Why the step back to LCD's?

[Zebo]

In Soviet Russia CRT's are bigger than rooms.

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
I have two 2001FP monitors, and one 1905FP. The image quality on the 2001FP is superb, and so is everything else; the 1905FP is nothing to sneeze at either. [trolling deleted to protect the innocent! ]

Proof in point that at Anandtech they don't know what they are talking about.

From Anandtech's review of the 2100FP.

• Notice that on VA displays, the gray-to-gray response time can be well over 50ms

• Our image is closer to that of a CRT as far as color reproduction is concerned (note it says closer, not better or even equal)

• We see exactly what we expected. Indeed, the red curve is not correct, since LCDs cannot reproduce accurately these hues yet.

• After looking at several upcoming panels, we felt our scoring of the 192T was a bit high. (here is one of the main problems with LCD reviews... they are comparing them to other LCD's. That is like comparing the abilities of Tour de France competitor with my abilities. Sure, they will rate high but why not compare them to Lance instead?

• We were very disappointed with the analog performance of this LCD. (I doubt that most of us are concerned about analog performace issues but it could be important to some.)

• Strange horizontal patterns were more vulnerable to streaking than vertical ones for some reason. Color termination was slightly upsetting on the analog connection as well. (Color termination problems occur when you notice a gap in between two complementary colors that should be right next to each other.) Fortunately, DVI cut down on these problems dramatically. Opposed to popular urban computer myth, the analog cable did not reproduce colors better than the DVI cable. (this is talking about an LCD monitor that is considered a "great" one. Of course, they called them nitpicks.)

In their final thoughts they said (nothing that is important (to me) in a monitor was mentioned, color, sharpness, etc.).
this monitor excels in several areas:

• Multiple input support

• Clean interface

• Good performance

• (Relatively) Low Price

However, this Anandtech review does indicate that prices are falling and quality and response time is getting better. Just how many years will it be before they are saying, this monitor is as good as the CRT monitors made at the end of the twentieth century?

 

[IGBT]

..having used crt's for many years..and now use only lcd's. I'am not much of a gamer but find them more then adequate for the few games I play. There's more then enough color resolution to fool the human eye. And no doubt about it the center to edge linearity,focus and color convergence in any lcd is better the the best crt. Put a color bar generator or equivalent on the best crt and switch it between crosshatch and dots and you'll see just how messy crt's really are. They may be ok in the center of the screen but the field outside the center..up to and including the edge, will be full of verticle/horizontal anomalies including focus problems that don't show up in even the cheapiest lcd display. And no doubt about it the lcd is much better for text and causes negligible eye strain.

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: Matthias99Again, I am very confused as to where you get your LCD prices from. Are you looking at the specialty models designed for graphics work or something? $700 for a 19" LCD is a terrible price. That's roughly retail on the Dell 2001FP (20.1" LCD, 1600x1200) these days.

The Anandtech review said the Dell 2001FP was about $200 less than its nearest competitor. Thus, my statement (after you wrote this) that it does seem that the price of LCD monitors are dropping.

I guess you're saying that you think an LCD is equivalent to a much lower-quality CRT -- which is an opinion if anything.

Yes. But, the specs say the same thing.

But you said in your first post that the low dot pitch meant "too much detail is lost", which makes no sense. No detail is "lost" -- you're seeing every pixel of the digital feed from the PC.

No, I didn't. Someone else did. I was responding to their comment.

6-bit models are lousy for graphics design work due to the worse color palette. Newer models with 8-bit color should be just fine. THG had no problems doing successful color calibrations on almost every model they've tested in the last year.

The "salesman" (higher up in the company than a store level employee) told me (after he realized I was not going to be buying an LCD monitor) that many LCD monitors were returned with the comment that the purchaser did graphics work on their system.

Of course, some people believe they must say something to return a product! The reason I am now purchasing through Microcenter is because of the way they treat (potential) customers and their return policies.

Only if you run the display at a non-native resolution or are using VGA and having signal integrity issues (the monitors set up in computer stores are NOTORIOUS for this, since they often run them through splitters and switches). ClearType antialiases fonts so that they look better at non-native resolutions, and is not necessary if your desktop is at the display's native resolution. There's just no way text or 2D images could possibly look bad on a properly-adjusted LCD being run at its native resolution; it is a digital signal being displayed on a digital display with a 1:1 pixel mapping.

I have copied the above. At the store I ASKED to have the resolution changed and the store said it was locked at the native resolution because that was the only way an LCD monitor should ever be run. I agree. They can't handle different resolutions properly like a CRT is able to do. Well, a CRT is still not perfect but unless you go to an extreme it is not that noticable. I will talk to the manager and verify that the monitor has been tuned. (ANY monitor, CRT or LCD, can look bad if not tuned properly.)

Yes, at this time the 8ms monitors are 6-bit panels and the viewable angle is reduced. If you're willing to settle for a 12- or 16-ms monitor, you can avoid this, but then there is more ghosting (if you find that to be problematic). The technology is not perfect, but is improving constantly.

Ahh, I glossed over that fact.

By that logic people would flock to purchase the lower quality car but pay more for that the highest quality cars. If that ever becomes reality we are in big trouble!

That sentence needs some work.

You had said, "They're cutting production because people want LCD monitors. Not the other way around." I then edited my original quote and butchered the editing and had a typo... My retort is:
If true and the same logic was applied to cars people would be paying more money to purchase an inferior car because the inferior car was the wave of the future.
Actually, there is a case to prove your point. People ARE buying hybrids and paying more for them. The quality is unproven. Unfortunately, the gas mileage is sometimes half of the stated rate. (I'm guessing those people don't know how to drive to conserve gas.) To perfect the analogy, however, the hybrid would need to be uncomfortable and not drive very well.

The very last sentence was made based on what I have read about LCD's from reviews and having looked at them. I made the post NOT as a trolling expedition but to find out where the information I have read is wrong. To get the best responses I had to state what I see as LCD flaws when compared to CRT's.

What can I say, I'm pretty and still prefer my SCSI drives over SATA... not because SCSI is faster than SATA (they are not!) but because the peformance of the system is improved during intense disk activity.

Oh, thanks for your comments. They have helped. While I'm NO convert you, and most others, have realized I was not trolling and have given me excellent information. I'm now considering purchasing an LCD in order to give it a try. My two 120k floppy drives cost $500 each. 25 years ago! So spending between $500 and $700, approximately to try an LCD monitor now is fairly cheap!

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: ElcsI feel quite sorry for people who cant embrace the joys of LCD's. I dont care about the ones who are too ignorant to try, they dont know what they are missing.

One too many flames. grrr

Why is it with some people that if someone doesn't agree with them the others are stupid?

Nm... I'm obviously too ignorant to understand your logic. Now, go away and do so quietly.

 

[SVT Cobra]

i still use a CRT becuase of gaming

 

[Oyeve]

Originally posted by: Son of a N00b
i still use a CRT becuase of gaming

Me too. No LCD has yet to best my 20" Sony Trinitron. I love my Dell 1905FP but still use my Sony for games and the Dell for console games and non-graphical PC work.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice

Originally posted by: Matthias99Again, I am very confused as to where you get your LCD prices from. Are you looking at the specialty models designed for graphics work or something? $700 for a 19" LCD is a terrible price. That's roughly retail on the Dell 2001FP (20.1" LCD, 1600x1200) these days.

The Anandtech review said the Dell 2001FP was about $200 less than its nearest competitor. Thus, my statement (after you wrote this) that it does seem that the price of LCD monitors are dropping.

Did I say otherwise? LCD prices have been dropping steadily for several years. It's just that CRT prices went through the floor (partly because of high demand for LCDs).

I guess you're saying that you think an LCD is equivalent to a much lower-quality CRT -- which is an opinion if anything.

Yes. But, the specs say the same thing.

They are inferior in some ways and superior in others.

But you said in your first post that the low dot pitch meant "too much detail is lost", which makes no sense. No detail is "lost" -- you're seeing every pixel of the digital feed from the PC.

No, I didn't. Someone else did. I was responding to their comment.

You said the following in your original post (exact quote):

The Ugly
LCD's are not good enough for serious graphics or cad work. With a dot pitch of .25 or .29 compared to .21 or .24 on a monitor too much detail is lost.

I don't understand what you meant. If that was something you were quoting (from another thread?), you did not indicate it.

6-bit models are lousy for graphics design work due to the worse color palette. Newer models with 8-bit color should be just fine. THG had no problems doing successful color calibrations on almost every model they've tested in the last year.

The "salesman" (higher up in the company than a store level employee) told me (after he realized I was not going to be buying an LCD monitor) that many LCD monitors were returned with the comment that the purchaser did graphics work on their system.

Of course, some people believe they must say something to return a product! The reason I am now purchasing through Microcenter is because of the way they treat (potential) customers and their return policies.

I can't vouch for Microcenter, and I don't know necessarily what whoever spoke to you a) knows, and b) meant by his comment. I woud suggest checking out some of the LCD reviews at Toms Hardware (www.tomshardware.com), as they do a pretty thorough job.

Only if you run the display at a non-native resolution or are using VGA and having signal integrity issues (the monitors set up in computer stores are NOTORIOUS for this, since they often run them through splitters and switches). ClearType antialiases fonts so that they look better at non-native resolutions, and is not necessary if your desktop is at the display's native resolution. There's just no way text or 2D images could possibly look bad on a properly-adjusted LCD being run at its native resolution; it is a digital signal being displayed on a digital display with a 1:1 pixel mapping.

I have copied the above. At the store I ASKED to have the resolution changed and the store said it was locked at the native resolution because that was the only way an LCD monitor should ever be run. I agree. They can't handle different resolutions properly like a CRT is able to do. Well, a CRT is still not perfect but unless you go to an extreme it is not that noticable. I will talk to the manager and verify that the monitor has been tuned. (ANY monitor, CRT or LCD, can look bad if not tuned properly.)

I've seen LCD monitors set up so they look horrible, and many stores seem to have issues getting them set up properly. I would suggest testing one out in a more controlled environment if possible (Dell has a very generous return policy in this regard).

By that logic people would flock to purchase the lower quality car but pay more for that the highest quality cars. If that ever becomes reality we are in big trouble!

That sentence needs some work.

You had said, "They're cutting production because people want LCD monitors. Not the other way around." I then edited my original quote and butchered the editing and had a typo... My retort is:
If true and the same logic was applied to cars people would be paying more money to purchase an inferior car because the inferior car was the wave of the future.
Actually, there is a case to prove your point. People ARE buying hybrids and paying more for them. The quality is unproven. Unfortunately, the gas mileage is sometimes half of the stated rate. (I'm guessing those people don't know how to drive to conserve gas.) To perfect the analogy, however, the hybrid would need to be uncomfortable and not drive very well.

The thing is, to your average consumer LCD monitors are superior to CRTs for what they do, and so it should not be treated in your analysis as an "inferior" product. The downsides to LCD monitors -- worse support for multiple resolutions, slightly worse color reproduction, high pixel response time -- are far less important to most people than the ergonomics of it (ie, it doesn't weigh 50+ pounds and take up their whole desk, especially with multiple displays). Many people also find them easier on the eyes for text work (although this is an opinion that not everybody shares).

Oh, thanks for your comments. They have helped. While I'm NO convert you, and most others, have realized I was not trolling and have given me excellent information. I'm now considering purchasing an LCD in order to give it a try. My two 120k floppy drives cost $500 each. 25 years ago! So spending between $500 and $700, approximately to try an LCD monitor now is fairly cheap!

I would suggest that you try a Dell monitor -- they have either a 14- or 21-day money-back satisfaction guarantee (although I think you do have to pay return shipping). I guarantee that if you have it set up properly (and preferably using a DVI connection), you will not have 2D IQ issues.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Oyeve

Originally posted by: Son of a N00b
i still use a CRT becuase of gaming

Me too. No LCD has yet to best my 20" Sony Trinitron. I love my Dell 1905FP but still use my Sony for games and the Dell for console games and non-graphical PC work.

Same here. I use AG NEOVO E19a for all office work it's actually the closest thing to a CRT as far as blacks and screen due to the "NeoV Optical Filter" ...but by in large I still prefer diamond pro.

Biggest problem is resolution switching and motion which will NEVER be corrected on LCD's. It' physically impossible to mimmick light speed with liquid crystal kenetics. It's physically impossbile to have multiple resolutions w/o interpolation.

 

[imported_g33k]

Originally posted by: Zebo
In Soviet Russia CRT's are bigger than rooms.

In Soviet Russia, computer monitor watches you!

 

[Gigantopithecus]

I'm surprised only one poster mentioned briefly the power consumption disparity. I don't remember exactly, but doesn't an LCD draw 1/4-1/3 the power of a comparably sized CRT?

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
I have two 2001FP monitors, and one 1905FP. The image quality on the 2001FP is superb, and so is everything else; the 1905FP is nothing to sneeze at either. [trolling deleted to protect the innocent! ]

Proof in point that at Anandtech they don't know what they are talking about.

From Anandtech's review of the 2100FP.

• Notice that on VA displays, the gray-to-gray response time can be well over 50ms

• Our image is closer to that of a CRT as far as color reproduction is concerned (note it says closer, not better or even equal)

• We see exactly what we expected. Indeed, the red curve is not correct, since LCDs cannot reproduce accurately these hues yet.

• After looking at several upcoming panels, we felt our scoring of the 192T was a bit high. (here is one of the main problems with LCD reviews... they are comparing them to other LCD's. That is like comparing the abilities of Tour de France competitor with my abilities. Sure, they will rate high but why not compare them to Lance instead?

• We were very disappointed with the analog performance of this LCD. (I doubt that most of us are concerned about analog performace issues but it could be important to some.)

• Strange horizontal patterns were more vulnerable to streaking than vertical ones for some reason. Color termination was slightly upsetting on the analog connection as well. (Color termination problems occur when you notice a gap in between two complementary colors that should be right next to each other.) Fortunately, DVI cut down on these problems dramatically. Opposed to popular urban computer myth, the analog cable did not reproduce colors better than the DVI cable. (this is talking about an LCD monitor that is considered a "great" one. Of course, they called them nitpicks.)

In their final thoughts they said (nothing that is important (to me) in a monitor was mentioned, color, sharpness, etc.).
this monitor excels in several areas:

• Multiple input support

• Clean interface

• Good performance

• (Relatively) Low Price

However, this Anandtech review does indicate that prices are falling and quality and response time is getting better. Just how many years will it be before they are saying, this monitor is as good as the CRT monitors made at the end of the twentieth century?

Before reading the end of your long, long post, I slipped into a confused slumber. I gather the gist of it is that an Anandtech review's panning of the 2001FP's analog quality means (to you) that the LCD panel sucks in general. Huh, how about that! How're those logic skills working out for ya?

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: g33k

Originally posted by: Zebo
In Soviet Russia CRT's are bigger than rooms.

In Soviet Russia, computer monitor watches you!

heh heh

 

[fierydemise]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Before reading the end of your long, long post, I slipped into a confused slumber. I gather the gist of it is that an Anandtech review's panning of the 2001FP's analog quality means (to you) that the LCD panel sucks in general. Huh, how about that! How're those logic skills working out for ya?

I deleted the post before hand just so people don't have the endless scroll, now I agree with your basic point that assuming all LCDs are bad because a single LCD sucks is horrible logic, the problem is that those dell LCDs are held up as some of the highest quality LCDs so if those appear inferior to CRTs either dells moniters arn't all that great or LCDs in general are inferior, take your pick.

 

[Green84061]

i would NEVER trade my dell 2005fpw for my brothers fe-2111fb(i think thats it) the only thing is VERY minor ghosting i can only notice while ghosting in css

 

[Elcs]

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice

Originally posted by: Elcs

I feel quite sorry for people who cant embrace the joys of LCD's. I dont care about the ones who are too ignorant to try, they dont know what they are missing.

One too many flames. grrr

Why is it with some people that if someone doesn't agree with them the others are stupid?

Nm... I'm obviously too ignorant to understand your logic. Now, go away and do so quietly.

Have you used an LCD for any significant length of time?

I fail to see where your rant is going. It seems to be a minority of people against LCD's.

I could use my CRT for gaming but since my LCD exhibits no ghosting detectable by my eyes... why do i want to game on a CRT?

The only advantage my CRT has over my LCD to me is watching football. Watching a ball fly past a keeper at over 70mph, yeah i notice a load of blurriness on my LCD but none on my CRT. Thats why I havent binned it and bought another LCD.

Perhaps people arent happy with 1280x1024 that my 17" LCD offers. I find it perfect and Im not keen on 1280x1024 on a 19".

Also, I never told you that you were stupid. You assumed that. If you havent used LCD's for any significant length of time on a variety of different applications then you'd fit into my latter category.

 

[0roo0roo]

half brightness at 10-20k hrs for crt. lcd is 50k hrs. that and the whole eye strain thing for most uses and for most uses, lcd is good enough while crt has the strikes against it.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: fierydemise

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Before reading the end of your long, long post, I slipped into a confused slumber. I gather the gist of it is that an Anandtech review's panning of the 2001FP's analog quality means (to you) that the LCD panel sucks in general. Huh, how about that! How're those logic skills working out for ya?

I deleted the post before hand just so people don't have the endless scroll, now I agree with your basic point that assuming all LCDs are bad because a single LCD sucks is horrible logic, the problem is that those dell LCDs are held up as some of the highest quality LCDs so if those appear inferior to CRTs either dells moniters arn't all that great or LCDs in general are inferior, take your pick.

They don't appear inferior. Everyone that comes over to my house (including some avid gamers) oohs and aahs at my flat panels, especially the 2001FPs. Image quality is really good on these monitors, and everything is much sharper than on a CRT. You also would pay a pretty penny for a 22" high-end CRT, whereas you can buy a 2001FP for around $400 or less if you wait for a deal. The much-maligned ghosting cannot be seen by many people on this monitor, and I question whether others can actually see it, because I can't even in fast racing games.

All of these factors are what make the 2001FP the most successful current medium-to-high-end monitor design, maybe the most successful ever (since it also enjoys the many other benefits of an LCD over a CRT, as just about everyone else here now knows). If you've never used one for any length of time, you may not realize any of these things. Also, you should think twice before relying too heavily on an Anandtech early peek at the 2001FP from years ago, where the only real strikes against the monitor involve analog input.

 

[domsq]

Originally posted by: jkyle
I dont miss my CRT.
I dont miss the weight.
I dont miss giving 30% of my desktop area to it.
I dont miss the waves of heat coming out it.
I dont miss the lights not flickering when switched on.
I dont miss the impossability of having to ship it back somewhere for service.
I dont miss it at all

Gotta agree there! I moved from a 19" CRT (what a heavy beast it was!) to a 17" LCD with 16ms response time. So far I haven't been disappointed.

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Before reading the end of your long, long post, I slipped into a confused slumber. I gather the gist of it is that an Anandtech review's panning of the 2001FP's analog quality means (to you) that the LCD panel sucks in general. (rude and trolling comments removed to avoid further embarrasment)

Not at all! I have consistently stated they do not yet have the same quality as CRT's and that this is based on reviews. MOST opinions where the LCD is favored still points out size, weight, power, future, looks, etc. Very few point out qualities other than geometrics. Unfortunately, size, weight, power, and looks are not important to me. At least in computer equipment!

I thought you were one of those who had basically said that anyone who says LCD monitors are not as good as CRT's is (stupid, doesn't know what they are talking about, etc.) After rechecking I realize you in no way suggested that. Please accept my apologies and understand that is why you misinterpreted.

It is humorous that those who make such a suggestion are basically talking about Anand Shimpi!

The problems I am having with the reviews is that the monitors are being compared to other LCD's. I would rather have them compared to the best monitors. Whether that be LCD's or CRT's.

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: fierydemise

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Before reading the end of your long, long post, I slipped into a confused slumber. I gather the gist of it is that an Anandtech review's panning of the 2001FP's analog quality means (to you) that the LCD panel sucks in general. Huh, how about that! How're those logic skills working out for ya?

I deleted the post before hand just so people don't have the endless scroll, now I agree with your basic point that assuming all LCDs are bad because a single LCD sucks is horrible logic, the problem is that those dell LCDs are held up as some of the highest quality LCDs so if those appear inferior to CRTs either dells moniters arn't all that great or LCDs in general are inferior, take your pick.

It would be horrible logic. Had 6000 read or had I been more explicit he would have realized that is not what was being said. In the 4 sentences you read only one had merit and even it was trollish. It should be assumed that such diatribe is not accurate.

 

[Azsen]

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
<snip>

Never read so much bollocks in one post for ages. :Q

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: Azsen

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
<snip>

Never read so much bollocks in one post for ages. :Q

Don't be afraid to learn!

 

[ExpertNovice]

So, what is the "best" LCD monitor available today?

Based on your comments I will be trying an LCD monitor instead of purchasing another CRT. CRT quality is not expected but if you convince me to purchase the worst LCD ever made then I will hunt you down using that Russian CRT! Even though the new LCD is guaranteed to help me appeal to more women.

For the time being there will be only one monitor. Emersion in the LCD world may be the only way for me to accept them. As with water 30 degrees below body temperature the "best" way to get in is to jump, not slowly walk.

I don't really care what monitor you have. If you were told that you could have any LCD monitor on the market and it would cost you nothing which would you take? Again, I don't care about weight, size, etc. I want the sharpest image, best colors, fastest response (grey to grey) AND want to avoid the "sun-in-my-eyes" effect from laptop monitors.

Excel, Access, and Word are used extensively. Powerpoint and Visio on occasion. Adobe Photoshop CS2 (pictures from digital cameras) has just been purchased. AC and WoW are played in my spare time.

In the CRT world I prefer 19" CRT monitors. In the LCD world this could be a 17" or 19", both being 1" difference in size. However, I want the best and will change sizes to get it.

The dell 2001FP that sux touts seems a bit on the large side but if it offers the best image quality (other than geometrics!) and performance then it that behemoth will be considered. The reviews do make it sound appealing.

I am unable to wait a month for the next generation, it must be available now.

Some of the monitors mentioned in this thread have been...
2xHitatchi CML174SXW 17" LCD 16ms
19" NEC 8ms LCD
Samsung 190s 19" LCD/TFT
Dell 2005FPW
Dell 2001FP
(1905FP but sux said the 2001FP was better)

Final question... What tweaking software should be used. Displaymate was used for CRT's and Spyder for matching monitor and printer color.


PS. Thanks for your helpful comments. Like real life you must start with logic (reviews and unbiased stats) and temper them with emotion (subjective opinions from actual users) to reach the proper balance.

 

[piasabird]

Some plasma wide TV's are able to take 2 Monitor cables and they just split the screen so you can have 2 outputs from one device.