Why the step back to LCD's?

[imported_Collector]

Originally posted by ExpertNovice
LCD's are not good enough for serious graphics or cad work.

What kind of CAD work are you doing that you need all this (theoretical) perfection? I am an engineer and use CAD to transfer designs from my head to the screen. CRTs are actually behind LCDs because they don't have screen real estate to display large images and their geometry is insconsitant. At least the ones I've seen.

I've used two different 21" CRT monitors for years and now use an LCD. I wouldn't go back.

Some real world benefits that I've found from LCDs:
1) Going from a 24" deep monitor (21" CRT) to one that is 6" deep (24" LCD) has allowed me to gain a lot more efficiency from my desk space.

2) Rotating the screen allows me to work better depending on the application I'm using. I always thought this was a BS feature until I started using it.

Oh, and if you want to evaluate LCDs, make sure you use DVI.

 

[6000SUX]

I probably wouldn't pick the 2001FP as the LCD with the highest image quality; I just like it because it's good all around. I was expecting someone to bring up the "screen-door effect" that some 2001FP users complain about, which is caused by noticing the pixel lattice when you're really close to the monitor. It doesn't bother me because I don't have my face super-close to the screen.

The only advice I can give is that you should try as many as you can in person before you buy, which might involve trips to a few stores (but it would be a fun way to spend half a day in my book). If you do try them out at a store, make sure that they're hooked up to a DVI card (and don't accept rubbish explanations, check for yourself). This will also let you play with the settings to offset things like the "sun in your eyes" effect.

 

[imported_g33k]

Originally posted by: 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.

The Dell 1905fp is probably the best all around 19" panel out there. It has an 8 bit panel, which means good color representation and a 20ms response time, which would be adequate for light gaming.

The Samsung is 190s I have in my sig, is a 25ms panel. While 25ms panels are very cheap right now, they just suck for fast action gaming. This is why I have two monitors, one for typing this post (2d apps) and one for gaming (3d apps).

 

[Dubb]

I'm a cad/graphics/3d guy....I still use CRTs

why? getting the quality and screen real estate I have on a 22" Flat CRT Running 2048x1536 would be VERY expensive, and I'm so used to having that much space that I feel very "boxed in" on anything less than 1920x1440. Text is fine for my eyes, though I do far more drawing than text work.

I have a huge, strong hardwood desk. Handles all 140lbs of CRT just fine. I've never felt like I needed more desk space, nor have I felt that the heat was an issue (mine are by the window and near an air conditioner)

MOST LCDs (except high end pro models like the IBM t221) look very "pixelated" to me...too few pixels on too big a screen makes for some really jagged looking lines. CRT+graphics card capable of hardware AA lines (quadro, firegl) wins in my book.

Color is still an issue with LCDs as far as I've seen. It's gotten alot better, but I'm far from ready to abandon my CRT.

In a perfect world, I'd have both: an IBM t221 + an apple 30" cinema display + a nice CRT (and while I'm at it a pair of quadro 4400s, one for the IBM and one for the 30" and CRT)

But there's still the issue of:

IBM t221: $7000 ($8k for newest revision) Power consumption: 135w typical, 150 max
Apple 30" : $3000 Power consumption: 150w max (typical not listed on apple's site)
CRT: $600-1200 (Viewsonic p225f power consumption: (160w typical, max not listed)

so there really isn't a huge power disjoint (at least among the LCDs I'd consider)

But then again I've come to realize that I'm a pretty rare case. Most people would be much happier with an LCD. Seems like E.N. is stretching things a bit.

 

[bluestrobe]

I'm happy with my CRT's. LCD's are still out of my price reach, I'm not the richest but I don't like forking out $200+ to replace something that doesn't need replaced. My current CRT is a Gateway VX900 (almost 8 years old) and my secondary is a NEC Multisync FE700 (6 years old). I like them and see no need to fork money out for a LCD. I replace when broken, not upgrade to prove myself to others.

 

[kornphlake]

the real reason CRT's are being phased out is because of environmental regulations in europe that will come into effect next year. The regulations prohibit most of the elements that make a CRT a CRT. Although the directive does allow CRT's to continue to be used in certain applications, manufacturers that traditionally built CRT's are putting their stock in LCD's because that's what thier OEM customers are demanding so that their products can be sold in europe without question. It looks like China is also drafting an environmental regulation similar to europe's. LCD's are much cleaner than CRTs

 

[Oyeve]

Dell is selling the 1905FP for $335.30 right now.

 

[ExpertNovice]

Dubb,

The IBM t221 (NOT the $11,500 version either, again pointing out that equivilent LCD's are many times more costly than CRT's.)
http://www.officedepot.com/ddSKU.do?lev...hopping%20Comp-_-Datafeed-_-Technology
(excerpt)

The IBM T221 monitor delivers outstanding visual performance. Packing over 9.2 million pixels into its 22.2-inch viewing image area, the T221 monitor displays exceptionally high-quality images for users in the medical, scientific and many other fields, anywhere the clarity of images is critical.

• The IBM T221 has among the highest resolution and information content of large-screen computer monitors currently available.

• Displays critical visualization applications with astounding clarity and approaches photographic-quality realism.

Ok, when I asked for the best I failed to remember my "be careful of what you wish for" motto!

16:10 aspect ratio
204 pixels per inch
What i don't understand is all the specs on this monitor.... refresh rates, vertical and horizontal scan frequencies.

Wow. Nice monitor. That is a bit out of my price range, but we may all be using this type of monitor in the future!

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: kornphlake
the real reason CRT's are being phased out is because of environmental regulations in europe that will come into effect next year. The regulations prohibit most of the elements that make a CRT a CRT. Although the directive does allow CRT's to continue to be used in certain applications, manufacturers that traditionally built CRT's are putting their stock in LCD's because that's what thier OEM customers are demanding so that their products can be sold in europe without question. It looks like China is also drafting an environmental regulation similar to europe's. LCD's are much cleaner than CRTs

Ok. THAT makes sense.

While I tend to dislike such regulations when frivously used it does tend to drive new technology.

Al Gore and John Kerry wanted to encourage new energy sources by making them more economical. To do that the cost of current technologies must be raised. Thus, Al Gore stated that he would tax the automobile out of existence and John Kerry pushed for a fifty cent increase in gasoline taxes in 2003. This would have been the first of many increases. By not taxing "new" sources of energy the new sources become more economical.

Unfortunately, so many environmentalists want others to conserve... look at the elites driving their limos and 2 mpg cars (exaggerated) that tell the rest of us to buy small cars. In our case, it was a tough sell but the home builder had to relent when I coughed up the money to use 2x6 boards and use 6" insulation rather than 4". This resulted in a rating in our walls that exceeded what Dallas requires in our attics.

 

[0roo0roo]

well consumers themselves were phasing out the crt. given the choice even at higher prices they chose them over crts. so its not a conspiracy. consumer tastes matched up with the regulation. rather convenient.

and while i think many enviros are wack jobs very few enviromentalists drive limos.

 

[Concillian]

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
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.

This has been my largest reservation. I want 1600x1200 on a 17" viewable (~0.21 mm dot pitch) like I used to be able to get. Actually I'd like even smaller dot pitch. I'm HOPING Longhorn is better with higher dpi fonts than Win2k / WinXP is so the scalability of fonts will be a lesser concern compared to what it is now, and that will encourage true resolution improvement, instead ot the de-evolution of resolution that has happened over the previous few years.

I simply don't understand people who buy 19" screens with the same native resolution as 17" screens (1280x1024)... and they pay MORE for them

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: kornphlake
the real reason CRT's are being phased out is because of environmental regulations in europe that will come into effect next year. The regulations prohibit most of the elements that make a CRT a CRT. Although the directive does allow CRT's to continue to be used in certain applications, manufacturers that traditionally built CRT's are putting their stock in LCD's because that's what thier OEM customers are demanding so that their products can be sold in europe without question. It looks like China is also drafting an environmental regulation similar to europe's. LCD's are much cleaner than CRTs

Nope. They're being phased out because people voted with their pocketbooks. None of the preceding years, where CRTs were just as bad for the environment, saw such regulations... it took the advent of the next technological step.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Concillian

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
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.

This has been my largest reservation. I want 1600x1200 on a 17" viewable (~0.21 mm dot pitch) like I used to be able to get. Actually I'd like even smaller dot pitch. I'm HOPING Longhorn is better with higher dpi fonts than Win2k / WinXP is so the scalability of fonts will be a lesser concern compared to what it is now, and that will encourage true resolution improvement, instead ot the de-evolution of resolution that has happened over the previous few years.

I simply don't understand people who buy 19" screens with the same native resolution as 17" screens (1280x1024)... and they pay MORE for them

Okay, I can understand that you like things small. But to say that detail is LOST on a sharp LCD screen is ridiculous-- information is easier to lose on fuzzy CRT screens. Pixels just tend to be bigger on LCD panels (although, as you know, there are plenty of 1600X1200 15" panels in the world; they just tend to be used in noteboooks).

 

[0roo0roo]

err well...you know crts don't really have enough phosphor dots to really resolve a really clear picture at 1600x1200 on a 19" crt right? it works.. but its slightly blurry and thus not worth the trouble.

 

[Concillian]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
(although, as you know, there are plenty of 1600X1200 15" panels in the world; they just tend to be used in noteboooks).

Fat lot of good that does me.

I do own an LCD, but my CRT is on my main machine =).

I figure by the time I'm ready to upgrade that CRT, LCDs will finally be really nice. We're just starting to see the emergence of good 19" screens. In a couple years I'm hoping we'll have decent at least 120dpi screens (0.21mm dp).

People just seem to not really care about resolution in the true sense of the word (pixels per unit length or unit area) I will be impressed when we start seeing pixel size dropping. crappy printers can do 300 dpi, and monitors have been stuck in the 100 dpi range for over a decade. People buying 19" LCDs are perfectly happy with 86 dpi?

Nevermind me, resolution has been a pet peeve of mine for like 10 years. I keep hoping to see true resolution improvements, but it never happens. I don't really see how it can with Windows 98/2k/XP as they don't handle high dpi fonts well, which is why I say I hope Longhorn has better capability of using high dpi fonts, as I think that will be a key enabler for these higher resolution LCDs to start penetrating into the desktop market.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Concillian

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
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.

This has been my largest reservation. I want 1600x1200 on a 17" viewable (~0.21 mm dot pitch) like I used to be able to get. Actually I'd like even smaller dot pitch. I'm HOPING Longhorn is better with higher dpi fonts than Win2k / WinXP is so the scalability of fonts will be a lesser concern compared to what it is now, and that will encourage true resolution improvement, instead ot the de-evolution of resolution that has happened over the previous few years.

I simply don't understand people who buy 19" screens with the same native resolution as 17" screens (1280x1024)... and they pay MORE for them

If you want a smaller effective dot pitch, move the screen further away from you. A 17" viewable monitor is awfully small for my taste; if you were running it at 1600x1200, you'd have to scale the text up quite a bit to make it readable (at least for me).

I can see how you might find 1280x1024 a bit limiting as a maximum resolution on a 19" display, but with a 20/21" 1600x1200 display, you can adjust the distance between you and the monitor to vary the effective dot pitch. With a small display, you don't have that option; a 17" monitor three feet away from you is way, way too small.

Don't get me wrong; I'd love to see super-high-dpi displays (say, 20" 4:3, but 3200x2400). But there's not much to drive them with ATM, and you're not running any newer games at those resolutions.

 

[6000SUX]

Matthias99, if you're not a lawyer, you ought to be one. (That's a compliment.) Every one of your posts marches inexorably forward to a reasonable, perfectly-supported conclusion.

 

[n7]

I guess i'll add my $0.02.

I bought a Sharp 17" LCD 1.5 yrs. ago, so compared to most people's LCDs here, it's old. E.g., it has 20ms response time.

However, i have no plans to ever buy another CRT.

Smaller size is great & all, but the one thing that i really like is the brighter, sharper screen. Everything looks so much more vibrant than on a CRT.
Another thing i love about my LCD is the lack of refreshing.
I cannot stand using CRTs anymore, because regardless of how great their refresh rate is, i can still see the flicker.
I find LCDs soooo much easier on the eyes, & if i had to give one reason only why i like LCDs over CRTs, that would be it.

The ghosting issue is almost non-existant with a good LCD, & TBH, some people like myself cannot see ghosting no more how hard i try...except once
At work, we had this 38ms 14" LCD...that thing was garbage :Q However, that's the only monitor i've ever been able to see ghosting on, & i've seen hundreds of different monitors from the last 18 months at work. That's just me. Other people have more sensitive eyes to that i guess.

Overall, i find LCDs to be far superior to CRTs.

The only thing i dislike about my LCD:
Blacks/dark colors are a tad off in terms of how they should look. However, i've noticed that on the good newer LCDs we have at work, that issue is almost entirely gone.

Are LCDs perfect? Absolutely not. But you will find you are in a very increasing minority if you prefer CRTs, & there is good reason for that.

 

[Concillian]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
err well...you know crts don't really have enough phosphor dots to really resolve a really clear picture at 1600x1200 on a 19" crt right? it works.. but its slightly blurry and thus not worth the trouble.

I have a 19" screen here in front of me that has viewable screen dimensions of ~ 375mm x 275mm

to get 1600x1200 in that you have to have a dot pitch of
375 / 1600 = 0.234
275 / 1200 = 0.229

Advertised dot pitch of the Samsung 997 and 990 models is 0.20

So umm, yes, you can get 1600x1200 actual pixels on a 19" screen (18" viewable).

19" LCDs have a gargantuan 0.294 dot pitch.

LCDs have incredible sharpness that is a big advantage over CRTs. To me, the primary downside is the resolution.

 

[kornphlake]

Nope. They're being phased out because people voted with their pocketbooks. None of the preceding years, where CRTs were just as bad for the environment, saw such regulations... it took the advent of the next technological step.

The directive goes far beyond CRT's, any electronic component containing more than a set percentage of lead, mercury or a long list of lesser known elements are prohibited. This is having a global impact on any and all electronics industries. The fact is that it's a whole lot simpler to eliminate the harmful elements from an LCD than a CRT.

LCD's are the newest chi-chi technology so nobody put up much of a fuss when the old technology reached the end of it's life cycle, most consumers are looking to upgrade not to replace their displays with the same old technology. The reason you don't see CRTs at your local electronic store is because they aren't being produced any more in asian factories because of the european regulations. If best buy could sell a 17" CRT monitor for $50 after rebates they'd gladly take a $350 LCD off the shelf to make room for it simply because the profit margins are about the same and they can sell a whole lot more $50 monitors than they can $350 monitors.

 

[0roo0roo]

its still not quite enough. dot triads are not pixels as they do not line up, fractional dot triads are what you deal with. as such you need more than one for resolution, and more then that for real clarityhttp://www.dansdata.com/io026.htm
http://www.dansdata.com/753df.htm
CRTs can be told to display very high resolutions, but they don't really have fine enough phosphor dots to do a whole lot more than 72 DPI. A "19 inch" monitor with a 36cm horizontal dimension will be running out of phosphor dots above 1280 by 960...

CRT close-up

...at which point it's already only laying this many phosphor dots across a standard Windows mouse pointer.

1280 pixels across 36 centimetres is 90 DPI.http://www.dansdata.com/gz029.htm
http://www.infocellar.com/hardware/monitor2.htm

http://www.devhardware.com/index2.php?o...sk=view&id=1419&pop=1&page=0&hide_js=1
Table 15.3 Recommended Resolutions for CRT and LCD Displays

it recommends much larger for 1600x1200.

 

[0roo0roo]

LCD's are the newest chi-chi technology so nobody put up much of a fuss when the old technology reached the end of it's life cycle, most consumers are looking to upgrade not to replace their displays with the same old technology. The reason you don't see CRTs at your local electronic store is because they aren't being produced any more in asian factories because of the european regulations. If best buy could sell a 17" CRT monitor for $50 after rebates they'd gladly take a $350 LCD off the shelf to make room for it simply because the profit margins are about the same and they can sell a whole lot more $50 monitors than they can $350 monitors.

but thats not true. go to frys and there are still plenty of crts.

 

[Concillian]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: Concillian

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
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.

This has been my largest reservation. I want 1600x1200 on a 17" viewable (~0.21 mm dot pitch) like I used to be able to get. Actually I'd like even smaller dot pitch. I'm HOPING Longhorn is better with higher dpi fonts than Win2k / WinXP is so the scalability of fonts will be a lesser concern compared to what it is now, and that will encourage true resolution improvement, instead ot the de-evolution of resolution that has happened over the previous few years.

I simply don't understand people who buy 19" screens with the same native resolution as 17" screens (1280x1024)... and they pay MORE for them

If you want a smaller effective dot pitch, move the screen further away from you. A 17" viewable monitor is awfully small for my taste; if you were running it at 1600x1200, you'd have to scale the text up quite a bit to make it readable (at least for me).

Then I'd have to use reading glasses to focus on the LCD, which effectively enlarges the dot pitch . You have a point, if there were larger LCDs available at reasonable prices. LCD manufacturing processes just don't scale well with screen area, and cost is disproportionately large with large screen area. Ultimately not feasible.

As for readability, 80-120 dpi fonts have been the standard for too long. There would obviously be a need to use higher resolution fonts. 150 dpi, 180 dpi, etc... to take advantage of the extra pixels. Scaling an existing 100 dpi font up to size is a sub-optimal solution.

Gaming wise, I also imagine technology emerging that would allow a 3200x2400 monitor to flawlessly emulate a 1600x1200 monitor, for example. (four pixels = one virtual pixel) which would allow crisp 2D displays at full resolution for browsing/word processing/photoshopping/CAD-ing while allowing native resolution sharpness at lower resolutions for gaming to compensate for inabilities of 3D cards. However, if 3D performance increases at it's current rate, gaming with more pixels will be feasible by the time these screens become available.

This is why there is so much inertia to the display market, but it will happen eventually. Eventually the gap between screen resolution and printed page resolution will narrow, but there are some technologies that need to be put into place first:
- LCD evolution to make high resolution displays feasible from a cost/manufacturing standpoint
- OS evolution to allow higher dpi fonts easily
- Development of a reasonable number of these higher dpi fonts
- Ability for LCDs to emulate half-resolution screens without dithering.

Like I said, I'm a wishful thinker when it comes to display resolution. I like to think that eventually (like before I die) 300-600 dpi displays will be commonplace. One step at a time though, I'd like to at least see 150 dpi in the next few years.

Current LCD technology push has been response times. We are seeing the first production 19" LCDs with <15ms grey-grey response times across the board, and an average in the ~13ms range. I think that will be adequate for most usage, as that's 67 Hz minimum on transition times (~76Hz average), which approaches the fairly standard 70-75 Hz for CRTs (not directly comparable, but if you have an LCD pixel changing color each refresh it's a fairly close approximation). To me, if response time is at an acceptable level on the largest dot pitches, the next obvious step is to start moving that technology into smaller dot pitches. 0.294 at 19" to 0.264 at 17" to 0.255 at 20.1" to ???

If the same kind of push happens on shrinking the current low response time panels as we've seen on the response time in general lately, then it won't be more than a year or so that we will see 20.1" 1600x1200 panels with these response times. I figure 150dpi is achievable in 5 years or less on consumer level screens.

 

[ExpertNovice]

The Dell 2005FPW was on sale as I am a former Dell Owner. Cost, including s/h and tax was $499. There appeared to be other coupons that might reduce the price another $90 but this "deal" was expiring five minutes after the order was submitted.

I did confirm that the warranty was three years. This seems to be a decent time given that in three years MUCH improved LCD monitors will be available.

The reasons I chose the 2005FPW was the Anandtech review. The 2001FP was a close second. The push was the wide format for use in some games. WoW was one of those games and is one that I play. Also that this monitor will scale resulting in black bands on the edges rather than distorting the image. Hopefully, I read that correctly.

 

[Concillian]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
its still not quite enough. dot triads are not pixels as they do not line up, fractional dot triads are what you deal with. as such you need more than one for resolution, and more then that for real clarity

None of your links really refer to high quality monitors. The closest is the Dan's data link of the 753DF, which he is claiming an actual measured horizontal dot pitch of 0.231, (presumably the same technology in the 990 and 997) which is very close to actual needed resolution for 1600x1200.

The other links you show are talking about average monitors. And average monitors are, well, not exceptional... that's why they're average. Given a decent 19" CRT nowadays is $250, how many people who care about image quality are buying crappy ones?