I went from a Viewsonic G90fb to a Viewsonic VP171B and I couldn't be more pleased with the transition. The only bad is that running games lower than the native res interpolates the image and it doesn't look as crisp, but other than that, I do not get headaches anymore from eye strain and text still looks fine, using cleartype or whatever it is if you are having problems.
I don't understand the CAD design complaint. I work on CAD all day and use 2 LCD monitors to do it. There is no way I could use two CRT's, I dont have the desk space.
I was basing it off of my measurements of an 18" viewable screen on my desk, which is 368mm x 276mm
Ever so slightly short in each direction, but almost exactly 1600x1200. Yes it lacks some sharpness, which I have conceeded is one of the primary advantages of LCDs.
The fact is that CRT resolution is better than LCDs when compared head to head, though LCD sharpness is better. Which was my main point. I don't think this is really disputable.
Some of you seem to be more sensitive than I am to refresh rates. I believe that to be possible. I am apparently more sensitive than most to resolution differences.
Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
$1,100 for 2405FPW is a bit pricy but affordable. $7,700 for the T221 might not go over too well with my Wife!
Last night there was deal for what appears to be the 2405's smaller brother the 2005FPW. The price, including shipping and taxes, was $499. Both have 12ms response and the experts here say that 12ms has no performance issues with games except for the fastest action games. I play AC and WoW and both can get intense in large scale battles but the experts have spoken and I know they would not lie or exaggerate. Right?
Thanks for the reference.
I gained an impression from reading several reviews of both the 2005 and 2405 here at anandtech and elsewhere that the 2405 had honed the technology and had made some improvements in image quality and responsiveness with regard to gaming though my memory is a bit weak on specific details so I am unsure if this is what I actually read or just what I "wanted to read'
Perhaps I was a bit drunk or otherwise at the time.....Anyone care to chime in on this? I watch a lot of DVD's on my PC as well as gaming, and an LCD panel that games exceptionally well but suffers in the DVD department would be a constant thorn in my side. Is a 2405 FPW a wise choice for someone who values DVD image quality as much as gaming quality?
Okay, let's try the math again.
18" diagonal *should* be roughly 14.4 in. by 10.8 in. This is actually (if you use the right conversion factor) 35.6 cm by 27.4 cm, or ~355 x 275mm. At a .231mm dot pitch, that would give just about ~1540 x 1190. Definitely still a bit low for 1600x1200, but not nearly as bad as I made it out to be.
A 20" viewable would give you 16 in. by 12 in. (or 406mm by 305mm), and at the same dot pitch, that would be ~1760 x 1320. Should be plenty for 1600x1200 if alignment is good, but pushing it with 1920x1440, and definitely going to be fuzzy at 2048x1536.
18" diagonal *should* be roughly 14.4 in. by 10.8 in. This is actually (if you use the right conversion factor) 35.6 cm by 27.4 cm, or ~355 x 275mm. At a .231mm dot pitch, that would give just about ~1540 x 1190. Definitely still a bit low for 1600x1200, but not nearly as bad as I made it out to be.
A 20" viewable would give you 16 in. by 12 in. (or 406mm by 305mm), and at the same dot pitch, that would be ~1760 x 1320. Should be plenty for 1600x1200 if alignment is good, but pushing it with 1920x1440, and definitely going to be fuzzy at 2048x1536.
There might not be now 20" CRT, but I had once an IBM 20" CRT (that was smaller than another 21" CRT monitor)
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
i think either tomshardware.com or anandtech.com did a comparison between that and the apple. think the apple did video better. i doubt you'd be dissapointed either either though. software decoder quality matters too. windvd/powerdvd are good of course. apples is sh*t. on an unrelated note windvd has ability to play up to 2x speed with normalized sound. very convenient for dvd special features/commentary, saves time on that kind of low density info.
Update:
I did get the 2005FPW and installed it. Unfortunately it is so bright that I can only work on it for an hour (vs 10+ hours on my CRT) in a lit room. The brightness was lowered from 100 to 0 to allow me to work that long.
Looking for something to help calibrate the monitor I found this on TomsHardware.
As before, we calibrated and measured the monitors with a LaCie colorimeter. (So I may possibly purchase this item, which is not much cheaper than the monitor!)
The rest of the paragraph was...
We changed the settings slightly to make them more like those used for computer graphics, i.e. 5000 Kelvin for the color temperature, 2.2 gamma and brightness that was as close as possible to 110 cd/m². This last point may be surprising when you realize that some monitors claim to go up to 700 cd/m², and all claim 220 cd/m² as a minimum. You're right, they're all too bright. Unless the monitor is designed for public display, a lower brightness level is needed to produce a display that is easier on the eye and less garish. As a reminder, the ideal brightness level for conventional (CRT) monitors is around 85 cd/m².
If I read that correctly LCD monitors are over 6x as bright. I called this (without knowing the reason) the sun-in-the-eyes efffect.
BTW, after talking with Dell I learned that they only send user guides for monitors if the monitor is purchased with the computer. Sometimes their logic defies all reason.
I did get the 2005FPW and installed it. Unfortunately it is so bright that I can only work on it for an hour (vs 10+ hours on my CRT) in a lit room. The brightness was lowered from 100 to 0 to allow me to work that long.
Looking for something to help calibrate the monitor I found this on TomsHardware.
As before, we calibrated and measured the monitors with a LaCie colorimeter. (So I may possibly purchase this item, which is not much cheaper than the monitor!)
The rest of the paragraph was...
We changed the settings slightly to make them more like those used for computer graphics, i.e. 5000 Kelvin for the color temperature, 2.2 gamma and brightness that was as close as possible to 110 cd/m². This last point may be surprising when you realize that some monitors claim to go up to 700 cd/m², and all claim 220 cd/m² as a minimum. You're right, they're all too bright. Unless the monitor is designed for public display, a lower brightness level is needed to produce a display that is easier on the eye and less garish. As a reminder, the ideal brightness level for conventional (CRT) monitors is around 85 cd/m².
If I read that correctly LCD monitors are over 6x as bright. I called this (without knowing the reason) the sun-in-the-eyes efffect.
BTW, after talking with Dell I learned that they only send user guides for monitors if the monitor is purchased with the computer. Sometimes their logic defies all reason.
BTW, I am downloading Powerstrip now and will play with calibrating the monitor.
I have high standards, but compared to the average person, I'm fair and willing to try.
I have high standards, but compared to the average person, I'm fair and willing to try.
We'll all wait with bated breath. My early prediction is that you will decide, to your great surprise, that you don't like LCD monitors after all.
My .02:
When I needed to replace my 17" Samsung IFT crt I also felt LCD was too expensive and could not match the quality of crt so I tried out the Samsung 997DF. I was quite terribly disappointed. It could simply not manage 1280x1024 with any clarity, let alone 1600x1200; the screen was terribly curved and no amount of adjustment could set the geometry right; it had uneven brightness and color patches; it had horrible moire problems requiring constant adjustment. I changed it once and the second one was somewhat better but not by much.
A friend bought the Samsung 710 LCD (at about the same time for about 35% more than the 997DF) and I was amazed at it's clarity and performance. 6 bit, 8 bit - does it really matter or does what you see matter? At least for normal average use, other than professional use? I am currently using his old LG 17" crt till I am able to afford a good 19" LCD.
I hope the new Samsung 930/910 will be a good buy. A bigger screen at the same resolution should be easier for text and normal use.
When I needed to replace my 17" Samsung IFT crt I also felt LCD was too expensive and could not match the quality of crt so I tried out the Samsung 997DF. I was quite terribly disappointed. It could simply not manage 1280x1024 with any clarity, let alone 1600x1200; the screen was terribly curved and no amount of adjustment could set the geometry right; it had uneven brightness and color patches; it had horrible moire problems requiring constant adjustment. I changed it once and the second one was somewhat better but not by much.
A friend bought the Samsung 710 LCD (at about the same time for about 35% more than the 997DF) and I was amazed at it's clarity and performance. 6 bit, 8 bit - does it really matter or does what you see matter? At least for normal average use, other than professional use? I am currently using his old LG 17" crt till I am able to afford a good 19" LCD.
I hope the new Samsung 930/910 will be a good buy. A bigger screen at the same resolution should be easier for text and normal use.
When I bought my Dell monitor I received a user guide on CD. There are also user guides online, including one for the 2005FPW.
Also, when making monitor adjustments try making them through both the OSD and through the display properties on your computer. IIRC, I found I could get a much larger change to the brightness through the display drivers than through the buttons.
ExpertNovice --
"There is "footprint" and useable space. Are you really storing items behind your current monitor? The width does save you about 2" and if that is 30% of your desktop area you have bigger problems!"
Yes, I store my rig behind the LCD now. This allows me to have monitors and 2 PCs on my desk while not losing any space for my k/b, mouse, and general workarea.
"There is "footprint" and useable space. Are you really storing items behind your current monitor? The width does save you about 2" and if that is 30% of your desktop area you have bigger problems!"
Yes, I store my rig behind the LCD now. This allows me to have monitors and 2 PCs on my desk while not losing any space for my k/b, mouse, and general workarea.
Adul
Elite Member
LCD still dont have a true black,
Color richness is still not there even on the best panels. I'd still take a nice trinitron over a LCD for pure picture quality and contrast
Originally posted by: SkyBum
Find me a 24" widescreen CRT at around $1000 and you'll have my attention
/thread
Well where I am LCD's are practically a requirement. The CRT TV is next to get replaced. They are big safety hazards. LCD's can be built flush into the wall, etc.
And for text, the LCD is perfect. CRT's look fuzzy in comparison.
And for text, the LCD is perfect. CRT's look fuzzy in comparison.
oogabooga
Diamond Member
- Jan 14, 2003
- 7,806
- 3
- 81
personally the lcd / crt comparrison in my opinion isn't as black and white as people think it is anymore. I'm on a 19in Trinitron at work, and the display is nice, clear, crisp. The profile of the monitor isn't that bad : and it obviously handles many different applications fine : runs windows at 1600x1200 currently since that's the rez i have it set to.
my 2005fp from dell is at home, and i love that thing. If i had one at work, i might never leave ( :Q ). Running 1680x1050 was kinda wierd, and still is for some games (not used to the widescreen yet) but i gotta tell you. When viewing text on that monitor, it puts the trintron to shame. In face : in most applications it gives the crt a run for it's money. Even in WoW, CS:S, WIII, UT2k4 i have not noticed any ghosting (though i think i have seen some streaking a couple times trying to reproduce it has proved difficult).
I think if you view lcd's as a 'step back' you need to either a) get out of the year 2000 and come join the rest of us in 2005, or b) perhaps stop being a crt fanboy?
Crt's are still quite viable and admittantly better in some area's, but not by the margin you are thinking OP.
my 2005fp from dell is at home, and i love that thing. If i had one at work, i might never leave ( :Q ). Running 1680x1050 was kinda wierd, and still is for some games (not used to the widescreen yet) but i gotta tell you. When viewing text on that monitor, it puts the trintron to shame. In face : in most applications it gives the crt a run for it's money. Even in WoW, CS:S, WIII, UT2k4 i have not noticed any ghosting (though i think i have seen some streaking a couple times trying to reproduce it has proved difficult).
I think if you view lcd's as a 'step back' you need to either a) get out of the year 2000 and come join the rest of us in 2005, or b) perhaps stop being a crt fanboy?
Crt's are still quite viable and admittantly better in some area's, but not by the margin you are thinking OP.
agreed- your settings changes will be more agressive through say, nvidia display color/brightness/contrast/gamma correction vs the OSD.
Not sure but someone was asking about the 2405FPW and dvd quality- I cant answer that but I can tell you that the 2005FPW looks great with DVDs and Gaming.. no ghosting or picture tearing in Games, Movies OR office apps (using Vsynch).... I was very impressed with the picture quality in dvds and with the variety of FPS games I play... if you have a slower response time LCD (i also have a 16ms and 23ms LCD) you WILL notice ghosting and tearing in just about everything ESPECIALLY first person shooters... this Dell 12ms is incredible, cant wait to someday own a 5ms or faster LCD!
And for the person that started this post- if you're going to compare apples to oranges at least make sure that when you're at best buy or wherever you are getting visual data, make sure that the Displays are being viewed in their Native resolutions... do you know what Native resolution is? Pixels on an LCD are at a fixed count- i.e. 1280x1024= 184320 pixels... so you cannot change the resolution, say like a CRT, and expect the same quality of image without distoring it or the characters somewhat. This, IMO, is the ONLY drawback to LCD.
You also say that LCD only saves you deskspace if you have a desk up against a wall? So you're saying that LCDs are bigger than CRTs on a larger desk or if its up against a wall lol? Show me a CRT that takes up a smaller footprint than an LCD and I'll go back to CRT- regardless of desk size.
I have to admit- i was very dissapointed with LCDs from 3 to 5 years ago- 23ms LCDs just do not cut it for gaming so I had been waiting for these faster response LCDs to come down in price. The increasingly popular 5ms and 8ms LCDs are pushing down the 12-18ms LCD prices. I have a 16ms Princeton that I was very satisfied with for gaming, but at $345 for the 12ms 2005FPW (dell had massive coupons at the end of april) I couldnt pass it up.
so many pages I don't know where to begin, but I want to see if anyone has responsed to what the author said about his eyes hurting from looking into an lcd?
why do you think they came out with anti-glare and anti-radiation screens for crt's, they fling so many more impurities at your eyes. also you shouldn't have your lcd at 100% brightness and contrast, that's just ridiculous, why do you need that?
I've always stepped off the computer when i had a crt and my eyes would feel as if they were bleeding. now i can use the computer for 5hrs without looking away and my eyes feel absolutely fine.
why do you think they came out with anti-glare and anti-radiation screens for crt's, they fling so many more impurities at your eyes. also you shouldn't have your lcd at 100% brightness and contrast, that's just ridiculous, why do you need that?
I've always stepped off the computer when i had a crt and my eyes would feel as if they were bleeding. now i can use the computer for 5hrs without looking away and my eyes feel absolutely fine.
Agree. I have spent some time on my friend's LCD and it definitely was easier on the eyes than my Samsung IFT / LG Flatron CRTs. Most people I have spoken to have said that LCDs are far better as far as eyestrain is concerned.
WTF are you talking about? Consider turning down the brightness? Infact looking into an LCD screen is much much better for your eyes than a CRT because of the fact they produce very sharp images compared to CRT's i've had (I've never had a high end CRT anyways..). CRTs flicker when running at a lower refresh rate compared to LCDs where you can't even see them refreshing at 60hz..
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter