I am about to buy, after all my research I have to decided to go with a shadow mask monitor under 300.
I want great pic and clarity (like who dosen't?) and I will be using this for everything including games.
What is your take on these three:
1) Samsung 957MB- looks like there newest and best.
.2 dot pitch and 250mhz
and 3 bright modes and optional usb. http://www.samsungelectronics.com/monitor/flat/index.ht...
2) One of your favorites the Hitachi cm721f
.2 dot pitch also, couldn't fine Mhz, but similar monitors are right at200mhz
3) Viewsonic G90f .21 dot pitch. and 200mhz
I know you like the hitachi, but I havent heard your take on this viewsonic or samsung, Can you just give me your honest opinion.
In my research I also came across: Pixel frequency, the monitors mhz, or monitor bandwidth. How important is this, what does it do? Is it like refresh rate? I saw some monitors in the mid 100mhz while others where over 350.
Don’t confuse “Bandwidth” and “pixel clock”, although related they two completely different things. The examples above are talking about “ Pixel clock” not the “Bandwidth” capabilities of the video amp.
Bandwidth is a little complicated and needs some explanation and background in monitor technology.
There are three components that make up the monitors refresh rate. Pixel clock, horizontal scan rate, and the vertical scan rate or “refresh rate”. They are all interrelated.
Monitors draw pixels on the screen one at a time starting in the upper left corner across the screen, then down one line and so on. The time it takes to draw one pixel on the screen is commonly called the video rate, pixel clock or bandwidth. The time it takes to draw one line across the screen is the horizontal scan frequency. Finally the time it takes to draw one complete field “entire screen” is the refresh rate.
Basically, the faster you can draw one pixel on the screen, the faster you can draw a line across the screen, the faster you can refresh the screen.
Almost all monitors on the market today have pixel clock and bandwidth specifications that are sufficient for the resolution the manufacturer recommends. But be careful out there. I see some manufacturers that publish the maximum resolution in BOLD print and the recommended resolution is small print. What they are saying is. Yes the monitor will display at that “BOLD FACE RESOLUTION” however the bandwidth of the monitor is really optimized for the lower “recommended” resolution”.
"Bandwidth" is the range of video frequencies that can be adequately handled by the video amplifier of the monitor, this number can be considerably lower than the pixel clock required for a given timing. The reason for this? The highest fundamental frequency in the analog video signal is one-half the pixel clock, since the fastest thing you can do is to turn alternate pixels on and off. One "on" or "white" pixel followed by one "off" or "black" is required for a full cycle - so the highest fundamental frequency you see is derived from the period of TWO pixels, not one.
There are many ways to measure “Bandwidth” - some relevant, and some not. Without knowing how the manufacturer measured the bandwidth it may not be a very useful specification for comparison purposes.
There is good reason I like Hitachi. In my years of working in the industry I have visited many of the Hitachi factories in Japan, Mexico, Taiwan and China, so I’m very familiar with their Q.A process. I’m also a trained ISO9000 auditor.
I have also been to many third party factories that manufacture the ViewSonic models. I have not visited the Samsung factory in Korea yet, however in my line of business its simply a matter of time.
I cannot find any information on a Samsung model 957MB, you certain that model number is correct? Remember also that newer does not necessarily mean better. I’ll use Hitachi as an example. IMHO the Hitachi CM772 was one of the best 19” monitors ever made. The major reason was the Hitachi CRT. Unfortunately Hitachi shut down CRT factories and now most of the CRT’s used are manufactured by Samsung. Personally I do not feel these CRT’s meet the capabilities of the older Hitachi CRT’s. You may like the high bright modes for games and DVD’s, however high bright defocus text base applications so much that it is unusable.
Odds are the G90F, the CM721F and the Samsung model all use the same CRT. Electronics play a big part in video quality, as does the factory alignment. I really don’t want to make a direct recommendation in this public forum, due to the fact that I’m biased.
Any comments from anyone who might have the monitor?
I was looking mostly for a monitor with great text first and then also decent image/video. The monitor has a recommended resolution of 1600x1200 at 75 Hz. From what I have read, it is recommended to have 85 Hz if possible at the resolution you plan to use.
I just got my two monitors and they are really great! For the first time I can actually see using 1280x1024 for text.
The text is clear across the board, and the screen looks perfectly flat, the colors are also good. It was a great improvement over my other 19"crt.
One of my monitors seems to have a slight scratch on the uper left hand corner of the screen, it seems to be only in the protective coating, but I can only tell on a complete black or white screen, Not sure if its worth the shipping cost for the return.
I got the Hitachi cm721f.
I read the same laudatory reviews. I'm very interested in this new flatter shadow mask CDT.
Is this new Magicbright tube really flatter than the dynaflat? Also, how flat is it compared to your Sony? Which Sony model do you have? Also, is it as bright as your Sony (known for brightness)? Does it have that moire problem which results in that pixelated look on shadow masks (versus the wavy moire typically seen on sharp AG)?
Does it match the reviews?
Quality is better than name brand, even regarding beloved AMD.
I have not examined a dynaflat, so I can't comment on a comparison. I use a Dell P990 (not flat, but slightly curved - both screen and tube) and a Sony E400 which is almost completely flat. The 957MB is not completely flat, but looking straight at the screen from about 2' away, I don't really notice any curvature. Looking into the corners from about 1' away, you can see that the tube is not 100% flat. I've been on the phone to CRT companies asking them the same question - I'm not sure how to describe relative curvature and neither are they.
The "magic bright" has three settings, and I use text or internet for computer use and the entertain setting to watch TV or a movie. I would not use the computer when it is set to the highest brightness level because it would be way too bright for me. Neither of the Sony CRTs I have come close to the same high brightness level (without the magic bright, the regular CRTs start to "white out" as brightness increases instead of staying clear but bright).
I have not noticed any moiré problems. Images (not text) look about the same on all CRTs, but better when brightness is increased on the 957MB. The text on the 957MB is excellent compared to fair on the P990 and good on the E400. I have walked around FRYs where they have some 40 or 50 monitors setup with about the same number LCDs. The 957MB has text that is equal to or better than any of the other CRTs I've seen.
My major complaints with the 957MB would be (1) text sharpness is slightly worse at the far edges compared to the center (2) the video cable is permanently connected to the monitor and (3) the monitor does need to be near it's upper limit for the contrast setting - I think optimal setting should be close to 50/100 instead of 90/100.