Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Displays

Samsung LTM295W 29" LCD Review 320

Posted by CmdrTaco from the good-enough-to-lick dept.
An anonymous reader noted a review of the Samsung LTM295W. Quick excerpt "The contrast ratio of 600:1 is amazing, and takes the cake for being the highest Iâ(TM)ve seen to date here with the site. I was pleased to see a more than acceptable brightness level of 450cd/m2. The response time isnâ(TM)t anything to snuff at, standing at 22ms. For viewing angles everyone should be pleased with 170/170 (W&H). The last mention is the pixel pitch which sits at .4935(h) X .4935(w). The optimal resolution while in PC use is 1024 x 768 @ 75Hz although the maximum is 1280 x 768 @ 75Hz." Not the highest resolution, but still, quite impressive.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Samsung LTM295W 29" LCD Review More

Samsung LTM295W 29" LCD Review

Comments Filter:

  • What?? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by srboneidle ( 648298 ) on Thursday June 05, 2003 @03:29PM (#6126835)
    Am I the only one that couldn't make any sense of those specs?? Man technology moves fast! ;)

    • Re:What?? (Score:4, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 05, 2003 @04:02PM (#6127118)
      Yes, think of it in terms of each pixel containing enough brightness as 2000 lightbulbs, and a screen with the area (when spread out) of 5 football fields, and the ability to display 5 libraries of congress (LOC) at once. All of this packed into something the size of 1/1240 of a VW Beetle. Also, it has the storage capacity of 50 DVD's.

      HTH!

    • What if ... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Glonoinha ( 587375 )
      Still, seeing this does draw out the 'what if's'.

      Rather than hooking your computer up to a $3,100 29" television to do 1280x768 ... what if you were to mount four 18" LCDs in a 2x2 square on the wall. Granted you would have a 1.5" wide + (plus sign, made of the borders of the LCD) in the middle of the whole display but it would be a 36" diag display capable of 2560x2048 resolution, at a cost of about HALF (figure 4 at $400 if you catch them on sale.)

      The only trick then becomes getting four video cards (m

  • Samsung is the Best (Score:4, Informative)

    by Tighe_L ( 642122 ) on Thursday June 05, 2003 @03:30PM (#6126838) Homepage

    Samsung is the innovator of Display Technology, Their LCDS are top notch.

    When you buy a Dell Flat Panel, it is a Samsung

    Panasonic, then Sharp would be next when it comes to LCDs

    • Re:Samsung is the Best (Score:4, Informative)

      by Yomlogs ( 321545 ) on Thursday June 05, 2003 @03:55PM (#6127071) Homepage
      I would agree with you, if I wasn't on my third replacement Samsung 171P. And even this one has a couple of dead subpixels, for which Samsung are unlikely to replace the monitor :-(

      Aside from that, though, the display is stunning - just crap customer service and reliability IMO.

    • SyncMaster 172t (Score:5, Informative)

      by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Thursday June 05, 2003 @03:55PM (#6127074) Homepage Journal
      Samsung is the innovator of Display Technology, Their LCDS are top notch.

      Bought a SyncMaster 172t, after a few reviews swayed my opinion. It's amazing alright, the only thing I'd ask is for the ability to get the brightness lower. I could literally read by the lowest brightness settings with standard wallpaper displayed. The brightness is so much at the lowest setting I am having some eyestrain problems and have been considering getting smoked plastic to hang over the screen. The lowest setting is more than adequate with daylight coming in a nearby picture window. 500:1 contrast is great, as black is pretty near black and it rocks for watching DVD's on, but who actually uses a brightness setting higher?

    • Re:Samsung is the Best (Score:5, Informative)

      by vladkrupin ( 44145 ) on Thursday June 05, 2003 @06:57PM (#6128279) Homepage
      I just loooove those numbers! 600:1, 450cd/m^2, 22ms... So amazing... NOT!

      For instance, Viewsonic boasts some imressive contrast ratios. In reality they suck. At least, the viewsonics that I saw on display and had a chance to compare to some other brands were left to shame. Same, but even to a greater extent can be said about response times. Everyone seems to find their own way of defining those. Some for fading of a pixel from white to black; some - from black to white. (notice that those two are QUITE different due to the way those transistors operate). Some go even further and declare that very dark colors are very close to completely black, and very bright colors to white, so they'll measure times for those 'approximate' extremes, and some even just measure the 'common case' response time, whatever that is.

      I (and a lot of other people - just check Tom's hardware guide [pair.com] for their LCD overview) seem to notice that there is just way too much fudge in those numbers when it comes to measuring different aspects of LCDs.

      Let me give you an example. My monitor (Samsung 181T), for example, boasts 25ms response time. I'd say it's more like 35 (at least that's what tom's hardware guesses it to be and I think he is quite close), but FPS games are a lot more playable on mine than on a lot of other 25ms panels. Why? Probably because their "fudge" factor is a bit smaller. The only real way to tell a difference easily is to look at the same set of tests being displayed on an array of several different panels. First and foremost you'll notice that color fidelity on some of them sucks. That factor alone will probably eliminate more than half of the panels from what you could consider buying. After that try adjusting contrast/brightness and notice that some monitors (notable ViewSonics) are pathetic. After that, if there are any monitors still left, check if their response time is reasonable. Chances are, it isn't. After that, slow down, think and lower your expectations.

      When shopping for an LCD I learned a lesson that the numbers you see describing LCDs are not what they appear. There is so much discrepancy in how manufacturers define various parameters that those numbers become close to meaningless. The only numbers that aren't fudged are the resolution and hom much power they use. Maybe also the life of the bulb. That's about it. So, next time you are impressed with the specs of some particular LCD panel, try to see if you can have a look at it next to some other panels, performance of which is known to you. Make sure they are running the same stuff, and see what difference you can see.

  • You know... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 05, 2003 @03:30PM (#6126840)
    Sometimes you can just look at the story blurb and realize that the content is meaningless, and in the larger scheme of things doesn't matter for shit. Then you sit back, wondering what minor point will be endlessly debated in the comments.

    Then you decide to browse at -1 for some entertainment.

  • Full text in case of slashdotting (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 05, 2003 @03:30PM (#6126844)
    Samsung LTM295W

    Posted:Chris Allen
    Reviewer:Jun 3rd, 2003
    Provided By:Samsung CA

    Manufacturer:
    Samsung Genre:
    TFT LCD Monitor/TV Released:

    In the last year or so Samsungâ(TM)s name has been an everyday household name around here at MonkeyReview. In terms of LCDâ(TM)s weâ(TM)ve seen our fair share, ranging from in size from 15â all the way up to todayâ(TM)s whopping 29â. Today weâ(TM)ve got the Samsung LTM295W LCD TV/monitor on the block which will be sure to impress many of you with its nice 29â viewable area and elegant looking design.

    Thereâ(TM)s no question in my mind that most of you, if it was possible, would love an LCD plopped in front of you rather than a conventional CRT which hogs up 50% of your desk space, well, what if it was not only an LCD but one which is larger than most of your mates home TV? With a viewable area of 29â the LTM295W will appeal to those either looking for the crÃme de la crÃme monitor or a great looking high end HDTV ready TV or a combination of both. The Samsung LTM295W offers us at least one feature which makes me a lover of it right off the bat; Iâ(TM)ll discuss this a little later though.

    Click For Larger Image
    Contents & Setup

    The Samsung LTM295W comes to us in two separate boxes, one which has the speakers and the other for the Monitor/TV as well as setup essentials. For a complete list of everything thatâ(TM)s included please read a little further down. Opening the box which contains the actual Monitor/TV we find a smaller box which contains the documentation, the remote (batteries included), RGB to DVI Cable, DVI cable, Power cord, audio cables, and warranty information. I was very pleased to find the RGB to DVI cable included as it will allow support for all VGA cards rather than just those with a DVI output.

    LTM295W Display

    Remote control (2x AAA batteries included)

    Owners Manual

    DV Adapter

    DVI Cable

    RGB to DVI cable

    PC Stereo Cables

    Power Cord

    Clamp Back/Screw

    Speakers (Stands, mounts, screws, wires)

    Click For Larger Image

    Also in the box, we find the large silver finished DC adapter. Finally, under the mentioned goodies, within the full Styrofoam encasing, we find the LTM295W LCD monitor/TV. To furthermore ensure its safety we find it covered in wrapping. Something worth noting is Samsungs safe packaging for all of their monitors/TVâ(TM)s. Itâ(TM)s definitely an aspect in which weâ(TM)ve noticed over the course of time and something which deserves a mention. Itâ(TM)s also something we would expect when paying the price for one of these guys, on that note; while checking pricegrabber the lowest price is $3139 USD and for our fellow Canadians itâ(TM)s going to be setting you back $4659 CDN according to Soho Diffusion, the only Canadian website which I could find thatâ(TM)s offering it.

    Click For Larger Image

    The next thing we focused our attention on was the box which contained the speakers. Opening the box we find the screws, braces, speaker wires and of course the 2x 10W speakers. Also in the box we find stands for alternate speaker mounting/usage. Iâ(TM)ve never been a fan of having the speakers on the side of the Monitor/TV, and so, as usual, I opted to connect them to the side of the LTM295W, using the included braces and screws. I must make a mention that while Iâ(TM)m generally unimpressed with some of the mounting methods used for speakers by manufacturers, this one is well done and while I wouldnâ(TM)t recommend carrying around this TV holding nothing more than the speakers, they are mounted in a solid manner.

    Click For Larger Image

    Once we had the speakers mounted, the DC Adapter plugged in, and our source ready (PC, Bell Express Vu Satellite, and DVD). A few notes about our sources The PCâ(TM)s specs are listed below, the main thing I should

  • Damn! (Score:3, Funny)

    by arcite ( 661011 ) on Thursday June 05, 2003 @03:30PM (#6126849)
    Who knew abstract numbers could be so sexy?

  • Yeah, but . . . (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pcboss99 ( 463534 ) on Thursday June 05, 2003 @03:31PM (#6126857) Homepage
    Who would run an LCD that big at 1024? Although I am all in favor of bigger and better geek toys, I think a careful examination of the practical longevity of a display device requires more features, not more inches.

    I'd like to see display manufacturers spend as much time on usability as developers do (or should!)

  • Nice but not for everyone. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Thursday June 05, 2003 @03:32PM (#6126872) Homepage Journal

    I have a 19" Sony at home on my game PC. Unfortunately the relatively slow refresh rates and latency of LCDs don't cut it for my 3D LCD shutter glasses from Elsa. So until LCDs get to ~110Hz+ I'm stuck with a CRT for my 3D gaming. :(

    Oh as an aside, the latest Revelator drivers from nVidia support many brands of 3D glasses and even the lame red-blue ones.

  • Price? (Score:3, Informative)

    by echucker ( 570962 ) on Thursday June 05, 2003 @03:32PM (#6126875) Homepage
    Didn't see one mentioned, but I know the 24" Samsung at newegg [newegg.com] is 2700 buckeroos. I don't even want to think what the 29" will cost!

    • Re:Price? (Score:5, Informative)

      by angle_slam ( 623817 ) on Thursday June 05, 2003 @03:35PM (#6126895)
      If you looked at the article, you would see the lowest price is about $3100.

      • Re:Price? (Score:3, Funny)

        by outsider007 ( 115534 )
        am i the only one who thinks these things cost too much?
        you could save yourself $2800 by getting a 19'' and moving your chair 3 inches closer to the screen.

        • Re:Price? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by _xeno_ ( 155264 )
          It costs too much if you want to use it as a computer monitor. It sounds about right for a kiosk display, which is what I'd imagine it was designed for. (It's about TV sized and sounds like it's really designed for HDTV displays. Sounds like a nice display for a DVD player, not something you want to stick in front of your computer.)

          If you read the review, they call it a "Monitor/TV" and mention things like a remote control and speakers. It has a DVI input and a DVI/RGB adaptor. I expect that it's rea

      • At $3100 this 29'' is way overpriced. You'd get a much better deal out of the 42'' Gateway Plasma TV [gateway.com].
        • the gateway plasma monitor is actually a lower resolution at 852 x 480. also i've seen the gateway plasma monitor and it is far from being the best in its class. for a few hundred more you can get a panasonic edtv plasma, currently the best 42" plasma on the market.
          • the gateway plasma monitor is actually a lower resolution at 852 x 480. also i've seen the gateway plasma monitor and it is far from being the best in its class. for a few hundred more you can get a panasonic edtv plasma, currently the best 42" plasma on the market.

            Hmm... I've never seen them used as monitors and I'm wondering how the SXGA or UXGA digital scaling works on Plasmas, are they blurry, look awkward, seem slower?
            • Hmm... I've never seen them used as monitors and I'm wondering how the SXGA or UXGA digital scaling works on Plasmas, are they blurry, look awkward, seem slower?

              We have 42" plasma displays in most of our conference rooms (about a hundred of them). They're used mostly for video conferencing (low resolution) and Powerpoint presentations (again low res). The system uses a switch box that's pretty cool; it as Coax cable, analog video, RGB, and SVGA inputs. Ours has a dish satellite feed and a VCR hooked up a
    • RTFA (that's always a good exercise) even click on the Buy button at the top and you'll see that cheapest one is nearly $3100.

    • Re:Price? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by IanBevan ( 213109 ) *
      PriceWatch has them listed at around $3200.

  • Resolution? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SpamJunkie ( 557825 ) on Thursday June 05, 2003 @03:34PM (#6126886)
    The resolution is totally unimpressive. Apple's 20" display is 1680 x 1050. Each pixel on this Samsung must be massive.

    This isn't a monitor, it's a TV. If you buy one of these as a monitor you're an idiot.

    • This isn't a monitor, it's a TV.

      But it's called a monitor... ;)

      I basically agree with you. This is something I've been seeing for years: you take a fancy TV set, add some DVI and/or SVGA inputs, and try to sell it as a "monitor". Lots of people who don't know any better will buy it without thinking to look at the specs, particularly the resolution.

      This is standard practice -- basically dishonest, but too comon to get your blood pressure up over. What does bother me is that Robb Malda, of all people, w

  • Holy MegaPixels, Batman! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Gorimek ( 61128 ) on Thursday June 05, 2003 @03:34PM (#6126891) Homepage
    That's gotta have some real big pixels. My 23" Apple LCD has 1920x1200!

    • Re:Holy MegaPixels, Batman! (Score:5, Funny)

      by nutbar ( 138893 ) on Thursday June 05, 2003 @03:40PM (#6126950) Homepage
      They call it LegoVision(tm).

    • They did mention dot pitch of .4935

      If you want ultimate pixel counts, check out the T221 [ibm.com] 22.2" from IBM. For $8400, you too can have a native QUXGA-W(3840x2400) resolution. Dot pitch is a microscopic .1245

      • Rant: FUXGA! (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Tackhead ( 54550 )
        > If you want ultimate pixel counts, check out the T221 22.2" from IBM. For $8400, you too can have a native QUXGA-W(3840x2400) resolution. Dot pitch is a microscopic .1245

        XGA, SXGA+, WUXGA, QUXGA, WTFUXGA!

        For Chrissake, why can't flat panel and laptop manufacturers just say the goddamn screen is "640x480" or or "1024x768" or "1280x1024" or "1400x1050" or whatever the fucking resolution is, rather than inventing a new resolution for every oddball configuration the latest LCD screen happens to be.

        • Re:Rant: FUXGA! (Score:2, Informative)

          by takotech ( 648308 )
          I thought that too but then it started to make sense:
          • VGA: 640X480
          • SVGA: 800X600 <- Super VGA
          • XGA: 1024X768
          • SXGA: 1280X1024
          • SXGA+: 1400X1050
          • UXGA: 1600X1200 <- Ultra XGA
          • UXGA-W: 1920x1200 <- Ultra XGA - Wide(16:10 ratio)
          • QUXGA-W: 3480X2400 <- Quad Ultra XGA Wide
          So, basically, this thing has room to show 4 native HD(1920x1080) pictures at once, a la Brady Bunch style and still have room left over. That's pimp.
    • They really should roll that into the marketing: Now With Extra-Large Pixels!

  • Yikkes.. the spcs suck (Score:5, Insightful)

    by catseye ( 96076 ) on Thursday June 05, 2003 @03:35PM (#6126899)
    While a 29-inch LCD sounds cool (suddenly, my 20-inch Apple Cinema Display seems tiny ;) ), those specs are really awful -- a .49 pitch and a max resolution of 1280x768 means the pixels would be huge -- it would be like sitting in front of a stadium jumbotron, each pixel articulated.

    No thanks.

    • Re:Yikkes.. the spcs suck (Score:5, Interesting)

      by _xeno_ ( 155264 ) on Thursday June 05, 2003 @03:46PM (#6127001) Homepage Journal
      I was thinking that too, until I noticed something: it's really a TV. It happens to contain a RGB/DVI adaptor, but from the specs (and the fact that it includes speakers), I think it's really meant to be used as a TV. Which makes a lot more sense - that would be an OK HDTV, but I would agree that it sounds like it would make a really crappy monitor.

      The 17" LCD screen I'm currently staring at has a resolution of 1280x1024 - going down to 1024x786 seems a bit of a drop for a 29" monitor. It's probably intended to also allow usage as a kiosk display from a computer, not to be used as a primary monitor.

      • If the native resolution is 1024x768, then it's still not the perfect HDTV. You'd think once they scaled up to that size screen, they'd fit it to the 1080-line standard and really blow out some eyeballs.
    • That is why they hang the jumbotron way up over there... although playing UT2k2 or Quake or (insert favorite FPS) on one of those can be quite an experience, especially have it 2 meters in front of you... problem is, they might be too pixelated...

      Is that the Redeemer? uhh... ARGH!
    • As so many other's have commented, it's not a computer monitor. It's a TV that happens to do double-duty as a computer monitor.

      Now, my problem with it is more with the TV capabilities. Specifically, with the native resolution, interestingly enough.

      It's max resolution is 1280x768 as a computer monitor. This tells you what the native TV resolution is, also, and I'm disappointed.

      It's native HDTV resolution is 720p. (At least, I assume from the specs it is, I'm too disappointed to bother checking the product
      • You would have rather seen that? 1080 is shit shit shit. 720p looks entirely better. There is essentially no reason for 1080i to exist at all.

        2048x1280 means 6.6 million thin film transistors, and if even one of those transistors is inoperable people like you will bitch and whine that the pixels are stuck on, and therefore LCDs are crap.

        Samsung has made a nice compromise by producing an LCD monitor that is both huge and manufacturable. I'm not expecting the crowd here on small-minded-naysayers.com to
  • I'm just curious, but how does an LCD have a refresh rate?? I was under the impression that they did not have them, just pixel response time... Or is the refresh rate 1 / its pixel_response_time??

    And it looks nice and all... But really, the resolution would be way to low for my needs. I'll stick with my >$500 19" CRT for now I guess =/

    • Re:Refresh rate?? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The refresh rate cited is probably the amount of time it takes for a single pixel to go from 100% off to 100% on. That makes it a misleading statistic, because the majority of pixel transitions aren't straight ON/OFF, and LCD monitors take a longer time to do smaller transitions.

      Dan Rutter's got an excellent write-up of another samsung monitor that goes into this issue at some depth here
    • And on a related note, what is the state of the art for high pixel response time. About two years ago there was talk about modifying the voltage to a non-linear cruve to minimize switching times. For applications we have, we would really need at least 60 Hz (effective) refresh rates, or better. Is there anything on the market that uses the new technology? (hmm, guess I should be asking the industry, not slashdot)

    • Re:Refresh rate?? (Score:3, Informative)

      by jfroot ( 455025 )
      When they say 75Mhz, that is the optimal frequency for the AD converter. All LCDs have this optimum frequency. It will most likely work at any refresh rate, but the AD converter is calibrated for 75Mhz. This is only if you are using an RGB output btw. If you have a graphics card with a DVI out, there is no refresh rate setting.

  • Resolution (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I'm going to want to go a lot higher than 1280x768 on a 29 inch monitor.

    It might make a nice TV though

  • Makes a bad monitor. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Looks like a great TV, but whats the use in using it as a monitor? Only for visually impaired people would that resolution be useful. If you want a really big 1024 x 768 display then buy a projector and you can project it a lot bigger than 29''.

  • Snuff?! (Score:5, Funny)

    by gpinzone ( 531794 ) on Thursday June 05, 2003 @03:36PM (#6126907) Homepage Journal
    The response time isnâ(TM)t anything to snuff at...

    Uh, exactly what kind of porn did you test this monitor with?!

  • A Better Use of $$$ (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nherc ( 530930 ) on Thursday June 05, 2003 @03:37PM (#6126917) Journal
    $3k for a lot of real estate. But I think getting say 2 or 3 17" or 19" LCDs and running them with an extended desktop would allow you to actually be more productive and probably save some money.

    Although I suppose this would be the monitor to play Doom III with, IF you have to play it in your office.

    I paid $2400 for a Sharp m20x DLP projector and have a PC running it for HDTV and DVD's in my family room. That's a 133" flat screen for even cheaper. ;)

    • I've been considering getting a good DLP projector, but it seems the good ones are very expensive. Where did you find one for under $3k? How's your experience been compared to LCD and/or CRT? For $3500 or less it's possible to get a 42" plasma, so I'm debating.

      • Re:DLP (Score:3, Informative)

        by nherc ( 530930 )
        I have a BEAUTIFUL 133" picture projected onto a 16:9 screen for $1k less than your plasma. You need to think about what you really want. A theater experience and peoples jaws dropping or an over priced flat conventional TV?

        Checkout projectorcentral.com [projectorcentral.com] for prices/info and the Under $5k Digital Projector forum [avsforum.com] for more detailed info.

      • Re:DLP (Score:3, Informative)

        by Chmarr ( 18662 )
        The Dell 3200MP is 1024x768, and $2000USD list price. Mine should be turning up tomorrow :)
    • Exactly! In fact I really prefer extra desktop space (in the form of extra monitors) over higher resolution. I have a 17" (1280x1024) TFT flanked by two 15" (1024x768) ones all running one extended desktop, all of them low cost. I think I paid about $650 for the 17" unit, and the 15" ones go for like $200 now. Working on this setup is a dream come true, and it really does allow you to be much more productive. In fact I managed to get a dual head setup at work as well for that reason.

      Sure beats CRTs!
      • I'm worrying that you're going to cost me a lot of money. ;)

        I'm typing this on a pair of 19" CRTs (at 1280x1024 or so, running Xinerama). I've grown to love the crisp, sharp appearance of my laptop's LCD, and find my CRTs blurry and dim compared to my laptop. Plus, now that it's summer, I no longer appreciate the scorching heat they give off.

        Each CRT cost me about what a 15" LCD would cost me today. Because I'm running a low-end dual-head video card, I have both monitors at 1280x1024, and they're probably
  • "the maximum is 1280 x 768 @ 75Hz."

    For 29" display I expected higher resolutions to be available. Is it just me or is that a bit on the low side?

    • I've used a similar-sized monitor in 1280x1024. For regular computing, it's a waste of money - you could pick up a smaller monitor with a higher resolution, and be better off.

      The two really good uses for a large monitor with that low of resolution are (a) computing for the visually impaired, and (b) watching movies.

      steve
  • At 1024x768 maximum resolution this monitor is useless for use with a computer. Would make a nice TV though. Well, I suppose you could play games on it .. but Windows at 1024x768 is just painful to watch. And considering what it costs, and its sheer size, I don't see many people using this as their primary monitor. The cost alone would prevent anyone sane from bringing it to a LAN.

    I for one would love to have an LCD monitor rather than my bulky CRT, but I'm waiting for those 20" beauties that at least su
  • That's simply stupid !
    why not 1600x1200 or more 2048x1536 !
    1280x768 I can have that with a 15 inch 200$ LCD Monitor!

  • Its a TV really... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ajiva ( 156759 ) on Thursday June 05, 2003 @03:46PM (#6127005)
    I think this thing was really meant to be used as a TV. Notice the component inputs. Yes it has DVI, but that's just a side benefit. The real advantage is hooking up a consumer DVD player and enjoying progressive scan, widescreen DVDs.

  • am I the only one that sees the irony here (Score:5, Funny)

    by calethix ( 537786 ) on Thursday June 05, 2003 @03:47PM (#6127011) Homepage
    Thereâ(TM)s no question in my mind that most of you, if it was possible, would love an LCD plopped in front of you rather than a conventional CRT which hogs up 50% of your desk space, well, what if it was not only an LCD but one which is larger than most of your mates home TV? With a viewable area of 29â

    In one sentence, they're complaing about how much space CRTs take up on your desk and the next is about 29" of LCD goodness. I'm not sure that would even fit on my desk. :)

  • 1024 x 768 is worthless... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ) on Thursday June 05, 2003 @03:50PM (#6127023) Homepage
    1024 x 768 is worthless for a big display of a computer screen. Buy a cheap 1024 x 768 LCD and sit closer. Pixels are everything.

  • Viewing angle - I'm skeptical (Score:3, Insightful)

    by geekd ( 14774 ) on Thursday June 05, 2003 @03:51PM (#6127044) Homepage
    I very much doubt the given viewing angle of 170/170.

    That's almost all the way off to one side. Most LCDs look like crap from there.

    Sure, you can see whats on the screen, and it's still readable, but the contrast and brightness go way down.

    • Not necessarily, my buddy just bought a dell notebook, and i can watch a movie at about 170 degrees off... and the colors are all there, just like you are looking straight at it, except of course the skewing because of viewing it an an extreme angle. the colors and contrast and such are all great at the angle, however.

  • Review Sites (Score:5, Funny)

    by Accord MT ( 542922 ) on Thursday June 05, 2003 @03:52PM (#6127051)
    Is it

    Next->

    [ADVERTISEMENT]

    me, or

    Next->

    are these

    [ADVERTISEMENT]

    Next->

    review sites

    Next ->

    [ADVERTISEMENT]

    really annoying?

  • There are better choices for computing (Score:5, Informative)

    by Tyrdium ( 670229 ) on Thursday June 05, 2003 @03:52PM (#6127052) Homepage
    The NEC 1760V (Tom's Hardware Guide here [tomshardware.com])is a 17" display with the same resolution and a 16 ms pixel response. It can be had over at newegg for 430 bucks [newegg.com]. Granted, the contrast ratio isn't as good at 450:1, but it should be good for everyday use. Lastly, the dpi is a hell of a lot higher, and a good resolution for viewing it at, instead of 1280 x 1024 on a 29" display. The Samsung would be good for watching TV on, but a larger plasma display can probably be had for around the same price.
    • The 1760V from NEC SUCKS!

      Maybe I was unlucky and got a bad one (last they had at the store...I too bought this based on the Tom's hardware review...which ONLY looked at the thing from playing quake...not from how well text looked when doing real work), but mine took HOURS of fussing around with the fine tuning to get it crisp. Then as soon as you flip resolution (ie, to play quake at 1024x768...I only have an Athlon 900), and come back, Major blur all over the screen.

      I took it back. Picked up the sony

    • I love my 1760V. I haven't experienced the problems the other poster mentioned (sorry bud) The response time is excellent and makes all the difference in the world. It is definitely VERY bright - I had to turn down the settings to about 25-30%.

      My only complaint about it was that it is 1280x1024 instead of 1280x960. That's really more of a complaint about all LCDs in general.

      A shareware utility called Powerstrip took care of this for me with these settings:

      screenshot [dpk.net]

      Now I get tiny black bars above and

  • Not too surprising... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by FasterThanLight ( 541259 ) <jasonricca AT hotmail DOT com> on Thursday June 05, 2003 @03:54PM (#6127058) Homepage
    The contrast ratio is 600:1? It better be high- the pixels on this thing are the size of flashlights! What's the point of buying a 29" display if you have to sit three feet away to start enjoying it? Yeah, 29" is a lot of square footage, but you aren't gaining "square pixelage"... which is at least if not more important.
  • What an awful, unreadable review! It's got no style, the punctuation and grammar are poor, and it's uninformative. This is why people would rather trust a dead tree review which costs money. Look at this:

    Thereâ(TM)s no question in my mind that most of you, if it was possible, would love an LCD plopped in front of you rather than a conventional CRT which hogs up 50% of your desk space, well, what if it was not only an LCD but one which is larger than most of your mates home TV?

    Blech. Great sen

  • Wrong Resolution! (Score:2, Informative)

    by Ramjet350 ( 582868 )
    I don't know where they are getting there specs but straight from Samsung's website: Samsung [samsung.com] Wide format Progressive scan 6.8M pixels 350 cd/m2 500:1 contrast ratio 170'/170' viewing angle 1900 X 1200 resolution Virtual Dolby sound Detachable speaker PC capable PIP & Double screen AV wireless solution(option)
  • Now i can see 3"x3" icons for little over $3K... a bargain at twice the price :)

  • Dude, try a T221 from IBM (Score:5, Informative)

    by Hollinger ( 16202 ) <michaelNO@SPAMhollinger.net> on Thursday June 05, 2003 @04:25PM (#6127275) Homepage Journal
    If you want a REAL LCD, check out the IBM T221 Flat Panel [ibm.com].

    Let's see... specs...

    * 22.2-inch viewable image area
    * 3840 x 2400 addressability (QUXGA-W)
    * 9.2 million total pixels, 204 pixel density per inch (80 per cm)
    * 16.7 million colors, 8-bit drivers
    * Two models, one with a modified graphics adapter, and one with DVI cables for attachment to DVI graphics adapters
    * Tilt stand
    * Detachable Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA) standard mount size (100 mm) stand
    * Available in stealth black

    This sucker requires four DVI connectors. Check out the various reviews [google.com].

  • Poor review (Score:3, Informative)

    by illumin8 ( 148082 ) on Thursday June 05, 2003 @04:32PM (#6127320) Journal
    I'm not sure how much I would trust a review of a widescreen television from someone that doesn't even know how to enable 16:9 widescreen mode on their DVD player...

    My god, if you look at the picture of the Monster's Inc. screenshot you can tell he is running it in standard 4:3 letterboxed mode from his DVD player, which is further stretching the image to 16:9 dimensions... Ugh!!!

    Also, why not run the PC in 1280x768 mode as well? LCDs do not perform very well unless you run them in their native resolution. It would have been nice if he ran DScaler and scaled up some 480i sources as well.

    Half of the benefit of one of these TV's is their ability to properly display the full picture information on 16:9 anamorphic DVDs.

  • I would LOVE to dump my bulky CRT and save desktop realestate with a flat-screen (assuming the price is less than my mortgage) but I do like to play games now and again. Though I have looked at and priced some nice flat LCD screens I end up blowing it off because I worry about the response time with games.

    Are there any flat screens out there yet that are actually not too bad to use when playing a game (RTCW, Unreal II, etc)? It seems a waste to go for a nice video card and then saddle oneself with an ot

    • You just need to look at the response time when you buy an LCD; you want around 20ms to really eliminate streaking in games and video. Most cheap LCDs will have a 35-50ms response time, which is almost unwatchable; Samsungs are around 25ms, which is quite a lot better, and will work in most situations.

      The best I've seen is Formac's Gallery 2010 Platinum with a response of 15ms; that's a really great display all-around.

  • Waiting for concave, curving screen. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kobotronic ( 240246 ) on Thursday June 05, 2003 @04:36PM (#6127345)
    I want something like this : (crappy lame untextured quick 3D doodle [kobotica.com] - a large monitor about the size of the Panasonic, but it should curve slightly inwards.

    This would allow more monitors to be put side by side forming a giant panoramic screen. One benefit of such screens would be uniform eye-to-screen distance which should greatly reduce eye stress (since you won't have to refocus when looking at a different part of the screen.)

    The actual optimal resolution of the screen should be determined by intended viewing distance : Individual pixels would still need to be discernable at a distance of about 3 feet, which makes me think the Panasonic resolution is only slightly under par.

    The curving screen technology will almost certainly be available with the advent of OLED screens - perhaps even with semi-flexible, adjustable curvature.

  • Samsung's Take on the Resolution Issue (Score:3, Informative)

    by rlsnyder ( 231869 ) on Thursday June 05, 2003 @04:38PM (#6127363)
    After reading the repeated posts on the lame resolution, I decided to see what Samsung has to say on their site. Well, basically, they DON'T advertise this thing as monitor. It's not even listed as a product on their site with other monitors.

    It's a TV; they market it as the "Bedroom Home Theater" unit. So, the fact that the review keeps refering to it as a "Monitor" or a "Monitor/PC", and listed it on the Monitor section, is a little misleading. Sure, you can USE it as a monitor. I could also drag race a Winnebago, I suppose.

    The PC Monitor market is not what the the manufacturer is targeting, so this whole "resolution is too crappy for a Monitor" thing is kinda irrelevant.

  • At #3139, it looks like this monitor exceeds the values of all 6 of my computers combined...
  • I can't stand 'em. The image is always gritty and pastelly, no matter WHAT angle you observe at, and REGARDLESS of the quality. The very very very best LCDs cost almost as much as a plasma display, and not only do they not hold a candle to a plasma, they don't even stand up against a moderate CRT.

    Yeah, space is nice. I'll get a low-depth 30" flat-surface CRT for less than a third the price, and have a better display to watch movies and games on.

    Anyone else?

  • As the scotsman said.. (Score:3, Funny)

    by StikyPad ( 445176 ) on Thursday June 05, 2003 @08:40PM (#6128749) Homepage
    If it ain't plasma.. it's crap. Or was that scottish...? I'm sure the Scots would have used plasma though.

Slashdot Top Deals

Perfection is acheived only on the point of collapse. - C. N. Parkinson

Close