Me Want, 8ms 19' LCD [Archive]

Wamplet

02-24-2005, 05:04 PM

NutWrench said:
I don't have an LCD monitor, myself but I've been thinking of getting one. How slow does the monitors response time have to be before you see visible blurring? (Like, in a 3D game, for instance?)

Not just blurring, but when you spin around in a stationary position, you will get some kind of refresh effect as well where you see lines going down the screen. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/redface.gif

8IronBob

02-24-2005, 06:18 PM

Well, from my LCD monitor, which came with my PC, it seems to have a 12 ms response time, which is okay, considering that allows for both analog and digital outputs. Gateway seems to make an okay LCD monitor, and it looks like it may hang in there for a while, haven't had any dead pixel issues yet, that I'm aware of...

DudeMiester

02-24-2005, 09:26 PM

I garuntee you that Gateway doesn't make any monitors, they're rebranded. It's can get really tricky with computer parts, trying to find out who actually makes them. Same thing with PSUs.

IHerman

02-27-2005, 01:15 PM

Inanimate Carbon Rod said:
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=24-001-185&depa=1

I am salivating.

I would be, if it were more than 1280x1024.

Why spend so much on a 19" when the average 17" has the same resolution for half the money?

Odin

02-27-2005, 05:29 PM

My monitor supports my card's maximum resolution (2048 x 1536). I have a 19" CRT. Right now it's on 1280 x 1024, mostly so I can read.

To tell the truth, I never found flat screen monitors that much more of an upgrade over a CRT. You'd only need them if you have a really crammed place, and if you do, chances are you can't afford it anyway. They are significantly lighter, though, which helps if you go to those massive LAN parties. But for pratcial use, flat screens are very useful. They do look sexy, though. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

8IronBob

02-27-2005, 05:38 PM

Odin said:
My monitor supports my card's maximum resolution (2048 x 1536). I have a 19" CRT. Right now it's on 1280 x 1024, mostly so I can read.

To tell the truth, I never found flat screen monitors that much more of an upgrade over a CRT. You'd only need them if you have a really crammed place, and if you do, chances are you can't afford it anyway. They are significantly lighter, though, which helps if you go to those massive LAN parties. But for pratcial use, flat screens are very useful. They do look sexy, though. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Another reason to get an LCD, too, is if they are part of a special bundle package as well, since that monitor option is built into the price, if you buy in retail (Best Buy, CompUSA, Micro Center, Circuit City, etc...), from a company's website (Dell, HP, Gateway, etc...), or from a TV Network (Shop At Home, HSN, QVC, etc...)

If the monitor offers an LCD as part of the package, and the configuration is nice, the price is right, and it seems to be better for the money, I would say go for it, I keep hearing the advantages of LCD over CRT, like zilch in radiation, much brighter, more colorful, better resolution, and space saving. That's what made up my mind to grab this.

Of course, the LCD I got seems to have a better response time than most the other monitors I saw at the time I bought this as a package, it doesn't need that height-adjust or pivot feature to be a good LCD monitor, either, although that would've been nice, I don't think Gateway's that fancy when it comes to LCDs, unlike Dell or HP, but this is a nice monitor, haven't complained one bit...

Inanimate Carbon Rod

02-27-2005, 05:43 PM

Because it is 2 inches bigger and has an 8ms response time.

g-dog

02-28-2005, 09:37 AM

^^
First, I would be a bit skeptical on the accuracy of the reported "8 ms" resonse time. Secondly, if it is accurate, I would say the monitor would be good/great for 3d gaming. *Also, I would also agree that anything at or below 20ms, ghosting/blurring shouldn't be an issue (for the most part). I have a samsung 20.1 LCD ...w/ 16ms w/ NO blurring/etc.

IgWannA

02-28-2005, 03:03 PM

that monitor is tempting but only does 1280x1024. i would only buy an LCD if it could do at least 1600x1200, was 19 inches and didn't cost a huge amount more than a 19" CRT.

Decker

03-02-2005, 11:56 AM

1280x1024 if a very fitting res for a 19" LCD. Much more so than for a 17 incher.

Performance-wise it's also a much more feasible resolution for gaming than, say, 1600x1200.*

*or whatever the equivalent for 1600 x **** rez is for lcd's

Inanimate Carbon Rod

03-12-2005, 11:08 AM

It is less than $400 now. \o/

Joonas

03-12-2005, 01:45 PM

LCD? http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mryuck.gif

LeadBullet

03-12-2005, 03:11 PM

19in LCD is nice, but it sucks that they still haven't come out with something that did at least 1600x1200.

The brightness on blacks is one thing that turns me off to LCDs. Another is the color settings. They talk about how great their contrast ratio and colors are and all that shit. But from what I've read, and my own experience, you open it up and the default factory settings are total dick.

It probably would come with some software that does the color correcting in Windows rather than from the monitor settings. This sucks because you can make the colors and everything look ok in Windows but when you load a full screen program like a game, it stops working and you have the dull washed out colors in a game.

Joonas

03-12-2005, 05:04 PM

That's true, LB. Refresh rates have been good enough for gaming for a long time. It's the colour, contrast, background light and the "static" resolution that give problems.

Inanimate Carbon Rod

03-12-2005, 06:52 PM

It's the colour, contrast, background light

Only shitty LCD's have those problems.

Phait

03-12-2005, 07:08 PM

My dad and I just bought a 15" Samsung Syncmaster. Max res is 1024 x 768.

Some people think it's an atrocity to run at that resolution. Hell I remember when 640 x 480 and 800 x 600 were "evil". I don't care, i can't run games optimally at res's higher than 1024, and I prefer designing sites within the 1024 resolution.

Anywho, it's a nice monitor... 16ms response, I don't see any ghosting. But as mentioned above one thing that puts me off is the kinda reflective black... noticed this alot playing the SWAT 4 SP demo.

Sephiroth

03-12-2005, 11:42 PM

I like my Samsung Syncmaster 710T LCD 12ms 1280x1024 17' panel, supports both anilog and digital.

Phait

03-13-2005, 12:07 AM

What is the diff. between analog and digital - no blurring with resolution changes in digital?

Sephiroth

03-13-2005, 12:14 AM

No the bluring is still there, but in digital mode my monitor is much faster, I can see the differince. and in digital mode the screen is never mis-alined it's always centered perfectly, making analog monitors a think of the past, yes I know most LCD;s have a "Auto center button" but sometimes that just doesn't work.

Joonas

03-13-2005, 05:14 AM

Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

It's the colour, contrast, background light

Only shitty LCD's have those problems.

Every single today's LCD lacks at at least one of those three.

8IronBob

03-13-2005, 11:05 AM

That's another thing, too. From what I've been mentioning, and it's still getting me curious. If you can have a great refresh rate in an LCD television, from what I've seen, because LCD HDTVs appear to have the best refresh rates that technology can offer, I just don't understand why computer monitor manufacturers can turn around and use that HD-Quality technology in standard PC monitors? I believe that's what the Dell Ultrasharp 20" LCD monitor is like, if I'm not mistaken, that and the HP 23" High-Def Monitor. However, I still feel that it's better and cheaper to buy a small 15 - 20" LCD TV (preferably an HDTV Widescreen LCD if you run something like the MCE, or other PC with a TV Tuner built into the PC or as an addon) as opposed to just a standard LCD monitor at that same size, of course, since the larger LCD TVs are coming into that price range, the bigger the better, I mean, for the same price an LCD monitor would've cost you a couple of years ago, you might as well go for an HDTV LCD if you plan on using one for both a PC monitor and as a standalone TV. I've seen some lower price tags on LCD televisions than some LCD monitors, more specifically, I believe that some entry-level EDTV LCDs are about that, but HD LCDs aren't that far off from being less expensive from that of a standard flat-panel monitor in some cases.

Locnor

03-15-2005, 03:30 PM

Me want slower monitor that does not produce as wide of a range colors as a CRT??? Why?

LCD= Slower, smaller range of colors, distorted images.

The only thing a LCD offers is a smaller footprint and they consume less energy.

And the advertised response time means SQUAT.

Read. Learn. Don't fall victim of ads and short columns in PC Magazine.

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20050215/lcd-04.html

Sephiroth

03-15-2005, 05:16 PM

Actully, LCD's are also better for your eyes, and they dont have a little "wirey net like thing" Some games like XIII have a white background, but with an LCD that white is a yellowish.. why? simply because ubisoft did not use white, however it shows up as white in a CRT... for fun.. I went in both took a screen shot and then pasted them into gimp only to find out that the colors on my LCD are displaying correctly it is indeed not pure white. Now why would that be? could it be because that small almost unseeible black wirey net is blending in and tricking our eyes? I think so anyways.

in native modes LCD's do not distort (if you mean wide screen then it's not distored, windows should come with aspact ratio correction software).

And advertised response time does me something, lets compare any 25ms with an 8 or 12ms (these hardly ghost at all) the 25ms is the ghost with the most in ghostbuster ligo!

Phait

03-15-2005, 09:53 PM

I notice no ghosting with 16ms. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Don't you hate it when you sneeze on your brand new LCD?

ExarKun

03-16-2005, 02:15 AM

I get my Hyundai LD90+ in tomorrow, which got the TomsHardware Editors choice in the above posted article. They said it was one o fthe most crisp LCDs they had ever seen, plus they said the colors were amazing. Also in their response time tests, the thing never went above 10ms while some 12ms panels can go up to 25-30.

I've seen this thing in action and its been reccomended everywhere I go. The 1280x1024 is the only thing that bugged me, but that res with antialiasing on a 19" should look great.

The Hyundai is $20 cheaper too at $359 plus free shipping on newegg. If anyone is interested I can post back with some impressions tomorrow after I get mine and play around with it all day. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Airtraffic

03-16-2005, 03:19 AM

Locnor said:
Me want slower monitor that does not produce as wide of a range colors as a CRT??? Why?

LCD= Slower, smaller range of colors, distorted images.

The only thing a LCD offers is a smaller footprint and they consume less energy.

And the advertised response time means SQUAT.

Read. Learn. Don't fall victim of ads and short columns in PC Magazine.

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20050215/lcd-04.html

Agreed, this is a better choice! http://www.accurateit.com/details.asp?iid=203 rl]

Phait

03-18-2005, 04:07 AM

Was in Circuit City yesterday and saw this widescreen beaut for $600:

http://www.sonystyle.com/intershoproot/eCS/Store/en/imagesProducts/650x650/MFMHT75W.jpg

Beats out the Samsung I had in mind that wasn't widescreen but still a nice one. This'd look great with a G5!

biXen

03-18-2005, 06:06 AM

phait said:
Some people think it's an atrocity to run at that resolution. Hell I remember when 640 x 480 and 800 x 600 were "evil". I don't care, i can't run games optimally at res's higher than 1024, and I prefer designing sites within the 1024 resolution.

That's a ridicilous point. I usually design web pages to function in 800x600 resolution, but sitting and designing them in 1024x768 is still a pain in the ass. I use 1280x1024, I'd use 1600x1200, but my graphics card at work sucks so I can't have it at that resolution and 100Hz there, therefor I don't want a different resolution at home either. You need extra space for tools and all.

When that is said, the response problem is slowly going away, LCDs are getting better. And the best ones that are ok for designing is also getting cheaper. But you still can't get one that does design and games just as well, maybe you can for 1500 dollars, I don't know. I've seen both high-end and low-end LCDs and tried both, but I really can't stand them. They are crisp and clear and good for the eyes, but the colors, richness, contrast, black etc. aren't close to a CRT with Trinitron or Diamondtron. It will be a while before I change.

I constantly see pages designed on LCDs that are way too bright, or colors used doesn't really mix well, which is obvious on CRT, but not spotted on LCD and so on and so forth. As a designer I cannot swap, for gaming, 3d and things like that, I think you can. Not a fan of movies on LCD either really, but at least they look crisp and all.

Phait

03-18-2005, 06:17 AM

biXen said:
That's a ridicilous point. I usually design web pages to function in 800x600 resolution, but sitting and designing them in 1024x768 is still a pain in the ass.

It isn't a point, it's merely my personal design preference. Anything higher than 1024x768 is going to be smaller on a 15" and it just messes with my head.

I'm planning on getting a CRT to hook my Powerbook up to and running the CRT at 1024, but until then I'm using the PC w/ the LCD.

Anyway, another LCD question:

Obviously there is an optimal viewing angle, where the contrast and colors are just right, and if you are looking at it from a higher/lower or different angle, the image has a "negative" effect.

Are there any certain specification numbers that relate to the range of this? What I mean is, the one thing that bothers me most of LCD's is when in a game, shadows and dark areas are a bit negative, and even if I adjust my viewing angle a bit, it doesn't help much. Are there any LCD's that have less of this problem, or is it pretty much universal?

IgWannA

03-18-2005, 09:14 PM

all LCDs are different and have differing optimum viewing angles, but generally there aren't any numbers or stats to let the consumer know. the closest thing you'll get is the viewing angle, but that's not a great indicator as most LCDs will say it's 90 degrees or more. but generally speaking the newer LCDs/TFTs are perfectly viewable at nearly all angles.

anyway, i read this today - viewsonic has announced a 4ms LCD (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1776545,00.asp?kc=ETRSS02129TX1K0000532) specifically designed for gamers who demand high refresh rates so there's no visible ghosting. technically it's only 4ms for gray-to-gray and 5ms for colour-colour, but it's still the fastest refresh you can get. coming soon at around $550.

8IronBob

03-18-2005, 09:58 PM

phait said:

Beats out the Samsung I had in mind that wasn't widescreen but still a nice one. This'd look great with a G5!

I was at my local Circuit City recently, too. I saw a Samsung 21.3" LCD for about the same price that a good base computer system would cost (meaning that if you were to buy a computer and the Samsung separately, it would cost about double the CPU, speakers, mouse, and keyboard bundle would cost). That was something. For $899 for that 21.3" LCD + another $899 for a decent computer system to go along with it, put those two together for under $2,000, and see if it looks like it goes together, a good challenge, I might add) from Samsung, hmm... I wish I knew what the response time (ms) was on that bad boy, that looked better than anything I've ever seen. I really can't think of why a monitor like that wouldn't feature some awesome response times of sorts...