Monitor advice Sony Vs. Viewsonic

[Bronwyn]

Okay I have read until I'm going blind. I currently own a 10 year Sony Triniton. It's time for an upgrade. The old faithful

I have narrowed it down to the following two monitors. Any experience with either, please post.

I use Word everyday and I am concerned about fuzzy text and the corner convergence on both. I also run PS 7 and some 3D modeling/Cad programs; Zbrush, Deep Paint, etc...

I'm trying to strike a happy medium and I'm ripping my hair out in the process.

Viewsonic P225fb

Sony GP520

 

[Gagabiji]

If you are worried about your eyes, get this one.

 

[InlineFive]

In my personal (possibly biased) opinion I think Viewsonic is better. However I do hear excellent things about Sony Trinitron monitors.

-Por

 

[Ronin]

Originally posted by: SirDude
If you are worried about your eyes, get this one.

Gotta disagree on suggesting any sort of LCD for it being 'easier on the eyes'. Because of the refresh rate limitations on a LCD, among other things, LCDs are hardly easy on the eyes.

Both Viewsonic and Sony make solid monitors. My personal preference is Sony.

 

[Gunbuster]

Because of the refresh rate limitations on a LCD, among other things, LCDs are hardly easy on the eyes.

ummm NO, you best cut down on the powdered sugar up the nose

 

[Ronin]

Originally posted by: Gunbuster

Because of the refresh rate limitations on a LCD, among other things, LCDs are hardly easy on the eyes.

ummm NO, you best cut down on the powdered sugar up the nose

K, how about this. If you're gonna respond to a thread, how about you provide information on why you disagree? I've got no less than 60 LCDs (yes, 60), and I PROMISE you they're harder on the eyes. Show some intelligence when you post, and show why.

LCDs inherently, because of the screen composition, and the way they are manufacturered, ARE harder on the eyes, and DO put more strain on them.

 

[buleyb]

Originally posted by: Gunbuster

Because of the refresh rate limitations on a LCD, among other things, LCDs are hardly easy on the eyes.

ummm NO, you best cut down on the powdered sugar up the nose

He's right, LCDs refreshing are easier on the eyes because they don't flicker. A LCD at 60Hz refreshes 60 times a second, and each time a pixel changes, it stays in that state until the next refresh. CRTs however, after a pixel is turned on, it fades quickly, and then is turned on again at the next refresh. Our eyes don't perceive this at higher resolutions in CRTs, but you can typically see it at 60Hz. This is the key reason why CRTs can strain eyes faster. A LCD at 60Hz doesn't do this.

 

[buleyb]

Originally posted by: Ronin

Originally posted by: Gunbuster

Because of the refresh rate limitations on a LCD, among other things, LCDs are hardly easy on the eyes.

ummm NO, you best cut down on the powdered sugar up the nose

K, how about this. If you're gonna respond to a thread, how about you provide information on why you disagree? I've got no less than 60 LCDs (yes, 60), and I PROMISE you they're harder on the eyes. Show some intelligence when you post, and show why.

LCDs inherently, because of the screen composition, and the way they are manufacturered, ARE harder on the eyes, and DO put more strain on them.

And perhaps you could provide more 'information' on this manufacturing issue and composition fiasco...

 

[Ronin]

Originally posted by: buleyb

Originally posted by: Ronin

Originally posted by: Gunbuster

Because of the refresh rate limitations on a LCD, among other things, LCDs are hardly easy on the eyes.

ummm NO, you best cut down on the powdered sugar up the nose

K, how about this. If you're gonna respond to a thread, how about you provide information on why you disagree? I've got no less than 60 LCDs (yes, 60), and I PROMISE you they're harder on the eyes. Show some intelligence when you post, and show why.

LCDs inherently, because of the screen composition, and the way they are manufacturered, ARE harder on the eyes, and DO put more strain on them.

And perhaps you could provide more 'information' on this manufacturing issue and composition fiasco...

Fiasco? Never said there was a fiasco. Perhaps you should read more closely, and do your own research LCDs are space savers with resolution limitations, brighter colors/contrast (which, while nice, can actually be a detriment), lower refresh rates, don't have the flicker problem, have limited refresh rates (which is a problem), etc.

I take exception to someone saying I sniff anything up my noise, while sounding like a complete moron in doing it.

 

[x3m]

Originally posted by: buleyb

Originally posted by: Gunbuster

Because of the refresh rate limitations on a LCD, among other things, LCDs are hardly easy on the eyes.

ummm NO, you best cut down on the powdered sugar up the nose

He's right, LCDs refreshing are easier on the eyes because they don't flicker. A LCD at 60Hz refreshes 60 times a second, and each time a pixel changes, it stays in that state until the next refresh. CRTs however, after a pixel is turned on, it fades quickly, and then is turned on again at the next refresh. Our eyes don't perceive this at higher resolutions in CRTs, but you can typically see it at 60Hz. This is the key reason why CRTs can strain eyes faster. A LCD at 60Hz doesn't do this.

Hmm a LCD updates its pixels only when it's needed; therefore they don't flicker like CRT's.

This non-flicker, together with less radiation among other things, makes the LCD more pleasant for your eyes. If you think the LCD picture is hard to watch, try to reduce the brightness.

"I use Word everyday and I am concerned about fuzzy text and the corner convergence on both. I also run PS 7 and some 3D modeling/Cad programs; Zbrush, Deep Paint, etc..."

With Clear Type on, the text is very nice to watch. For Word usage, I would recommend LCD any day in the week. But for PS and such things, bad colour rendering (most TFT?s) may affect your choice. For a normal user the colour rendering on for example an Eizo L557 is more than enough, but on my own 2001FP this is absolutely noticeable even for me who doesn?t work with graphics (white isn?t white and black isn?t black really).

 

[xgsound]

Ronin: You are not the only one that gets eye strain from LCD's , so do I. I was the only one in the family that was bothered by it , but I couldn't view a forum or document for more than 3 minutes without my eyes watering and getting bloodshot . No adjustments helped and it had to go.

Gunbuster: That makes no sense at all.

See also http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=27&threadid=1238823

Jim

 

[Paulson]

I like viewsonic better than sony, but that's just my personal opinion.

 

[Bronwyn]

Thanks, at least I was headed down the right road. I prefer the Sony but might end up getting the Viewsonic otherwise it will take forever to get here.

The LCD is out because of color issues with my CAD and modeling programs. The colors are much truer on a CRT.

I have also tried a very good LCD that another family member owns, while they are nice, they are just not for me.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Ronin

Originally posted by: Gunbuster

Because of the refresh rate limitations on a LCD, among other things, LCDs are hardly easy on the eyes.

ummm NO, you best cut down on the powdered sugar up the nose

K, how about this. If you're gonna respond to a thread, how about you provide information on why you disagree? I've got no less than 60 LCDs (yes, 60), and I PROMISE you they're harder on the eyes. Show some intelligence when you post, and show why.

LCDs inherently, because of the screen composition, and the way they are manufacturered, ARE harder on the eyes, and DO put more strain on them.

Wow, you have a lot of LCDs for someone who knows nothing about them.

 

[Ronin]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Ronin

Originally posted by: Gunbuster

Because of the refresh rate limitations on a LCD, among other things, LCDs are hardly easy on the eyes.

ummm NO, you best cut down on the powdered sugar up the nose

K, how about this. If you're gonna respond to a thread, how about you provide information on why you disagree? I've got no less than 60 LCDs (yes, 60), and I PROMISE you they're harder on the eyes. Show some intelligence when you post, and show why.

LCDs inherently, because of the screen composition, and the way they are manufacturered, ARE harder on the eyes, and DO put more strain on them.

Wow, you have a lot of LCDs for someone who knows nothing about them.

Another typical comment with nothing to back up what's said. Speak out of your mouth, with your brain engaged, rather than your a$$, with only crap spewing forth.

 

[MikeMike]

may i ask why you eliminated samsung from your options?????

MIKE

 

[Nebor]

LCDs have a set refresh rate, that would be their "response time". No setting you tell your video card to give your monitor will change that. Set it to 100hz if you want to, your monitor will only use as many of those refreshes as it can, which for most, happen to be around 60hz. That's because 16ms translates into 62hz, roughly.

The LCD doesn't flicker, and it doesn't project an image like a CRT, so your eyes can actually focus on real things, the tiny little pixels.

I'm beginning to think you amassed all your computers through theft, since you don't seem to know much about them.

 

[yhelothar]

I don't get eyestrain from CRT or LCD from refresh rates or flickering.. because I do not see any flickering(unless the CRT is at 60Hz)..
However, I do get eyestrain from LCD from the poor contrast. Blacks always being grayish.. and whites never being pure white, but a grainy white.

Both screens will give you super sharp text, though I have had convergence problems with sony trinitron tubes. However, shadowmask tube convergence has always be absolutely perfect. Hitachi makes some excellent shadowmask tubes that are great for graphics design if you want absolutely perfect convergence and accurate colors.

 

[Texun]

Looks like you guys might be fishing in the wrong lake. LCD's are easier for some and harder for others, and if you want to know if one would be right for you then a visit to your optometrist would be in order. The refresh rate with LCD's isn't the problem, for me it's the sharp contrast and vivid colors that everyone is after that causes a problem. It's time for a checkup when achieving these results ends in eyestrain. Me? I have astigmatism, so even though I like vivid colors and good contrast it's extremely hard on my eyes. I posted a link about astigmatism in another post somewhere. Do a Google and see if it sounds any of the symptoms sound familiar. Here's a hint: If you dislike night driving because oncoming headlights look like stars then it's time for a checkup.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
I don't get eyestrain from CRT or LCD from refresh rates or flickering.. because I do not see any flickering(unless the CRT is at 60Hz)..
However, I do get eyestrain from LCD from the poor contrast. Blacks always being grayish.. and whites never being pure white, but a grainy white.

Both screens will give you super sharp text, though I have had convergence problems with sony trinitron tubes. However, shadowmask tube convergence has always be absolutely perfect. Hitachi makes some excellent shadowmask tubes that are great for graphics design if you want absolutely perfect convergence and accurate colors.

Did you read my post? Even if you can't see the flickering, it's there, it's how a CRT works, and it IS stressful on your eyes.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Bronwyn
Okay I have read until I'm going blind. I currently own a 10 year Sony Triniton. It's time for an upgrade. The old faithful

I have narrowed it down to the following two monitors. Any experience with either, please post.

I use Word everyday and I am concerned about fuzzy text and the corner convergence on both. I also run PS 7 and some 3D modeling/Cad programs; Zbrush, Deep Paint, etc...

I'm trying to strike a happy medium and I'm ripping my hair out in the process.

Viewsonic P225fb

Sony GP520

I have no experience with the Viewsonic, but I picked up a Sony 19" Trinitron for my girlfriend last year, and the picture is absolutely fantastic at a refresh rate of 85Hz. The picture on her monitor is considerably nicer than the picture on my 21" Nokia 445 Pro. I mention my Nokia simply because Viewsonic purchased Nokia's monitor division about two years ago. When I replace my monitor it will be with either a Sony or a Mitsubishi/NEC.

 

[igowerf]

Originally posted by: Nebor
LCDs have a set refresh rate, that would be their "response time". No setting you tell your video card to give your monitor will change that. Set it to 100hz if you want to, your monitor will only use as many of those refreshes as it can, which for most, happen to be around 60hz. That's because 16ms translates into 62hz, roughly.

The LCD doesn't flicker, and it doesn't project an image like a CRT, so your eyes can actually focus on real things, the tiny little pixels.

I'm beginning to think you amassed all your computers through theft, since you don't seem to know much about them.

I always thought LCD's don't flicker because they don't redraw like CRTs. Instead the pixels just change from one color to another, so you're seeing a constant image on your screen.

I definitely have to disagree with Ronin. After using my laptop for a year and then getting a Dell 1800FP LCD, I have to say that LCDs are WAY easier on the eyes. No flicker, and way sharper than any CRT I've seen. LCD + Cleartype is definitely the way to go.