Future Widescrewn LCD's

[Mojoed]

(I posted this in the wrong forum accidentally, so here it is again. Sorry! )

Since 1997, I've been using 21" CRT's @1600x1200 (75-85Hz). As much as general computer technology has improved since then, maximum resolutions (2048x1536 at a decent refresh, still a rarity) haven't increased nearly as much. Well my trusty ole' Sony 21" CRT is finally showing signs of old age, not sure how much longer it'll last.

I need a new monitor. I don't want to get another CRT due to space concerns, but I also have little interest in current generation LCD's. Even the Dell 2001FP LCD does nothing for me, as it's maximum resolution is only 1600x1200 and it's not widescreen.

Anyway, my question is as follows:

I want a 20"+ widescreen LCD with *AT LEAST* 1920x1200 resolution and a 12ms or better response time. I want it to have an 8-bit panel. (I checked a friends new Samsung with the 6-bit panel and there was something about the colors that just wasn't right.) Oh, and I want my super LCD for <$1200.

Does anyone have any information regarding future LCD technology or new models coming down the pipe? Any links or speculation would be appreciated too. If it's gonna be a few years until they're available I'll probably just get a $200 19" CRT to hold me over.

Thanks

 

[kd2777]

Good luck on this.

You seem to be verymuch into your image quality, if so, get a couple CRTs again, and maybe when they die 5 or 6 years down the road an LCD will be an option.

A couple of mobths ago I got rid of my two 19 inch sony CRTs in favor of a couple LCDs (for space), I tried BenQ, Veiwsonic, samsung, and something else (don't remember what brand) and none of them where in the class with the two much cheaper CRTs I just gave up. Long story short, after trying 4 different sets of LCDs I went back to two NEC CRTs, and don't regret it.

I didn't try the Dell or the high-end HP.. maybe one of these would be better, but gave up after two 1200 (ea) Samsungs sucked.

kd

 

[Anubis]

LCDs that are that wide do exist but you arnmt gonna find one with a 12ms responce time

I know of 2 or 3 but they are in the 25-30ms responce times, they also cost like 2000$, you can get a new 22in CRT that does 2048x1536 @ 89Hz for about 600$

 

[darkswordsman17]

The only widescreen LCDs that would fit your specs would be the Apple and HP 23"+ displays, but they are $2000 or higher, nowhere near your price point. Well, I guess they don't fit your specs either as they're 16ms monitors. Also not sure about the bit rating of the panels.

Check AcccurateIT.com. They have some Sony 24" widescreen CRTs that can do 1900x1200 but thats the closest you'll get. Of course these behemoths are about 90lbs and would be HUGE.

LCDs will drop in price, but I doubt a 40% drop is in order especially on such new ones as those that would fit your wants. I'd say it'll be at least a year before a monitor comes out that fits what you want.

 

[phisrow]

You can get some of what you want right now; but I think you'll be looking at either a CRT or some reduced expectations for some years yet. Take the T221 from IBM. 22 inch widescreen, 3840x2400 pixels. We note, however, that they don't talk about refresh rates or price. As for refresh rates, this is because you probably don't want to know. As for price, that is because you definitely do not, under no circumstances whatsoever, want to know(for reference, this is 2.25 times as many pixels as a 30 inch Apple display, and those aren't exactly bargain items as it is).

Stick to CRTs.

 

[Citadel535]

I think we could also get a better idea depending on how you use your monitors. For example I have a CRT and a Dell 17" LCD. I use the LCD when I'm doing basic windows stuff surfing the web etc. However, for games and Photoshop work I use the CRT (which I think is best) because:

1. LCDs still don't represent color as accurately as a CRT.
2. LCDs can't play video games at the res I want to.
3. LCDs suffer from this "smearing" effect when playing games with fast movement on screen like Wolfenstein ET etc.
4. LCDs don't do dark images that well.
5. LCDs have those pesky rogue pixels that get stuck.

 

[sharkeeper]

The IBM is nice for stationary viewing. It has a response time of 50 mS and is quite noticeable when scrolling white wireframes on black foreground. The frames disappear when they move!

Cheers!

 

[butlafer]

ive been looking for the same thing, first i saw the widescreen apple then the hp widescreen, never got them because they are out of my price range, still looking for one under 1000 bucks

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: Citadel535
I think we could also get a better idea depending on how you use your monitors. For example I have a CRT and a Dell 17" LCD. I use the LCD when I'm doing basic windows stuff surfing the web etc. However, for games and Photoshop work I use the CRT (which I think is best) because:

1. LCDs still don't represent color as accurately as a CRT.
2. LCDs can't play video games at the res I want to.
3. LCDs suffer from this "smearing" effect when playing games with fast movement on screen like Wolfenstein ET etc.
4. LCDs don't do dark images that well.
5. LCDs have those pesky rogue pixels that get stuck.

1. my dell 2001 FP looks a WHOLE lot better than my HP9110
2. 1600*1200 not good enough for you?
3. again, no smearing (or ghosting) on my 2001 FP
4. disagree
5. no problems with dead pixels here

 

[sharkeeper]

1600x1200 is not 16:10!

Widescreen on the desktop = 16:10.

Cheers!

 

[Jaxidian]

Originally posted by: shady06

Originally posted by: Citadel535
I think we could also get a better idea depending on how you use your monitors. For example I have a CRT and a Dell 17" LCD. I use the LCD when I'm doing basic windows stuff surfing the web etc. However, for games and Photoshop work I use the CRT (which I think is best) because:

1. LCDs still don't represent color as accurately as a CRT.
2. LCDs can't play video games at the res I want to.
3. LCDs suffer from this "smearing" effect when playing games with fast movement on screen like Wolfenstein ET etc.
4. LCDs don't do dark images that well.
5. LCDs have those pesky rogue pixels that get stuck.

1. my dell 2001 FP looks a WHOLE lot better than my HP9110
2. 1600*1200 not good enough for you?
3. again, no smearing (or ghosting) on my 2001 FP
4. disagree
5. no problems with dead pixels here

I mostly agree with you except for #4. I think CRTs are much better than LCDs when playing games that have generally dark screens, ESPECIALLY when playing during the day. Although for non-gaming, 1600x1200 isn't enough for me. I'm currently running at 19??x12?? and still wish I had better.

 

[Shagga]

Try this one.

I love this monitor.

 

[sunase]

>1600x1200 is not 16:10!

It's probably too high for gaming for most people as well which is what the anti-LCD guy was complaining about. I know in the little gaming I do I like to crank the AA all the way up more than the res..

Anyway, Samsung SyncMaster 243T is another contender for the OP. 24", 1620x1200, ~2k$. The price being the problem yet again. ^^

I actually bought a 23" Dell widescreen LCD TV (1280x768) for 830$ recently and fully intend to use it as a monitor. I'll probably put it on an arm and use it vertically, though, since widescreen (and perfect 16:10 ;p) seems bloody useless to me. If I have a video I want to watch I just send it to TV out and watch it on a big screen TV where video belongs.

Also I tend to have my font and icon and whatnot sizes really large anyway since I consider it easier on the eyes, so low res doesn't bother me much.

 

[Mojoed]

Good discussion, thanks to all for the replies.

It looks like that HP almost meets my specifications - 16ms aint too bad for a LCD that size. That Sony LCD linked above is also intriguing. Looks like it'll be some time before all my LCD specifications are met.

Maybe I could get a used Sony GDM-FW900 and forget all about regaining my desk space.

Any other recommendations for 21"+ CRT capable of 2048x1536 @85Hz+? I suppose I can do without the 16x9 aspect ratio for another few years while I wait for LCD technology to improve. (and drop in price)

Thanks.

 

[Anubis]

for a 22in CRT id go with the NEC/Mitsu one, its prob teh best out there other then the LaCie, but the lacie costs more

 

[Anubis]

ive solved yoru issue

gget the Sony GDM-FW900 CRT
Recommended Resolution 1920 x 1200 @85Hz

amazon has it for 715$

 

[darkswordsman17]

Well, you could pick up a refurbed 24" Sony CRT and maybe either a 21/22" NEC/Mitsubishi or Sony CRt as well and you'd have both the 1900x1200 and 2048x1536 that you want, all for about the price you're aiming for with that LCD. Of course you'd have negative deskspace then....

I was actually personally going to go this route as I wanted both the widescreen and that high resolution. I gave up on that for a while and then I finally buckled and went for a 2001FP, which I'm very happy with. Now I want to get a second monitor and would love to be able to afford one of those 23" widescreen LCDs but they're just too expensive for me. I am trying to resist going for a 2nd 2001FP.

 

[boyRacer]

Originally posted by: Anubis
ive solved yoru issue

gget the Sony GDM-FW900 CRT
Recommended Resolution 1920 x 1200 @85Hz

amazon has it for 715$

It's used and has scratches on the case.

I honestly wanted this monitor. Then I find out Sony stopped selling CRTs.

 

[Mojoed]

Specification-wise, that FW900 is awesome. Buying this used I see as a huge gamble, as these things were released about three years ago. I wouldn't want to spend $715 on a potentially heavily-used, monitor which probably has it's best days behind it.

On the other hand, if I could find a reasonably priced "A" condition refurb....

 

[Mojoed]

Update!

I few hours ago I bet my dad on the outcome of the election. If I win, he buys me a new monitor, if I lose I take him to a Patriots game. It's a win-win for me because I was gonna take him to the game anyway lol. Good thing I hadn't clued him in to that prior to the bet. Wish me luck heh.

 

[RaiderJ]

Originally posted by: bR

Originally posted by: Anubis
ive solved yoru issue

gget the Sony GDM-FW900 CRT
Recommended Resolution 1920 x 1200 @85Hz

amazon has it for 715$

It's used and has scratches on the case.

I honestly wanted this monitor. Then I find out Sony stopped selling CRTs.

That's a pretty CRT. I'm just waiting for a ~20" widescreen LCD monitor/TV to use as a secondary display and as a TV. But so far nothing has sub-20ms response rates &amp; 780p for movies games.

 

[Glayde]

http://www1.us.dell.com/conten...us&amp;l=en&amp;s=corp

"Technical specifications of the Dell UltraSharp 2005FPW include: Native Resolution: 1680 x 1050 @ 60Hz
Response Time (typical): 12ms grey-to-grey, 16ms black-to-white
Contrast Ratio: 600:1
Brightness (typical): 300cd/m2
Number of Colors: 16.7 million
Horizontal/Vertical Viewing Angle (typical): +/-90°
Inputs: Analog/Digital/S-Video/Composite
Dimensions (HxWxD): 15.3" x 18.6" x 9"
Weight: 17.64 lb. "

 

[phillyman36]

I just came from both compusa and microcenter and saw the Sony 19 inch hs94 i believe. That is the best quality Lcd monitor ive ever seen everything was bright and crisp. i didnt like lcds until i saw that. that will be mine in the near future

 

[Anubis]

check this thread

Dell just announced one