Which 19" Flat Screen do you recommend for video work?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
A

AnthonyR

Distinguished
Apr 26, 2004
241
0
18,680
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Hi Guys,
I currently have a large 21" CRT which is great but takes up lots of room on
my desktop and gives
off heat in my tiny room, so I am thinking of changing to a 19" Flat screen
to reclaim some desktop space back.
I read about ghosting problems and poor color reproduction on flat screens.
I really don't play many games on it, just use it for video editing and some
graphics work.
Can anyone recommend a monitor they have and are happy with please?

I am leaning toward the Samsung 191T, what do you guys think of that?

Thanks,
Anthony
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

AnthonyR wrote:

> Hi Guys,
> I currently have a large 21" CRT which is great but takes up lots of room on
> my desktop and gives
> off heat in my tiny room, so I am thinking of changing to a 19" Flat screen
> to reclaim some desktop space back.
> I read about ghosting problems and poor color reproduction on flat screens.
> I really don't play many games on it, just use it for video editing and some
> graphics work.
> Can anyone recommend a monitor they have and are happy with please?
>
> I am leaning toward the Samsung 191T, what do you guys think of that?

Not sure about the Samsung, but I've been extremely happy with
my Viewsonic monitors -- I have a P810 (21 inches, flat screen,
but not the extra-flat). I also have a G70f, and my wife uses
a G220f (these two are extra-flat, and I haven't noticed any
adverse effects). My brother has a G90f (the 19" extra-flat),
and he's quite happy with it.

No, despite all the evidence in the paragraph above, I do not
have stock in Viewsonic or any connection to the owners 🙂

BTW, I would not recommend replacing a 21" with a 19". On one
hand, you won't reclaim a lot of space. But also, after having
worked with a 21", you won't stand working with a 19".

HTH,

Carlos
--
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In news:AnthonyR <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> typed:
> Hi Guys,
> I currently have a large 21" CRT which is great but takes up lots of
> room on my desktop and gives
> off heat in my tiny room, so I am thinking of changing to a 19" Flat
> screen to reclaim some desktop space back.
> I read about ghosting problems and poor color reproduction on flat
> screens. I really don't play many games on it, just use it for video
> editing and some graphics work.
> Can anyone recommend a monitor they have and are happy with please?
>
> I am leaning toward the Samsung 191T, what do you guys think of that?
>
> Thanks,
> Anthony

Anybody ever noticed that a lot of LCD come with a weird native
resolution like 1280X1024? I say weird because it's not 4:3 aspect
ratio, and it's not 16:9 either. It feels like I'm the only one to see
my video distorted when looking at them on such a screen.?.?
Oh well, I'll buy one when they make 'em 1280X960, that's 4:3, like I'm
running now.

--
www.odysea.ca
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

>Oh well, I'll buy one when they make 'em 1280X960, that's 4:3, like I'm
>running now.

What type of monitor allows the above setting?

Is it a tube monitor?
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Deco_time wrote:

>
>
> Anybody ever noticed that a lot of LCD come with a weird native
> resolution like 1280X1024? I say weird because it's not 4:3 aspect
> ratio, and it's not 16:9 either. It feels like I'm the only one to see
> my video distorted when looking at them on such a screen.?.?
> Oh well, I'll buy one when they make 'em 1280X960, that's 4:3, like I'm
> running now.
>
> --
> www.odysea.ca

I always run in at least 1280x1024 because what I'm after is maximum screen
real estate for things other than video. For most PC users, this is more of
a consideration than 4:3.

That said, you can easily select "keep aspect ratio when full screen" in
almost any player application, so again, 1280x1024 isn't going to hurt how
your video looks, and will actually benefit you be being able to better
utilize the actual editing interfaces.

As for LCD specs, you're not applying them correctly.

If an LCD says "max supported resolution 1280x1024", then buy it.. Then
just set your graphics card driver to 1280x960 and you're good to go.
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote in message
news:cEBCc.233044$WA4.186551@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> Hi Guys,
> I currently have a large 21" CRT which is great but takes up lots of room
on
> my desktop and gives
> off heat in my tiny room, so I am thinking of changing to a 19" Flat
screen
> to reclaim some desktop space back.
> I read about ghosting problems and poor color reproduction on flat
screens.
> I really don't play many games on it, just use it for video editing and
some
> graphics work.
> Can anyone recommend a monitor they have and are happy with please?
>
> I am leaning toward the Samsung 191T, what do you guys think of that?
>
> Thanks,
> Anthony

I have the HP f1703 which came with my system. The picture quality is
excellent, no ghosting problems and color reproduction appears excellent to
me. It runs cool, lightweight and lots more desktop space. I use it about
2 hours per day for editing. Am considering putting this one on my wife's
system (cause I'm a nice guy) and getting a 19" for myself. Had this LCD
unit a year and I will not go back to CRT. The Samsung 191T is on my list
to seriously consider when I go look at them at the store. Also considering
the NEC MultiSync LCD1960NXi and Sony SDM-S74.

Rich
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Carlos Moreno" <moreno_at_mochima_dot_com@xx.xxx> wrote in message
news:BCCCc.4826$uY3.102772@wagner.videotron.net...
> AnthonyR wrote:
>
> > Hi Guys,
> > I currently have a large 21" CRT which is great but takes up lots of
room on
> > my desktop and gives
> > off heat in my tiny room, so I am thinking of changing to a 19" Flat
screen
> > to reclaim some desktop space back.
> > I read about ghosting problems and poor color reproduction on flat
screens.
> > I really don't play many games on it, just use it for video editing and
some
> > graphics work.
> > Can anyone recommend a monitor they have and are happy with please?
> >
> > I am leaning toward the Samsung 191T, what do you guys think of that?
>
> Not sure about the Samsung, but I've been extremely happy with
> my Viewsonic monitors -- I have a P810 (21 inches, flat screen,
> but not the extra-flat). I also have a G70f, and my wife uses
> a G220f (these two are extra-flat, and I haven't noticed any
> adverse effects). My brother has a G90f (the 19" extra-flat),
> and he's quite happy with it.
>
> No, despite all the evidence in the paragraph above, I do not
> have stock in Viewsonic or any connection to the owners 🙂
>
> BTW, I would not recommend replacing a 21" with a 19". On one
> hand, you won't reclaim a lot of space. But also, after having
> worked with a 21", you won't stand working with a 19".
>
> HTH,
>
> Carlos
> --

Carlos, AnthonyR is referring to going from a CRT monitor to an LCD monitor.
Almost different worlds.

Rich
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In news:me6@privacy.net <me6@privacy.net> typed:
>> Oh well, I'll buy one when they make 'em 1280X960, that's 4:3, like
>> I'm running now.
>
> What type of monitor allows the above setting?
>
> Is it a tube monitor?

You mean a CRT? Yes, just a regular, run of the mill Viewsonic P serie.
I don't think they make LCD's with a proper 4:3 aspect ratio, unless you
go small and I'm not about to change my monitor for something smaller,
that's why I won't use them. Unless somebody knows of one that run
natively either 1152x864 or 1280x960.

--
www.odysea.ca
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> I have the HP f1703 which came with my system. The picture quality is
> excellent, no ghosting problems and color reproduction appears excellent
to
> me. It runs cool, lightweight and lots more desktop space. I use it
about
> 2 hours per day for editing. Am considering putting this one on my wife's
> system (cause I'm a nice guy) and getting a 19" for myself. Had this LCD
> unit a year and I will not go back to CRT. The Samsung 191T is on my
list
> to seriously consider when I go look at them at the store. Also
considering
> the NEC MultiSync LCD1960NXi and Sony SDM-S74.
>
> Rich
>

Thanks Rich,
I will look into those 2 also, appreciate the advice.
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Carlos Moreno" <moreno_at_mochima_dot_com@xx.xxx> wrote in message
news:BCCCc.4826$uY3.102772@wagner.videotron.net...
>
>> BTW, I would not recommend replacing a 21" with a 19". On one
> hand, you won't reclaim a lot of space. But also, after having
> worked with a 21", you won't stand working with a 19".
>
> HTH,
>
> Carlos
> --

Carlos, Sorry maybe I should have been more clear, I meant flat LCD panel
not just flat screen.
I have a 21" CRT now that is really only 20" viewable, so a 19" LCD is 19"
viewable.
I would only be giving up an inch actually and saving a ton of space behind
the monitor that I could
put my scanner, and other stuff back there.
I found the Samsung for about $600 online no tax and free delivery so I am
tempted!

Too bad the market for my Princeton 21" EO2010 isn't good, I would resell
it, it works great.
But I see new cheap 21" monitors for a few hundred dollars online now, so
who would buy mine?
Even thought it cost me a grand. And has real high resolution capabilities,
I never use more than 1280x1024.

Thanks,
Anthony
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <F9DCc.233169$WA4.60598@twister.nyc.rr.com>,
AnthonyR <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote:
>
> "Carlos Moreno" <moreno_at_mochima_dot_com@xx.xxx> wrote in message
> news:BCCCc.4826$uY3.102772@wagner.videotron.net...
> >
> >> BTW, I would not recommend replacing a 21" with a 19". On one
> > hand, you won't reclaim a lot of space. But also, after having
> > worked with a 21", you won't stand working with a 19".
>
> Carlos, Sorry maybe I should have been more clear, I meant flat LCD panel
> not just flat screen. I have a 21" CRT now that is really only 20"
> viewable, so a 19" LCD is 19" viewable. I would only be giving up an inch
> actually and saving a ton of space behind the monitor that I could put my
> scanner, and other stuff back there.

More important than the physical measurement is the number of pixels.
Compare to the pixel size of any contemplated LCD to that of your CRT, and
consider whether you can go to that. I think most (if not all) 19" LCDs are
1280x1024.

> I never use more than 1280x1024.

OK, the 191T is the same. Note that while the LCD would be sharper, its
pixels are ~5% (linear measurement) smaller.

--
-eben ebQenW1@EtaRmpTabYayU.rIr.OcoPm home.tampabay.rr.com/hactar
Your pretended fear lest error might step in is like the man who
would keep all wine out of the country lest men should be drunk.
-- Oliver Cromwell
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

me6@privacy.net wrote:
>>Oh well, I'll buy one when they make 'em 1280X960, that's 4:3, like I'm
>>running now.
>
> What type of monitor allows the above setting?
>
> Is it a tube monitor?

I think it's not the monitor the one that has to allow it,
but the video card (or video driver). I use 1280 x 960
when I'm on Linux; however, Windows 2000 does not offer
me that resolution (on the same machine -- it's a dual
boot). I've a Viewsonic P810 with an nVidia-based card
(TNT2, I think)

Carlos
--
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

>>>Things must have changed in the last two years; back when I had my
>>>Samsung, it had a native resolution at which it looked best.

Whys is this the case with LCD panels? Ive read and
heard abt this as well..... i.e. that they operate best
in a certain "native" resolution.... but don't work so
well outside of that resolution.

But CRT type monitors are NOT like this, right?

If yes...what is the explanation or technical
limitation that makes LCD panels have such a problem
that CRT monitors do not?
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

me6@privacy.net wrote in
news:c7rod09uob3jtu6q1bahh2e3ev2ar3qbdt@4ax.com:

>>>>Things must have changed in the last two years; back when I had
>>>>my Samsung, it had a native resolution at which it looked best.
>
> Whys is this the case with LCD panels? Ive read and
> heard abt this as well..... i.e. that they operate best
> in a certain "native" resolution.... but don't work so
> well outside of that resolution.
>
> But CRT type monitors are NOT like this, right?
>
> If yes...what is the explanation or technical
> limitation that makes LCD panels have such a problem
> that CRT monitors do not?
>

Because LCDs have one pixel per pixel at their native reslution. A
1024x768 LCD has literally 768 rows of pixels with 1024 pixels in
each row, and each pixel must be uniformly illuminated over its
surface (well, the red part is a uniform value of red, the green
part a uniform value of green,...).

To use a non-native resolution, say 800x600 in this example, you
still have to fill 768 rows of 1024 pixels each, which is done by
computing "reasonable" values for each pixel. Lately, people have
figured out better ways to compute this, but it's still not great...

A CRT is analog. Within its physical limits, the electron guns can
be made to paint any number of rows (lines is the usual name), and
the signal on each line can be made to flip back and forth any
number of times.

No matter which resolution you use on a CRT - up to its physical
limits - you can generate the required number of pixels in this
analog fashion.

It's very much like the difference between turning a picture into a
painting and turning it into a mosaic with fixed tile size and
uniform tile colors.

Gino

--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino) phone 650.966.8481
Call me letters find me at domain blochg whose dot is com
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Gene E. Bloch" <hamburger@NOT_SPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9513931A8D8AEAstrolabe@216.148.227.77...
> me6@privacy.net wrote in
> news:c7rod09uob3jtu6q1bahh2e3ev2ar3qbdt@4ax.com:
>
> >>>>Things must have changed in the last two years; back when I had
> >>>>my Samsung, it had a native resolution at which it looked best.
> >
> > Whys is this the case with LCD panels? Ive read and
> > heard abt this as well..... i.e. that they operate best
> > in a certain "native" resolution.... but don't work so
> > well outside of that resolution.
> >
> > But CRT type monitors are NOT like this, right?
> >
> > If yes...what is the explanation or technical
> > limitation that makes LCD panels have such a problem
> > that CRT monitors do not?
> >
>
> Because LCDs have one pixel per pixel at their native reslution. A
> 1024x768 LCD has literally 768 rows of pixels with 1024 pixels in
> each row, and each pixel must be uniformly illuminated over its
> surface (well, the red part is a uniform value of red, the green
> part a uniform value of green,...).
>
> To use a non-native resolution, say 800x600 in this example, you
> still have to fill 768 rows of 1024 pixels each, which is done by
> computing "reasonable" values for each pixel. Lately, people have
> figured out better ways to compute this, but it's still not great...
>
> A CRT is analog. Within its physical limits, the electron guns can
> be made to paint any number of rows (lines is the usual name), and
> the signal on each line can be made to flip back and forth any
> number of times.
>
> No matter which resolution you use on a CRT - up to its physical
> limits - you can generate the required number of pixels in this
> analog fashion.
>
> It's very much like the difference between turning a picture into a
> painting and turning it into a mosaic with fixed tile size and
> uniform tile colors.
>
> Gino
>
> --
> Gene E. Bloch (Gino) phone 650.966.8481
> Call me letters find me at domain blochg whose dot is com
>

Excellent explanation, thanks for that!
AnthonyR
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

>Because LCDs have one pixel per pixel at their native reslution. A
>1024x768 LCD has literally 768 rows of pixels with 1024 pixels in
>each row, and each pixel must be uniformly illuminated over its
>surface (well, the red part is a uniform value of red, the green
>part a uniform value of green,...).

Thanks Gino.. that was a great explanation!!

I learned something today!!
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <qramd0142p3pl2000j6i6isn0rrh1ndchc@4ax.com>,
<me6@privacy.net> wrote:
> >Oh well, I'll buy one when they make 'em 1280X960, that's 4:3, like I'm
> >running now.
>
> What type of monitor allows the above setting?

I have a Dell D1028L (I think). It's supposed to have a max resolution of
1280x1024. Under Linux, I can drive it at 1536x1152. Under Windows, I have
choices of selected resolutions, up to and including 1280x1024, with 1280x960
among them.

> Is it a tube monitor?

Yes. I haven't yet seen an LCD display with 1280x960 or 1152x864.

--
-eben ebQenW1@EtaRmpTabYayU.rIr.OcoPm home.tampabay.rr.com/hactar
ARIES: The look on your face will be priceless when you find that 40lb
watermelon in your colon. Trade toothbrushes with an albino dwarf, then
give a hickey to Meryl Streep. -- Weird Al, _Your Horoscope for Today_
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Would it be better to just get an HDTV LCD that has a VGA input?

U.
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"U. U." wrote:

> Would it be better to just get an HDTV LCD that has a VGA input?
>
> U.

Not if you work hard for your money. LCD TVs seem hugely over priced..
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote in message news:<F9DCc.233169$WA4.60598@twister.nyc.rr.com>...
> "Carlos Moreno" <moreno_at_mochima_dot_com@xx.xxx> wrote in message
> news:BCCCc.4826$uY3.102772@wagner.videotron.net...
> >
> >> BTW, I would not recommend replacing a 21" with a 19". On one
> > hand, you won't reclaim a lot of space. But also, after having
> > worked with a 21", you won't stand working with a 19".
> >
> > HTH,
> >
> > Carlos
> > --
>
> Carlos, Sorry maybe I should have been more clear, I meant flat LCD panel
> not just flat screen.
> I have a 21" CRT now that is really only 20" viewable, so a 19" LCD is 19"
> viewable.
> I would only be giving up an inch actually and saving a ton of space behind
> the monitor that I could
> put my scanner, and other stuff back there.
> I found the Samsung for about $600 online no tax and free delivery so I am
> tempted!
>
> Too bad the market for my Princeton 21" EO2010 isn't good, I would resell
> it, it works great.


I might be interested

Don't suppose you live in the bay area?



STRATEGY


> But I see new cheap 21" monitors for a few hundred dollars online now, so
> who would buy mine?
> Even thought it cost me a grand. And has real high resolution capabilities,
> I never use more than 1280x1024.
>
> Thanks,
> Anthony
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Bay Way 41510" <ikeyp510@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:284d5f0d.0407010834.220b0086@posting.google.com...
> "AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote in message
news:<F9DCc.233169$WA4.60598@twister.nyc.rr.com>...
> > "Carlos Moreno" <moreno_at_mochima_dot_com@xx.xxx> wrote in message
> > news:BCCCc.4826$uY3.102772@wagner.videotron.net...
> > >
> > >> BTW, I would not recommend replacing a 21" with a 19". On one
> > > hand, you won't reclaim a lot of space. But also, after having
> > > worked with a 21", you won't stand working with a 19".
> > >
> > > HTH,
> > >
> > > Carlos
> > > --
> >
> > Carlos, Sorry maybe I should have been more clear, I meant flat LCD
panel
> > not just flat screen.
> > I have a 21" CRT now that is really only 20" viewable, so a 19" LCD is
19"
> > viewable.
> > I would only be giving up an inch actually and saving a ton of space
behind
> > the monitor that I could
> > put my scanner, and other stuff back there.
> > I found the Samsung for about $600 online no tax and free delivery so I
am
> > tempted!
> >
> > Too bad the market for my Princeton 21" EO2010 isn't good, I would
resell
> > it, it works great.
>
>
> I might be interested
>
> Don't suppose you live in the bay area?
>
>
No sorry, NYC area. But I decided to just stick it in storage as a backup
monitor just in case I am in a jam and need to finish a project and my
monitor goes out. I figure I wouldn't get much for it anyway nowadays.
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

>I wouldn't get much for it anyway nowadays.

Same here

I have Dell 21" crt monitor.

I paid $800 for this thing hen i bought it! Id be lucky to get $100
for it now

Might just keep it and make a PVR/TV out of it.... buy a PVR card.
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"U. U." <uubonfig@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9517A989B893Cuubonfighotmail@209.221.136.9...
> Would it be better to just get an HDTV LCD that has a VGA input?
>
> U.

As Keith said LCD TV's are way overpriced, I paid $609 delivered for my
Samsung 19" LCD Monitor and a LCD TV would have been at least double that if
not triple.
And I actually have no need to watch tv on it anyway, it is used solely as
my computer monitor. I have a 13" CRT Monitor next to it to view video on. I
think viewing your final video should be done on a CRT anyway as most people
still use them and you want to make sure the color and viewable size is
acceptable on a CRT TV first.

AnthonyR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom