Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Displays Hardware

Budget LCD Monitor Round-up 244

Posted by CmdrTaco from the i-only-want-the-apple-thirty-incher dept.
An anonymous reader writes "FiringSquad has just posted a new 8-monitor budget LCD round-up. It starts off like a traditional review, but their discussion of color accuracy is the best I've ever seen."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Budget LCD Monitor Round-up More

Budget LCD Monitor Round-up

Comments Filter:

  • DVI vs Analog (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Thursday April 07, 2005 @03:51PM (#12169551) Homepage Journal
    It starts off like a traditional review, but their discussion of color accuracy is the best I've ever seen."

    Sure, but like their discussion of DVI I do have at least one issue regarding analog-DVI. I have a DVI monitor, which also works on analog and noticed the difference when hooking up the DVI cable (when I got my ATI AIW wizzo graphics card) Analog offers a softer image which may be more desireable. With DVI I can tell subtle shades from pixel to pixel, tiny as they are at 1280x1024, yet with the softening of lossy D/A/D conversion it's far less obvious. The only real downside being fuzzier letters. Letters already can be a pain because of the anti-aliasing attempt to split a 1 pixel vertical line between two columns of pixels, especially if you're like me and run at high res and small fonts.

    I'm still using a Samsung 172t (w/500:1 contrast ratio, w00t) 2.5 years old and only 3 stuck pixels, no pixel smearing, either. Only downside is I can no longer pile things on top of a monitor.

    Those images would have been slightly more convincing without the severe jpeg compression, BTW.

    should have used a nice picture like this [dragonswest.com]

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:DVI vs Analog (Score:4, Funny)

      by imsabbel ( 611519 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @04:20PM (#12169801)
      So you like blurry images.

      Be happy, with Longhorn you can apply a gausian blur pixel shader on you whole desktop, than everything will be fina again :)

    • Re:DVI vs Analog (Score:3, Informative)

      by Waffle Iron ( 339739 )
      The only real downside being fuzzier letters. Letters already can be a pain because of the anti-aliasing attempt to split a 1 pixel vertical line between two columns of pixels, especially if you're like me and run at high res and small fonts.

      Maybe your analog LCD input isn't synched properly. Mine has an auto-synch button, but it only synchs perfectly when I'm displaying a large bitmap of alternating white and black 1-pixel vertical stripes that I made just for that purpose.

      Without the bitmap, after aut

    • Re:DVI vs Analog (Score:4, Interesting)

      by DaveJay ( 133437 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @04:38PM (#12169993)
      Analog offers a softer image which may be more desireable.

      For me personally, this trend towards anti-aliased fonts is just making it harder for me to focus on small letters. I run a DVI monitor, and my wife runs a much newer and more expensive VGA monitor (both LCDs, natch) and I'd much rather use mine than hers for the same reason that the parent suggests it should be the other way around.

      But then, I'm an old man in my 30s, so maybe my eyes are just bad...

      • Re:DVI vs Analog (Score:3, Insightful)

        by iabervon ( 1971 )
        Anti-aliased stroked fonts just aren't as good as a good bitmapped font. On the other hand, they're a whole lot better than a bad bitmapped font or a non-anti-aliased stroked font. If you need to scale fonts, the current trend is a great improvement; otherwise, it's worse.
    • There was a one day sale over at Newegg and I just picked it up.

      I was coming from a CRT monitor...then I switched to this thing and WOAH. I'm in love.

      The thing is bright, very very fast (8ms) and big (19").

      Yes, it only comes with an analog connector...but to tell the truth, I doubt it could get clearer, sharper or brighter than it is now. This thing is great.

      It's like looking through a window...a very clean and clear window.

    • Re:DVI vs Analog (Score:4, Funny)

      by Idarubicin ( 579475 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @06:07PM (#12170857) Journal
      Only downside is I can no longer pile things on top of a monitor.

      Sure...but now you can pile stuff behind the monitor. There's a good cubic foot or more of volume that you can fill with anything you want--and it has less gravitational potential energy, so it's less likely to fall and crush you.

  • FP (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rudeboy1 ( 516023 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @03:52PM (#12169561)
    I still think CRTs are better, ESPECIALLY for the money, and the clarity, color, etc.
    • I agree. And after reading the article, it appears that we are both right. Basically, the visual quality of LCDs doesn't suck nearly as bad as it used to... they're almost as good as CRTs now.

      Personally, I still don't like them. I still notice the ghosting effects. They're less pronounced yes, but that's like comparing a deep gouge with a faint scratch. If you're staring at the thing all day, it's still annoying. Same thing with dead pixels. It only takes one for me to not want to use the monitor
    • I just bought a nineteen-inch CRT last month for $150, and it plays games, does Photoshop, and shows DVDs just fine. People have been fortelling the death of the CRT for a while, but LCD is still too expensive, relative to CRT tech, for cheap/frugal/poor folks. A lot of us just don't see the value of a LCD screen (space, heat) justifing the higher cost. I certainly don't think LCD monitors look any better that time-tested CRTs.

      I read what I could of the article and thought the author was exaggerating the b
      • I have a CRT at home, LCD at work. The LCD is so much easier on my eyes its incredible. Next time I look for a new monitor for home, I will probably favor on LCD for this reason.
      • Heat costs money. First you pay to generate it,
        and then you pay to eliminate it. (and for the
        wise guy living up north, heating your place with
        heating oil is lots cheaper)

        Then what will you do when the display is old?
        I hope you don't dump it in a river somewhere.
        Many places charge about $50 to take an old CRT.
      • Yes, money is an issue but it's FAR from being the only one.

        -CRT has no dead/stuck pixels
        -CRT has no set resution (higher res, too)
        -CRT has much better contrasts
        -CRT has better color accuracy to some extent (my basic Eye-One calibrator doesn't work with LCDs either)
        -No response delays (and tests tweaked to get faster results)
        -Better viewing angles
        (...)
        I'm not sure about useable life either. Good CRTs lasts quite a while.

        Of course money is also an issue. I got 2 *nice* (recent, calibrated and not refurbs e
    • Personally, I can't stand CRTs anymore unless they are the fairly expensive ones. The cheap ones have refresh rates that drive me out of my mind. I can't stand them and they give me horrible eye strain. I also don't like the extreme color fading that happens with CRTs over time. Oh, and fucking around with screen shapes and intense blurring problems on the edges with CRTs is also seriously unfun.

      CRTs have some advantages but they are almost nil when you compare them to a GOOD LCD monitor (speed is abou
      • You touched on all the problems with CRTs for office work. That is why I switched to an LCD for those tasks. I like the crispness of the picture, the thin profile for moving around, the constant performance of shading, colors, and lighting across the LCD. However, for games I would still like to fire up a good quality CRT. Sure, you can pick up a CRT for $100 or $150, but it is gonna be a piece of crap compared to an LCD or a $250 to $300 CRT.

  • Comment & mirror (Score:3, Informative)

    by winkydink ( 650484 ) * <sv.dude@gmail.com> on Thursday April 07, 2005 @03:52PM (#12169568) Homepage Journal
    I agree, this is an excellent article and really clarified a lot of things for this CRT user.

    Oh yeah, there's a mirror of the full article (no missing pages, I swear!) here [networkmirror.com]

  • what to look for. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Kaamoss ( 872616 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @03:55PM (#12169603) Homepage
    Personally, if I'm getting a monitor I want it to be dvi and have a very fast response rate. I think that the majority of people buying monitors have no idea what most specs even mean. Tom's hardware had a good article on this not too long ago http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20040226/ [tomshardware.com] Doubt most of the slashdot crowd would find much new information there, but perhaps some will.

  • color accuracy (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymouse Cownerd ( 754174 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @03:57PM (#12169619) Homepage
    where color accuracy really is important, people still use CRT. you just cant get pure black on an LCD screen, and most colors are just washed out compared to CRT.

    it's just how the technology is.

    • Re:color accuracy (Score:5, Informative)

      by tverbeek ( 457094 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @04:14PM (#12169752) Homepage
      And yet Apple, whose systems are dramatically preferred by chromatically-fascist graphic designers, sells CRTs only to their low-end eMac customers. I use a CRT and an Apple LCD side by side on my PowerMac, and I find the color reproduction on them roughly comparable, at least for my purposes. Having the appropriate color calibration profiles installed in the OS makes at least as much difference for accurate reproduction as the type of display/printing technology used.
      • FYI calibration profiles aren't something unique to MacOS. I've had these available to me on most of my high-end cards on my Windows machine for years. However, as I don't work in the graphics/print industry, I've never needed to use them.

      • Re:color accuracy (Score:5, Interesting)

        by jon3k ( 691256 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @04:36PM (#12169963)
        Not even close. The CRT they tested, which, admittadly isn't the greatest of the great, had a contrast ratio of (now sit down for this one) ...

        9,415 to 1.

        Yeah. Read it again. Nine thousand, four hundred and fifteen, to one.

        A great LCD is in the 800:1 range.

        • Re:color accuracy (Score:4, Informative)

          by John Miles ( 108215 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @04:56PM (#12170207) Homepage Journal
          Perception is logarithmic, though. That is 30 dB of dynamic range versus 40 dB -- not such an impressive ratio.

          Personally, I don't understand how contrast measurements are meaningful on CRTs. Not many people use them in a totally-dark environment, so their visual dynamic range will be severely curtailed by room light reflecting off the phosphor. What makes reflected room light somehow better than LCD backlight bleedthrough?

          In any real-world environment, the best LCDs are much nicer to work with than the best CRTs. I've spent thousands of hours in front of both.
          • Personally, I don't understand how contrast measurements are meaningful on CRTs. Not many people use them in a totally-dark environment, so their visual dynamic range will be severely curtailed by room light reflecting off the phosphor. What makes reflected room light somehow better than LCD backlight bleedthrough?

            Don't forget, room lighting has the same affect on an LCD. So, the higher contrast and better (best?) color reproduction you can start out with, the better.

            In any real-world environment, th

            • Re:color accuracy (Score:3, Insightful)

              by John Miles ( 108215 )
              Don't forget, room lighting has the same affect on an LCD. So, the higher contrast and better (best?) color reproduction you can start out with, the better.

              No, not really; the unlit areas of my LCD look black with a little bit of diffuse light reflecting from the anti-glare fascia. The unlit areas of a CRT look... gray.

              Black is better than gray.

              Of course, in a dark room, the CRT does indeed look darker, and its limited light-emission capaciity is no longer a handicap compared to the much-brighter LCD.
              • but for most people, they are the best choice

                Huh? What? For most people its the best choice? Paying two, three, four times as much as a CRT is the best choice for "most people" ? I know you can't specifically be speaking about the quality of the monitor either. You do realize that CRT monitors have anti-glare coatings (or something) nowadays, correct?
                • Huh? What? For most people its the best choice? Paying two, three, four times as much as a CRT is the best choice for "most people" ? I know you can't specifically be speaking about the quality of the monitor either.

                  I don't think those price ratios are realistic in today's market. The best CRT I've used was the 21" Hitachi SuperScan Supreme, which cost me about $2300 circa 1995. I flew to Comdex that year specifically to find the best monitor on the market, price no object, and the Hitachi ended up on
                  • I've got a 22" Viewsonic P220fb at home, and a pair of Compaq P920 19's at work where I'm posting this from.

                    Here's the viewsonic: http://www.viewsonic.com/products/desktopdisplays / crtmonitors/proseries/p220f/

                    I paid about $320 for it, refurbeed, in perfect shape (retail is $650, as noted on the site).

                    Absolutely gorgeous monitor, and I haven't seen an LCD that can come close. And yes, I actually do work in the dark. All monitors obviously look much better in the dark. When I try it at work, peopl
                    • That Viewsonic does look like a great solution for a low-light work environment. I'm surprised they're that cheap. It doesn't make sense for large CRTs to have come down that far in price, unless I'm missing something. (scratches head)
                    • Looking at the stats, the Samsung 213T looks like a very nice LCD monitor. Still only a 500:1 contrast ratio (versus several thousand for a good CRT, and I have no idea how much the lighting argument can really play into this). It will also only do 1600x1200, and only 16.7M colors? That seems odd to me. Is that 24bit color?

                      And remember, you can pick up two (2) p220fb's, refurb'ed, grade A, for less than a single Samsung 213T. Although it isn't really fair to compare the new vs. refurbished price. So
                    • Looking at the stats, the Samsung 213T looks like a very nice LCD monitor. Still only a 500:1 contrast ratio (versus several thousand for a good CRT, and I have no idea how much the lighting argument can really play into this).

                      I'd suggest going by Fry's or CompUSA and taking a look at one to see what you think, but unfortunately, retail stores usually use analog connections through distribution boxes that look just plain awful, and their lighting conditions are nothing like what anyone would have in thei
                    • It's difficult to judge any monitor at retail locations; as you mentioned, the signal quality is usually terrible, but it's more than just that.

                      The overhead lighting is usually way brighter than conditions where the monitors will actually be used, any they're almost never calibrated at all - just go to the TV section and see how many high end plasma and LCD TVs are running a 4:3 image stretched across a 16:9 field - wouldn't make most non-tech people all that interested.
        • Well, but they only test ansi contrast, which is USELESS.
          Sure your monitor is dark if nothing is displayed...
          but how dark are black areas near bright ones? The phosphor happily emmits in all directions and pulls down the actually usable contrast to 300-800:1

        • Re:color accuracy (Score:3, Interesting)

          by RedWizzard ( 192002 )
          9,415 to 1.
          Which they calculated by dividing 94.15 by 0.01. The problem is, what if that 0.01 isn't accurately measured? If it's really 0.014 then the contrast ratio is 6700:1, a difference of 30% from their figure. My point is that because of the way that ratio is calculated it's likely to be very inaccurate. A bit more precision in the measuring would have been good.

          So yes, CRTs have great contrast. But take the actual numbers with a lot of salt.

      • whose systems are dramatically preferred by chromatically-fascist graphic designers

        who buy PowerMac G5's with NO MONITOR and then proceed to hook up whatever satisfies their chromatic fascism.

      • Re:color accuracy (Score:5, Informative)

        by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @05:12PM (#12170343)
        Well here's something for you to try: Get a CRT that's of a comparable price and see how it looks. Looking on Apple's site, looks like their 20" LCD is going for $1000. Ok, so for that money (less actually) you can get yourself a Lacie Electron Blue 22" CRT (20" viewable). Go and compare those two, and tell me which one has better color. For an even better demonstration, get a hardware calibrator and calibrate both first.

        Yes, a high end LCD will beat out a low end CRT, espically if said CRT is old (they fade in brightness) but currently, CRTs can't be beat for accurate and vibrant colour.

        In fact if you look in teh displays part of Apple's site, you'll notice they sell Mitsubishi Diamond Pro monitors, which are on par with the Lacie for quality (Lacie uses NEC tubes).

        There's no question that LCDs, particularly some types of them, give much better colour than they used to, but at a given price point, you'll still get better colour from a CRT. Up to you to decide if the other LCD advantages are worth it.

    • Re:color accuracy (Score:5, Informative)

      by molnarcs ( 675885 ) <csabamolnarNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday April 07, 2005 @04:35PM (#12169958) Homepage Journal
      That should be moderated as disinformative. What you claim is no longer true. True, you'll never get perfect black on cheap tft monitors with tn+film panels. But you'll get very good black - as good as your better-than-average CRT - on a samsung 193p (or dell 1905fp, which has the same panel).

      It all depends on what kind of panel type it has.

      • TN+film panels: they are the fastest, and on the new lesser than 12ms response time monitors you'll not see any difference b/w a crt and a tft. Downside is that they don't have good blacks (although there there are some good quality tn+film panels that are not that bad) and they have a narrower viewing angles.
      • S-IPS panels (APPLE uses S-IPS exclusively) - they are slower than tn+film, but have wider viewing angles and better blacks (although they take on a bluish/violet tint viewed form extreme angles).
      • MVA/PVA good viewing angles, good color reproduction, good blacks, slowest (not good for FPS games). PVA is Samsung's own variant of MVA, and it is supposed to be better than traditional MVA panels, but lately various panel manufacturers (AU Optronics, Fujitsu) improved on MVA - Premium-MVA, S(uper)-MVA etc.
      Here is some info [unideb.hu] about the type of panels some monitors have.

  • Duh, analog of course. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 07, 2005 @04:04PM (#12169672)
    Anybody who's into real audio could have told you. After years of horror with CGA/EGA, we finally had a relief with good old analog VGA. Now people are telling you that DVI is the thing, but we know better of course. Don't worry, I'm already working on a nice DVI to analog converter based on radio valves for the real computer lovers.
    • When the Apple IIgs came out, many of the early reviews had sidebars explaining why a "analog RGB monitor" was better than a "digital RGB monitor"-- an analog CRT could display 4096 colors, while a digital monitor was limited to, IIRC, 64. Some Apple IIe users already had RGB monitors, but those were typically digital (EGA), and thus incompatible with the GS.

      IIRC, the EGA connection was a parallel interface. Increasing the number of colors would mean increasing the number of signaling lines, which would al

  • laptop LCDs (Score:5, Interesting)

    by _ph1ux_ ( 216706 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @04:05PM (#12169678)
    Does anyone have any insight on what I can do with a slew of Laptop LCDs that I have...

    I have about 20 Laptop LCD screens that I would love to be able to use, but it looks as though you need to get a $200.+ controller for these screens in order to use them as "monitors"? Is this true? Is there any cheap/free way to put these things to use.

    • Re:laptop LCDs (Score:3, Interesting)

      by LWATCDR ( 28044 )
      Simple sell them on EBay. A lot of old notebooks are perfectly fine except they need a new LCD. You might be surprised how much money you will get for them.
    • It's true for all but a very few panels (for sufficiently small values of "very few"). Unless you can find a laptop panel that is literally the exact same model used in a monitor, you're pretty much SOL.

      It's not for lack of trying, either. Believe me, you're definitely not the first person to want the ability to do this. Really unfortunate, IMO, but a fact of life :(

      p
    • I've never used it myself, but I've heard good things about this:

      It's software that you run that lets any computer (usually extra laptops) act as secondary displays for a system, operating over a network.

      It's $35.

    • Re:laptop LCDs (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Storlek ( 860226 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @04:30PM (#12169908)
      There's no way to just plug an LCD panel into a video card because it works on a lower level than a vga/dvi signal; there has to be something in between the two to adapt the signal to the LCD's resolution and generally do some black magic. In short, yes, you do need to get a controller, but it's still a bit cheaper than buying a whole new LCD, and on top of that it's a learning experience, and something fun to do in your spare time.

      This page [geocities.com] might be useful reading.

  • Why no digital DVI only budget monitors? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hirschma ( 187820 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @04:06PM (#12169683)
    It seems that the cheapest monitor to make these days would be pure digital - digital DVI support only.

    Instead, budget monitors come with analog only - which means more complex support circuitry, A/D converter, etc. than what it takes to support digital input.

    Since almost all video cards come with one DVI port these days, at least, why not ship something that would be better, cheaper, and likely, more profitable? How about flipping things around and making the analog input optional (and more expensive)? I guess that would make too much sense.

    jh

    • Re:Why no digital DVI only budget monitors? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by LWATCDR ( 28044 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @04:13PM (#12169738) Homepage Journal
      Simple.
      Lowest common denominator.
      All video cards come with an analog port or a DVI to analog adapter. So if you have to pick one port analog works with the largest selection of cards.
      • Yeah, pretty much. Though in a few years time (five? less?) I think you'll see this flip. Analogue is more expensive to make, but you'll sell more because more people will be able to buy it. However soon a large enough percentage will have digital that you'll be able to sell an almost equal number and you'll see digital only on the cheapest options.

        Computers aren't the only thing that works this way, try buying uniodised salt for instance, or blackcurrant concentrate without added sugar. It seems conve
    • My guess is onboard video. In the PC world, onboard video is 100% VGA connector. Not everyone wants/needs an expensive video card.
    • Actually, it sort of makes sense.

      Analog input on a digital monitor is pretty much required. If you leave it out, you'll have angry customers who buy it for their non-DVI card. So by adding DVI, you will not save any money.

      On top of that, DVI isn't as cheap as you might think. Adding any connector to a system means extra pins on the chips inside, and those aren't free...often today the pins cost more than the logic on the chips. So even though digital is the "native" format for an LCD monitor, it still cos
    • I bought a DVI-only LCD about 5 years ago. It was an IBM T55D, and cost me $1000. I mention this because it was more expensive than the analog LCDs at the time, and also at the time, I do not remember seeing any Analog+DVI monitors. It was either analog OR DVI. Yet it was more expensive.

      So what I'm getting at is if the DVI-only monitors weren't cheaper than analog-only monitors then, why would they be now?
    • Since almost all video cards come with one DVI port these days, at least, why not ship something that would be better, cheaper, and likely, more profitable?

      Most if not all NEW video cards come with at least one DVI output these days, yes, but that still represents a minority of the video cards that are in use.

      Retailers don't want to deal with the hassle of customers who try to buy, and then subsequently have to return, a cheapo digital-only LCD display as an upgrade for their four-year-old PC with a VGA
    • 1) EVERY card has a VGA output. Most onboard video solutions ONLY have a VGA output. Customers like flexibility.

      2) Hardware costs in an LCD monitor are almost entirely in the LCD screen itself. The rest of the hardware is pennies in comparison. So even leaving out some extra electronics is a tiny, tiny cost savings.

      3) The cost of hardware manufacturing has only so much to do with how something is built. More important, especially in the long run, is how many of something you can sell. Large volumes

  • Color Accuracy (Score:5, Informative)

    by gbulmash ( 688770 ) * <semi_famous.yahoo@com> on Thursday April 07, 2005 @04:07PM (#12169690) Homepage Journal
    Regarding color accuracy, I recently purchased a Pantone "Color Plus". It's a cool little device which hangs (on LCD/Laptop) or sticks (via suction cups on a CRT) over your screen and plugs into the USB port. Using their software, you can test the color accuracy of your screen and generate an .icm color profile to help your monitor be more color accurate.

    These types of things can cost major buckage, but this is their consumer version and can be picked up for sub-$100.

    I just started a little home-based start-up and I'm doing a lot of graphics for print (not a graphic designer, just being my own in-house ad department) and though subtle, I found the difference invaluable in getting my collateral to come out looking like it did on the screen.

    - G

  • 3? (Score:5, Funny)

    by IamLarryboy ( 176442 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @04:07PM (#12169693)
    "When it comes to a great picture there are two elements that come into play. You want the image to be rich in color, constrasty, and sharp. The other element that comes into play is the speed of the LCD and its ability to handle motion."

    When it comes to a great picture there are two elements that come into play. You want the image to be rich in color, contrast, ... and sharpness. The three, the three elements that make a good picture are color, contrast, sharpness, ... and speed. The four, the four elements that make a good picture are color, contrast, sharpness, speed, ... and its ability to handle motion. The five, The five elements that make a good picture are color, contrast, sharpness, speed, and its ability to handle motion.

    (With apologies to Monty Python)

  • ForMac (Score:2, Informative)

    by blogeasy ( 674237 )
    I always liked the "Gallery" products from ForMac [formac.com] even though they cost a little more ($599) than the economy monitors. I've had one for several years now with my PowerMac and the quality remains great. I wonder how it would stack up against these economy monitors.

  • the best? (Score:4, Funny)

    by TrippTDF ( 513419 ) <hiland@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Thursday April 07, 2005 @04:14PM (#12169744)
    It starts off like a traditional review, but their discussion of color accuracy is the best I've ever seen

    You mean they use pr0n images for testing?
    • >> It starts off like a traditional review, but their discussion of color
      >> accuracy is the best I've ever seen

      > You mean they use pr0n images for testing?

      Joking aside, pr0n is one of the things that *really* shows up poor LCDs. I have a 5-year old Compaq laptop, and whilst the colour saturation and viewing angle is pretty poor by today's standards, it's fine for almost everything I want it to do.

      Throw some pr0n at it, however, and it looks *horrid*. What does pr0n feature lots of? Ski
  • For someone looking for a budget 19" LCD, a great one is made by Envision. Fry's was selling them for sale about 2 months ago for $350 which was reasonable alone for that size but also had one of those $50 rebate deals. I got my $50 a couple days ago, and the monitor is fantastic. They had a 17" model by another manufacturer there that day for a little less but when I looked at the reviews, they were all negative. Then I read the Ensonic reviews and people were raving about them. I bought it and was very pl
    • I have that same monitor, and got it for $300 from Fry's just like you. It's a great monitor. The sales jerk at Fry's was trying to get me to buy a higher priced Sharp branded monitor, but I stuck to my guns. He lied to me about the speed and the warranty. It comes with a 3 year warranty, amazing for a computer monitor. It has DVI and analog, and tilts into portrait mode. I highly recommend it.

  • From the article (Score:5, Funny)

    by jayhawk88 ( 160512 ) <jayhawk88@gmail.com> on Thursday April 07, 2005 @04:16PM (#12169761)
    Color accuracy is actually extremely important for gaming too. Think about how much time you spend making sure your GPU isn't faking its anisotropic texture filtering.

    Easy there Geordi. Maybe I'm just not a "hard core" gamer anymore, but it sounds to me like someone needs to step outside for a reality check.
    • how much time you spend making sure your GPU isn't faking its anisotropic texture filtering

      uhh - none :)

    • > Easy there Geordi. Maybe I'm just not a "hard core" gamer anymore, but
      > it sounds to me like someone needs to step outside for a reality check.

      Ever see the episode where we get to see through Geordi's visor? Extremely unnatural colour rendition *and* horrible smearing. I'm not sure I'd trust him to judge this kind of thing.

      And have you ever tried "stepping outside" on a starship? I don't recommend it.

    • Re:From the article (Score:5, Funny)

      by Eric Savage ( 28245 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @05:42PM (#12170615) Homepage
      I stepped outside as you recommended, but I found that the contrast was way too high and the lack of a soundtrack was a bit disturbing. The 3D was fairly impressive though, and don't even get me started on the physics engine. I ran around throwing bottles at people and they had even better reactions than Half-life 2 did. It was all just eye candy though, as I spent hours looking for weapons and ammunition but was unable to find anything more advanced than a rather unwieldy sharp metal pole, which I obviously didn't spend enough skill points on during character generation. Overall, I'd give it a 6/10, it has promise so let's hope there's an expension pack coming.

  • TFT-Panels table (Score:3, Informative)

    by molnarcs ( 675885 ) <csabamolnarNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday April 07, 2005 @04:17PM (#12169773) Homepage Journal
    I bought a viewsonic vx912 a few weeks ago. Prior to buying, I bumped into a forum discussion about various technological aspects of different panel types (tn+film, S-IPS, mva). It was an interesting topic, and after a joined in, we decided to compile a table that shows what type of panel each specific monitor has. You can see the results here [unideb.hu]. (it is in Hungarian, but the table should be still readable and useful). It is still at a BETA stage, and it's aim is to help would-be customers to decide which monitor to buy. For instance, sometimes you will find exactly the same panel in two different types of monitors - and you will be surprised at the lenght some manufacturers (notably LG) goes in lying about their specs. Anyway, I hope that link is useful.

  • Budget Display (Score:5, Interesting)

    by buckhead_buddy ( 186384 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @04:18PM (#12169777)
    Making judgements on budget flat panels is much harder than the pricier brands in my experience. Budget brands get their LCDs cheaply by saying they'll take a manufacturer's leftovers that fail the quality standards of the bigger name customers. That doesn't mean that all of their budget displays are bad; the budget buyer gets quite a number of perfect displays and almost perfect displays because they have to get something delivered.

    For a brand that has high quality assurance standards evaluating one or two displays can be an effective evaluation, but reviewing a budget display this way is meaningless. When you're looking at brands that don't have quality standards and good return policies, then statistics like failure rate, customer satisfaction, and other non-visual stats can tell you whether it's a good risk to put your money down or not. You may get a great monitor; you may get something that's crap. But unless you're looking at the actual monitor you're going to buy in person, its the other stats that are going to tell you what your odds are of getting a great display for dirt cheap.

  • Real World Example (Score:3, Insightful)

    by FractusMan ( 711004 ) * on Thursday April 07, 2005 @04:20PM (#12169803)
    I read over their review, and that was indeed the best discussion on colour calibration I've seen in a review. I'm using the Samsung 127x myself, the one that ranked in at number five, I think. It is bright - too bright, most people find, on the default 'Internet' brightness level. However, it comes with software (Natural Color) that lets you calibrate it yourself without the need for a colorimeter. Naturally it's not going to give you the same accuracy as one, but it uses a clever trick to get you to set it to your own comfort level with colours.

    That said, I do not notice the blue tint they talk about, and I've used more than a few LCDs. This is the only one I've been able to use for gaming, and not just because it has absolutely no lag or shadowing or ghosting in even the fastest paced games (Like UT2004 or Serious Sam), but because the colours are vibrant and the contrast is very nice.

    But, that's just my own experience out in the real world.

  • Personally... (Score:4, Informative)

    by imemyself ( 757318 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @04:21PM (#12169805)
    One of the biggest things that keeps me from considering an LCD (in addition to the extra cost of course), is that equally sized LCD's can't do anywhere near the resolution of the same sized CRTs(that cost less). My 17" CRT does up to 1600x1200. The max I've seen a 17" LCD do is 1280x1024, which is fine for desktop work but for gaming/design/etc it is really lacking. I haven't even seen a 19" that can do more than that, which really makes them pointless, because if you stretch 1280x1024 pixels out over a 19" screen vs a 17" screen its gonna look worse. The few 21" LCD's I've looked at can only do 1600x1200. While that isn't any worse than most 21" CRT's can do, a 21" CRT will cost atleast 1/3 the price, probably closer to 1/4. I don't move my monitor around too much, so I don't think the weight is that big of a deal.

    So, basically, to get an LCD that can do what my CRT can, I'm going to have to pay 7 to 8 times as much, and it still won't have the pixels/in. that my CRT can do.

    And honestly, my eyes hurt when I use an LCD, not a CRT oddly enough.
    • Agreed! I have a 20" CRT that has great picture, does 1800x1440, and can be bought used for $100.

      I even drag it out once every other month to our LAN gaming events.

      I guess budget is all relative if you are a cheap bastard like me.

    • You've got a flaw in your reasoning.... (Score:5, Informative)

      by aetherspoon ( 72997 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @04:36PM (#12169973) Homepage
      Minor one, but I thought I'd point it out anyway.
      CRTs are measured by total diagonal length - a 17" CRT may only have a 15.7" viewable screen.
      LCDs are measured by viewable diagonal length - a 17" LCD has a 17" viewable screen.

      So when you compare prices, it is more accurate to compare 19" CRTs to 17" LCDs.
    • I'm typing this on a 1600x1200 15" LCD, so they definitely do exist. (If you're wondering: it's attached to my nearly 3yo Dell Laptop).

      Without DVI on a CRT, bumping to higher resolutions also increases fuzziness due to the analog connection. For my digital photos I have a 22" iiyama doing 1600x1200 using a quality BNC cable on a Matrox card (which incidently still has one of the best DACs, despite being 8 years old!). While my LCD can't touch the color reproduction of my CRT, the sharpness of the image is

    • It's all about where to store the cat.

      My cat loves sleeping behind the LCD. Right next to the transformer for extra cat warming action.

      When I had a CRT there just wasn't enough desk space for cat storage, and not enough heat generated for cat warming.

      It's made the extra cost, loss of resolution and loss of color fidelity all worthwhile!
    • Agreed. I run my 19 inch CRT monitor at 1400x1050. All I want is an 18 or 19 inch LCD monitor that can do the same resolution. I am yet to see such a beast. I cannot, for the life of me, see the point in buying a 19 inch LCD monitor to run at 1280x1024 (not even mentioning the odd aspect ratio) when I can buy a 17 inch LCD to do the same.

      Is this really asking to much?
    • At least in the states you can get the Dell 2001FP for as low as $475 if you catch the deals right. Its 20" with 1600x1200 and a very good monitor (I use one). New 20" CRTs are in the same range if not higher at times. It seems the LCD market gets closer in price difference the bigger you get, up to a point.

      The big thing I see between LCD/CRT is that if your into photography/graphic design I would stick with a high end CRT.

      My only beef with my 2001FP is that with DVI I cannot control contrast which doe

    • Re:Personally... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by RzUpAnmsCwrds ( 262647 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @06:32PM (#12171038)
      "My 17" CRT does up to 1600x1200."

      No, it can't. It may be able to *sync* and *scan* at 1600x1200, but it can't actually display that resolution.

      The shadow mask (or aperture grill, as the case may be) on your monitor probably doesn't go anywhere near 1600x1200.

      You're basically using an analog version of antialiasing.

  • Different types of LCD: big deal or not? (Score:4, Informative)

    by billtom ( 126004 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @04:24PM (#12169836)
    I read this article, LCD Guide [xbitlabs.com], that goes into great detail on the different types of LCD monitor (apparently there are three different types of underlying LCD technology). The article makes the point that each type of LCD technology has differing strengths and weaknesses (eg. response time vs. color fidelity vs. viewing angle, etc) and that there is no best technology.

    However, I've never really seen this information anywhere else in other LCD reviews. So I'm not clear if the points that the X-bit labs article makes are really important or whether the writer is just a specialist making a mountain out of a molehill.

    Anyone know?
  • Note: I don't play games that often, and when I do, they aren't usually the type to require ultra-fast refreshes.

    I've got two LCD displays, a 20 month old budget 15" display, and a 16 month old 19" AG Neovo F-419. The latter is, of course, way superior in every way and what I use all the time. I think it has good colour reproduction and IIRC the contrast ratio was 700:1 which is pretty good too.

    I use the 19" with the DVI output on my main box, and the VGA output on my Linux development box. I've found tha
  • Do thee newer LCD monitors still have problems with non-native screen resolutions (games, testing, etc.)? I still use CRTs because I use various screen resolutions. I dislike the stretch features in LCD monitors because of bluriness and uneven pixels. Is this still a problem with newer models?
    • Maybe you are using broken old software that can't
      work at native resolution. Ditch that crud.

      Fonts, icons, buttons... all should scale as you
      desire. Set them to occupy many pixels instead of
      setting your monitor to have big fat pixels.

      Really, there is a well-known software solution to
      your problem. As an extra benefit, text will have
      better-shaped characters.
    • Do thee newer LCD monitors still have problems with non-native screen resolutions...

      Yes, and they will for the foreseeable future; it's the nature of the technology. CRTs are inherently analog mechanisms, capable of (in theory) continuously variable scan frequencies. LCDs are inherently digital, with a fixed grid of pixels, and they mimic resolutions that don't match that grid by antialiasing/interpolating (i.e. faking it).

      The only way LCDs can produce sharp displays at resolutions other than the physic

  • This article basically confirmed my findings.

    I got a Samsung SyncMaster 910T [newegg.com] for under $400 after rebate (pretty decent for a 19 inch LCD).

    The quality is really very good. I don't do photoshop or graphic design, so it's "good enough". I honestly don't see a difference between a CRT and this display.

    It's got VGA and DVI input.

    Oh yea, I'm posting this experience based on hooking up via VGA through a KVM switch. I'm not even using DVI.

    IMHO I consider it a "great buy". It's a solid display and it's very
    • Hey...maybe you are able to answer a question about that display if you have the time?
      I want to buy an 19 inch LCD myself and my favorites at the moment are the Iiyama 481
      (because of the S-IPS panel, it's slightly cheaper and I read lots of (credible) good test reports about it)
      or maybe the Samsung 910T (more features, probably better picture quality because of ?VA panel)

      The things I have in mind:
      • most important: can you use it with Linux?
        That is: newer Samsung displays come with a windows-only "Ma
  • it seems firingsquad has been executed.

  • Not exactly right... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Jott42 ( 702470 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @05:03PM (#12170263)
    The article states that: "The way to think about it is that on a chart of all possible colors, the 6500K color temperature is actually a line of white whereas D65 is a specific point of white."

    This is definitly false. In all the color charts that I have seen, the range of possible black-body colors is a line, but at black-body radiator at a certain temperature is as much a point as the D65 standard. The difference is that the D65 illuminant includes an UV component, which will change the way printed colors appear to the human eye. I fail to see that the article makes a good case for using the D65 illuminant as the reference standard.

    Furthermore, a cooler temperature will appear redder, not bluer. And the colors percieved is ass much due to our brain as to the spectrum hitting our eyes. So which color temperature that is the correct one for monitors depends on where the monitor will be used, especially on the color temperature of the room lighting.

  • Far better review (Score:4, Informative)

    by Hackeron ( 704093 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @07:28PM (#12171507) Journal
    http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20050215/ lcd-01.html [tomshardware.com]

    I chose the BenQ FP937s+ as its by far the most impressive at its price. You'll notice no BenQ monitors are mentioned in the roundup, dispite them producing some of the best displays for the price.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If value corrupts then absolute value corrupts absolutely."

Close