What is the deal with LCD?

MSX

I mean sure.... Technology has gotten better in that area but it still sucks. The newest models include such features as you can actually see whats on the screen when your looking at the side of it! Whoo! CRT has been delivering for years!

The fall rates are still waaay to noticable, in fact they give me headaches... and there thin. That's all they really got going for them. Like some anarexic model or something. Ok, and the's less radiation... but your cellphone gives off more radiation then your average (reasonably new) CRT monitor.

So why the move? Sick of the huge boat on your desktop... So much your willing to pay almost 4 times the price for the same size monitor with a crappy fall rate which makes games suck? Or is it just trendy?

eyeguy616

LCD's do have their uses - namely none for games but more for web surfing or writing documents or programming. The low refresh rates are easy on the eyes and clear type is nice, but not essential.

~eyeguy616
btw, I'm using a 17" LCD panel

DriveEuro

I have yet to see one look good in quality. That doesn't count the HDTV ones though.

MSX

Yes but how much did you pay for your 17" LCD monitor? You might as well have bought a laptop for the price you paid if your just word processing or programming.

DriveEuro

115 after rebates.

DriveEuro

OOOOOOOOOOOH you mean how much a 17" LCD HDTV monitor would cost?

Necrosis

It seems to me the people that knock them the most can't afford a nice one(no offense). I had a Viewsonic VG191b that I didn't have any problems with at all. However, Vsync has to be enabled in games because the tearing was very noticeable without it.

Honestly, if there is one big downside to LCD's it has to be the stupid dead pixel ratio rule. Where there is "allowed" a certain percentage of dead pixels vs the actual screen size. I think if your going to shell out that much money you should receive a completey defective free product.

DriveEuro

But the dot pitch isn't even below .25 .......... is it? Most LCDs are .30 and .28.

edit: also, the highest resolution on most is just 1024 x 768, right?

Necrosis

Okay I'm going to try to explain this from what I know and remember...so it's probably not 100% fact.

CRT's have dots which are charged to three different colors. These dots are the smallest elements on the screen.

Now a LCD has these same dots but they are larger but they contain subpixels so basically little dots in bigger dots. This is the reason why text and typical 2D work seems to be crisper.

Most LCD's average around 1280x1024. If an LCD doesn't go higher than 1024x768 most likely it's an older model and that is the reason why it's so cheap.

However, one another negative issue with LCD's is sometimes they don't display proper color. It may look correct or even great but it's washed out by so much color. This is the very reason you will see very few if any graphic artists using a LCD.

DriveEuro

Yeah, all the ones I have seen looked washed out. They always looked so blurry.

Necrosis

That is either because their not set to their proper resolution and/or just simply not setup properly. To really enjoy one you need to use the DV-I connection too.

eyeguy616

I bought mine for about $500 two or three years ago in December (I think it was three - 2000/12) - it was one of those overstocked items at Fry's Electronics. It gets up to 1280x1024 and does have one crapped out pixel in the very top row near the right corner. It was a big investment, but now I can stare at it for hours on end without getting headaches and it uses a lot less power than my older 17" CRT. Don't get me wrong, it's probably not a whole lot of power savings but it's there. I also like the fact that this one has an auto set button that makes the screen fit the whole display area just incase a certain resolution or refresh rate pushes it to the side. There are manual controls for everything, even if it's blurry the controls can fix it to be crisp.

Just my experience with mine.
~eyeguy616

DriveEuro

I look at my monitor at 1024 x 768 @ 85hz all day without problems....

eyeguy616

I had my old 17" at 1280x1024, but it couldn't handle 85hz... I think it was 75 or 70, maybe 60. I might go back to a CRT, but I see no reason to right now as my LCD's just easy on my eyes and still very vibrant in color. I don't know, maybe I was lucky when I got it. It's an Envision EN-7100e .

MSX

Thats one cheap monitor DriveEuro... The cheapest one around here is a AOC LM520 (LCD, 15in). For about 400 cdn and it caps out at 1024x768 @ 75 Hz... which is not that bad... but a comparable CRT monitor with mroe features from the same company is 50 bucks!



Heh, I got a SAMSUNG 900 SyncMaster NF. I got it hmm, almost 3 or 4 years ago. I have not seen anything that said: Hey buy me! Sure the monitor needs higher refresh rates at high resolutions like 1600x1200... Frankly I still use 1024x768 (160Hz)for all of my games and everyday use anyway. If anything I'd just consider buying a bigger Sync master, but then I'd have to buy a new desk to go with it.

Its true. Many find it is easier on the eyes... But thats simply because you dont have your monitor adjusted correctly. Or, you happen to have one of those monitors that pumps out too many electrions into your eyes. You can make it easier on your self by um, getting a desk lamp.

DriveEuro

I run 1024 x 768@85 and 1280 x 1024@65 (that's my max resolution)

Mac Daddy

LCD displays and plasma displays are something which have been on a research table for many years.

I personally have seen nothing of either that would make me give my 19" Monitor