LCD monitors

Remove all ads!

Supposing I want to buy one, what parameters do I pay attention to? Is reaction time important enough to pursue 2ms or is 5ms enough? Contrast min. 2000:1 or is it overrated? Which brand do I avoid if I don't want bad pixels (#1 priority)? All in all, I want something that won't ghost in games, will be no less sharp than a good '98 CRT monitor, will be easy on the eyes, won't ever have any bad pixels, won't change colours or anything because of neighbouring loudspeakers, won't be useless in ample daylight (I have a West-side window on my right hand) or varying degrees of poor light. I've heard some have light intensity sensors - is it worth it? Is there any new tech I want to have? Or do I want to stick with CRT for their visual qualities (my Samsung SyncMaster 710s from 1998 pwns most LCDs, my brother's Philips 107B pwns nearly any LCD I've seen, I assume something more modern should be even nicer and have better refresh rates)?

 

Make sure the monitor has either a DVI or HDMI connection.

As for the contrast ratio, from what I remember, my laptop's screen is 400:1, and is plenty bright for me. I'm actually in the market for a new LCD for my new computer, and I think that 800:1 will be fine. 2000:1 seems a bit excessive.

LCDs aren't affected by speakers like CRTs are...that's why there's no degauss function on a LCD.

If you get a widescreen, see if it offers the ability to rotate the screen/image to portrait mode...I love this feature when I'm using a monitor that does it.

 

I have 2 LCD's, one is 500:1 contrast and the newer one is 1000:1 contrast. I notice a big difference on a dark game like Doom 3 where most of the action is in rooms with the lights out or flickering. With the better contrast I can actually make out the critters hiding in the shadows where on the older one it just looks like a gray area. Some of the newer LCD's can do 2000:1. Many also have an extra dynamic contrast ratio but I don't know if it will work for a Windows display or for games. It uses software to adjust the scene so that a dark place will look dark, not a light gray. You can't buy from newegg.com where you are at, but reading through the customer reviews is good research. My 2 LCDs are both from Dell and I think they are really Sonys. I see no dead/stuck pixels.

PS This thread on the next page goes over most of the issues:
http://www.sorcerers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=45446

 

I have a 22" LCD monitor, and it's bootifwul . It has an optimum resolution of 1680x1050 (or whatever it is) and it's awesome. CoD4 and other games that can handle such res's look incredible. I picked mine up for £120 (about £200) which, for what it is, is an awesome price.

The only issue is, with such a big optimum resolution, a lot off games don't go as high as 1680x1050, in which case they can look a bit pixelated. Still good though . I upgraded from an old 17" CRT monitor, so it's quite a big step!

 

Yup, I was thinking about 19'' to 22'' with a preference for 22'' if possible. I'd rather have a 4:3 ratio one unless there's a good reason to take a wide one.

Is ASUS any good? I've heard they use diamond-cut glass in some LCD monitors.

 

Guys, thanks for advice. I was able to get a HP w2007v for a decent price. It simply outpwned visually all the HDMI/DVI models or the 4:3 ratio (which I prefer) monitors which I was able to see, except Eizo.

It's actually much like a CRT monitor. I'm not sure it's that much easier on the eyes - I think I can notice the 60 refresh rate, rather than 75.

However, my Samsung Syncmaster 710s from 1998 is officially a great monitor.

As for the qualities I was seeking in a monitor, this one is perfect - if only it were 4:3 - and in that case, it could be 22'' instead of 20.1'', I guess... At any rate, the surface is as good as glass, if not even better. The light doesn't do it any harm - it glows the same whether I'm getting much light or little. It's sharp and crisp and the colours are nice. LG Flatrons had some nice touch and certain Samsung models had an appeal, or the Asus ones I talked about, but the HP's just visibly outpwned everything that was near. I'm sure it's not just oh-so-superior quality as much as certain choices, such as making colours more saturated than really necessary, but the effect is pleasing. A graphics artist would have preferred an EIZO, but I can live with super pretty colours instead of super fidelity. Would greatly appreciate EIZO's geometry, but this one isn't bad in this regard, either, I believe.

And the VESA handle will enable me to hang it on the wall or something, which will reduce the need to look down on my part. Until then I can grab a book or five. Not as problematic as with CRT monitors. After all, this is just 6 kg.

Edit: Forgot one thing: viewing angles. I think it's 160:160. However, it did noticeably better in the shop than a neighbouring 170:170 from a different company. Colours aren't great from certain angles in certain cases (e.g. all blue background in Windows), but everything's visible and sharp.

 

Ok, so it's time to buy the LCD monitor for my computer now that I have the extra funds available.

I've narrowed it down to two: The Samsung 2243BWX (22") and the 2043BWX (20"). They both have the same exact features, except for the 2" difference in screen size. So...is it worth paying an extra $41 for 2 additional inches of screen space...or should I buy the 20" screen?

 

If you can afford it I'd go for the 22". After getting a 19" when I got my computer and comparing that to my old 17" it's significantly easier on the eyes. After all size matters!

 

Well...the difference in price is only $41. What I'd like to know is, since both monitors have the same resolution, which screen would benift from it more...if at all. Also, if there's anything else that I should know about the differences between the two sizes. Like I've mentioned before, I know little about LCD screen types... I know they are both "TN" panels...whatever that is....

 

TN is the most common type of panel. The really expensive ones have IPS PVA or MWA panels. TN has the best reaction time, the others better color, viewangle and contrast.

I was glad to add this pretty useless data for what it is worth. You will forget it whitin mere moments, the same as I.

 

Well...I just bought the 22" monitor via the SP link to Newegg to apease the Pink dragon.

It'll be here either Saturday or Monday. Going from a 15" laptop screen and a crappy 19" CRT to a 22" monitor is going to be sweet!!!

 

Short story: DVI (card) to VGA (monitor) is said to make things blurry. Plugging the plug is vertical, not horizontal, which complicates things sometimes (sizzles when moving the monitor if not careful to protect cable). Reason enough to return?

 

You mean that the monitor has no dvi or hdmi port?

 

Yeah, I could return it within 7 days with the original packaging. But I've decided it isn't bad. The sizzling cable was just a convenient reason to think about other stuff to complain about and just get a different monitor. It's actually not bad that it has no DVI - I'll be able to give it to my brother or sister if they have the same computer as now, when getting a newer one. And there's a chance I'll have a new graphics card sooner, so who knows what kind of connector it'll be for me. So not bad. Just wish it weren't so bright and hard on the eyes. And besides, I just seem to dislike the 60 Mhz mode even if refresh rate is supposed to be irrelevant on LCD. 75 still looks better than 60 to me. That is, the higher resolution does look much better, especially since it's native, but there's something I don't like about it and I think it's the refresh rate.