Poll: Anyone else annoyed by LCDs with ANALOG-IN? (POLL)

[HaVoC]

I've been using a Compaq Armada E500 laptop with a 14.1" (I think) TFT screen. The sharpness and brightness is fantastic, especially with text/web surfing.

[begin rant]I was at CompUSA today buying an MS opti-mouse. I stopped by their monitor displays and saw several large TFT monitors.

In Windows the text quality looked crappy! All those nice sharp transistors were being whored out by the stupid analog-in interface. LCDs traditionally offer much better geometry and text sharpness than CRTs. But these expensive (over $700) monitors really looked no better than CRTs. It boggles my mind that most of the models I saw including the nice Samsungs, did not have an DIGITAL interface. I know there are two standards, DVI and whatever. But still, the top-of-the line video cards usually have DVI connectors so if you are getting the best monitors, why not get the good video cards as well. Otherwise you have the ridiculous and expensive RAMDAC->Analog->Digital TFT conversion. It looks noticeably worse than my digital laptop LCD.

How much more could a DVI connector cost? It couldn't be possibly more expensive than the complex circuitry required to convert analog RGB back to digial video signals. Ideally I would want the flexibility have both interfaces.

If you spent that much for a monitor, I would think you are getting rooked if you don't get a monitor that allows for a clean digital interface. Video cards are changing so quickly that soon DVIs will be common. But you will be keeping this monitor through several upgrade cycles. So you are stuck with that interface if you buy one of these inflexible monitors.

All the common sheep are so wowed by the purdy flat screen LCD but they don't even realize how crappy these things look compared to the true, elite digital interace.[/end rant]

Don't forget to vote in the poll.

 

[hans007]

yea its horrible. The company my dad works at makes LCD panels for HP 's pavilion line. HP only uses dual input, so you can get dvi and analog. I don tknow how much more it cost to put a dual input. HE tells me a 17" with dual input cost around $700 to build now. My friend has the 17" samsung though and it has dual input. Then again its a POS since it broke and its being RMA'd right now

 

[foofoo]

visiontek geforce2 ultra dvi and viewsonic vg181 is the sweetest
setup i've ever had. all digital,the only hard part is deivers and software incompatibility. for example, the pivot software interfers with the detonator drivers and you cant play ut. other than that digital is the way to go.

 

[Zucchini]

Ppl that can't program their vcrs buy these So there is a market

 

[TimeKeeper]

I have two DVI-I (dual input) LCD monitor twin view(OEM from Philip or Magnavox), one connect to analog, and one connect straigh to DVI in my MX.
I clear don't see the different in image quality.



<< ........these expensive (over $700) monitors really looked no better than CRTs. It boggles my mind that most of the models I saw including the nice Samsungs, did not have an DIGITAL interface....... >>



How do you compare .29~.30mm LCD to .22~.25mm CRT? This is too obvious, don't you think?



<< .......Otherwise you have the ridiculous and expensive RAMDAC->Analog->Digital TFT conversion. It looks noticeably worse than my digital laptop LCD.... >>



Most of LCD has vertical refresh rate less than 75hz, and most of video card has MORE than 75hz refresh rate at default under 1024X768X16. ( which is the max resolution most 15&quot; LCD can handle) In other word, those display LCD monitors at CompUSA will have distorted image when their technician forgot to set the adopter refresh rate at 75hz or less.



<< ......All the common sheep are so wowed by the purdy flat screen LCD but they don't even realize how crappy these things look compared to the true, elite digital interace............ >>



Most people are well educated, and I am certain, they are quite aware the pros and cons. Besides, the main concern for those who consider LCD as their display monitor is: LIMITED SPACE!!!!!
If you got the chance to compare IBM T85D and IBM T85A in real action, maybe you will change your mind



<< ................Don't forget to vote in the poll.......... >>



NO, NOT AT ALL!

 

[HaVoC]

<< How do you compare .29~.30mm LCD to .22~.25mm CRT? This is too obvious, don't you think? >>

You make the mistake of assuming dot pitch on CRTs and LCDs are analgous. They are not. CRTs have no distinct pixels and instead the pixels are formed by positive space from &quot;shadow masks&quot; or a Trinitron grill. They are generally round and don't have the distinct edges of LCD pixels.

Therefore vertical and horizontal lines especially look sharper on an LCD unless you have the &quot;blur&quot; effect from digital-analog-digital conversion.


<< Most of LCD has vertical refresh rate less than 75hz, and most of video card has MORE than 75hz refresh rate at default under 1024X768X16. ( which is the max resolution most 15&quot; LCD can handle) In other word, those display LCD monitors at CompUSA will have distorted image when their technician forgot to set the adopter refresh rate at 75hz or less. >>

I'm not sure about this. My laptop is currently set at 1024x768x32 @ 85Hz. The display looks fine. Obviously after a certain point the slower response time of LCD transistors results in dimishing returns from increasing the refresh rate. Perhaps this 75Hz limit is again due to the clumsy analog-digital converters on said LCDs?


<< Most people are well educated, and I am certain, they are quite aware the pros and cons. Besides, the main concern for those who consider LCD as their display monitor is: LIMITED SPACE!!!!! >>

Actually I am willing to bet the type of people who tend to shop at CompUSA are considerably less knowledgeable about the &quot;pros and cons&quot; than most of the people on this BBS.

<< Most people are well educated, and I am certain, they are quite aware the pros and cons. Besides, the main concern for those who consider LCD as their display monitor is: LIMITED SPACE!!!!! >>

Never compared those two IBM monitors. Even if I did, I still won't be convinced by ONE model that analog interfaces are just as good as a DVI connector for LCDs.

I guess if you are really hard up for space, then any LCD will do. It still would be a tremendous waste of money to me to get an analog interface LCD.