Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What gaming monitor would you buy - $1000?

Tags:
  • Radeon
  • Viewsonic
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 28, 2005 5:57:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

If space wasn't an issue so you could buy either a CRT or a panel what model
would you get?

Here are the requirements -
Fast screen - I play games so I can't have ghosts or lags found in many LCD
panels.

I would like BIG. I currently have an 8 year old 21" Viewsonic. The
Viewsonic p225f says 22" (I think that model is about 3 years old - I hate
buying old models) but it has the same viewable area as their G220FB (20")
unless I'm reading the specs wrong. I've had pretty good luck with the bang
for the buck from Viewsonic though.

I don't care how the case looks or if it has built in speakers or anything
else - what I care about is the quality of the picture and size of he
picture. I want bang for my buck.

I realize not everyone is going to agree but I do appreciate your
suggestions.

More about : gaming monitor buy 1000

March 28, 2005 10:16:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

In article <6qCdnYhRtoxD4NXfRVn-uw@comcast.com>, boe_d@nospam.hotmail.com says...
> If space wasn't an issue so you could buy either a CRT or a panel what model
> would you get?
>
> Here are the requirements -
> Fast screen - I play games so I can't have ghosts or lags found in many LCD
> panels.
>
> I would like BIG. I currently have an 8 year old 21" Viewsonic. The
> Viewsonic p225f says 22" (I think that model is about 3 years old - I hate
> buying old models) but it has the same viewable area as their G220FB (20")
> unless I'm reading the specs wrong. I've had pretty good luck with the bang
> for the buck from Viewsonic though.
>
> I don't care how the case looks or if it has built in speakers or anything
> else - what I care about is the quality of the picture and size of he
> picture. I want bang for my buck.
>
> I realize not everyone is going to agree but I do appreciate your
> suggestions.
>
>
>

IBM_ThinkVision_C220p

Bill
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 2:18:17 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:57:50 -0800, boe wrote:

> If space wasn't an issue so you could buy either a CRT or a panel what model
> would you get?
>
> Here are the requirements -
> Fast screen - I play games so I can't have ghosts or lags found in many LCD
> panels.

LCD's are never as clear or sharp as glass. No matter how good the LCD's
get they just are not as good as a similarly priced glass screen. Even a
cheap 19" Viewsonic 90 series, for about $240, is cleaner than the best
LCD I've ever seen in person.

--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Related resources
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 2:18:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Leythos wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:57:50 -0800, boe wrote:
>
>> If space wasn't an issue so you could buy either a CRT or a panel what
>> model would you get?
>>
>> Here are the requirements -
>> Fast screen - I play games so I can't have ghosts or lags found in many
>> LCD panels.
>
> LCD's are never as clear or sharp as glass.> No matter how good the LCD's
> get they just are not as good as a similarly priced glass screen. Even a
> cheap 19" Viewsonic 90 series, for about $240, is cleaner than the best
> LCD I've ever seen in person.

If you have never seen an LCD that was "as clear or sharp as glass" then
you've never seen one running at its native resolution. No CRT comes even
close to matching the sharpness.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 1:06:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

For a 1000$ i would go for a 19" TFT Panel screen.
Response time of t'day models are as low as 12ms or even lower.
I am a gamer as well,and play my games on a 17" 16 ms screen.No ghosting
visible whatsoever.
Go for it...
Regards Boldy
"boe" <boe_d@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6qCdnYhRtoxD4NXfRVn-uw@comcast.com...
> If space wasn't an issue so you could buy either a CRT or a panel what
> model would you get?
>
> Here are the requirements -
> Fast screen - I play games so I can't have ghosts or lags found in many
> LCD panels.
>
> I would like BIG. I currently have an 8 year old 21" Viewsonic. The
> Viewsonic p225f says 22" (I think that model is about 3 years old - I
> hate buying old models) but it has the same viewable area as their G220FB
> (20") unless I'm reading the specs wrong. I've had pretty good luck with
> the bang for the buck from Viewsonic though.
>
> I don't care how the case looks or if it has built in speakers or anything
> else - what I care about is the quality of the picture and size of he
> picture. I want bang for my buck.
>
> I realize not everyone is going to agree but I do appreciate your
> suggestions.
>
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 5:27:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:24:08 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> Leythos wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:57:50 -0800, boe wrote:
>>
>>> If space wasn't an issue so you could buy either a CRT or a panel what
>>> model would you get?
>>>
>>> Here are the requirements -
>>> Fast screen - I play games so I can't have ghosts or lags found in many
>>> LCD panels.
>>
>> LCD's are never as clear or sharp as glass.> No matter how good the LCD's
>> get they just are not as good as a similarly priced glass screen. Even a
>> cheap 19" Viewsonic 90 series, for about $240, is cleaner than the best
>> LCD I've ever seen in person.
>
> If you have never seen an LCD that was "as clear or sharp as glass" then
> you've never seen one running at its native resolution. No CRT comes even
> close to matching the sharpness.

Yes, I have. I've seen some of the 20+ in wide screen ones, ones that cost
more than $900 and provide a contrast ration of 900:1, ones that are
anywhere from 15" to 19" under $1000 and the same thing holds true at
their native resolutions - they are not as clear or sharp as a traditional
non-LCD screen. My my experience my be limited, I've only installed about
300 LCD screens since June of last year.

--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 5:27:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Leythos wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:24:08 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> Leythos wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:57:50 -0800, boe wrote:
>>>
>>>> If space wasn't an issue so you could buy either a CRT or a panel what
>>>> model would you get?
>>>>
>>>> Here are the requirements -
>>>> Fast screen - I play games so I can't have ghosts or lags found in many
>>>> LCD panels.
>>>
>>> LCD's are never as clear or sharp as glass.> No matter how good the
>>> LCD's get they just are not as good as a similarly priced glass screen.
>>> Even a cheap 19" Viewsonic 90 series, for about $240, is cleaner than
>>> the best LCD I've ever seen in person.
>>
>> If you have never seen an LCD that was "as clear or sharp as glass" then
>> you've never seen one running at its native resolution. No CRT comes
>> even close to matching the sharpness.
>
> Yes, I have. I've seen some of the 20+ in wide screen ones, ones that cost
> more than $900 and provide a contrast ration of 900:1, ones that are
> anywhere from 15" to 19" under $1000 and the same thing holds true at
> their native resolutions - they are not as clear or sharp as a traditional
> non-LCD screen.

Sounds like what you call "clear or sharp" the rest of the world calls "dull
or fuzzy".

> My my experience my be limited, I've only installed about
> 300 LCD screens since June of last year.

If none of them is as clear or sharp at its native resolution as a CRT is at
the same resolution then you've hosed up all 300 somehow.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
March 29, 2005 10:08:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

The Dell 2405 is 23" of goodness, for $900 or so.
However it's response time by some accounts is slower than smaller ones, so
you would get noticeable blurring in fast action. Also running at native
resolution places requirements on the rest of your system for speed.

rms
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 10:16:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

I went from a succession of top of the line Sony CRTs to a Samsung 213T LCD
and all I can say is WOW! There's no comparison. Everyone who sees the
Samsung has the same WOW! reaction. Of course I can's discern the
difference between 30 and 60 FPS so what do I know ;-)
--
Tally Ho!
Ed
"boe" <boe_d@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6qCdnYhRtoxD4NXfRVn-uw@comcast.com...
> If space wasn't an issue so you could buy either a CRT or a panel what
> model would you get?
>
> Here are the requirements -
> Fast screen - I play games so I can't have ghosts or lags found in many
> LCD panels.
>
> I would like BIG. I currently have an 8 year old 21" Viewsonic. The
> Viewsonic p225f says 22" (I think that model is about 3 years old - I
> hate buying old models) but it has the same viewable area as their G220FB
> (20") unless I'm reading the specs wrong. I've had pretty good luck with
> the bang for the buck from Viewsonic though.
>
> I don't care how the case looks or if it has built in speakers or anything
> else - what I care about is the quality of the picture and size of he
> picture. I want bang for my buck.
>
> I realize not everyone is going to agree but I do appreciate your
> suggestions.
>
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 11:53:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Ed Forsythe wrote:

> I went from a succession of top of the line Sony CRTs to a Samsung 213T
> LCD
> and all I can say is WOW! There's no comparison. Everyone who sees the
> Samsung has the same WOW! reaction. Of course I can's discern the
> difference between 30 and 60 FPS so what do I know ;-)

Personally I like the 213T but I've never managed see this "ghosting" that
the hardcore gamers are on about on _any_ monitor so either it's something
that takes a trained eye or there's some trick to configuration that
eliminates it that I do without thinking about it.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 2:04:10 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 13:07:04 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> Leythos wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:24:08 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:57:50 -0800, boe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If space wasn't an issue so you could buy either a CRT or a panel what
>>>>> model would you get?
>>>>>
>>>>> Here are the requirements -
>>>>> Fast screen - I play games so I can't have ghosts or lags found in many
>>>>> LCD panels.
>>>>
>>>> LCD's are never as clear or sharp as glass.> No matter how good the
>>>> LCD's get they just are not as good as a similarly priced glass screen.
>>>> Even a cheap 19" Viewsonic 90 series, for about $240, is cleaner than
>>>> the best LCD I've ever seen in person.
>>>
>>> If you have never seen an LCD that was "as clear or sharp as glass" then
>>> you've never seen one running at its native resolution. No CRT comes
>>> even close to matching the sharpness.
>>
>> Yes, I have. I've seen some of the 20+ in wide screen ones, ones that cost
>> more than $900 and provide a contrast ration of 900:1, ones that are
>> anywhere from 15" to 19" under $1000 and the same thing holds true at
>> their native resolutions - they are not as clear or sharp as a traditional
>> non-LCD screen.
>
> Sounds like what you call "clear or sharp" the rest of the world calls "dull
> or fuzzy".
>
>> My my experience my be limited, I've only installed about
>> 300 LCD screens since June of last year.
>
> If none of them is as clear or sharp at its native resolution as a CRT is at
> the same resolution then you've hosed up all 300 somehow.

Look, I've bought $7,000 LCD gray-scale LCD's that had very crisp
images/text in their native res, in fact in all resolutions, for MRI and
CAT stations, but there isn't a single non-special use LCD on the market
(talking about what you can buy at Circuit City, BestBuy, CompUSA, or
other major vendors) that is as clear or sharp as a quality glass screen
monitor. We work with hundreds of clients that have all different models
of LCD panels and also glass screen monitors, and as a person that edits
code/images all day long, I'm going to stick with glass over LCD since I
can see the difference. I don't care if you believe it, or if you're just
spreading that stuff to justify the amount you spent on a nice LCD screen,
but they just are not as clear/crips as glass.

--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 2:04:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Leythos wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 13:07:04 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> Leythos wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:24:08 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:57:50 -0800, boe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If space wasn't an issue so you could buy either a CRT or a panel
>>>>>> what model would you get?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here are the requirements -
>>>>>> Fast screen - I play games so I can't have ghosts or lags found in
>>>>>> many LCD panels.
>>>>>
>>>>> LCD's are never as clear or sharp as glass.> No matter how good the
>>>>> LCD's get they just are not as good as a similarly priced glass
>>>>> screen. Even a cheap 19" Viewsonic 90 series, for about $240, is
>>>>> cleaner than the best LCD I've ever seen in person.
>>>>
>>>> If you have never seen an LCD that was "as clear or sharp as glass"
>>>> then
>>>> you've never seen one running at its native resolution. No CRT comes
>>>> even close to matching the sharpness.
>>>
>>> Yes, I have. I've seen some of the 20+ in wide screen ones, ones that
>>> cost more than $900 and provide a contrast ration of 900:1, ones that
>>> are anywhere from 15" to 19" under $1000 and the same thing holds true
>>> at their native resolutions - they are not as clear or sharp as a
>>> traditional non-LCD screen.
>>
>> Sounds like what you call "clear or sharp" the rest of the world calls
>> "dull or fuzzy".
>>
>>> My my experience my be limited, I've only installed about
>>> 300 LCD screens since June of last year.
>>
>> If none of them is as clear or sharp at its native resolution as a CRT is
>> at the same resolution then you've hosed up all 300 somehow.
>
> Look, I've bought $7,000 LCD gray-scale LCD's that had very crisp
> images/text in their native res, in fact in all resolutions, for MRI and
> CAT stations,

Now let's see, for $7000 or so you get a 2048x1536 grayscale LCD. Now what
would make that sharper than a color LCD with greater resolution such as
the IBM T221? And how does their being grayscale eliminate the spanning of
pixels at resolutions other than native that is the great weakness of LCDs?

> but there isn't a single non-special use LCD on the market
> (talking about what you can buy at Circuit City, BestBuy, CompUSA, or
> other major vendors) that is as clear or sharp as a quality glass screen
> monitor.

You keep claiming this. Please be kind enough to define "clear or sharp" as
whatever definition you are using does not appear to have much relation to
the definition that is used by the rest of the world. I think this word
does not mean what you think it means.

You might actually be correct about Circuit City, BestBuy, and CompUSA--I
don't usually shop there so have no idea what they are stocking at the
moment. But I don't consider them to define the market either.

> We work with hundreds of clients that have all different models
> of LCD panels and also glass screen monitors, and as a person that edits
> code/images all day long, I'm going to stick with glass over LCD since I
> can see the difference.

Uh, why are you sitting at hundreds of clients' monitors instead of your
own?

> I don't care if you believe it,

Nobody else believes it either.

> or if you're just
> spreading that stuff to justify the amount you spent on a nice LCD screen,
> but they just are not as clear/crips as glass.

I see. You edit code/images all day long and you set up hardware. Now I
understand the problem. Stick to code and hire someone who knows what he
is doing to set up monitors in the future.

The simple fact is that there are many valid criticisms of LCDs when
compared to CRTs, but lack of sharpness is not one of them. At least not
unless you're using some new language in which "sharp" equals "blurry".
For example the black level on LCDs tends to be higher, the contrast range
tends to be less, the color gamut tends to be smaller. But no system that
relies on the focus of three electron beams being swept across a dot-triad
phosphor which requires that at least three adjacent dots be illuminated in
order to show a single white pixel is _ever_ going to give the same
sharpness as direct viewing of three superimposed transistors having a
direct 1:1 positional correspondence between physical and logical pixels.
If you want to criticize LCDs for the things that they don't do well, be my
guest, but if you are going to claim that they lack sharpness at their
native resolution then you're making yourself look like a damned fool,
because the first reaction that nearly everybody has to an LCD at its
native resolution is "that's _sharp_", even when they have a multi thousand
dollar CRT sitting right next to it.

Now, if you can't figure out how to adjust your video drivers to achieve
that direct 1:1 correspondence and if you are going to continue to adjust
monitors other than the one that sits on your desk then you need to learn
how before you go hosing up any _more_ of your customers' monitors.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 5:32:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:51:25 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> Now let's see, for $7000 or so you get a 2048x1536 grayscale LCD. Now
> what would make that sharper than a color LCD with greater resolution
> such as the IBM T221?

Let's see - gray means one crystal per pixel, where color means three per
pixel - so, you tell me which is sharper. Like color guns on a video
monitor, B&W monitors can be sharper by design.

I've used $1500 17" and 19" LCD's for doctors desktops, for office
managers, for all sorts of reasons. I also bought the top of the line
Viewsonic 17" about 1.5 years ago for my wife - and sure, in native res
it's very clear and sharp, but when I sit a glass monitor next to it there
is a BIG difference. Even my 17" display on my laptop, the one I'm using
now, is not as clear as a cheap 17" glass screen, and the laptop LCD is
about as good a unit as I've used anywhere else.

You don't have to take my word for it, here's an simple online technical
article about what I've already said:

Color depth in LCD displays:
http://compreviews.about.com/od/multimedia/a/LCDColor.h...

CRT vs LCD:
http://compreviews.about.com/od/multimedia/a/CRTvsLCD.h...

--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 5:32:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Leythos wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:51:25 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> Now let's see, for $7000 or so you get a 2048x1536 grayscale LCD. Now
>> what would make that sharper than a color LCD with greater resolution
>> such as the IBM T221?
>
> Let's see - gray means one crystal per pixel, where color means three per
> pixel - so, you tell me which is sharper. Like color guns on a video
> monitor, B&W monitors can be sharper by design.

Nope. If you were working with triads that would be the case, but LCD
displays don't work with triads.

> I've used $1500 17" and 19" LCD's for doctors desktops, for office
> managers, for all sorts of reasons. I also bought the top of the line
> Viewsonic 17" about 1.5 years ago for my wife - and sure, in native res
> it's very clear and sharp, but when I sit a glass monitor next to it there
> is a BIG difference.

Yes, there is. The LCD is much sharper.

> Even my 17" display on my laptop, the one I'm using
> now, is not as clear as a cheap 17" glass screen, and the laptop LCD is
> about as good a unit as I've used anywhere else.

"Clear" in what way? Define "clear".

> You don't have to take my word for it, here's an simple online technical
> article about what I've already said:
>
> Color depth in LCD displays:
> http://compreviews.about.com/od/multimedia/a/LCDColor.h...

What does color depth have to do with sharpness? I'm sorry, but you are
confusing two separate issues.

> CRT vs LCD:
> http://compreviews.about.com/od/multimedia/a/CRTvsLCD.h...

Which, even if you grant that "about.com" is authoritative which I do not,
does not address sharpness at all except to say that LCDs can be less sharp
at resolutions other than native, which I believe that I have already
stipulated.

It seems to me that there is some characteristic of monitors that is
important to you that you are calling "sharpness" while the rest of the
world calls it by something else.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 5:31:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 22:54:37 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
[snip]
>> Color depth in LCD displays:
>> http://compreviews.about.com/od/multimedia/a/LCDColor.h...
>
> What does color depth have to do with sharpness? I'm sorry, but you are
> confusing two separate issues.

No, I'm not, it's about layers, alignment, and other factors that make a
"color" clear and such.

>> CRT vs LCD:
>> http://compreviews.about.com/od/multimedia/a/CRTvsLCD.h...
>
> Which, even if you grant that "about.com" is authoritative which I do not,
> does not address sharpness at all except to say that LCDs can be less sharp
> at resolutions other than native, which I believe that I have already
> stipulated.

If I purchase a LCD that does a native 1280x1024 and give it to most
people, they will run it at 1024x768 or 800x600 which means that, as I
think you agree, the image will not be of optimal quality. Sure, if they
run it at 1280x1024 it will look clear and sharp, but that doesn't mean
it's as good as traditional monitors.

> It seems to me that there is some characteristic of monitors that is
> important to you that you are calling "sharpness" while the rest of the
> world calls it by something else.

When I look at a monitor I want to see the following:

1) Very high contrast between black/white - the screen should be perfectly
black when the video is off and when black is selected.

2) Colors are the same or very close to color cards for matching

3) Refresh rates are high enough to prevent flicker (85hz) or higher

4) redraw rates are fast enough to not leave any artifacts

5) Color contrast is very high, more than 700:1 for LCD's

6) Clear/sharp image at all resolutions used by the user.

7) No distortion of font edges at any resolution

While many LCD's can get most of the above, there are often problems with
redraw rates, contrast, and distortion of fonts/lines at non-highest
resolutions. I don't see these issues with any $250+ CRT.

I don't think we're ever going to agree, I've never seen (and I've seen
about every LCD on the market) a LCD that provides the same quality image
as a CRT, and I'm not about to change that opinion until I do see one.

--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 5:31:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Leythos wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 22:54:37 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
> [snip]
>>> Color depth in LCD displays:
>>> http://compreviews.about.com/od/multimedia/a/LCDColor.h...
>>
>> What does color depth have to do with sharpness? I'm sorry, but you are
>> confusing two separate issues.
>
> No, I'm not, it's about layers, alignment, and other factors that make a
> "color" clear and such.

I see, so you're talking about some quality of color when you say "clear"
and not about the ability to discern objects displayed on the screen.

>>> CRT vs LCD:
>>> http://compreviews.about.com/od/multimedia/a/CRTvsLCD.h...
>>
>> Which, even if you grant that "about.com" is authoritative which I do
>> not, does not address sharpness at all except to say that LCDs can be
>> less sharp at resolutions other than native, which I believe that I have
>> already stipulated.
>
> If I purchase a LCD that does a native 1280x1024 and give it to most
> people, they will run it at 1024x768 or 800x600

They will, will they? Now why would they do that? Most people I know who
use LCDs run them at their native resolution unless they're playing games
that don't support that resolution.

> which means that, as I
> think you agree, the image will not be of optimal quality. Sure, if they
> run it at 1280x1024 it will look clear and sharp, but that doesn't mean
> it's as good as traditional monitors.

So now you admit that at the native resolution it's "clear and sharp"? Are
you changing your story now?

>> It seems to me that there is some characteristic of monitors that is
>> important to you that you are calling "sharpness" while the rest of the
>> world calls it by something else.
>
> When I look at a monitor I want to see the following:
>
> 1) Very high contrast between black/white - the screen should be perfectly
> black when the video is off and when black is selected.

OK, that's a legitimate complaint against most LCDs--they don't have a good
black level. It's not really an issue unless you use it in a darkened room
though--in most offices you get a darker black out of an LCD than you do
out of a CRT whose gray matrix is illuminated by the overhead lights.

> 2) Colors are the same or very close to color cards for matching

It doesn't matter what kind of monitor you're using, you need to run a color
calibration to get even close, and even then there will never be an exact
match between additive RGB and subtractive CMYK, let alone dyes or pigments
with intrinsic color.

> 3) Refresh rates are high enough to prevent flicker (85hz) or higher

Flicker is not an issue with any LCD unless it's broken.

> 4) redraw rates are fast enough to not leave any artifacts

While doing what? I've never noticed any "artifacts" "left" on any monitor
of any kind that were the result of a deficiency in the monitor--I've seen
some video boards that were defective or had misconfigured drivers that did
this but they did it on any kind of monitor. Are you talking about the
"ghosting" that some gamers seem to complain about or are you talking about
something else?

> 5) Color contrast is very high, more than 700:1 for LCD's

What do you want it to be for CRTs? Many LCDs are available with 700:1
contrast, however I've not noticed any lack of contrast at 500:1. Perhaps
you have some specialized application?

> 6) Clear/sharp image at all resolutions used by the user.

What resolutions does the user use? Match the display to the user if he
_must_ use some specific resolution.

> 7) No distortion of font edges at any resolution

Unachievable with any current monitor technology. I've seen far worse
artifacting in fonts with CRTs than with LCDs. For that matter you get
some distortion of font edges with 4800 dpi typesetters. Takes a
microscope to see it but it's there. At best you'll get it below a certain
threshold.

> While many LCD's can get most of the above, there are often problems with
> redraw rates, contrast, and distortion of fonts/lines at non-highest
> resolutions. I don't see these issues with any $250+ CRT.

Then you don't look for them very hard. As for distortion of lines, one of
the advantages of an LCD is near-perfect geometry, since the geometry is
established by the manufacturing process and not by an electron optical
system--CRTs distort lines at _all_ resolutions. The only people who
routinely report problems with "redraw rates" on LCDs are a few hardcore
gamers.

It sounds to me like you got used to the way things "look" on a CRT and
anything that is different from that you regard to be an image defect even
when it is actually an improvement.

> I don't think we're ever going to agree, I've never seen (and I've seen
> about every LCD on the market)

Somehow I doubt that.

> a LCD that provides the same quality image
> as a CRT, and I'm not about to change that opinion until I do see one.

Well, I've never seen an LCD that provides the same poor-quality image as a
CRT either, and I'm not about to change my opinion until I do see one.

The only legitimate complaints on your list are the black level, possibly
the response time, and image quality degradion when off design resolution,
however even there it degrades to about CRT level on the latest LCDs I've
looked at and at 800x600 a 1600x1200 LCD is as sharp as at its native
resolution, only with pixels 4 times larger.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 9:48:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 09:33:14 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> Leythos wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 22:54:37 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>> Color depth in LCD displays:
>>>> http://compreviews.about.com/od/multimedia/a/LCDColor.h...
>>>
>>> What does color depth have to do with sharpness? I'm sorry, but you are
>>> confusing two separate issues.
>>
>> No, I'm not, it's about layers, alignment, and other factors that make a
>> "color" clear and such.
>
> I see, so you're talking about some quality of color when you say "clear"
> and not about the ability to discern objects displayed on the screen.

You're off track now - to be able to discern objects on a screen does not
mean they are clear or sharp, it just means you can tell what they are -
which has nothing to do with the quality of the image verses that on a CRT.

>>>> CRT vs LCD:
>>>> http://compreviews.about.com/od/multimedia/a/CRTvsLCD.h...
>>>
>>> Which, even if you grant that "about.com" is authoritative which I do
>>> not, does not address sharpness at all except to say that LCDs can be
>>> less sharp at resolutions other than native, which I believe that I have
>>> already stipulated.
>>
>> If I purchase a LCD that does a native 1280x1024 and give it to most
>> people, they will run it at 1024x768 or 800x600
>
> They will, will they? Now why would they do that? Most people I know who
> use LCDs run them at their native resolution unless they're playing games
> that don't support that resolution.

Most people, businesses, I work with, purchase a top of the line LCD
display and never come close to running it at it's highest resolution,
most stick with 1024x768 as do many home users. Gamers and other people
that make up the minority of LCD owners do run at the limits, but, they
are in the minority.

>> which means that, as I
>> think you agree, the image will not be of optimal quality. Sure, if they
>> run it at 1280x1024 it will look clear and sharp, but that doesn't mean
>> it's as good as traditional monitors.
>
> So now you admit that at the native resolution it's "clear and sharp"? Are
> you changing your story now?

You are reading into what I said as what you want me to have said - What
part of "but that doesn't mean it's as good as traditional monitors" did
you miss? I never said they can't be clear and sharp, I specifically said
they are NOT as clear/sharp as CRT's.

>>> It seems to me that there is some characteristic of monitors that is
>>> important to you that you are calling "sharpness" while the rest of the
>>> world calls it by something else.
>>
>> When I look at a monitor I want to see the following:
>>
>> 1) Very high contrast between black/white - the screen should be perfectly
>> black when the video is off and when black is selected.
>
> OK, that's a legitimate complaint against most LCDs--they don't have a good
> black level. It's not really an issue unless you use it in a darkened room
> though--in most offices you get a darker black out of an LCD than you do
> out of a CRT whose gray matrix is illuminated by the overhead lights.

Wrong, if you use it at all you can see the difference, lighted room or
not. The contrast ratio of many LCD units is around 400:1 or 600:1, some
are approaching 1000:1, but a typical monitor already exceeds those ranges.

>> 2) Colors are the same or very close to color cards for matching
>
> It doesn't matter what kind of monitor you're using, you need to run a color
> calibration to get even close, and even then there will never be an exact
> match between additive RGB and subtractive CMYK, let alone dyes or pigments
> with intrinsic color.

And a LCD monitor, a typical one, doesn't have the color spread that a CRT
does. They also don't have the brightness that a CRT does.

>> 3) Refresh rates are high enough to prevent flicker (85hz) or higher
>
> Flicker is not an issue with any LCD unless it's broken.

Flicker can be a big problem in some areas. In one control room there was
enough RFI/EMI that the LCD's could not be used for some reason, CRT's
could only be used in the sub-60hz settings. At the same time, even though
LCD's have a slower update, they sometimes present eye-strain issues due
to only running at 60hz (some models).

>> 4) redraw rates are fast enough to not leave any artifacts
>
> While doing what? I've never noticed any "artifacts" "left" on any monitor
> of any kind that were the result of a deficiency in the monitor--I've seen
> some video boards that were defective or had misconfigured drivers that did
> this but they did it on any kind of monitor. Are you talking about the
> "ghosting" that some gamers seem to complain about or are you talking about
> something else?

Ghosting is also called artifacts, and it's seen on LCD units that have
slower re-draw rates when doing high-speed imaging and in some games. The
issues have not been seen on CRT's for more than a decade.

>> 5) Color contrast is very high, more than 700:1 for LCD's
>
> What do you want it to be for CRTs? Many LCDs are available with 700:1
> contrast, however I've not noticed any lack of contrast at 500:1. Perhaps
> you have some specialized application?

I would not expect you to notice, heck, you don't notice any quality
difference in images. It's a simple fact, the contrast ration can make or
break the quality of an image as it relates to viewing, even crispness of
text is related to contrast.

>> 6) Clear/sharp image at all resolutions used by the user.
>
> What resolutions does the user use? Match the display to the user if he
> _must_ use some specific resolution.

Sorry, you want me to buy LCD screens based on what a user MIGHT run at -
we buy volume for corporate clients, most of the units do 1280x1024, most
users don't run at that res, but it's a issue of
maintenance/redundancy/cost, and would never be a problem with a CRT.

>> 7) No distortion of font edges at any resolution
>
> Unachievable with any current monitor technology. I've seen far worse
> artifacting in fonts with CRTs than with LCDs. For that matter you get
> some distortion of font edges with 4800 dpi typesetters. Takes a
> microscope to see it but it's there. At best you'll get it below a certain
> threshold.

I see you're reaching again - the fuzz around a font when not using the
highest resolution on a LCD is no where near as bad at any resolution that
a typical CRT supports.

>> While many LCD's can get most of the above, there are often problems with
>> redraw rates, contrast, and distortion of fonts/lines at non-highest
>> resolutions. I don't see these issues with any $250+ CRT.
>
> Then you don't look for them very hard. As for distortion of lines, one of
> the advantages of an LCD is near-perfect geometry, since the geometry is
> established by the manufacturing process and not by an electron optical
> system--CRTs distort lines at _all_ resolutions. The only people who
> routinely report problems with "redraw rates" on LCDs are a few hardcore
> gamers.

Distortion of lines is always present in LCD's, I'm not talking about
BENDING, I'm talking about FUZZ around fonts and lines when not running at
the highest resolution supported - you don't see that in CRT's.

> It sounds to me like you got used to the way things "look" on a CRT and
> anything that is different from that you regard to be an image defect even
> when it is actually an improvement.

Actually, it sounds like you want me to do the following:

1) Purchase a LCD that supports the most common resolution I will run at,
and not use any other resolutions with that LCD.

2) Accept that the contrast ration of the LCD panel is not as high as the
CRT that I use today.

3) Accept that if I do change resolutions that I should also accept that
the text is no longer as crips.

4) Accept that if I have a 19" Viewsonic A90f+ at my desk and a Viewsonic
VX900-2 sitting side by side, both running at 1280x1024, that I should
ignore that the image on the LCD is not as clear/crisp as the one on the
CRT? (I do have those sitting side by side, using a dual monitor output
card, setup just so I could prove the differences).

5) Accept that what I see on a daily basis, with varied customer base, is
not what I'm really seeing and that I should accept your view, even if the
physical evidence contradicts everything you say.

>> I don't think we're ever going to agree, I've never seen (and I've seen
>> about every LCD on the market)
>
> Somehow I doubt that.

Nope, I'm sure we're not going to agree. And I'm sure I've seen most of
the Major players displays, it's part of the business I own to know
hardware among other things.

>> a LCD that provides the same quality image
>> as a CRT, and I'm not about to change that opinion until I do see one.
>
> Well, I've never seen an LCD that provides the same poor-quality image as a
> CRT either, and I'm not about to change my opinion until I do see one.
>
> The only legitimate complaints on your list are the black level, possibly
> the response time, and image quality degradion when off design resolution,
> however even there it degrades to about CRT level on the latest LCDs I've
> looked at and at 800x600 a 1600x1200 LCD is as sharp as at its native
> resolution, only with pixels 4 times larger.

So, again, you're suggesting that I only purchase LCD units that will be
run at their native resolution, and then only run them at the native
resolution no matter what? Come on, people switch resolutions, people
share workstations, people do all sorts of things - even kids run at a
higher res than their parents and the res gets switched hi/low as each
user likes it - you're suggesting that people should accept those and
ignore than a cheap monitor doesn't have any of those issues.

Here's one for you - I just switched to 1600x1200 and the CRT works fine,
the LCD went to sleep mode as it doesn't support it - the cost of the CRT
was under HALF the cost of the LCD, and the images/text are
clearer/sharper at all resolutions on the CRT than the LCD - you can't
dispute it, it's a fact, I'm seeing it right here.

You are really coming across as someone that seems to NEED to justify
their purchase as being worthwhile for some reason, when in reality there
is no contest in quality of image/text between the display types - CRT's
are currently better than LCD's. Now, before you distort when I'm about to
say, read all of it - Many of the high-end LCD's have very nice pictures
and images/text, BUT THEY ARE STILL LOWER QUALITY THAN THE IMAGE OF A CRT
AT HALF THE PRICE OF THE LCD.

--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
March 30, 2005 11:38:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Love my NEC FP2141SB!
Went with NEC again, since my old NEC 6FGp is still kicking and hasn't
had any problems (brought when the Pentium 100 came out:) . Seems NEC
uses Sony CRT now, only noticible difference.

Minotaur *8)

boe wrote:
> If space wasn't an issue so you could buy either a CRT or a panel what model
> would you get?
>
> Here are the requirements -
> Fast screen - I play games so I can't have ghosts or lags found in many LCD
> panels.
>
> I would like BIG. I currently have an 8 year old 21" Viewsonic. The
> Viewsonic p225f says 22" (I think that model is about 3 years old - I hate
> buying old models) but it has the same viewable area as their G220FB (20")
> unless I'm reading the specs wrong. I've had pretty good luck with the bang
> for the buck from Viewsonic though.
>
> I don't care how the case looks or if it has built in speakers or anything
> else - what I care about is the quality of the picture and size of he
> picture. I want bang for my buck.
>
> I realize not everyone is going to agree but I do appreciate your
> suggestions.
>
>
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 12:51:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:54:16 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> 5) Accept that what I see on a daily basis, with varied customer base,
>> is not what I'm really seeing and that I should accept your view, even
>> if the physical evidence contradicts everything you say.
>
> It's not "my view", it's generally accepted, the laws of physics support
> it, you're the only one who is claiming otherwise. If you see on a
> daily basis LCDs running at their design resolution that are displaying
> fuzzy text then you need to find out what is systematically being done
> incorrectly in their installation and find out how to fix it.

I think this about sums it up for us - what you consider quality I
consider average. What I consider as sharp/clear has many levels of being
sharp/clear - meaning that something can be clear and sharp without being
the clearest or sharpest. If you had seen enough monitors/LCD's you would
know that there are acceptable and then ideal levels, there are acceptable
levels of clarity and sharpness and then there are ideal levels of the
same. You seem to think that if an image is sharp and clear that it's not
anything that can be improved upon, which is wrong. The level of clarity
and sharpness at the highest resolution on an LCD panel is going to be
LESS than that of a CRT of comparable quality at the same
resolution/image. This isn't something that's wrong with the LCD, it's the
nature of the technology, but it will get better as the years go.

I've seen many LCD panels that have sharp and clear text/images at their
highest resolution, but the clarity of most average CRT's exceeds that of
those same LCD's. Sure, there are exceptions, there are some very nice LCD
monitors with very clear/sharp images, but if you compare them to very
nice CRT's the CRT wins every time.

The OP asked about Monitor selection for Gaming for $1000, in my
experience, playing Counter Strike, Doom III, and Unreal, over the years,
and with others that I know that have kids that also play those types of
games, a mid-level CRT ($500) would be more than sufficient and better
image quality than any of the $800~$1000 LCD panels.

As a second note, if you've got the cash to spend $1000 on a display, it
would be safe to assume that the user is running a very high-end system,
dual CPU's, a very high-end video card, etc... A machine in the $4500
range if build properly - why else would anyone waste $1000 on a display
for gaming. A cheap monitor, 19", would be more than enough and allow the
extra savings to purchase more memory, faster drives (even SCSI RAID),
faster or a second CPU, more games, higher-speed internet connection...

--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 12:13:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Leythos wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:54:16 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> 5) Accept that what I see on a daily basis, with varied customer base,
>>> is not what I'm really seeing and that I should accept your view, even
>>> if the physical evidence contradicts everything you say.
>>
>> It's not "my view", it's generally accepted, the laws of physics support
>> it, you're the only one who is claiming otherwise. If you see on a
>> daily basis LCDs running at their design resolution that are displaying
>> fuzzy text then you need to find out what is systematically being done
>> incorrectly in their installation and find out how to fix it.
>
> I think this about sums it up for us - what you consider quality I
> consider average. What I consider as sharp/clear has many levels of being
> sharp/clear - meaning that something can be clear and sharp without being
> the clearest or sharpest. If you had seen enough monitors/LCD's you would
> know that there are acceptable and then ideal levels, there are acceptable
> levels of clarity and sharpness and then there are ideal levels of the
> same. You seem to think that if an image is sharp and clear that it's not
> anything that can be improved upon, which is wrong. The level of clarity
> and sharpness at the highest resolution on an LCD panel is going to be
> LESS than that of a CRT of comparable quality at the same
> resolution/image.

Repeating this over and over again does not make it so.

> This isn't something that's wrong with the LCD, it's the
> nature of the technology, but it will get better as the years go.

It's the nature of CRT technology that it is physically impossible for it to
produce an image as sharp as that of an LCD running at its native
resolution. You can claim otherwise all you want to but the fact is that
you are just plain wrong.

> I've seen many LCD panels that have sharp and clear text/images at their
> highest resolution, but the clarity of most average CRT's exceeds that of
> those same LCD's.

I see. So now you pull a new term out of your ass, "clarity". Define
"clarity" in numbers.

> Sure, there are exceptions, there are some very nice LCD
> monitors with very clear/sharp images, but if you compare them to very
> nice CRT's the CRT wins every time.

Wrong. The CRT _loses_ every time on sharpness at the design resolution of
the LCD.

> The OP asked about Monitor selection for Gaming for $1000, in my
> experience, playing Counter Strike, Doom III, and Unreal, over the years,
> and with others that I know that have kids that also play those types of
> games, a mid-level CRT ($500) would be more than sufficient and better
> image quality than any of the $800~$1000 LCD panels.

You've been playing Doom III "over the years"? Do tell.

For gaming there might be some benefit to the CRT. I've said that before.
Has nothing to do with "better image quality" though and everything to do
with whether the user is one of those who sees this "ghosting" that some
gamers claim is such a huge problem and others can't see at all even when
they look for it.

> As a second note, if you've got the cash to spend $1000 on a display, it
> would be safe to assume that the user is running a very high-end system,
> dual CPU's, a very high-end video card, etc... A machine in the $4500
> range if build properly

That wouldn't be "build properly", that would be gold plated. A very
thoroughly loaded game machine can be put together for under $4000 using
"best of everything" components and hitting all the buzzwords.

> - why else would anyone waste $1000 on a display
> for gaming. A cheap monitor, 19", would be more than enough and allow the
> extra savings to purchase more memory, faster drives (even SCSI RAID),

So where do you get SCSI RAID for $500 with any real capacity? Used drives
off of ebay maybe. And what leads you to believe that there would be any
performance benefit in a game machine? Games are seldom I/O-bound.

> faster or a second CPU,

Where do you get a second CPU with a decent clock speed for $500? Besides,
you already said that he has dual CPUs.

Beyond that, how many games take advantage of dual processors?

> more games, higher-speed internet connection...

How fast can one get for a one time expenditure of $500? And why would a
gamer want a "higher-speed internet connection" assuming that he already
has broadband? In gaming it's latency, not bandwidth, that is the limiting
factor.

As for "wasting $1000 for a display for gaming", to the OP it's clearly not
"wasting $1000".

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 8:14:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

John, it's apparent that you have no clear understanding of the
differences or the technology or even experience with the CRT/LCD monitors
that we've discussed, and even ones we speculated about. It's also
apparent that you are just trolling as you keep reading/stating things
that I've not said and that have no basis in fact.

The simple fact is that while a LCD screen has started producing better
quality images, they still don't produce as high a quality image as the
same quality of CRT screen does. You don't have to agree, and I never
expect you to, but I'm done with you are you've started the tell-tale
signs of trolling, and I'm no longer in the mood to play with trolls.

Let the Op take a live look at the screens, comparing both a high quality
CRT to that of a high quality LCD, in fact, he could purchase the CRT use
it for a week, then return it and get the LCD, then he would have both in
real use to determine which he wants to use - I'm sure he'll return the
LCD if he considers quality of image/text.
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 12:21:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

I have Samsung's 193p, true 19", totally awesome!!!

Bill Crocker

"boe" <boe_d@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6qCdnYhRtoxD4NXfRVn-uw@comcast.com...
> If space wasn't an issue so you could buy either a CRT or a panel what
> model would you get?
>
> Here are the requirements -
> Fast screen - I play games so I can't have ghosts or lags found in many
> LCD panels.
>
> I would like BIG. I currently have an 8 year old 21" Viewsonic. The
> Viewsonic p225f says 22" (I think that model is about 3 years old - I
> hate buying old models) but it has the same viewable area as their G220FB
> (20") unless I'm reading the specs wrong. I've had pretty good luck with
> the bang for the buck from Viewsonic though.
>
> I don't care how the case looks or if it has built in speakers or anything
> else - what I care about is the quality of the picture and size of he
> picture. I want bang for my buck.
>
> I realize not everyone is going to agree but I do appreciate your
> suggestions.
>
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 1:54:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

I saw some Apple flatscreens that were breath taking. But I think they were
~$2200.
April 23, 2005 9:39:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"Heywood Jablowme" <a@a.a> wrote in message
news:2wE3e.9996$Vx1.7279@attbi_s01...
>I saw some Apple flatscreens that were breath taking. But I think they
>were ~$2200.


I have a 21" Samsung SyncMaster 213T that I use to play a lot of games. I
have never noticed any ghosting and I would never go back to a CRT again.
Of course the biggest draw for me was that the LCD weighs about 17 lbs. and
only takes up a small corner of my desk. The 19" CRT that I replaced, on
the other hand, was breathtakingly heavy, and took up an entire 1/3 of my
desk top...

Just my 2 cents
!