I was just wondering, does the 21" Sony G500 have the same maximum viewable area as let's say a Samsung 1200NF(though the Samsung is a 22"
. Is there really a difference?
. Is there really a difference?
21" or 22" Monitor
- Thread starter Biggs
- Start date
Erm, I just did the math. The G500 quotes a 19.8" viewable screen while the 1200NF is 508 mm. The end result is that the 1200NF translates to 20" and the G500 to 502.92 mm. Obviously, the 1200NF is a teensy weensy bit larger, however, these are "merely" manufactural specifications. When you put them side by side, does the 0.2" or the 5.08 mm advantage make an impact?
Well... the 19.8" viewable is only for Sony FD Trinitron monitors, other 21" monitors also sport the 20" viewable. But the difference is negligable, dont worry about it.
Which of these 2 monitors is better. These are the exact 2 monitors I've been looking at. Wanna get rid of the ol Mitsu 22". Can't find any decent reviews though.
I would say the Sony is a little bit better monitor, I don't believe the Samsung has a Tinitron tube. Not that the kind of tube is everything but In this case the Sony probably has a little bit better picture, both are damn fine monitors, the Sony is more expensive though Isn't it....
They both have the same type of tube: aperture grille. Only the Sony has the FD Trinitron, though. I'd hazard a guess to say that they are the same, and yes, the Sony is a hell of a lot more expensive.
22" or 21" monitors
I thought the class action lawsuit a few years back would have solved this problem but obviously it did not. Let's talk about screen area. I get a kick out of these manufacturers who advertise new 22" monitors when in reality the default viewable screen is often less than what you get on most conventional 21" monitors.
Let's use the Mitsubishi Dplus 200 as an example. Mitsubishi advertises it as a 22" (20" viewable) monitor. I believe them, it is measured diagonally across the face of the CRT. However the default viewable area is 393mm x 295mm according to their datasheet. Doing the math that comes out to 19.34" viewable, not 20" viewable. 20" viewable is only if you use the front controls to stretch the image all the way out to the bezel which is approximately 406mm x 305mm. The math says this is 19.99", close enough to 20" in my book.
Why do some manufacturers default the viewable area so small? It is a known fact that focus and convergence will fall off in the corners and around the edges of the display. By defaulting to a small viewable size some of these artifacts are hidden in the black boarder. I guess they are betting that most people will not use the controls to stretch the image out to full size. When I evaluate monitors side by side the first thing I do is set the viewable size the same on both in order to make certain I'm comparing apples to apples. After all if I'm going to spend money on a large screen monitor I want to use all the real-estate I can.
So keep in mind that these monitors are capable of 20" viewable screen just like the conventional 21" monitors if you stretch the image out to the edge of the bezel. However in doing so you may notice the focus / convergence may start to fall off in the corners.
Good Luck
Jim at http://www.monitorsdirect.com
I thought the class action lawsuit a few years back would have solved this problem but obviously it did not. Let's talk about screen area. I get a kick out of these manufacturers who advertise new 22" monitors when in reality the default viewable screen is often less than what you get on most conventional 21" monitors.
Let's use the Mitsubishi Dplus 200 as an example. Mitsubishi advertises it as a 22" (20" viewable) monitor. I believe them, it is measured diagonally across the face of the CRT. However the default viewable area is 393mm x 295mm according to their datasheet. Doing the math that comes out to 19.34" viewable, not 20" viewable. 20" viewable is only if you use the front controls to stretch the image all the way out to the bezel which is approximately 406mm x 305mm. The math says this is 19.99", close enough to 20" in my book.
Why do some manufacturers default the viewable area so small? It is a known fact that focus and convergence will fall off in the corners and around the edges of the display. By defaulting to a small viewable size some of these artifacts are hidden in the black boarder. I guess they are betting that most people will not use the controls to stretch the image out to full size. When I evaluate monitors side by side the first thing I do is set the viewable size the same on both in order to make certain I'm comparing apples to apples. After all if I'm going to spend money on a large screen monitor I want to use all the real-estate I can.
So keep in mind that these monitors are capable of 20" viewable screen just like the conventional 21" monitors if you stretch the image out to the edge of the bezel. However in doing so you may notice the focus / convergence may start to fall off in the corners.
Good Luck
Jim at http://www.monitorsdirect.com
BigLance:
I disagree. The Samsung 1200NF sport the Mitsubishi DiamondTron NF, which is the equivalent technology to FD Trinitron.
I disagree. The Samsung 1200NF sport the Mitsubishi DiamondTron NF, which is the equivalent technology to FD Trinitron.
I wouldnt like to get into a techinal fight with LXi
... but I'd go with the G500, I have had my G400 for 6 months now and it has been working well.
... but I'd go with the G500, I have had my G400 for 6 months now and it has been working well.
I'll have to recommend the viewsonic 22".. I bet it uses the same tube as the samsung, and probably others so they are just as good. I like mine .
.Gosharkss,
I believe that lawsuit simply required monitor companies to disclose the actual viewing area -- it didn't mandate a single figure based on that measurement. So they can still get away with tossing in as much misinformation as before, provided they include the actual viewing area someplace.
Question: what's the next jump up from 21" tubes and when will the larger monitors become available (assuming we stick with current display technology)? We went from 17" to 19" pretty much skipping 18" altogether. Then on to 20", 21"/22" and next will be ____25?____ ?
I believe that lawsuit simply required monitor companies to disclose the actual viewing area -- it didn't mandate a single figure based on that measurement. So they can still get away with tossing in as much misinformation as before, provided they include the actual viewing area someplace.
Question: what's the next jump up from 21" tubes and when will the larger monitors become available (assuming we stick with current display technology)? We went from 17" to 19" pretty much skipping 18" altogether. Then on to 20", 21"/22" and next will be ____25?____ ?
What about a dual 21" set-up paired with a Matrox G800? SCHWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET!
Between the Samsung 1200NF and the Sony G500 I would definitely go for the Samsung 1200NF. In fact, I'm considering a purchase of a Samsung 1200NF to use side by side with my KDS AV-21TF and my G400 Max. (Biggs, where's the G800? )
)TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 18K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter