Which monitor should I get?

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
33 answers Last reply
More about which monitor
  1. 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.
  2. 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

    __
  3. 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
    >
    > __
    >
    >
  4. 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.
  5. 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...
  6. 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?
  7. 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.
  8. 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)
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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=956007514&action=c2hvd19wcm9kdWN0X292ZXJ2aWV3&product_uid=43907

    Possibly the best investment I've made on my PC so far.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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 ;)
  15. 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.
  16. 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

    __
  17. 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

    __
  18. 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
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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:DahLc.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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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
  26. 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?
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. 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?
  31. 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/newpricelist.html they
    retail for USD$440.

    Happy sourcing!

    ==============
    Posted through www.HowToFixComputers.com/bb - free access to hardware troubleshooting newsgroups.
  32. 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.
  33. 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
Ask a new question

Read More

Graphics Cards Monitors Graphics