20" LCD monitor just died, need recommendations please for a replacement

[computer]

(I can't believe after all these years, still no monitor forum).

Guys, my Dell 20" 2001FP LCD monitor just died. Fine yesterday, black screen today. No yellow LED, it stays green. I had to hook up an old POS 19" CRT that's already killing my eyes after 20 minutes. (It flickers even at 100hz, really bad moiré, visible lines, and missing screen coating in the center!). :roll:

I haven't had to look at monitors in years, so I have no idea what's out there now and what's the best. Could anyone please recommend the best 20"-22" LCD monitors? I don't need speakers in it, or HDMI, or anything for HTPC. It just needs to be DVI with composite & S-video connectors. I appreciate any recommendations. I like Dell because they'll accept returns for bad pixels.

Thanks.

 

[Anubis]

get whatever the Current LG 22in is, they are great and not super expensive

 

[computer]

I just realized something after looking for a few hours. It can't be "widescreen", they're limited to only 1050 resolution vertical! I don't understand that, that's a step backwards! So I need one that can do 1600x1200. I'm not sure if that's 4:3 or something else, because this one I have now is not real 4:3, and not 16:9, it's something in between. Are any of the LG 20-22" units 1600x1200?
Thanks.

 

[corkyg]

Originally posted by: computer
I just realized something after looking for a few hours. It can't be "widescreen", they're limited to only 1050 resolution vertical! I don't understand that, that's a step backwards!

When you create a wide screen, you in effect cut off part of the vertical. What leaves a lower number of pixels that can fit on the wide screen, but it does not change the resolution. It simply changes the area that is displayed.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: computer
I just realized something after looking for a few hours. It can't be "widescreen", they're limited to only 1050 resolution vertical! I don't understand that, that's a step backwards! So I need one that can do 1600x1200. I'm not sure if that's 4:3 or something else, because this one I have now is not real 4:3, and not 16:9, it's something in between. Are any of the LG 20-22" units 1600x1200?
Thanks.

to get a widescreen LCD that has a vert res of 1200 you need to jump to a 24 or 26, or stick to non WS format ones


may i ask why you cant do anything less then 1200 vert?

 

[computer]

Originally posted by: corkyg
When you create a wide screen, you in effect cut off part of the vertical. What leaves a lower number of pixels that can fit on the wide screen, but it does not change the resolution. It simply changes the area that is displayed.

Yeah, I knew that much. But it has to change the resolution because it only has 1050 lines vertical compared to 1200 lines. A 20" widescreen is shorter than the 20" I have now, the height is less. So even if I went to a 22" which may have the same height, it's still limited to only 1050 lines. Apparently, "native resolution" on a widescreen can't get higher than 1050v.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: computer

Originally posted by: corkyg
When you create a wide screen, you in effect cut off part of the vertical. What leaves a lower number of pixels that can fit on the wide screen, but it does not change the resolution. It simply changes the area that is displayed.

Yeah, I knew that much. But it has to change the resolution because it only has 1050 lines vertical compared to 1200 lines. A 20" widescreen is shorter than the 20" I have now, the height is less. So even if I went to a 22" which may have the same height, it's still limited to only 1050 lines. Apparently, "native resolution" on a widescreen can't get higher than 1050v.

it can they just dont make them, you can get 15.4in Laptops that do 1920x1200 native 24 and 26in desktop LCDs also do 1920x1200, 30s do 2560 x 1600

i used to get pissed about this as well, but then just saif F it and got some 22s

after about a week you wont really notice the difference between 1600x1200 and 1680x1050


also you failed to answer my question as to why this is a big deal

 

[computer]

Originally posted by: Anubis
to get a widescreen LCD that has a vert res of 1200 you need to jump to a 24 or 26, or stick to non WS format ones

Ahh, now I'm getting somewhere. So a widescreen is not limited to 1650(?) x 1050. 24" is a bit large though. I could handle a 22" 1600x1200.

Yes, that's why I'm not really looking at any WS format monitors. But the non-standard-widescreen pseudo-widescreen like I have now is hard to find. I don't understand why monitor manufacturers think everyone is using their PC to watch HDTV and Blu-Ray. That's what a HDTV is for. So far, it looks like I may be limited to the Dell 2007FP, but it's outrageous at 400 bucks (they were only $311 a few weeks back). Their 20" and 22" WS's are almost half that of the 2007FP! They don't make a 2009FP or 2008FP, just the WFP widescreen versions. The 20" WS versions are 1.5" shorter.

may i ask why you cant do anything less then 1200 vert?

There's several reasons. I see many complaints about these WS formats stretching images and making them all out of proportion. They and webpages lose their normal aspect ratio. I also use some programs/software that needs 1200v lines, and for large image analysis and editing.
Thanks.

 

[computer]

Originally posted by: Anubis
also you failed to answer my question as to why this is a big deal

(I hadn't replied to your post yet, I was replying in order so I replied to "Corky's" post first. I just now answered it).

 

[computer]

Originally posted by: Anubis
i used to get pissed about this as well, but then just saif F it and got some 22s

:laugh:

after about a week you wont really notice the difference between 1600x1200 and 1680x1050

I don't really use 1600x1200 that much. I use 1152x864. Is a WS capable of that kind of aspect ratio resolution? That's my main concern, keeping the aspect ratio of everything on the screen the same.

 

[computer]

Originally posted by: computer
I don't really use 1600x1200 that much. I use 1152x864. Is a WS capable of that kind of aspect ratio resolution?

If that is the case, then I'm open to some best suggestions for a 22" WS monitor. From what I've read so far, Dell seems to be a good choice, their 20-22" standard and WS monitors are rated high, but I'm open to something better if it's out there for about the same price.
Thank you.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: computer

Originally posted by: Anubis
to get a widescreen LCD that has a vert res of 1200 you need to jump to a 24 or 26, or stick to non WS format ones

Ahh, now I'm getting somewhere. So a widescreen is not limited to 1650(?) x 1050. 24" is a bit large though. I could handle a 22" 1600x1200.

Yes, that's why I'm not really looking at any WS format monitors. But the non-standard-widescreen pseudo-widescreen like I have now is hard to find. I don't understand why monitor manufacturers think everyone is using their PC to watch HDTV and Blu-Ray. That's what a HDTV is for. So far, it looks like I may be limited to the Dell 2007FP, but it's outrageous at 400 bucks (they were only $311 a few weeks back). Their 20" and 22" WS's are almost half that of the 2007FP! They don't make a 2009FP or 2008FP, just the WFP widescreen versions. The 20" WS versions are 1.5" shorter.

may i ask why you cant do anything less then 1200 vert?

There's several reasons. I see many complaints about these WS formats stretching images and making them all out of proportion. They and webpages lose their normal aspect ratio. I also use some programs/software that needs 1200v lines, and for large image analysis and editing.
Thanks.

There is no issue with widescreens creating wrong proportions unless a person chooses to use a 4:3 resolution on a 16:10 monitor. Then there will be issues. Widescreen resolutions are 1920 x 1200 and 1680 x 1050.

The reason widescreen monitors are nice is because our field of view is wide. Therefore you can see a widescreen monitor more easily without having to pan your eyes up and down.

I personally would suggest a 24" monitor and to calibrate it if you are that concerned about image editing.

 

[corkyg]

Originally posted by: computer
Yeah, I knew that much. But it has to change the resolution because it only has 1050 lines vertical compared to 1200 lines.

That's incorrect. LCDs do not have "lines" - they have pixels. The resolution of the image displayed on a 1600 x 1200 is the same as a 1600 x 1050. It just will not display all of the picture - you have to scroll vertically or reduce the image size to fit the display.

 

[computer]

Originally posted by: PurdueRy
There is no issue with widescreens creating wrong proportions unless a person chooses to use a 4:3 resolution on a 16:10 monitor. Then there will be issues.

Well that's my point, and what all those that were complaining about the wrong aspect ratio for images were pointing out. Webpages and images were meant more so for a 4:3 ratio and if not viewed at that ratio, they look odd. This is why I can't understand the move to WS format for a computer monitor. TV's yes, because the content is changing and there's a lot in WS format, but not for computer monitors. The same is true when you watch a 4:3 program on a HDTV without a pull-down or in WS format; everything is horizontally stretched, everyone on the screen is "squatty", short and fat because the aspect ratio is wrong. Do WS monitors have sort of a 4:3 pull-down (similar to the "gray bars" at the sides of an HDTV) that enable 4:3 content to still look the same?

Widescreen resolutions are 1920 x 1200 and 1680 x 1050.

Do you know what sizes start at the 1920x1200 resolution?

The reason widescreen monitors are nice is because our field of view is wide. Therefore you can see a widescreen monitor more easily without having to pan your eyes up and down.

But you have to pan your eyes left and right. I'm all for and can understand more real estate, but it should be equal amounts of more real estate both horizontally and vertically. Otherwise what you're viewing on the monitor will look strange and out of proportion.

The www is not going to a 16:9 WS format, television is. So why create WS computer monitors? This is what doesn't make sense to me. They all think that everyone is going to start watching HDTV on their monitors, which looks horrible compared to a HDTV. What about all those that use PC monitor for just a PC monitor? If I want to watch HD content, I use a TV, not a PC monitor.

But all this is irrelevant now, what's done is done. I need to know what my options are in getting a new monitor, and if the 4:3 ratio (1024x768, 1152x864, 1600x1200, etc) can still be used on a WS monitor. If so, then WS is an option, but I would have to move to a 22" to have the same vertical viewing area as I do now with a 20". Otherwise the (20" WS) monitor would be smaller.

 

[computer]

Originally posted by: corkyg
That's incorrect. LCDs do not have "lines" - they have pixels.

I know, and you know what I mean. I go back a long time and it's been "lines" for me for decades, so sometimes I still call it that when talking about resolution.

The resolution of the image displayed on a 1600 x 1200 is the same as a 1600 x 1050. It just will not display all of the picture.

It can't be the same resolution because if it were you would not have to scroll vertically or reduce the size of content. 1050 is not the same as 1200, so I don't undertand that.

It just will not display all of the picture - you have to scroll vertically or reduce the image size to fit the display.

Exactly, which is why I don't want a WS monitor.

So again, does anyone have any recommendations for the best 20" 4:3 monitors or 22" WS monitors (if they can display 4:3 content in proportion)?

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: computer


So again, does anyone have any recommendations for the best 20" 4:3 monitors or 22" WS monitors (if they can display 4:3 content in proportion)?

all WS mons can display 4:3 it however will look like absolute shit


just go with another 20in Dell


edit: and now that i think about it, i dont think anyone makes a LCD bigger then 20in that is not widescreen

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: computer

Originally posted by: PurdueRy
There is no issue with widescreens creating wrong proportions unless a person chooses to use a 4:3 resolution on a 16:10 monitor. Then there will be issues.

Well that's my point, and what all those that were complaining about the wrong aspect ratio for images were pointing out. Webpages and images were meant more so for a 4:3 ratio and if not viewed at that ratio, they look odd. This is why I can't understand the move to WS format for a computer monitor. TV's yes, because the content is changing and there's a lot in WS format, but not for computer monitors. The same is true when you watch a 4:3 program on a HDTV without a pull-down or in WS format; everything is horizontally stretched, everyone on the screen is "squatty", short and fat because the aspect ratio is wrong. Do WS monitors have sort of a 4:3 pull-down (similar to the "gray bars" at the sides of an HDTV) that enable 4:3 content to still look the same?

Widescreen resolutions are 1920 x 1200 and 1680 x 1050.

Do you know what sizes start at the 1920x1200 resolution?

The reason widescreen monitors are nice is because our field of view is wide. Therefore you can see a widescreen monitor more easily without having to pan your eyes up and down.

But you have to pan your eyes left and right. I'm all for and can understand more real estate, but it should be equal amounts of more real estate both horizontally and vertically. Otherwise what you're viewing on the monitor will look strange and out of proportion.

The www is not going to a 16:9 WS format, television is. So why create WS computer monitors? This is what doesn't make sense to me. They all think that everyone is going to start watching HDTV on their monitors, which looks horrible compared to a HDTV. What about all those that use PC monitor for just a PC monitor? If I want to watch HD content, I use a TV, not a PC monitor.

But all this is irrelevant now, what's done is done. I need to know what my options are in getting a new monitor, and if the 4:3 ratio (1024x768, 1152x864, 1600x1200, etc) can still be used on a WS monitor. If so, then WS is an option, but I would have to move to a 22" to have the same vertical viewing area as I do now with a 20". Otherwise the (20" WS) monitor would be smaller.

I'll be quite frank at this point...you don't know what you're talking about

You're point about 4:3 ratio is wrong. If you view a webpage meant for 4:3 on a widescreen monitor it will not look stretched or distorted. It simply has more whitespace on each side. NOTHING will ever be distorted if you run the monitor in its native resolution. This means that if you have windows set to a widescreen resolution, you can watch whatever video content you want on it and it will stay in the correct aspect ratio. If you view a panaramic image on a widescreen monitor you will see more of it without having to zoom out like on a 4:3.

4:3 pulldown? Now you're just mixing terms. I assume you mean 3:2 pulldown which is a method of displaying 24FPS film at 30 FPS. This has absolutely nothing to do with computer monitors.

1920 x 1200 starts at 24" widescreens

No you don't have to pan your eyes left and right and no it doesn't make sense to have an equal amount of viewing space in each direction. Do you see them making 1:1 aspect ratio monitors? Look at your eyes in the mirror, do you have more than one? If so then you should know that your field of vision is wider than it is tall. The distance between your eyes facilitates this.

 

[computer]

Originally posted by: PurdueRy
I'll be quite frank at this point...you don't know what you're talking about

And you feel the need to get rude, because.......??? Did I ever CLAIM I knew what I was talking about? NO. I thought, after being here for almost 10 years, that this was a forum where members could ask questions and get answers, not get rude ass responses. Perhaps you should find a more diplomatic and friendlier way of expressing yourself. I do not use a WS monitor. I have never seen a WS monitor used in person. Hence the reason for asking questions thereof.

You're point about 4:3 ratio is wrong. If you view a webpage meant for 4:3 on a widescreen monitor it will not look stretched or distorted. It simply has more whitespace on each side. NOTHING will ever be distorted if you run the monitor in its native resolution. This means that if you have windows set to a widescreen resolution, you can watch whatever video content you want on it and it will stay in the correct aspect ratio. If you view a panaramic image on a widescreen monitor you will see more of it without having to zoom out like on a 4:3.

Ok this is what I needed to know, thank you. Does it have to be "white space"? Could it be made black? But I'd like to know why users of WS monitors are complaining about things being horizontally stretched on their monitors and the AS being wrong.

4:3 pulldown? Now you're just mixing terms. I assume you mean 3:2 pulldown which is a method of displaying 24FPS film at 30 FPS. This has absolutely nothing to do with computer monitors.

Yes, I KNOW what a 3:2 pull-down is. What I SAID, was: "Do WS monitors have sort of a 4:3 pull-down (similar to the "gray bars" at the sides of an HDTV) that enable 4:3 content to still look the same?" You can't answer that? Do you know what "sort of" means? That is "so-to-speak", "similar to", "in a manner of speaking", etc., etc., etc. You know exactly what I mean. What you said about about the "white space" implies they DO have this similar "gray bars at the sides" except they are white.

1920 x 1200 starts at 24" widescreens

Thank you.

No you don't have to pan your eyes left and right

I understand that now. I had been reading that the data on the screen was horizontally stretched to fill the screen as HDTV's do with SD content (when side bars are not used). Now I'm confused as to why so many were saying that.

 

[computer]

Originally posted by: Anubis
all WS mons can display 4:3 it however will look like absolute shit

:laugh: Is that because of the white space at each side, or some other reason?

edit: and now that i think about it, i dont think anyone makes a LCD bigger then 20in that is not widescreen

Ok thanks.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: computer

Originally posted by: Anubis
all WS mons can display 4:3 it however will look like absolute shit

:laugh: Is that because of the white space at each side, or some other reason?

its because it will be at the non native resoloution of the LCD, i take it you dont know anything about how LCDs work

when they display at anything other then the native res of the panel it looks like ass

 

[Anubis]

heres how this thread looks at 1600x1200 and 1680x1050

1680x1050
http://img261.imageshack.us/im...443/forums1650xhl0.jpg



1600x1200
http://img292.imageshack.us/im...931/forums1600xtx8.jpg

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: computer

Originally posted by: PurdueRy
I'll be quite frank at this point...you don't know what you're talking about

And you feel the need to get rude, because.......??? Did I ever CLAIM I knew what I was talking about? NO. I thought, after being here for almost 10 years, that this was a forum where members could ask questions and get answers, not get rude ass responses. Perhaps you should find a more diplomatic and friendlier way of expressing yourself. I do not use a WS monitor. I have never seen a WS monitor used in person. Hence the reason for asking questions thereof.

You're point about 4:3 ratio is wrong. If you view a webpage meant for 4:3 on a widescreen monitor it will not look stretched or distorted. It simply has more whitespace on each side. NOTHING will ever be distorted if you run the monitor in its native resolution. This means that if you have windows set to a widescreen resolution, you can watch whatever video content you want on it and it will stay in the correct aspect ratio. If you view a panaramic image on a widescreen monitor you will see more of it without having to zoom out like on a 4:3.

Ok this is what I needed to know, thank you. Does it have to be "white space"? Could it be made black? But I'd like to know why users of WS monitors are complaining about things being horizontally stretched on their monitors and the AS being wrong.

4:3 pulldown? Now you're just mixing terms. I assume you mean 3:2 pulldown which is a method of displaying 24FPS film at 30 FPS. This has absolutely nothing to do with computer monitors.

Yes, I KNOW what a 3:2 pull-down is. What I SAID, was: "Do WS monitors have sort of a 4:3 pull-down (similar to the "gray bars" at the sides of an HDTV) that enable 4:3 content to still look the same?" You can't answer that? Do you know what "sort of" means? That is "so-to-speak", "similar to", "in a manner of speaking", etc., etc., etc. You know exactly what I mean. What you said about about the "white space" implies they DO have this similar "gray bars at the sides" except they are white.

1920 x 1200 starts at 24" widescreens

Thank you.

No you don't have to pan your eyes left and right

I understand that now. I had been reading that the data on the screen was horizontally stretched to fill the screen as HDTV's do with SD content (when side bars are not used). Now I'm confused as to why so many were saying that.

The space will be whatever color background the website uses...in the case of AT....grey

The only reason they can complain that their AS is wrong is if they were incompetent and set the resolution wrong in windows....or did so to facilitate poor eyesight.

And as for the 4:3 pulldown. I was not trying to not answer your question. I really had no idea what you meant. "pulldown" does not mean putting bars on te right and left of a screen so that's why your comment confused me. Some 16:10 monitors do have a feature that enables a 4:3 mode where, if they receive a 4:3 resolution, they will keep it in the correct aspect ratio. It will not look as good as it does in 16:10...but its not bad. The only reason this is useful IMO is for old games which don't support widescreen resolutions...like warcraft III or starcraft.