Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Which monitor should I get?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
July 20, 2004 11:15:41 PM

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

Hi - I need a monitor upgrade b4 DoomIII but I'm not sure what to get.
My budget was £200 so a good 19" CRT seemed obvious. (I've an ancient
17incher at present).

My budget has risen to £300 tops and now I have the choice of whether to go
LCD or not. I think I'd rather wait until the choice/quality of resolution
settings has improved and/or their price come down in the UK.

So here's what I'm thinking....

1. get the biggest CRT I can for the cash. (bigger surface area = lots of
graphical pleasure!?!)
This equates to the Samsung SM1100DF.

2. the following LCDs MAY have a low enough response time (16ms) but are
they good enough and/or is a 17" screen big enough?
(not a great choice in the UK for £300)

- AG Neovo F-17C (I haven't even heard of AG Neovo)

- Sony SDM-S73H

- LG Electronics L1720B

- Iiyama Prolite E431S (a touch over budget)

What should I do?
--
Grumps

More about : monitor

Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
July 20, 2004 11:15:42 PM

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

If you are comfortable with CRT's, get a 19 inch CRT. Make sure it has a
good dot-pitch, and that it can run 1280x960 with at least 85 Hz, if not
higher.

A 17 inch LCD is not the same size as a 19 inch CRT. More like the same
size as a 18 inch CRT. The LCD is not as wide as a CRT, because it uses a
different aspect ratio.

LCD's are one area where you don't want to be penny pinching; you want one
with a DVI interface, and DVI costs alot more.
July 20, 2004 11:48:50 PM

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

"Grumpycrab" <Grumpycrab@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2m54uhFiios3U1@uni-berlin.de...
> What should I do?

I'd start by forgetting about a LCD. Response time is only one concern. In
the end the only plus about a LCD is the amount of space it free's up on
your desk. Everything else is a downer, viewing angle, cost per inch, dead
pixels, picture quality etc etc. Stick with CRT for gaming.


--
Rocky
www.ghostrecon.net | www.agr-s.com | www.tactical-elite.net

__
Related resources
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
July 20, 2004 11:48:51 PM

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

He's right you know.

Get a nice 21" Flat Screen CRT....yummy.

"Rocky" <Rocky@GhostRecon.net> wrote in message
news:2m57obFjb1ptU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Grumpycrab" <Grumpycrab@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2m54uhFiios3U1@uni-berlin.de...
> > What should I do?
>
> I'd start by forgetting about a LCD. Response time is only one concern. In
> the end the only plus about a LCD is the amount of space it free's up on
> your desk. Everything else is a downer, viewing angle, cost per inch, dead
> pixels, picture quality etc etc. Stick with CRT for gaming.
>
>
> --
> Rocky
> www.ghostrecon.net | www.agr-s.com | www.tactical-elite.net
>
> __
>
>
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
July 20, 2004 11:48:52 PM

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

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 19:09:28 GMT, "Julian Knott"
<julianknott@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>He's right you know.
>
>Get a nice 21" Flat Screen CRT....yummy.

I was in a computer store about two weeks ago and they were selling
these 21" CRT monitors that were labelled "Sun Microsystems" (Sony
aperature grille tubes - true flat) for $360.00 CAD. Great deal.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
July 20, 2004 11:48:52 PM

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

"Julian Knott" <julianknott@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>Get a nice 21" Flat Screen CRT....yummy.

You said it, partner. The best choice for the high-end home user,
IMO. LCD's may be worth getting once they're so cheap that they're
almost giving them away...
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
July 20, 2004 11:48:53 PM

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

Mark Steen <mark@no.email> wrote:

>I was in a computer store about two weeks ago and they were selling
>these 21" CRT monitors that were labelled "Sun Microsystems" (Sony
>aperature grille tubes - true flat) for $360.00 CAD. Great deal.

How do you know they weren't Mitsubishi AG tubes?
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
July 20, 2004 11:48:54 PM

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

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:53:12 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid>
wrote:


>How do you know they weren't Mitsubishi AG tubes?

Because the store label on the monitors said Sony tubes and the
salesman also told me they were Sony aperature grille tubes. Unless
they were lying (doubtful) they were Sony tubes.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
July 21, 2004 12:13:47 AM

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

Mark Steen wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 19:09:28 GMT, "Julian Knott"
> <julianknott@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>He's right you know.
>>
>>Get a nice 21" Flat Screen CRT....yummy.
>
> I was in a computer store about two weeks ago and they were selling
> these 21" CRT monitors that were labelled "Sun Microsystems" (Sony
> aperature grille tubes - true flat) for $360.00 CAD. Great deal.

Just make sure that they actually work with PC video. Sun Microsystems is
one of the few computer manufacturers that is not part of the Wintel world
and they have in the past had their own video standards--whether that is
still the case or not I don't know.

Regardless of whose tube they use, those will if they accept PC video be
excellent monitors.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
July 21, 2004 12:48:27 AM

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

> > What should I do?
>
> I'd start by forgetting about a LCD. Response time is only one concern. In
> the end the only plus about a LCD is the amount of space it free's up on
> your desk. Everything else is a downer, viewing angle, cost per inch, dead
> pixels, picture quality etc etc. Stick with CRT for gaming.
>
...and so say's the guy who ain't got one.

Viewing angle. Not an issue unless you play your FPS games while hiding
behind the desk or something.
Dead pixels. Less common all the time. None on my nearly 2 year old LG 17".
Picture quality. Fantastic. 2D and 3D is sharper and more vibrant.
No heat issues and all that free space on your desk.
Cost of a good 17" is now under £300.
Time to come out of the CRT stone age.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
July 21, 2004 12:48:28 AM

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

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:48:27 +0100, "DapperDan"
<dapperdan@nthellworld.com> wrote:


>..and so say's the guy who ain't got one.

I've got both and I much prefer the CRT for gaming. Mostly because I
can run at various resolutions without interpolation like you have to
do on an LCD, plus LCD has poor contrast ratio.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
July 21, 2004 2:05:52 AM

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

"Grumpycrab" <Grumpycrab@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2m54uhFiios3U1@uni-berlin.de...
> Hi - I need a monitor upgrade b4 DoomIII but I'm not sure what to get.
> My budget was £200 so a good 19" CRT seemed obvious. (I've an ancient
> 17incher at present).
>
> My budget has risen to £300 tops and now I have the choice of whether to
go
> LCD or not. I think I'd rather wait until the choice/quality of
resolution
> settings has improved and/or their price come down in the UK.
>
> So here's what I'm thinking....
>
> 1. get the biggest CRT I can for the cash. (bigger surface area = lots of
> graphical pleasure!?!)
> This equates to the Samsung SM1100DF.
>
> 2. the following LCDs MAY have a low enough response time (16ms) but are
> they good enough and/or is a 17" screen big enough?
> (not a great choice in the UK for £300)

I'd say that the native resolution poses just as many problems as response
time but is often passed over.

> What should I do?

Mitsubishi Diamondtron -
http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/products/index.html?rb=9...

Possibly the best investment I've made on my PC so far.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
July 21, 2004 2:05:53 AM

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

"Jamie_Manic" <mmmm...pork rind> wrote in message
news:40fd8935$0$13109$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
> I'd say that the native resolution poses just as many problems as response
> time but is often passed over.
>

Only in a handful of games. If you are really into those handful of
games, though, it can be a little distressing. Most LCD's now days do a
good job of interpolating images to different resolutions, although the
results are not as good as the native resolution. The main issue is that
the aspect ratio of the monitor is different than a CRT, but this mostly
affects playing action games, and even then a person might not notice it.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
July 21, 2004 2:09:45 AM

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

"Grumpycrab" <Grumpycrab@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2m54uhFiios3U1@uni-berlin.de...
> Hi - I need a monitor upgrade b4 DoomIII but I'm not sure what to get.
> My budget was £200 so a good 19" CRT seemed obvious. (I've an ancient
> 17incher at present).
>
> My budget has risen to £300 tops and now I have the choice of whether to
go
> LCD or not. I think I'd rather wait until the choice/quality of
resolution
> settings has improved and/or their price come down in the UK.
>
> So here's what I'm thinking....
>


My big monitor just bit the biscuit but it is under extended warranty and
now undergoing repairs. Otherwise I'd be in the same boat as you looking
for something new. :-)

I had the chance a couple of weeks ago to try out a Samsung 955DF and I
was rather impressed. Personally, I've never owned a true flat screen
monitor, but I was definitely struck by the sharpness and color fidelity
of the 955DF. If their larger DF series CRT's live up to that standard,
I'd say they would be a real treat!

I must admit that an LCD would be tempting, but I don't think it's wise to
pinch pennies when shopping for such a display. Right now, I'm not in
agreement with the pricing of some of the more decent brand names with
16ms and 12ms response times. For example, the 12ms Samsung 172X is going
for $750 Canadian (plus sales tax) and I'm not at all thrilled with that.
July 21, 2004 2:32:33 AM

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

> >..and so say's the guy who ain't got one.
>
> I've got both and I much prefer the CRT for gaming. Mostly because I
> can run at various resolutions without interpolation like you have to
> do on an LCD, plus LCD has poor contrast ratio.

500-1 is a pretty decent contrast ratio.
Plus, who has to mess about with refresh rates all the time ? Not, I.
Oh, and look. I just picked my monitor up with one hand and cleaned the dust
off underneath it .
Try that, Hercules ;) 
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
July 21, 2004 2:32:34 AM

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

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 22:32:33 +0100, "DapperDan"
<dapperdan@nthellworld.com> wrote:


>500-1 is a pretty decent contrast ratio.
>Plus, who has to mess about with refresh rates all the time ? Not, I.
>Oh, and look. I just picked my monitor up with one hand and cleaned the dust
>off underneath it .
>Try that, Hercules ;) 
>
I already said I own both an LCD and a CRT. Do you have a reading
comprehension problem, Skippy? Anyone who is serious about image
quality doesn't use an LCD.
July 21, 2004 5:19:39 AM

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

"DapperDan" <dapperdan@nthellworld.com> wrote in message
news:2m5hbbFj3pm8U1@uni-berlin.de...
> > >..and so say's the guy who ain't got one.
> >
> > I've got both and I much prefer the CRT for gaming. Mostly because I
> > can run at various resolutions without interpolation like you have to
> > do on an LCD, plus LCD has poor contrast ratio.
>
> 500-1 is a pretty decent contrast ratio.
> Plus, who has to mess about with refresh rates all the time ? Not, I.
> Oh, and look. I just picked my monitor up with one hand and cleaned the
dust
> off underneath it .
> Try that, Hercules ;) 

Cool, find much dust gathering under the base?

Tried using 3d glasses with your flat screen yet? Oops, no you can't can you
:o )

Just joshing with ya.


--
Rocky
www.ghostrecon.net | www.agr-s.com | www.tactical-elite.net

__
July 21, 2004 5:25:31 AM

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

"DapperDan" <dapperdan@nthellworld.com> wrote in message
news:2m5b86FieaafU1@uni-berlin.de...
> > > What should I do?
> >
> > I'd start by forgetting about a LCD. Response time is only one concern.
In
> > the end the only plus about a LCD is the amount of space it free's up on
> > your desk. Everything else is a downer, viewing angle, cost per inch,
dead
> > pixels, picture quality etc etc. Stick with CRT for gaming.
> >
> ..and so say's the guy who ain't got one.

LOL, says who?! Sorry to disapoint your theory, but I did try LCD, but found
the technology currently lacking for gaming, side by side CRT wins the day
IMHO. (Says the guy who has tried both).

Here's a handy list for the OP

CRT's
Pros:
- Relatively cheap now, you can get a 19" flat screen for cheaper than a 15"
LCD. If you're a serious gamer, I would get a minimum 19" CRT or 17" LCD.
- Better if you like to do photo editing because rich colors, sharp at any
resolution
* Better if you like video editing
- Fast refresh rates for gaming and watching movies
- Good viewing angle
* Generally brighter than LCDs

Cons:
- Takes up lots of space on your desk, heavy to move around

LCDs
Pros:
- Small desktop footprint, they just look more awesome on your desk
- Recent LCDs with 16-25ms refresh rate is acceptable with most 3D games and
movies, I've never personally noticed much ghosting
- Newer models approaching quality of CRTs, but must use it at default
resolution

Cons:
*Price just went up since most manufacturers want LCDs for laptops. Newer
models with 16ms refresh are very expensive
- This is pretty critical if you're a gamer: Only one default resolution
looks best. E.g. on 17"-19" LCDs, default is 1280x1024. If you need to
reduce resolution (like a newer 3D game that taxes your video card) the
images don't look very sharp. So if you get a 17" LCD and above, make sure
the games you play can run smooth with your Radeon 9500 at 1280x1024 for the
best image.
*You can get "dead pixels" after on an LCD either when you purchase it or
over time. This isn't bad if the dead pixel is off in the corner of the
screen, but a black dot in the middle of the screen might drive you crazy
after awhile



--
Rocky
www.ghostrecon.net | www.agr-s.com | www.tactical-elite.net

__
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
July 21, 2004 7:53:38 AM

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

"DapperDan" <dapperdan@nthellworld.com> thought that a good way to
threaten somebody was to light a stick of dynamite, then call the
guy and hold the burning fuse up to the phone and say:

> Viewing angle. Not an issue unless you play your FPS games while
> hiding behind the desk or something.

Every single LCD panel I've tried has a noticible difference in color
when I'm sitting straight up in my chair and when I'm slouching. I'd
rather not have to adjust the angle everytime I switch postures.

--
Ajay Tanwar | MCSE | ajtanwar@spam.yahoo.com
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people
in large groups." -Despair.com
July 21, 2004 10:41:53 AM

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

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 01:25:31 +0100, "Rocky" <Rocky@GhostRecon.net>
wrote:

>LCDs
>Pros:
>- Small desktop footprint, they just look more awesome on your desk
>- Recent LCDs with 16-25ms refresh rate is acceptable with most 3D games and
>movies, I've never personally noticed much ghosting
>- Newer models approaching quality of CRTs, but must use it at default
>resolution

I don't use LCD's myself (native resolution too high for my tastes),
but another couple of Pro's are that they use less power and produce
less heat, which can affect the TCO.
--
Andrew. To email unscramble nrc@gurjevgrzrboivbhf.pbz & remove spamtrap.
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking a question.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
July 21, 2004 11:58:29 AM

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

Ajay Tanwar <ajtanwar@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Every single LCD panel I've tried has a noticible difference in color
>when I'm sitting straight up in my chair and when I'm slouching. I'd
>rather not have to adjust the angle everytime I switch postures.

Ask Bob why.
July 21, 2004 8:17:11 PM

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

> >500-1 is a pretty decent contrast ratio.
> >Plus, who has to mess about with refresh rates all the time ? Not, I.
> >Oh, and look. I just picked my monitor up with one hand and cleaned the
dust
> >off underneath it .
> >Try that, Hercules ;) 
> >
> I already said I own both an LCD and a CRT. Do you have a reading
> comprehension problem, Skippy? Anyone who is serious about image
> quality doesn't use an LCD.
>
I don't know where we crossed wires, Flipper. But I replied directly to
"Rocky".
My response to you was...
"500-1 is a pretty decent contrast ratio.
Plus, who has to mess about with refresh rates all the time ? Not, I.
Oh, and look. I just picked my monitor up with one hand and cleaned the dust
off underneath it .
Try that, Hercules ;) "

As for the " Anyone who is serious about image quality doesn't use an LCD"
, go to Cosgrove-Hall animation studios and see what monitors are used
throughout the building.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
July 21, 2004 8:17:12 PM

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

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 16:17:11 +0100, "DapperDan"
<dapperdan@nthellworld.com> wrote:


>
>As for the " Anyone who is serious about image quality doesn't use an LCD"
>, go to Cosgrove-Hall animation studios and see what monitors are used
>throughout the building.
>
>

They must be clueless then. As I have said three times now, I own both
and know which is superior for gaming and image quality in general. No
LCD can even display a true black in a greyscale image. For a year I
used only LCD and it was OK for gaming and watching DVD's but going
back to CRT for gaming and DVD playback made me happy. I will give
the nod to LCD for sharper text and perfect geometry though.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
July 21, 2004 9:31:56 PM

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

"magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:D ahLc.11416$Yw3.3939@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Jamie_Manic" <mmmm...pork rind> wrote in message
> news:40fd8935$0$13109$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
> > I'd say that the native resolution poses just as many problems as
response
> > time but is often passed over.
> >
>
> Only in a handful of games. If you are really into those handful of
> games, though, it can be a little distressing.

Yup! Baldurs Gate 2 would be a pain in particular!

> Most LCD's now days do a
> good job of interpolating images to different resolutions, although the
> results are not as good as the native resolution. The main issue is that
> the aspect ratio of the monitor is different than a CRT, but this mostly
> affects playing action games, and even then a person might not notice it.

Well, it would be an issue for a lot of people who want a large monitor but
don't have the graphics card to run new games at a high res. I was also put
off as I don't like using Windows above 1028x768 and this would be a problem
on a 19" LCD.

Obviously this is a subjective thing, but it was enough to tip the balance
for me when I recently upgraded my monitor.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
July 21, 2004 9:56:47 PM

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

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:93qsf050h1ssv4cuf4o3ho3m4sqn7k42tq@4ax.com...
> Ajay Tanwar <ajtanwar@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Every single LCD panel I've tried has a noticible difference in color
> >when I'm sitting straight up in my chair and when I'm slouching. I'd
> >rather not have to adjust the angle everytime I switch postures.
>
> Ask Bob why.

OK - I'll answer even though I wasn't really asked...:-)

The answer, though, depends on the technology in question. There's
no doubt that the standard twisted-nematic LC type has a problem
with viewing angle, and in that technology about the only way to
fix it is through the use of compensating optical films. But there are
other
approaches, two of which are currently very common in monitor
panels, and both of which involve different modes of operation. These
are broadly categorized as "in-plane switching" and "vertical alignment,"
both of which provide inherently higher contrast and wider viewing
angles as compared with the ordinary TN. However, due to the basic
nature of the operating mode, there's a change in contrast depending
on just where you are "around" the panel - i.e., seeing it from the
"six o'clock" position vs. "three o'clock" etc.. This effect was most
noticeable in the early generations of these technologies, but in
the newer designs has been addressed by what's called "multi-
domain" operation - in which the individual subpixels are themselves
divided up into smaller operating regions, within which the LC
switching mode happens in different orientations. This results in a
very uniform overall appearance for the panel. To date, this has been
driven by the needs of (and mostly adopted in) the television market,
but multi-domain monitor panels are now in the PC market as well.
So I'm afraid that the original poster's information is now somewhat out
of date.

Of course, if you want the ultimate in viewing angle uniformity, wait
for OLED panels - but don't expect to see them anytime really
soon...:-)

Bob M.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
July 22, 2004 5:01:08 AM

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

"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@address.invalid> thought that a good way
to threaten somebody was to light a stick of dynamite, then call the
guy and hold the burning fuse up to the phone and say:

> The answer, though, depends on the technology in question.
> There's no doubt that the standard twisted-nematic LC type has a
> problem with viewing angle, and in that technology about the only
> way to fix it is through the use of compensating optical films.
> But there are other
> approaches, two of which are currently very common in monitor
> panels, and both of which involve different modes of operation.
> These are broadly categorized as "in-plane switching" and
> "vertical alignment," both of which provide inherently higher
> contrast and wider viewing angles as compared with the ordinary
> TN. However, due to the basic nature of the operating mode,
> there's a change in contrast depending on just where you are
> "around" the panel - i.e., seeing it from the "six o'clock"
> position vs. "three o'clock" etc.. This effect was most
> noticeable in the early generations of these technologies, but in
> the newer designs has been addressed by what's called "multi-
> domain" operation - in which the individual subpixels are
> themselves divided up into smaller operating regions, within which
> the LC switching mode happens in different orientations. This
> results in a very uniform overall appearance for the panel. To
> date, this has been driven by the needs of (and mostly adopted in)
> the television market, but multi-domain monitor panels are now in
> the PC market as well. So I'm afraid that the original poster's
> information is now somewhat out of date.

Wow, that's quite an essay there :-)

Are those the MVA LCD screens? I've seen them on a few Fujitsu
laptops, and aside from how reflective the screens are, the colors
are beautiful.

I haven't seen a flat panel monitor like that though. I admit I
haven't been looking too hard for one either.

--
Ajay Tanwar | MCSE | ajtanwar@spam.yahoo.com
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people
in large groups." -Despair.com
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
July 22, 2004 2:48:20 PM

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

"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote:

>"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>news:93qsf050h1ssv4cuf4o3ho3m4sqn7k42tq@4ax.com...
>> Ajay Tanwar <ajtanwar@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Every single LCD panel I've tried has a noticible difference in color
>> >when I'm sitting straight up in my chair and when I'm slouching. I'd
>> >rather not have to adjust the angle everytime I switch postures.
>>
>> Ask Bob why.
>
>OK - I'll answer even though I wasn't really asked...:-)
>
>The answer, though, depends on the technology in question. There's
>no doubt that the standard twisted-nematic LC type has a problem
>with viewing angle, and in that technology about the only way to
>fix it is through the use of compensating optical films. But there are
>other
>approaches, two of which are currently very common in monitor
>panels, and both of which involve different modes of operation. These
>are broadly categorized as "in-plane switching" and "vertical alignment,"
>both of which provide inherently higher contrast and wider viewing
>angles as compared with the ordinary TN. However, due to the basic
>nature of the operating mode, there's a change in contrast depending
>on just where you are "around" the panel - i.e., seeing it from the
>"six o'clock" position vs. "three o'clock" etc..

Sounds like a "big difference" to me...

>This effect was most
>noticeable in the early generations of these technologies, but in
>the newer designs has been addressed by what's called "multi-
>domain" operation - in which the individual subpixels are themselves
>divided up into smaller operating regions, within which the LC
>switching mode happens in different orientations. This results in a
>very uniform overall appearance for the panel. To date, this has been
>driven by the needs of (and mostly adopted in) the television market,
>but multi-domain monitor panels are now in the PC market as well.

In other words, most LCD monitors still don't have this technology.

>So I'm afraid that the original poster's information is now somewhat out
>of date.

Was it?
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
July 22, 2004 9:44:49 PM

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

"Ajay Tanwar" <ajtanwar@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns952DCB95035C0ajtanwaryahoocom@151.164.30.93...
> Are those the MVA LCD screens? I've seen them on a few Fujitsu
> laptops, and aside from how reflective the screens are, the colors
> are beautiful.

Right - "MVA" is one of the terms used to identify a type in
the "vertical alignment" class - in this case, it usually means the
"multi-domain vertical alignment" type specifically. Different
companies have different names, and somewhat different takes
on the same basic mode. Samsung and Sharp are also among
the companies producing this type. By the way, the "reflective"
aspect of these screens has nothing to do with the basic LC
mode or technology - it's just that in some markets (notably in
the Far East), many customers have for whatever reason found
this highly-reflective surface treatment (sometimes referred to as
"glare panels") attractive. Go figure. Just another example that
the industry will generally find a way to make pretty much
whatever the customers seem to want.

Bob M.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
July 22, 2004 9:48:43 PM

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

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:s0ovf0t8h6idgh9sgqb26bkh8j26nums3o@4ax.com...
> Sounds like a "big difference" to me...

Well, of course it does, Chris - we wouldn't expect anything else.

>
> In other words, most LCD monitors still don't have this technology.
>

Obviously, you can't go back and change the installed base, or even
what's on the dealers' shelves, when new technologies come out. But
then, it depends on what you mean by "most." I can't think of any
major monitor or panel maker these days that doesn't offer some
flavor of IPS or VA panel. These are not going to be the lowest-price
monitors, since both modes involve somewhat more complicated
process steps and changes to the drive requirements that add cost
over the basic TN mode. But both are certainly VERY widely
available in the market, for those who care about such things.
Will they become the majority of sales? Well, THAT depends on
customer demand. You can hardly fault the manufacturers for
continuing to offer the lower-cost TN option.

Bob M.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
July 23, 2004 11:51:38 AM

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

"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote:

>"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Sounds like a "big difference" to me...
>
>Well, of course it does, Chris - we wouldn't expect anything else.

Well, I try to keep things in balance. If we are going to nit-pick
one technology, I think it's only fair that we nit-pick them all, as
I'm sure you would agree.

Truth be told, I'm not such a perfectionist. I can live with minor
color shifts or geometry errors or whatever. What I can't accept is
when something falls flat on it's face when asked to do what for me is
a routine and necessary task, for example what happens when you change
resolutions on a LCD monitor.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
July 23, 2004 11:55:06 AM

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

"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote:

>"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Ajay Tanwar <ajtanwar@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Every single LCD panel I've tried has a noticible difference in color
>> >when I'm sitting straight up in my chair and when I'm slouching. I'd
>> >rather not have to adjust the angle everytime I switch postures.
>>
>> Ask Bob why.
>
>OK - I'll answer even though I wasn't really asked...:-)
>
>The answer, though, depends on the technology in question. There's
>no doubt that the standard twisted-nematic LC type has a problem
>with viewing angle, and in that technology about the only way to
>fix it is through the use of compensating optical films. But there are
>other
>approaches, two of which are currently very common in monitor
>panels, and both of which involve different modes of operation. These
>are broadly categorized as "in-plane switching" and "vertical alignment,"
>both of which provide inherently higher contrast and wider viewing
>angles as compared with the ordinary TN.

Isn't it true, Bob, that these viewing-angle-enhancing technologies
have the drawback of even slower response times, relative to an
ordinary TN LCD?
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
July 23, 2004 8:06:04 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

> the 12ms Samsung 172X is going for $750 Canadian (plus sales tax)
and I'm not at all thrilled with that.

Perhaps you might be over charge there. Check out the price list
http://www.cycom.com.my/download/newpricelist/newpricel... they
retail for USD$440.

Happy sourcing!

==============
Posted through www.HowToFixComputers.com/bb - free access to hardware troubleshooting newsgroups.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
July 23, 2004 9:12:50 PM

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

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:sg22g0116gesa2prfv1jl3srtln2qfj9d7@4ax.com...

> Isn't it true, Bob, that these viewing-angle-enhancing technologies
> have the drawback of even slower response times, relative to an
> ordinary TN LCD?

Nope, not at all. Their first implementations were slightly
slower than the fastest TN panels of the time, but that was
due to the driver technology not yet having been optimized for
these modes. The very fastest panels available today (the
12 ms and under TV types, etc.) are almost always of the
IPS or VA types, not straight TN. They are somewhat different
in how they respond - one is slower to switch off than on, while
the other is exactly the opposite - but with current drive methods,
either is sufficiently fast for a video-rate display. You should take
a look at some of the current large-size TV panels, such as the
"AS-IPS" types from Hitachi or Sharp's "ASV" panels, just to
name two, to see what the state of the art is in this area.

(There are even faster LC materials/modes available, but those
have to date proven unsuitable for monitor/TV use for various
reasons. For instance, ferroelectric LCs can be made
EXTREMELY fast, but have the disadvantage of having pretty
much no inherent gray-scale capabilities - to get levels of gray,
you either have to use spatial techniques (dithering) or temporal
modulation (PWM drive, etc.). Some of these other modes
may yet make it to mainstream color video displays, however.)

And again, the best of all worlds in terms of both viewing angle
and response time will some day likely be the OLED, but that's
not ready for primetime yet.

Bob M.
September 27, 2004 3:30:12 AM

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

In article <1d0sf094aa1jia1iudm6bbs3kivrrpnnmm@4ax.com>,
spamtrap@localhost says...
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 01:25:31 +0100, "Rocky" <Rocky@GhostRecon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >LCDs
> >Pros:
> >- Small desktop footprint, they just look more awesome on your desk
> >- Recent LCDs with 16-25ms refresh rate is acceptable with most 3D games and
> >movies, I've never personally noticed much ghosting
> >- Newer models approaching quality of CRTs, but must use it at default
> >resolution
>
> I don't use LCD's myself (native resolution too high for my tastes),
> but another couple of Pro's are that they use less power and produce
> less heat, which can affect the TCO.
>
Can one successfully stay with the native resolution and increase the
display font to large or even 135% if necessary? How does that affect
appearance of text and overall sharpness?

TIA

Louise
!