Since we have no LCD threads to refer back to, lets start on

Peacedog · Post by **Peacedog** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 9:39 am

My flat panel 19" optiquest died some months ago, so I went back to my older 19" non flat panel optiquest. I've been generally pleased with their monitors, but I'm so sick of having these behemoths on my desktop it makes me want to beat the crap out of somebody.

As fate would have it, I shall soon have the means to obtain a new monitor. I think it's time to go flatscreen. And I'm tempted to really go all out and pamper myself, and go 19".

A friend of mine picked up a BenQ FP391 recently, and so far she is giving it good reviews. Any other thoughts on what to look for?

And can we briefly touch on some of the particulars of LCDs, and things to look for (like I know I need to check for dead pixels and ghosting when I get it)?

Kael · Post by **Kael** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:17 am

I have a Samsung SyncMaster 192mp and I love it. The best parts of it is that comes with a TV Decoder and composite and svideo inputs. That way I can also easily hook up my XBox (or whater console you prefer) to it.

As Im sure some of the other folks will bring up Dell's LCDs have recieved excellent press and seem to have a reasonable price and still offer a beautiful picture.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:26 pm

I've found that LCDs really are a crap shoot. What's good for me may not be good for you. I have a Samsung SyncMaster 191-T+, and I LOVE it. But I was able to see it first (squire_sca has/had one). I've also heard really good things about the high-end Dell panels.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:55 pm

I love, LOVE, LOVE my 20" Dell panel. The only issue might be that blacks aren't as black as a CRT.

tals · Post by **tals** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 5:31 pm

I have an Hitachi CML174SXW. Yep its 17" but is blooming lovely

I wish I could show you my desk but we had it specially made with a depth of 17' which fitted in a nook we had in our old house. Needless to say any CRT monitor meant the screen was almost at right angles on this desk.

This screen has literally changed my gaming and also saved me from serious neck and back problems - I kid you not.

Never ever notice any issues with blur or speed issues. My daughter has my old 17' CRT and I can honestly say the colour depth is much better on the LCD.

Now if only I could stop the wife jabbing her finger at it i'd be made

Tals

Peacedog · Post by **Peacedog** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 6:31 pm

I've found that LCDs really are a crap shoot. What's good for me may not be good for you.

How so? Are you getting into like color sharpness or resolution preference or stuff like that??

Let me tell you something about me:

General graphical preference: I give a crap.
resolution: I do like higher resolutuons (at one step above 1024x768 now), because in things like VS.net it allows you to more easily work with lots of things on screen.
eye strain: none really on a CRT (maybe occasionally when I spend too much time in front of the computer), but a move switch won't hurt, especially since my CRT is as far back as it can go, currently.

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 6:45 pm

Since I enjoy photo-editing as much as I do, I'll probably continue to stay away from LCDs. It's dang near impossible to beat a good 21" CRT for color matching and dynamic range. I know they are starting to be some that come close, but for their cost I could buy 2 21" CRTs. I do however anxiously await for the day when I can get an LCD that meets my needs and is affordable.

tals · Post by **tals** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:25 am

Peacedog wrote:
I've found that LCDs really are a crap shoot. What's good for me may not be good for you.
How so? Are you getting into like color sharpness or resolution preference or stuff like that??

Let me tell you something about me:

General graphical preference: I give a crap.
resolution: I do like higher resolutuons (at one step above 1024x768 now), because in things like VS.net it allows you to more easily work with lots of things on screen.
eye strain: none really on a CRT (maybe occasionally when I spend too much time in front of the computer), but a move switch won't hurt, especially since my CRT is as far back as it can go, currently.

PD i'm confused regarding your answer . Resolution - LCDs even the 17's prefer higher resolution - mine likes to sit at 1280x1024 and looks lovely

Colours - thats such a hard one to compare, lcds you could argue have a grain - that said till I mentioned it I hadn't noticed it

Eye strain, this one is difficult - LCD or mine at least defaults to bright but toning it down is better. That said it is generally brighter than a CRT at the same 'acceptable' setting if that makes sense

I think the main argument for an LCD is space saving- It totally transformed my room to being something that was dominated by the screen to now a normal room with a PC in it and that was only a 17'. I did at one point have a 21' and that was just so ridiculous (particularly on my small desk) it just wasn't worth going there

Tals

gorky1 · Post by **gorky1** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 5:56 am

tals wrote: I think the main argument for an LCD is space saving- It totally transformed my room to being something that was dominated by the screen to now a normal room with a PC in it and that was only a 17'. I did at one point have a 21' and that was just so ridiculous (particularly on my small desk) it just wasn't worth going there

Don't forget geometry. With DVI, a pixel's a pixel, no fiddling with 34 adjustment wheels.

On a sidenote, since I saw it mentioned a few times in the past, 3d games are *not* distorted (oval circles) if you let them run in 1280x1024 instead of a 4:3 resolution. 3d projection works fine on any resolution. (unless you use 1024x768 on a 1280x1024 LCD, of course).

Lorini · Post by **Lorini** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:23 pm

Dell is having a sale on their 20" 2001 1600x1200 res monitor today:

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/Prod ... l=en&cs=04

I want one really bad, but I really cannot afford one now...

Lorini

SirReal · Post by **SirReal** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:43 pm

I'm using a 20" LG LCD, 1600x1200, 16ms since... well, since they got on the market. Year, year and a half.

So far, I'm very pleased with it. No problems, excellent quality and speed.

Peacedog · Post by **Peacedog** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 11:30 am

a couple of questions, can someone explain the Brightness number and the Contrast Ratio? I'm looking for higher on both (if I were looking at such things)?

Should I be hell bent on the lowest response time possible? Viewsonic looks like it has some good monitors in the $500 price range, but their 25 MS response, and the BenQ is 16.

And does anything think I might suffer going from a 19" CRT to a 17 LCD?

Some potentials:

BenQ FP931

khomotso · Post by **khomotso** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:04 pm

a couple of questions, can someone explain the Brightness number and the Contrast Ratio? I'm looking for higher on both (if I were looking at such things)?

Should I be hell bent on the lowest response time possible? Viewsonic looks like it has some good monitors in the $500 price range, but their 25 MS response, and the BenQ is 16.

Contrast ratio numbers from the vendors are notoriously exaggerated. They may be useful for telling you roughly which one has better contrast than another, but mean very little by themselves. Some manufacturers artificially boost contrast ratios by pumping up brightness beyond a level any consumer would desire.

[Edit: Forgot to say, contrast ratio is essentially a comparison of a monitor's blackest black to its whitest white - so it doesn't tell you much about color reproduction, either]

Brightness is typically not an issue for LCDs - they tend to be brighter than other types of monitors already, and I don't think it will ever be a dealbreaker for an LCD purchase.

Response time can be a big deal, and is probably the most important number of the three, although the way it's measured by different companies is also notoriously inconsistent. 25ms is a generation out of date (2002-era monitors, like the older Apples), and most current models are in the 12ms to 16 ms range.

Not everyone has an issue here, but it would be good to find some place where you could actually try out a 25ms monitor, playing a game, and see if you notice anything. Some people swear they can't tell.

[Edit: I remember reading a report from one guy that, from a purely physiological perspective, refresh rates would have to be under 8ms for the human eye to be physically incapable of noticing any motion artifacts. But I can't recall the argument or the article right now, and since refresh rates can be measured in different ways, well ...]

gbasden · Post by **gbasden** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:14 pm

Peacedog wrote: And does anything think I might suffer going from a 19" CRT to a 17 LCD?

I doubt it. I went from a 21" tube monitor to a 17" LCD at work and prefer the LCD. Since tube monitors are measured full corner to full corner, even in unviewable areas under the bezel, they aren't as large as they seem. LCDs measurements are all viewable areas.

I would imagine you wouldn't see much of a difference replacing the 19" tube with a 17" LCD.

The Mad Hatter · Post by **The Mad Hatter** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 9:49 am

Argh, this thread is making me want to go out and buy a LCD. I so can't afford one, but there's always the credit card gods. I have a Samsung 900NF 19 inch CRT, and you can put your back out trying to pick it up. If they've worked out the gaming problems the earlier LCD types had...

Ænima · Post by **Ænima** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 2:25 pm

Or for a couple hundred bucks more, you can get the best gaming lcd available, making you the object of all your friends' jealousy.

The Viewsonic VP912b... 19", 12 ms response time, beautiful!

Lee · Post by **Lee** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:02 am

I have a Dell 2100. I would love it, but now I have 2 dead pixels. It ruined the monitor for me. On GG the blue pixel would show really bad, with GG gone, I see it less, but my eyes are always draw to it. Luckily the new dead pixel is much smaller than the old one, I am guessing the old one is more than one pixel.

Anyway, after this experience I wouldn't put that kind of money down on an LCD without a no dead pixel guarentee. They are just too much money for something that can be less than perfect.

Post by **FishPants** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:23 am

Are dead pixels common? Will stores let you return it for dead pixels? I can't see spending $600+ on a monitor that "may have a defect that you have to deal with".

Jag · Post by **Jag** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:40 pm

Just got the new Dell 1905FP for $500 shipped. It's got DVI and 20ms response time. It looks awesome, but i can see some blurring on Doom3. I don't know if that's normal or not, but it's good enough for me, i won't be shelling out the few extra hundred on the 2001FP.

It did come with 3 dead pixels, but i can only really see one clearly. It actually doesn't bother me that much, so i'll probably just keep it.

Lee · Post by **Lee** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 6:58 pm

FishPants wrote:Are dead pixels common? Will stores let you return it for dead pixels? I can't see spending $600+ on a monitor that "may have a defect that you have to deal with".

I honestly don't know how common they are. My 2 laptops were fine, so I never really worried about it when I bought the Dell 2001. I have noticed that most LCDs at work don't have any problems, but the ones that do look horrible (big pixels). You can take it back if the store has a return policy, but with places like Dell, to get a new one you have to have 5 dead pixels close to the center of the screen.

It bugs some people, some it doesn't. If little things like that bother you, I would buy it from a place you can take it back. I wish I would have sent mine back, but I thought I would get over it. Although my 2001 just developed a new dead pixel, so I would be stuck with it now regardless.That's just not my personality though.

Meghan · Post by **Meghan** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 8:43 pm

what causes dead pixels? Is there a way to avoid it?

I have the Benq fp931 and I'm crazy about it. I haven't noticed problems with any games from Avernum 2 to the RCT demo.

I haven't seen any dead pixels at all on my mine. <shrug>

khomotso · Post by **khomotso** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:50 pm

what causes dead pixels? Is there a way to avoid it?

Not really any way to avoid it. If you start out with no bad pixels at all, though, you tend to do fine for a considerable time.

There's more than one type of "dead" pixel, and the worst is the "always on" one. A bright green or red dot anywhere on the screen will be distracting for anyone. The pixels that stay black are far less noticeable, and those tend to be the ones that crop up over time, I believe.

There are a few manufacturers that have a "zero tolerance" dead pixel policy (I believe HP does, and they have a nice widscreen LCD monitor), but most have different criteria for deciding how many (and what type) of dead pixels merit a return.

Jag · Post by **Jag** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:53 pm

Use this tool. It has a dead pixel viewer. My dead pixels disappeared, so it must have needed to run for awhile. Who knows.

http://www.monitorsdirect.com/toolkit/index.shtml

The tool is the direct calibrator, but the otherones are usefull as well.

Meghan · Post by **Meghan** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 5:07 pm

thanks for the info, khomotso! I guess it's not something to worry about, since worrying makes no difference.

gorham09 · Post by **gorham09** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 5:33 pm

The choice that seems to be the most popular at the various deal sites/forums is the Dell UltraSharp 2001FP 20.1-inch Flat Panel LCD. It has a 16ms response time and both DVI and analog connectors.

I can't speak from personal experience but, it looks pretty impressive and as I said, it keeps coming up as the monitor to beat from a price/performance ratio.

Now, I have an LCD question of my own. I understand that these monitors look best in their native resolutions. But for this monitor I believe that native is 1600x1200. For me that makes things way to small and it doesn't seem like a practical resolution to run games in (RTS would be too small and I would imagine it would chug on high end FPS. That having been said, I know that scaling impacts the quality of text sharpness, but how does it affect the quality of games?

Meghan · Post by **Meghan** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:51 pm

I'm running my 19" at 1200 x 1070. From the display properties, you should be able to choose small or large fonts. I have large enabled and it looks just fine. YMMV of course.

FTR - I haven't had any problems running my monitor at various other resolution from 800x600 up, if a game requires it. I ran it at 1070 x 800 briefly for just everyday browsing type stuff and it looked good there too.