look at a monitor for yourself to evaluate the above characteristics. Specs just don't tell you what you need to see.

If it looks lousy to you it is lousy. You are the person that has to live with your choice.

I'm not a hardcore gamer so I don't need much in the way high refresh rates. 85 Hz is good but then I've never been sensitive to flicker so I personally can get by with 75 hz (and even 70 hz if there are no florescent lights in the room). This allowed me to buy something pretty cheap. It was a Viewsonic E95, 19", 1600x1200 @76 Hz but I mainly use it at 1280x960 (less for gaming having only a Radeon 8500 video card).

I don't like the shadow line(s) produced by the tension wires of aperture grill monitors. This limited my choices to shadow mask monitors which pretty much eliminated anything approaching a flatscreen. Not a problem for me but others won't accept anything that isn't flat.

Controls are a factor. I'm not too picky but I wanted a little more than basic controls/features.

I guess the basics include brightness, contrast, color adjustment, color temperature, size, location, parellelism, and pincussion. Advanced controls include tilt (which really should be a basic), moire, focus, hook, pin balance (pincussion left & right), convergence, input level, and more.

Features/ergonomics. Easy to use controls, easy to access menus, dual DB-15 connectors, RGB support, and I don't know what else. (The monitor I finally chose has none of these extras).

I can't tell you much about monitor frequencies but try a search on scanning frequencies and pixel clocks. You don't necessarily need high frequencies to achieve sharpness with decent resolution but I don't know the actual relationships.

I found the following article for learning the basics of CRTs. It might answer some of your questions.

<A HREF="http://computer.howstuffworks.com/monitor.htm" target="_new">http://computer.howstuffworks.com/monitor.htm</A>

Sorry, I didn't mean to write a novel. LOL



<b>56K, slow and steady does not win the race on internet!</b>

 

[Vimp]

I appreciate your replies. The more info I get the better. One thing about it though is that I kind of have to base my purchase off of pure specs since most places don't have the monitors on display and setup for viewing. Alot of the features you listed among the basics I have never heard of so I'll have to look into the article you mentioned and see what I can learn. I'm still very curious to know more about the video input bandwidth and its effect on things.

 

[dhlucke]

A bad monitor will make your testicles shrink. Watch out for all the dangerous radiation!

_________________________________________
<font color=red><b>GOD</font color=red> <font color=blue>BLESS</font color=blue> <font color=red>AMERICA</font color=red></b>

 

[Vimp]

I thought so. Thats it, no more computer for me.

 

[Pauly]

One problem still remains, aslong that u can't see a monitor active in a shop, u are more buying on feeling.

If us see a samsung monitor of 500€ vs a sony monitor that was 1000€. I would pick the samsung without any doubt, because the image was 10 times nicer to look at. So price & features seems to be a bad indicator of what a screen can or can't. I really urge to go out looking for monitor on display. Its not like there is any messurement in monitors. There is not bytes/sec or any other indicator that can say "this monitor is 10 times better then the other".

 

[phsstpok]

I hear you. There was so little to choose from a year ago at the $200 (USD) range. I had to take a chance and buy mail order. Most of the models I considered had similar specs accept at 1600x1200 resolution (the top resolution at that price at the time) but were @66hz or @68hz. Unless you use a utility like Powerstrip this you are stuck using 60hz refresh (Windows). Either way even I, with my low refresh tolerant eyes, can't use these monitors, not at 1600x1200. I only use 1600x1200 occasionally but I do need it and I need 70hz or 75hz refresh.

I think this narrowed my options down to one monitor that I could actually look at but I didn't like it. Looked like a fishbowl because it was so curved. I did like the controls but that's low on my list of priorities in budget monitor.

If you can't actually look at the monitor for yourself try reading some reviews. unfortunately, for non-top tier models you might not find an official review. You can find sites with user reviews which may help.

One that comes to mind is <A HREF="http://www.sysopt.com" target="_new">http://www.sysopt.com</A>.

I also like to look at the user comments at <A HREF="http://www.newegg.com" target="_new">http://www.newegg.com</A>. (They don't ship to Canada as far as I know).

Take any user review with a grain of salt, especially comments like "this is the best" or "this sux". Most individuals have tested very few displays (myself included) and are comparing monitor to who knows what.

However, do take note of specific comments like "blurry at top resolution" or "too dim" or "image is distorted" which may be very relevent.

Keep searching for details on scanning frequencies and pixel clocks. I've seen a couple "white papers" on the subject (but I didn't bother saving the links, too technical for me).

Good luck.

Please followup and let us know what you get and give a mini-review. I will be looking for another 19" monitor soon and unfortunately the Viewsonic E95 is now hard to find here in the USA.

<b>56K, slow and steady does not win the race on internet!</b>

 

[Vimp]

Thanks for your comments guys. I'll take some time and look over the links that have been provided me in this thread and see what I can learn. I really suspect that if you know enough about the technical specs then one should be able to determine just how good a monitor will look. I don't intend on buying a monitor any time in the next couple of months at least but just wanted to learn more about them for when I do have the money for a new one. needless to say it maybe a while before I can give a minireview of my purchase. However if I do learn some relevant info as to how to determine a good monitor or some such info then I'll post it here.

 

[phsstpok]

Specs are great but they don't tell you if a particular monitor has decreased focus at its highest refresh rates, or if the image has distortions, or if the monitor has severe moire patterns, or if the monitor is sensitive to EMI fields (as in jiggle or rolling scan problems).

If a monitor has any problems at all they certainly won't be listed in the specs.

The good news is that monitors are now much better than they were as little as three years ago. In general the least expensive 19" monitors today perform better with fewer issues than many of the mid-range 17" monitors did in the past.


<b>56K, slow and steady does not win the race on internet!</b>

 

[Vimp]

Well thats good to know then because as I said I have no way of seeing what they look like intill after I buy it and get it home.

<font color=blue>_____________________________________</font color=blue>
Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Asus A7N8X-X, Athelon XP 2500+ Barton,
Samsung 512mb DDR400, Creative Geforce2 GTS,
SoundBlaster Live! Value.

 

[Guest]

Hello,
You ask many questions some of which only you can answer. If cost is an issue than you may be limited as to just how much monitor you will be able to buy. Being that health is an issue of yours I would consider a monitor that has less emisions. I am partial to hogh end Sony & Samsung CRT Flat Face Monitors. I need reading glasses, so what I did was I had a pair of granny glasses made that were special coated for UV & anti glare protection. I also had them stretch the prescription out to arms length. I use these glasses only for the computer. Even if you don't need glasses you could still have a pair made like this for eye protection. You can get a clip on eye shield for the monitor at a stationary store like Staples. When it really comes down to selecting a product it will be the buyer that has to decide because not everyone has the same wants and needs. If I were you, I would get the most monitor I could and cost would not be an issue. Keep in mind though that as the size of the monitor goes up the picture quality goes down. Also don't expect to see the best or upper end monitors in stores, because most stores don't carry them as they don't sell well. Seems that most people don't know and the rest don't care..........

<b>"A politician should do two terms-one in office & one in jail"</b><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by vista on 01/30/04 07:21 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Guest]

Not so. Most people don't do this, but I do along with a few that I do know. If I buy from a store I open the box in the store and ask to try it out, before I buy it. If it's a LCD I look at it very close and if I don't like what I see I walk right out the door.....

<b>"A politician should do two terms-one in office & one in jail"</b>

 

[HammerBot]

1) So I was wondering what else determines a good monitor?

What usually determines the price of the monitor is its maximum resolution, refresh rate and video bandwidth. These number are very objective and obviously monitor manufacturers loves writing large numbers to help sell the monitor. The problem is that the image quality is not easy to describe and you never see any (objective) info about that when reading an ad for a monitor. So, some manufacturers may state that their monitor runs a this resolution and refresh rate even if the image quality at this resolution and refresh rate is poor.
Also, branded monitors tends to more expensive. This isn't just limited to monitors but all marketing. A new manufacturer may need to cut price to get a share of the market.

2) Anyone know what it is?

Yes. I made some suggestions above.

3) Does anyone know the importance of this feature?

The required video input bandwidth is determined by resolution and refresh rate. The dot-frequency for a monitor is calculated by multiplying X-Y resolution and refresh rate. Thus a monitor with a max resolution of 1600x1200 and a refresh rate of 85Hz has a maximum dot-frequrency of 163 MHz (Note: Capital 'M'). For a good image quality with fine sharpe edges its common to require the double video bandwidth. Thus 2*163 MHz = 346 MHz.

4) What effect does a higher bandwidth have?

Higher bandwidth improves image quality. Especially at high contrast transitions. But note: Often the cable or the graphics card is the limit. If you go for a monitor with a high bandwidth, don't use crappy cables or graphics cards.

5) And is that one of the main things thats making expensive monitors more expensive or is it a combination of things?

For the most part a combination of resolution, refresh rate and video bandwidth.

6) However I'm wondering if LCD monitors also require the same level of refresh rates to not damage ones eyes?

LCD monitors are much more persistent than CRTs. I.e. each pixel has a certain amount of 'afterglow'. Therefore LCDs can run with refresh rates as low as 60 Hz without visible flickering.
For CRTs a higher refreshrate means a more stable image. But CRTs also have a certain amount of afterglow (although much smaller than LCDs). Therefore some cheap CRTs doesn't flicker as much as the more expensive ones.
It really comes down to what YOU can see and not what others tell you to buy. Go to the store and check it out. Some people can't see the difference between 75Hz and 85Hz even on high quality monitors.
I don't know if CRTs or LCDs put out more radiation at higher refreshrates, but it sounds feasible.

7) Also, is the radiation from CRTs of any concern?

Old TV sets put out a lot more radiation than never ones, and monitors are specifically designed to minimise radiation since the user sits close to it. But I'm not a doctor, so I don't know for sure if its dangerous. But if it really was I think we would have heard about it by now.

8) I've heard that LCD monitors don't emit any radiation so is that one of the main reasons to get an LCD monitor?

I wouldn't choose LCD over CRT for that reason. If you need to save space or carry your monitor around, pick LCD. If you want low persistance (no afterglow) pick CRT.

9) Is this second concern of mine simply paranoia or are there some actual health differences between different monitors?

As you allready pointed out LCD doesn't put out any radiation (well perhaps a little) CRTs does. Some more than others.

10) For instance if I just bought a really cheap monitor am I really hurting my eyes uneccesarily or having excess radiation emitions simply to save a buck or are cheaper monitors just as heathy as expensive ones?

I really don't think there is any cause for concern. A too low refresh rate may give you a headache. Starring at the monitor may dry out you eyes since you tend to forget blinking. This is probably more harmful than the radiation.

I found 10 questions. Did I answer them all?

<i><b>Engineering is the fine art of making what you want from things you can get</b></i>

 

[Vimp]

hehe, very good post HammerBot. And your the first to even talk about what the bandwidth is, so that was very helpfull. And now that I know what sorta bandwidth I should look for based on the max res and refresh of a monitor I should be able to find a nice monitor through looking at specs. I'm not sure though how I could do anything about the cables though since as far as I know all cables look the same. Also I'm curious just how any modern (No more then 3 years old) video card could be a limiting factor. The resolutions and refresh rate capabilities of videocards even 3 years old seems to surpass the abilities of the vast majority of 17" and 19" monitors of today. And assuming the only other limiting factor is a videocards RAMDAC, (which I don't even know what a RAMDAC is), I would think that 350mhz is probably more then adequate, which is what most cards that are even 3 years old support.

<font color=blue>_____________________________________</font color=blue>
Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Asus A7N8X-X, Athelon XP 2500+ Barton,
Samsung 512mb DDR400, Creative Geforce2 GTS,
SoundBlaster Live! Value.

 

[HammerBot]

Yes, all cables look the same. But nevertheless there is a big difference between them. I tend to go by the assumption that monitor manufacturers wont ship their monitor with a cable that degrades images quality. But hey, look at the cables that comes with a new CD player. They are often too crappy to fully enjoy the quality of the CD player. Often you'll need to buy some descent cables. I'm not sure how much of this is true for monitor manufacturers. I have been pretty happy with the cables that came with my EIZO monitor. However, other manufacturers may choose to bundle cheaper cables.
It's true that looking at the objective numbers for a graphics card, most are more than adequate. But again, you can't be too sure if you only consider those. Recently I read about a hack for an ASUS graphics card. The point was to remove some of the output filter components in order to increase the video bandwidth.
The cutoff frequency of the output filter is determined by the sample rate of the DAC (Digital to Analog Converter). In theory a sample frequncy of 350 MHz actually only provides you with an analog (video) bandwidth of the half of that. I.e. 175 MHz. The output filter is designed for this cutoff frequency in order to avoid high frequency spurious components. 175 MHz is enough to cover the dot-frequency for a monitor at 1600x1200 and 85 Hz refresh rate. But the bandwidth sets a limitation on how fast the signal can change.
If the dot-frequency of a monitor is 175 MHz and the video bandwidth is equal to that, the maximum difference two horizontal adjecent pixels can have is about 37%. Therefore the limited bandwidth gives the most distortion at high contrast transitions.
The relation between sampling frequency and bandwidth comes from Shannon's sampling theorem. It states that the sampling frequency must be at least two times the highest frequency component. If this is not obeyed, frequency aliasing will occur. This means that signal components appear at frequencies where they do not belong. Depending on the application this can have more or less negative impact. I.e. if the signal is frequency analysed, aliasing can have catastrophic consequences. But if the signal only is observed in the time-domain (as it is on a monitor) the effect of aliasing is much less pronounced.

Im currently looking at an EIZO T960 monitor ($2000 value some years ago). Im running 1600*1200 at 75Hz even though the monitor supports larger refresh rates. Why? Because a larger refresh rate blurs edges of high contrast transitions and gives 'echoes'. This is not because of the monitor or the cable but because Im using an old Geforce 3 graphics card. I have tested this setup with a better graphics card. This gave me an almost perfect image at 1600*1200 and 85Hz. So why dont I buy a better graphics card? Because the video performance of my Geforce 3 is sufficient, and I can't tell the difference between 75 and 85Hz.


<i><b>Engineering is the fine art of making what you want from things you can get</b></i>

 

[Vimp]

Thats very interessting because I always assumed the higher the refresh and res the better. But based on what you said the bandwidth plays a part in determining whether that is true or not. As far as I know though all recent videocards use a 400mhz DAC now, with none, as far as I'm aware, using anymore orless then 400mhz. So if I buy a new videocard I'll likly be getting the best I can get regardless which specific card I buy so that dosn't seem to be much of an issue really. So its mainly a concern of the bandwidth the monitor is capable of that I have research when I buy a new monitor, aside from the obvious res and refresh abilities which are a given.

<font color=blue>_____________________________________</font color=blue>
Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Asus A7N8X-X, Athelon XP 2500+ Barton,
Samsung 512mb DDR400, Creative Geforce2 GTS,
SoundBlaster Live! Value.

 

[GlenT]

Vimp, I've been canvassing the same market as you for similar reasons. I was looking for a good, cheap 19" monitor that displays 1600 x 1200 resolution that is reasonable for text readability and CAD.

I'm currently using an SXGA+ LCD display in a laptop (1400 x 1050) but this older display has fairly narrow view angles and isn't very good for graphics work because the colours tend to shift from bottom to top due to the narrow V view angle.

Right now FutureShop has an NEC 19" monitor with a C$120 rebate (brings the price down to $299) that sounds fairly good. Have not seen it, but the user reviews on the FutureShop.ca website were all good for this one.

It is almost impossible to get the sales people to set up a monitor in the store to demonstrate it's max resolution at the highest refresh rates. About the only thing that they will do is let you return it for a full refund, if you get it home and don't like it.

Beware your video card! Just because a monitor will do 1600 x 1200 at 85Mhz does not mean that your video card will!! My video card (internal on the laptop) will only do 1600 x 1200 at 60Mhz.

There are also big variations in the picture quality at the same resolution on different video cards. You just can't know for sure until you see it hooked up to your own computer.

Flicker is the big enemy. You will see it most with text on a white background. Flicker will tire your eyes. The best test that I've found, is to set to the highest res, highest supported refresh, open Word, to a page of text (white background) then look at it in your peripheral vision (focus on something beside the monitor, but pay attention to what you see 'out of the corner of your eye'). If you see flickering, it will tire your eyes.

London Drugs has an LG Flatron 19" monitor with good specs for C$349 - $399. Staples has a 19" ViewSonic with good specs for C$299 after rebates. Office Depot has several Samsung 19" monitors on clearance for C$349.

Happy hunting!

 

[GlenT]

As an adendum to my previous post, I just went out and bought the Nec MultiSync 97F from Future Shop at C$299 after rebate, and I am impressed by it. It is much sharper than I was expecting in 1600 x 1200 mode.

I am running it at 75Mhz refresh at 1600 x 1200. There is no flicker that I am aware of at this setting.

While it is not as clear as my LCD laptop, it is better than any other 19" monitor that I've seen. I'm using it with Windows XP, small fonts, with ClearType font smoothing turned on.

I think that this is the best 19" CRT monitor that I've seen for the price.

 

[Vimp]

I don't have the money at the moment so I'm afraid I can't take advantage of any sales or special offers by Futureshop or others at this time. But I'm glad to hear your very pleased with the NEC monitor you got cause I wasn't sure whether they were one of the better brands or not. However I usually buy computer stuff at non-retailers instead of Futureshop and Londondrugs because they are almost always cheaper then them. So I maybe able to get that same monitor a little later on from the stores I shop at for the same price even without the rebate, who knows. Places I like to buy from are local places like Anitec.ca, A-power.com, Atic.ca and a few others that have good prices.

Thats also interesting what you said about looking at a monitor's flicker in your periphial vision. I too noticed that, when I was in a store one time looking at televisions, but it never occured to me to use that as a method to tell whether my monitor is flickering to much or not.

<font color=blue>_____________________________________</font color=blue>
Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Asus A7N8X-X, Athelon XP 2500+ Barton,
Samsung 512mb DDR400, Creative Geforce2 GTS,
SoundBlaster Live! Value.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Vimp on 02/08/04 02:02 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[GlenT]

*****
Places I like to buy from are local places like Anitec.ca, A-power.com, Atic.ca and a few others that have good prices.
*****

I miss the Computer Paper. They used to carry ads from all these guys. Made comparision shopping easy! Since TCP died last August, I tend not to phone around to the little guys anymore. It is often hit/miss as to what they have in stock or can get.

London Drugs will special order from Merisel directly for you. And they will negotiate on price if you show them that the little guys have a better price -- but it is harder to do without TCP. ;{)

 

[Vimp]

TCP is gone??? I ddn't know that. Thats really sad. I thought it was doing so well.

<font color=blue>_____________________________________</font color=blue>
Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Asus A7N8X-X, Athelon XP 2500+ Barton,
Samsung 512mb DDR400, Creative Geforce2 GTS,
SoundBlaster Live! Value.

 

[HammerBot]

ROTFLMAO!

<i><b>Engineering is the fine art of making what you want from things you can get</b></i>

 

[GlenT]

*****
TCP is gone?
*****

Yeah, it's kind of sad. They abruptly ceased production after the July/03 issue. They had just had their 15th anniversary.

I'm acquainted with Doug Alder, the original owner of the publication. Last time I met with him was in last spring. He had sold it to Trader Publications.

They have replaced it with a new magagazine called HUB, which geared more to home entertainment and computing. I haven't seen the publication yet. Just found out about it when the TCP website redirected to it.