LCD Monitors

[Springheel]

I'm in the market for a new monitor. The last time I got any info about LCD vs CRT, it was 2005. Anyone have good recommendations?

[HappyCheeze]

LCD vs CRT?

 

LCDs can be really light and portable, but can be expensive.

 

CRTs are heavy

 

How big a screen are you thinking?

 

I'd reccomend newegg.com You can browse around and look at user reviews on monitors and whatever else. I love that site, really good deals and customer service.

 

But you're in Canada right? So you'll have to go to

 

http://www.newegg.ca/

[Mortem Desino]

LCDs look crisp and bright, yes, but I still prefer CRT monitors. The one on my desktop right now has such precise control over its image that I tried a comparison test on my own.

 

I set my LCD to 1440x900 (Its native resolution) and my CRT to 1440x900. I did some size and ratio adjustments and found that while the LCD is bright and crisp looking at text, the CRT has more vivid colors (True color, actually, and they look significantly different in comparison) and better contrast. The screen looks very pixilized, though (black outline around individual pixels.)

 

If this is for your artwork, CRT is your best bet.

Edited January 4, 2009 by Mortem Desino

[Tels]

You will be hard-pressed to find CRT monitors, esp. if you are looking for a one that doesn't cost you an arm and leg.

 

LCDs can be bad (my laptop is a not-so-shining example), but the panels in the 16:10 1920x1200 category are actually very good. Almost no angle-depending color shift, very bright etc. Don't get a smaller one, tho You get them for about 300..450 € here and I can only recommend them (well, at least the Dell we have at work).

[Springheel]

The last time I asked, the general consensus was that LCDs could not match CRTs unless you were willing to dish out a lot of money. I was hoping in the last three years that might have changed (I don't mind paying a decent price, but not > $500). My previous monitor was a 21" CRT, but it weighed a ton and took up a lot of space. I'm not going to have as much space on my new desk, so I was hoping to go for a good LCD, if there are any that can compare.

[Mr Mike]

This really comes down to personal preference so I think the best thing to do is go to a shop and try some out for yourself.

 

I bought a 22" bottom of the range Samsung flat panel nearly 2 years ago for £200 (probably cost about 75% of that now). That's a lot of screen size for the money, takes up no desk space and I've been more than happy with it so far.

 

As an artist you're gonig to be more demanding but if you're happy with the colours and contrast of a flat panel there's no reason to even consider CRT in this day and age.

[Tels]

The last time I asked, the general consensus was that LCDs could not match CRTs unless you were willing to dish out a lot of money. I was hoping in the last three years that might have changed (I don't mind paying a decent price, but not > $500). My previous monitor was a 21" CRT, but it weighed a ton and took up a lot of space. I'm not going to have as much space on my new desk, so I was hoping to go for a good LCD, if there are any that can compare.

 

When I needed replacing my 1600x1200 CRT, the options where:

 

* 1600x1200 LCD ,for a bit over 1100 € (1300 US$ at that time)

* a used 22" CRT for about 50 € which I did choose

 

The CRT is now very soft, and I need to put brightness and contrast to the maximum and it is still not really white and bright, esp. on a bright day. Despite that, it draws 120 Watts, weights a ton and blocks half of my desk.

 

The LCDs are now 24", 1920x1200 (16:10), have much better color rendition and faster response times (despite marketing "improving" them even further) and they cost only 300..400 €. Using less than 100 Watts, weight only half and use less space.

 

If I had to choose now, I would choose LCD.

 

Actually, I just looked at alternate.de - a well-known hardware reseller in Germany, and they don't even feature CRTs anymore. Saturn, a big electronic and so chain here do only have 19" monitors when I was there last week. It can be the decision has been already taken out of your hands

[squill]

depends on your personal demands. I'm working a few years now on lcd's and i don't want to go back working on a crt.

 

One of the reasons (besides crt's being expensive and big) lcd's are easier on the eyes which eliminated the headaches i got after working a few hours behind a crt and it's not that i used a low refreshrate because i'm usually the one who tell others their monitors are flickering.

 

If you consider buying an lcd look for the ones that have a MVA/IPS or PVA panel. They have better colors (true 8-bit) and better viewing angles although they are more expensive.

 

Cheaper monitors use a TN panel which usually means faster response times but less colors ( 6-bit colour depth) and limited viewing angles. I have 2 samsung TN-panels at home which are pretty good for me although i'm not that demanding. The viewangles are not that great, you really have to sit right in front of the screen to see it clear but the colors on my 22' widescreen are decent enough to work with.

[jdude]

Try and get a Samsung, I've never ever had a problem with my Samsung monitors where-as with other monitor brands I've had dead cells and such. I have two 22" Samsung LCD monitors hooked up to my computer and I love them. I also recently purchased a 40" Samsung LCD TV so you can tell, I'm serious about Samsung Their prices are usually relatively low as well which is nice!

[STiFU]

When I finally switched to LCD I tried multiple panels. I had a V7, a LG and some other brand but they were all crap. Then I bought a Samsung 22'' for 300€ and I was very happy with it. Samsung's MagicColor feature really enhances the visual quality a lot. But as already said, the angle dependency is kind of bad, as well as the light halos at the lower and upper side of the screen which are only noticable on a darkscren, but therefor extremely frustrating in thief. I sometimes turn down brightness to the minimum in order to decrease this effect when playing very dark games. I wonder whether thief looks better on a glossy panel. Anyone have one?

 

Anyway, you'll love your LCD if you have to spend a lot of time at the PC per day. And by the way, there is a big german website reviewing Monitors called prad.de, which is THE BEST reference in this concern. There is also an english version of it: Click me!

[Springheel]

s well as the light halos at the lower and upper side of the screen which are only noticable on a darkscren, but therefor extremely frustrating in thief.

 

Yes, I've read about that blacklight bleeding, and it concerns me because I obviously want Thief and TDM to look their best.

[Constantine]

squill is right, you should pay attention to LCD panel type if you work with graphics.

 

S-IPS and SA-SFT panels provide the best color quaity comparable with good CRT monitors and are used for professional graphic works, but they are rather expensive.

 

PVA/MVA panels are the compromise between quality and price. They have good color quality, but also have color shift effect (dark places of a picture become brighter when you view the screen at angles different from 90 degrees).

 

It's rumored that this defect was fixed in S-PVA panels, but I still haven't seen monitors with guaranteed S-PVA panel (I examined my friend's Samsung 215TW yesterday and found the same color shift as the common PVA panels have).

 

Anyway, *VA panels are the good choise for graphic works if you don't want spend too much money.

 

Anyway, don't buy a monitor with TN panel - they are unfit for serious graphics work.

 

Pesonally I'm waiting for NEC Multisync P221W with S-PVA panel http://www.necdisplay.com/Products/Product...e5-880367d76bfa

(It's the new model and doesn't sell in Russia yet)

 

(but, if I had more money, I'd buy NEC 2190UXi with SA-SFT

http://www.necdisplay.com/Products/Product...a4-516428de1779 )

[plasticman]

Springheel,

 

for the money you are willing to spend you should find something decent.

 

Since CRT and TFT displays are quite different it is a good idea to test your new screen in your home environment and see of it fits your needs or comes up with any flaws. That's why I only bought from local dealers, I returned two screens and kept the third one.

 

For Thief or Darkmod black levels can become an issue. If there are lighter and darker areas on the screen where they are not supposed to be it can be disturbing, especially while moving.

 

For more "research" I found hardforum.com to be useful as well as behardware.com. Prad.de should be considered but I found some of my screens to behave different as it has been presented in their reviews.

 

--

[woah]

If the image quality were my only concern, I would definitely stick with a CRT. I have tested a very large variety of LCDs, many of them new (my roommate is always buying these things, and always at the high end) and they simply can not produce a satisfying black when compared to a CRT (If you're into the Thief games--and obviously you are--I can say that a monitor unable to produce a good black will take you right out of the experience), and the colors are not accurate. In addition, the response time does not compare (CRT response times are measured in ns, LCDs in ms). I've often been told the human eye is incapable of telling the difference at very low ms on LCDs when compared to CRTs (I have no idea if this is a legitimate statement or not), but I can tell you--without a doubt in my mind--there is a significant difference, and if you're into shooters like Quake or Counter-Strike, you'll notice a perceivable handicap (of course, I can only make this judgement based on my own eyes. Yours may be very different). You will adjust to this (as many people do and then unfortunately claim there is no difference, and I often suspect so they can further justify their pricey screens).

 

On the other, I have substituted the CRT I use to own for an LCD for other reasons (one being it was 7 years old and becoming blurry). Of course, there is conservation of space, but this is rarely a consequential factor considered. The main game-breaker (advantage)--for me, at least--is the reduced strain on the eyes; I can last quite a bit longer when coding and reading (though I still prefer reading from a book), and any subsequent strain is minimal in comparison to the CRT. In addition, there is also the issue of power consumption, which we try to keep at a reasonable minimum in our home.

 

Another thing to consider is the new OLED technology on the rise. Supposedly the response time can be less than 0.01ms; produce a wider range of colors, brightness, viewing angle, and contrast (dynamic and static); can simply turn "off" to produce black (there is no backlight); are flexible; and can literally be printed. The main obstacle is currently the limited lifetime of the materials, but there is apparently progress being made in this area. I'm assuming these won't be mainstream for the next few years, but it's something to consider. Also, I don't know how long you plan on waiting, and some of this OLED stuff sounds too good to be true.

Edited January 22, 2009 by woah

[Constantine]

Springheel, have you already bought a monitor?

[Springheel]

No, I'm using a backup 19" CRT for the time being until I decide what to do.

[OrbWeaver]

and the colors are not accurate.

 

"Not accurate" as measured how? Do you calibrate the colour in some way, or are you assuming that the colours must be wrong because they look different from before? It is perfectly possible that the LCD colours are more accurate than the CRT, if the LCD in question is a high-end model and the CRT is not.

 

I presume you are also setting the white and black points correctly, if you are into image quality. Many people don't even bother to do this, just sticking with the factory settings, which make any assessment of image quality pretty much irrelevant.

 

You will adjust to this (as many people do and then unfortunately claim there is no difference

 

So you're saying that this is in fact not a problem in the long term, and this is a bad thing?

 

I don't know about the precise monitors you are comparing, but the human eye's maximum temporal resolution is estimated to fall somewhere between 60 and 100 Hz, which means that anything less than 10 ms is going to be acceptable. Even taking into account marketing spin and the like, which means that the actual response time might be slower than the quoted values, concerning yourself with 0.1 ms versus nanoseconds is a complete waste of time and money.

 

Of course everybody is entitled to their preference, and if a CRT works for you then stick with it, but a lot of the cries of "CRTs are better for gaming" are in my opinion based on myths, misconceptions, or experiences with old, cheap or mis-calibrated monitors. More to the point, it is getting increasingly hard to even buy a CRT monitor these days, especially if you want something better than the cheap 17-inch 4:3 displays that used to be packaged with a new Dell.

[Mortem Desino]

"Not accurate" as measured how? Do you calibrate the colour in some way, or are you assuming that the colours must be wrong because they look different from before? It is perfectly possible that the LCD colours are more accurate than the CRT, if the LCD in question is a high-end model and the CRT is not.

 

Put a 24 or 32-bit RGB gradient on a nice (not neccessarily new) CRT and an LCD screen. Compare. You'll see the difference in how less vivid dark colors are on an LCD. The chemistry of a cathode ray tube makes all colors correct (assuming contrast and brightness were configured correctly.)

[SneaksieDave]

I would definitely like to see that, as I have wondered the suitability of LCD for years. IIRC oDDity swears by his (extremely expensive one). On the other hand I always hear problems about colors, true black, and side viewing. I won't pay through the nose for something which doesn't behave the way I want.

 

If someone with a decent CRT and a decent LCD would set up various black tests (Thief/TDM) and color tests (as Mortem said above), and then take side by side comparison photos with a digital camera in a suitably lit environment, I would be tickled.

[Jeb]

I typically read the Dark Mod forums every day. I usually don't have much to contribute; however, I just went through this myself. I did a lot of research on LCD monitors recently and this one is a beauty, both aesthetically and feature wise.

 

I just upgraded from a Samsung Syncmaster 216bw LCD, which is an excellent screen, to a Dell SP2309W LCD monitor.

 

It's a significant bang for the buck. It's a 23" LCD with a 2048x1152 resolution, a 2ms refresh and an amazing contrast ratio. It has a glossy screen, and unless it's off, there is no noticeable glare or reflection. I played Thief 2 with it's dark settings and didn't notice any noticeable distractions from glare or reflection. The blacks looked very black, and I haven't noticed any ghosting or blurring. I cant find any numbers to verify this, but from my experience so far, it appears to have a very low input lag.

 

Quick Specs:

 

Panel Size: 23"

Optimal Resolution: Higher than Full HD 2048 x 1152 at 60 Hz

Dynamic Contrast Ratio: 80,000:1 (max)

Brightness: 300 cd/m2 (typical)

Response Time: 2 ms (typical)

Viewing Angle: 160° / 170° (typical)

Color Support: 16.7 million colors

Pixel Pitch: 0.249mm

 

It also has an adjustable stand with height and tilt adjustment. The monitor can be used in both portrait and landscape. It also built in 2 megapixel webcam and 2 mics, as well as a built in USB hub.

 

I actually prefer the Dell SP2309W over the Dell 2408WFP Ultra Sharp that I use at work. It's currently $379 which is not bad. I got lucky and was able to purchase it when Dell had an $80 off + free shipping sale. I consider it an excellent monitor for both production ( coding / graphics / etc ) and entertainment ( games / movies / etc ). Based on my personal experience with this monitor, I strongly recommend it if it fits your budget.

Edited January 30, 2009 by Jeb

[Constantine]

Dell has released 22" model with IPS panel at a price of only $300:

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/product...mp;sku=320-7825

 

e-IPS panel is specified in the manual:

http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/moni...#Specifications

 

I don't know what is e-IPS (and it looks like nobody knows ), but nevertheless I hope it's a variety of IPS panels. Maybe it means "economic IPS" or something.

 

Anyway, $300 for 22" IPS panel is a very interesting offer.

[Mortem Desino]

Actually the aforementioned LCDs look excellent.

 

I'll see if I can remember to put an RGB test pattern on my CRT/LCD dual monitor setup. My LCD has a glossy screen ,so backlight bleeding and the deepness of black is less an issue.

 

My Radeon card has a few issues displaying the same issue on two screens, So I'll borrow a video splitter from school (Tech department! ) and post a picture as soon as I can.

[Mortem Desino]

An RGB Palette doesn't do justice, so I'll post TDM in-game. (Sorry, Its Saint Lucia and Thief's Den, so no spoilers! )

 

I'll also apologize for some dead CCD pixels in my digital camera.

 

 

 

LCD_Lit_SLlamp.JPG - Lights on. I apologize for the reflection, there's no excuse for that. Note the brightness of the oil lamp on the CRT (left).

LCD_Dark_SLlamp.JPG - No lights on. Compare the far dark corner. You can even make out the woodwork on the CRT (left). Also note how the normal maps on the bed and woodwork look clearer on the LCD (right). Also note the comparable color change from lit to unlit room.

LCD_Dark_TDcreep.JPG - No lights on. You can make out Creep's sillhouette on the CRT (left). Notice the crisp outlines of some shadows on the roof boards and stool on the LCD (right).

[Tels]

I typically read the Dark Mod forums every day. I usually don't have much to contribute; however, I just went through this myself. I did a lot of research on LCD monitors recently and this one is a beauty, both aesthetically and feature wise.

 

I just upgraded from a Samsung Syncmaster 216bw LCD, which is an excellent screen, to a Dell SP2309W LCD monitor.

 

That is unfortunately a 16:9 monitor, meaning for computer work, it wastes a lot of screenspace where I don't need it (the sides!) and still has less resolution on the vertical than a cheaper, less-watt-using 16:10 monitor (1920x1200).

 

And it is glossy, too. *sigh* Seems I missed out on buying a 16:10 monitor

[SneaksieDave]

Interesting pics! Thanks for doing that. Well I can say that I certainly do prefer the CRT version, but the LCD doesn't look bad at all. Hm...