LCD recommendation

[Auric]

Originally posted by: KristopherKubicki
16ms response time is another one of those wonderful marketing specs.

That's not rational. Either it has a technical benefit in certain applications or it is significantly cheaper to manufacture. I doubt the latter.

However, the CML174 is still a good monitor. I am hesitant about the 18 bit panel, but for the price its definately a decent unit. The CML174 is usually the cheapest of the 16ms 17" LCDs, i would go to monitorsdirect.com if you were going to get one.

The Hitachi is usually cheaper retail, but with the Dell deals combined with fatcash or ebates the like-panelled NEC-Mitsubishi, Viewsonic and Planar can be had for even less. But there is more to it than the panel and from my research the Hitachi backlight fares the worst. The others are also available in true black cabinet color if that is important to you and the first two also have much better stands. I want to like the Hitachi because they make great HDTV but I don't think it is the best choice here.

If you do get an NEC be sure to get the model ending in "-1" as that is the latest with height adjustable stand.

 

[BoomAM]

Originally posted by: KristopherKubicki
BoomAM;

I am not really sure where you got that impression from. I was aware of the color issue when I reviewed the monitor earlier this year, and during several posts i have made since then. Its fairly easy to see when the specs are written right on the panel.

http://www.auo.com/e_products_monitor_m170en05.shtml

Alot of people dont read up on the specs of the substrate (i think thats what its called)

As for people not noticing it, I am not sure where you read that either.

I didnt read it. I own one!

True, the monitor provides 16.2M colors using "dithering" pixels, basically using 4 pixels to almost reproduce the color of 1. however this does not give you a clear image at all. I also do not know where THG mentioned some fancy testing gear. We used a colorvision spyder, which noticed the color problems immediately, as well as plain color charts that anyone can get for free.

Probably got a bit mixed up between THG and AT there. Either way though, 90% of people would not notice at all.

I dont want to argue with you bty Kristopher, as i have alot of respect for you.

 

[apriest]

I have a couple ViewSonic VX900 19? LCDs hooked up to a Radeon 9700 Pro. Primary is DVI, secondary is analog. There isn't much of a difference between the two, but DVI is definitely better when editing photos. The colors are more accurate. Text is barely sharper in Word. DVDs have an appreciable difference as the blacks come out a true black instead of just dark (along with dark blue, and dark brown, they all look the same off black in analog mode). Same could be said of white and nearly white shades.

So my question is this: why don?t I see the problem that everyone has with LCD screens and gaming? I think these are rated at 25ms, and I run them in 1280x1024 @ 70Hz (native mode) in as many games as I can (some can only do 1280x920 or some weird number, and I can?t honestly see a difference). I can run them at either 60 or 70Hz, and for some strange reason 70Hz seems to make them a touch brighter. So why does everyone say you need at least 16ms for games to look good? I (and many of my friends) have played C&C Generals, Rise of Nations, Unreal Tournament (original and 2003), and these things look better than the NEC AS95F 19? ?PerfectFlat? CRTs running at the same resolution. We just can?t find this ghosting or smearing when running in DVI mode.

 

[KristopherKubicki]

"That's not rational. Either it has a technical benefit in certain applications or it is significantly cheaper to manufacture. I doubt the latter."

Auric, I am writing an article that proves differently. Ill try to get it out next week.

Kristopher