geekhack
geekhack Community => Other Geeky Stuff => Topic started by: Cthulhu on Mon, 17 October 2011, 03:07:57
-
Hi,
i need two new Monitors, my 22" LG died a few days ago and im sitting in front of an horrible 16,x" asus 16:9 tft wich cost me like 40$ at MediaMarkt.
I have a limit of ~300€ per Monitor = 600€, normally i would have simply bought something for 150€ each - but then i remembered reading something here about Panels and "truecolor", "coloradjusting" etc.
What i do:
Gaming
Vids
Surfing
thats it, do i need 2ms reaction time or not ?
Is there any real difference between 150 and 300€ monitors ?
Should i go for leds ?
I never had any problems chosing my monitor but know i realized that i dont know nothing about tfts.
I never installed any drivers or color adjusting software or anything :(
Greets
-
You don't need 2 ms reaction time trust me.
Personally I would go for a Dell, they are awesome for their price. Now im using a P2311H and I am perfectly happy with it(gaming also).
You can find many info here http://www.pcmonitors.org/
If u post on their forum u will get a good response pretty fast also.
-
I did alot of research on this a few weeks ago and I decided on ASUS monitor for pretty much what you are wanting it for. It doesn't have the most accurate color reproduction for professional style picture editing , but I find it awesome for gaming and video watching.
I'm not sure what the conversion rate is but it was about $160 on newegg. Asus VH236H which what the MLG (Major League Gaming) uses. If you want the most accurate color conversions you will want the newer technology though (IPS I think?) but that comes with a much higher price tag.
http://www.newegg.com/Store/BrandSubCategory.aspx?Brand=1315&SubCategory=20&name=ASUS-LCD-Monitors
The have the LED versions in there for near the same price.
-
I'd recommend to take a look at Prad.de (http://www.prad.de/)
-
Prad has a lot of tests and tables of monitor features that are good for comparison. Not so good if you only read one test for a standalone opinion.
Benq 2410t is perfect!
24", FullHD, 120Hz, pivot function, height and angle adjustment, LED background, but slightly over 300€ per monitor.
It is my main monitor.
-
Here's some 19" C190 IBM CRTs:
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/IBM-ThinkVision-C190-19-inch-CRT-Monitor-30R4986-/110516773783?pt=Computer_Monitors&hash=item19bb502397
Great monitors.
Or a 20" one if you prefer something larger:
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/IBM-6555-8E3-P201-20-CRT-Monitor-15-Pin-SVGA-Black-/200663227990?pt=Computer_Monitors&hash=item2eb875de56
The best response time and colour.
The only "flat screen" worth getting is this:
(http://images02.olx.com.ph/ui/8/53/36/1279614273_81694736_1-Pictures-of--Used-IBM-T221-22-inch-QUXGA-W-LCD-Monitor-3840-x-2400-Ultra-High-RIBM-T221-2esolution-1279614273.jpg)
-
I'm gaming on a 120hz monitor (BenQ). It's making a difference in fps games but also in SC2 !
Colors look perfect to me... my gaming improved and I'm satisfied.
P.S: I lowered SC2 graphics quality in order to reach >120hz even during battles
-
I'm personally looking to purchase a new monitor before Diablo 3 (heh heh) releases.
I've been keeping my eye on the BenQ XL2410T and the Alienware OptX AW2310 in particular. Two of the main requirements I am basing my decision on are: at least 120hz refresh rate (for 3D support) and a low response time for gaming. You can always argue that these aren't truly necessary but oh well, this is what I want. Also, my current desktop monitor is 5+ years old so I'm looking for a significant upgrade for a gaming PC I just built.
I wish I could go dualies like OP but my current desk setup just doesn't have the real estate to allow that and my pockets are quite shallow at the moment :(
-
Take a look at Dell's 21.5" and 23" Ultrasharp models. They use IPS panels, are affordable, and will absolutely kill any cheaper displays in terms of viewing angle, color, and sharpness. Seriously, your typical cheap TN panel monitors are horrible and should just cease to exist.
-
I use 2 x U2410's in portrait - The best I have ever used
-
Somebody had mentioned an IPS panel, there are several different types and I believe it's one of those things that not many people know about, but is very important to the overall experience.
Firstly, know that brand doesn't matter much, no matter what you buy the panel will probably be manufactured by Samsung or LG anyways, so worry more about warranty and overall looks than the brand name IMO.
Secondly, look up and learn about the differences between TN, e-IPS, s-IPS and VA panels.
For fast paced gaming panels, a "true" S-IPS panel will generally have a higher latency, which can cause ghosting issues. They cost a fair bit but the picture quality is far superior.
For low latencies, an older style TN panel will grant you the low price and fast latencies you've expected for years in gaming monitors.
An e-ips is what i picked up (an LG model, I don't regard LG highly, but again, brand makes little difference to me since you're buying the monitor for the panel and you rarely know who exactly makes the panel anyways.)
My monitor is similar to this unit here http://www.displayblog.com/2009/01/28/lg-display-lpl-23-e-ips-1080p-lcd-monitor-panel/ (http://www.displayblog.com/2009/01/28/lg-display-lpl-23-e-ips-1080p-lcd-monitor-panel/)
I've been very happy with it, vibrant colour (you can get the colour adjustment kit for a couple hundred bucks, i left mine stock and it looks fine to me.) fast response time and a fair price with most of the benifits of both IPS and TN monitors.
TL;DR check out monitors specifically with e-IPS panels for a good balance of price/performance.
-
Hell yes there's a difference between 150 and 300 EUR for a monitor! Well worth it.
Why two monitors? For that budget you could have a Dell U2711 with 2560x1440 resolution! That's not really a recommendation, but it is one I'd thinking about getting with that money. (My current setup is a Dell 2007fp - Dell 2407wfp - Dell 2007fp triple screen combo).
-
I would consider a 3d vision capable display.
-
3D is a pretty huge gimmick if you ask me, especially on the computer. The only thing 3D is useful for is games (IF you have a decent graphics card) and movies, both of which only make up a fraction of what one does with a computer. For the same extravagant price you paid for a mediocre 3D monitor, you could have a killer 2D display.
It's really very similar to 2.1 vs 5.1/7.1 speakers. For the same price, a 2.1 set will perform infinitely better than its 5.1/7.1 counterparts.
-
My optometrist told me that I'll never fully enjoy 3D because of my astigmatism and the way the brain processes images.
I think it's called the McGurk effect or something.
Funny. The way I characterize an astigmatism is like watching a 3D movie without the glasses. I went to see Pirates of the Caribbean in 3D. Wearing the 3D glasses over regular glasses is dumb.
-
I wear glasses all the time for my astigmatism. I tried toric contact lenses for awhile. That sucked.
-
I see that you just had a failed LG, but their Flatron IPS models are quite good and are in the 180ish euro price bracket for 23". They use the same panels as the Dell IPS since LG makes those too, but don't have quite as many features to keep the price much lower. Seeing how they are in the same cost range as 'decent' TN panels I don't see any particular reason not to go for one asides from possibly being wary of LG in general.
-
I bought an HP ZR24w recently. It's sturdy. The styling is professional and conservative. It has a 1920x1200 IPS panel -- that vertical res is nice for text docs. The colors are deep and solid.
It's not LED-lit though. My next one will be when the time comes. LEDs never dim or burn out -- they'll make a long-term owner happy.
-
I've got a Dell 2407 (1920x1200 IPS panel, with all the different input ports you can imagine). Really nice monitor, stare at it 8+hrs/day for work. Don't do a lot of gaming though, so I have no idea if it'd be any good for that.
I got my dad the Dell professional 21.5" one. Decent screen, also IPS, but I'd miss the extra vertical room.
-
I've got a 2407 and a 2408 at home and another 2407 at work... No issues gaming on either model. It's an excellent size and resolution.
-
I've got a Dell 2407 (1920x1200 IPS panel, with all the different input ports you can imagine). Really nice monitor, stare at it 8+hrs/day for work. Don't do a lot of gaming though, so I have no idea if it'd be any good for that.
I thought they were all S-PVA? I know mine is. It's an excellent display regardless, in some ways I prefer it to the IPS displays.
-
I'll second LG Flatron. That's what I'm currently hauling and it gets the job done quite well.
There are also some members on here (EverythingIBM) mentioning CRTs. These offer a couple benefits: somewhat more accurate color representation, better multiple resolution support (since the scan lines adjust, there is no native resolution,) and noticeably less lag than cheaper LCDs. Old ones may be cheaper, but at the expense of reliability, high resolutions, and color production in some instances.
Other than these marginal benefits, I couldn't justify getting one. They're HUGE, draw more power, too bright for text editor viewing, not as sharp, and higher resolutions will usually require a compromise in refresh rate, causing the picture to be flickery. Windows automatically sets at 60Hz in ALL resolutions to ensure compatability. Flickering is actually a common complaint about these monitors, but in many cases it's the one thing that can be fixed (at lower resolutions at least.) People who are used to LCDs may also leave screen saver settings off, which will cause burn in on CRTs over time.
In short, CRTs are only good for graphic designers who need full 24 bit color representation.
-
I thought they were all S-PVA? I know mine is. It's an excellent display regardless, in some ways I prefer it to the IPS displays.
2407 and 2408 are S-PVA... 2410 is S-IPS. Don't think there was a 2409 in the ultrasharp lineup.
-
Other than these marginal benefits, I couldn't justify getting one. They're HUGE, draw more power, too bright for text editor viewing, not as sharp, and higher resolutions will usually require a compromise in refresh rate, causing the picture to be flickery. Windows automatically sets at 60Hz in ALL resolutions to ensure compatability. Flickering is actually a common complaint about these monitors, but in many cases it's the one thing that can be fixed (at lower resolutions at least.) People who are used to LCDs may also leave screen saver settings off, which will cause burn in on CRTs over time.
On top of all that analog output from modern video cards is often not up to the same level as back when CRTs were the majority and the high-end display king. Since analog is just not as important any more most manufacturers aren't pushing quality specifications for that signal path.
-
2407 and 2408 are S-PVA... 2410 is S-IPS. Don't think there was a 2409 in the ultrasharp lineup.
For some models it's random - both of my 2007FP (the 4:3 sibling of the 2407WFP) are S-IPS, but they made them with S-PVA as well. The 2407WFP-HC was the one I wasn't entirely sure about (mine isn't the HC version), but it looks like they were all S-PVA too.
-
3D is a pretty huge gimmick if you ask me, especially on the computer. The only thing 3D is useful for is games (IF you have a decent graphics card) and movies, both of which only make up a fraction of what one does with a computer. For the same extravagant price you paid for a mediocre 3D monitor, you could have a killer 2D display.
It's really very similar to 2.1 vs 5.1/7.1 speakers. For the same price, a 2.1 set will perform infinitely better than its 5.1/7.1 counterparts.
Gaming in 3d is amazing, 3d vision is no gimmick. Second of all a 120hz refresh rate makes the monitor feel much smoother. Even moving the mouse at the desktop on a 60hz display feels choppy to me now. On top of that the better 120hz 3d vision capable monitors are a much higher quality than your standard budget LCD.
You don't see people with a reasonable amount of experience with 3d vision calling it a gimmick. Stereoscopic 3d is the future whether you want to accept it or not.
-
Gaming in 3d is amazing, 3d vision is no gimmick. Second of all a 120hz refresh rate makes the monitor feel much smoother. Even moving the mouse at the desktop on a 60hz display feels choppy to me now. On top of that the better 120hz 3d vision capable monitors are a much higher quality than your standard budget LCD.
You don't see people with a reasonable amount of experience with 3d vision calling it a gimmick. Stereoscopic 3d is the future whether you want to accept it or not.
Yeah, but is it worth giving up quality in other facets of the panel? Color, viewing angle, brightness, etc?
And it will remain a gimmick in my mind until everyone (companies, consortiums, and consumers) has agreed on a standard that a) requires no glasses, b) doesn't give anybody a headache, and c) doesn't cost an arm and a leg. In other words, I'll let you early adopters get the kinks worked out and enjoy a nice traditional display in the mean time ;-)
-
Let's not forget d) proven to not cause neurological damage at any age.
-
don't bother with an ips panel unless you get paid to do color-sensitive work. don't buy a crt. keep in mind that a 16:10 monitor adds something like $50-$100 to the price (in america, on newegg, so ymmv)
-
Gaming in 3d is amazing, 3d vision is no gimmick. Second of all a 120hz refresh rate makes the monitor feel much smoother. Even moving the mouse at the desktop on a 60hz display feels choppy to me now. On top of that the better 120hz 3d vision capable monitors are a much higher quality than your standard budget LCD.
You don't see people with a reasonable amount of experience with 3d vision calling it a gimmick. Stereoscopic 3d is the future whether you want to accept it or not.
half of your arguments are incredibly stupid. of course more hz = better than. people have used crts at 240hz or whatever for counterstrike since probably 1995, it's nothing new. your 120hz 3d-capable panels are also a much higher quality because they probably cost double to triple what a budget panel costs.
-
half of your arguments are incredibly stupid. of course more hz = better than. people have used crts at 240hz or whatever for counterstrike since probably 1995, it's nothing new. your 120hz 3d-capable panels are also a much higher quality because they probably cost double to triple what a budget panel costs.
Do you always go out of your way to be a prick?
I don't see any other point to that post and I've never seen a constructive post out of you.
Fyi, you are on a forum dedicated to keyboards. Learn how to use punctuation and capitalization.
My point is (I'm not sure if English is your second language) that other than the higher refresh rate which that alone is very nice most 120hz displays tend to offer a higher quality display. You know with better contrast, less backlight bleed, less color shift, etc. Its not a typical TN with a higher refresh rate.
-
Do you always go out of your way to be a prick?
I don't see any other point to that post and I've never seen a constructive post out of you.
Fyi, you are on a forum dedicated to keyboards. Learn how to use punctuation and capitalization.
My point is (I'm not sure if English is your second language) that other than the higher refresh rate which that alone is very nice most 120hz displays tend to offer a higher quality display. You know with better contrast, less backlight bleed, less color shift, etc. Its not a typical TN with a higher refresh rate.
ok, i just went to newegg and checked out the most expensive 120hz monitor, the asus VG236H (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236092&Tpk=ASUS%20VG236H). it's also $70 more than a real ips panel with a higher resolution (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Displays/productdetail.aspx?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=dhs&sku=320-2676)
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3842/asus-vg236h-review-our-first-look-at-120hz/4
Viewing angles on the VG236H are what you’d expect from a TN panel.
(http://i.imgur.com/s43iM.png)
it's average
(http://i.imgur.com/yEbCf.png)
it has worse processing time... than a 30" ips monitor...
basically it's fine for gaming (where you don't notice any of the backlight bleed issues or color accuracy numbers, although the input lag is odd), but it's an average tn panel... that costs over $400. feel free to link a 120hz monitor that you think is better, but it seems like a good 120hz monitor is still a few years away.
-
A lot of 120hz monitors have input lag. Its awful on the Acer GD235hz for example. Apparently my Planar SA2311w has a bit, I haven't noticed it and I'm normally pretty sensitive to input lag. The LG, Benq, and Alienware have no input lag from what I've heard. I hear that the new Samsung also has no input lag but it doesn't support 3d vision so its off my list.
There are better monitors than that Asus now. You can't go by price alone.
-
basically it's fine for gaming (where you don't notice any of the backlight bleed issues or color accuracy numbers, although the input lag is odd), but it's an average tn panel... that costs over $400. feel free to link a 120hz monitor that you think is better, but it seems like a good 120hz monitor is still a few years away.
You linked the one sold WITH the glasses. Not without (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236104). All the 120hz versions have a counterpart without the glasses(effectively reducing the price anywhere between 80-120 dollars). As for the VG236 if I remember correctly when it was released it was liked more for it's glossy screen rather than the matte every other 120hz monitor used at the time despite the reviews showing some negatives though if I remember Asus's settings allow you to control the aggressiveness of the overdrive so it can alleviate some of the issues. Though currently there's a few other 120hz with glossy screen on the market like the Samsung 750/950 versions and more seem to be coming out.
it's also $70 more than a real ips panel with a higher resolution (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Displays/productdetail.aspx?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=dhs&sku=320-2676)
The U2412m uses eIPS, so it's 6-bit + 2-bit dithering/FRC to achieve 8-bit. Not really a "real" IPS when you consider the advantage of IPS is for native 8-bit color rather than the TN panel dither/FRC.
-
Dell U3011 - I just ordered one for myself as an upgrade from LED Apple Cinema Display 24".
-
Dell U3011 - I just ordered one for myself as an upgrade from LED Apple Cinema Display 24".
great choice but at the price point I would prefer 3 x U2410's for an eyefinity setup [in portrait].
but seriously you will love the dell ultra-sharp, though I hope AG coating won't put you off coming from an Apple Cinema, especially if your're into photo editing!
-
I think it's pretty hard to go wrong with Dell's non-TN monitors. Sure you can pick nits, but they don't have a lot of the irritating image aspects of the TN monitors, which are definitely a factor beyond 20". They're priced right and they offer easy support.
-
Im going for 2 Dell Ultrasharps in 24".
I dont care for 3D at all and a friend of mine had an 21"4/3 Dell wich had
an excellent picture quality compared to my Benq at that time...
-
You don't need 2 ms reaction time trust me.
If LCDs truly had 2ms response time then you'd need it, all the display forums would go ape****; it may not solve all the issues but would significantly help. Most of the 2-5ms or whatever are the Grey-to-Grey marketing terms sometimes White-to-White or Black-to-Black depending on the manufacturer. So yes the LCD panel is that fast for those colors/shades but in reality most LCDs have a response time of anywhere between 35-300ms. Your average TN panel probably has anywhere between 35-100ms response time, IPS anywhere between 45-150ms, and VA trailing behind with 75-250ms(one of the reasons why VA usually come with very aggressive overdrive). In simplest terms despite the marketing usage of GtG 2-5ms which is an actual response time, the question becomes what about the response time for the other colors, shades of colors, and mixtures of colors. And that's where you get your response time from the actual individual response.
The 120hz monitors though seem to be noticeably faster than the average and seem to have a response time in the 35-80ms region. As some people have put it after using 120Hz+ on a CRT, the 120Hz LCDs feel closer in performance to 100hz CRT than 120hz despite the monitors electronics working AT 120hz.
Remember response time is the amount of time it takes pixels to change state; all display technologies have a response time. CRTs for example tend to operate in the nanosecond-to-microsecond response time, only time CRTs enter the millisecond range is when they get older and or are of lower quality. Or they experience the blur phenomena, despite CRTs not have motion blur or if they do at a significantly reduced level compared to other display technologies. They do experience a color blurring though that's merely due to the transient phosphors as they "cool down" which does extend into the millisecond range at times and based on quality and age can become more noticeable.
Yeah, but is it worth giving up quality in other facets of the panel? Color, viewing angle, brightness, etc?
Do you sit in front of the computer or to the side, most will say in front so viewing angles are more important in the vertical aspect i.e. sitting a little above the monitor to give you a commanding view for ergonomics. Now if your using a multi-monitor setup like an eyefinity or surround then I can understand but even then most seem to angle the monitors inwards a bit.
The real major loss is color that's the most obvious and along with that color detail is lost. But brightness that's not so different for the panels unless the difference in bulbs(CCFL or LED), in fact you can argue TN tend to be more brighter due to the fact there's no anti-glare coating or glossy screen in the case of some TN, plus TN panels tend to have for some manufacturers a better static contrast ratio than IPS panels usually at the 950-1030:1 ratio it's not unheard of for a lot of TN panels to be at or close to the 1000:1 static ratio they can reach. IPS tend to top out at around 650-750 area and usually require a lot of tweaking to even get a better amount and in some cases it involves sacrificing either some color or black detail plus with the anti-glare coating and considering how aggressive some IPS monitors use, it makes it a lot harder to reach those static ratios.
In other words, I'll let you early adopters get the kinks worked out and enjoy a nice traditional display in the mean time ;-)
How is a higher refresh rate any different than the refresh rates we currently use such as 60Hz. Since when does adding 60 more Hertz to a monitor make it so magical and so extreme it needs the kinks to be removed. Plain and simple LCD panels are the limiting factor, millisecond response time plus sample-and-hold technologies inhibit and reduce the truer rendering of the higher refresh rate on top of adding ghosting and blurring both responsive blurring and sample-and-hold blur. The funny thing about the 120hz monitors is they show even more so just how slow the LCDs are compared to the electronics on the panel which are working at 120hz while the pixels are incapable of responding that quickly to different states unless somehow what your rendering a specific color and or shade of color which somehow happens to be the panels fastest transitional color and or shade of color.
It's funny that refresh rate is so debated. I really don't understand what's there to debate, unless you mean sacrifices then I agree LCDs sacrifice for different things sure they have their positives but there's always going to be a negative. Reminds me of running into a few forums a number of years ago, were there were rumors of higher refresh rate panels and even 90Hz IPS panels and rumors of 90Hz being implemented into 30" 2560x1600 panels to make up for some of the slowness of both the response time and the framerate hit of such a large resolution. And for those who saw and posted on there they were just like "Release that now, I want it, it may not fix all the issues but would certainly help" even one guy saying "I'd kill for a 90Hz 1600p monitor". But now it's like some strange magical word that needs to be debated ad-nausium; Should I get 120hz, Do I need 120hz, What's so special about 120hz etc.etc. again are there sacrifices to 120hz compared to IPS, yes.
There is no kinks and there is no "traditional display" whatever that means. Refresh rates are truly a "Traditional part of the display" and will always be so until there is some continuous streaming technology(even then I wouldn't be surprised if there is some refresh rate due to how atoms work) and on CRTs due response time of the CRT, the refresh rate dictates the response time. So if your using your CRT at 200Hz your response time is 5ms and always 5ms for every single pixel or if your using your CRT at 144hz it's 6.94ms and always 6.94ms for every single pixel; color and or shade of color.
I dont care for 3D at all
Neither do the majority of people who buy 120hz LCD monitors, they don't give two ****s about 3D vision. They buy them for the close to CRT performance; that's the problem with LCDs too much sacrifices you either choose Image Quality + Slowness or Speed+Reduction in IQ.
-
Do you sit in front of the computer or to the side, most will say in front so viewing angles are more important in the vertical aspect i.e. sitting a little above the monitor to give you a commanding view for ergonomics. Now if your using a multi-monitor setup like an eyefinity or surround then I can understand but even then most seem to angle the monitors inwards a bit.
In addition to design work, normal computer usage, and a little gaming, I also use my 27" iMac as a TV of sorts by watching movies and shows on it. Viewing angle is a big problem in the latter usage, as it greatly limits the number of comfortable positions the screen can be watched at. This really shows up if I have friends over watching too. Thankfully, the Dell/iMac 27" IPS panel has a great viewing angle so this isn't a problem for me.
How is a higher refresh rate any different than the refresh rates we currently use such as 60Hz. Since when does adding 60 more Hertz to a monitor make it so magical and so extreme it needs the kinks to be removed. Plain and simple LCD panels are the limiting factor, millisecond response time plus sample-and-hold technologies inhibit and reduce the truer rendering of the higher refresh rate on top of adding ghosting and blurring both responsive blurring and sample-and-hold blur. The funny thing about the 120hz monitors is they show even more so just how slow the LCDs are compared to the electronics on the panel which are working at 120hz while the pixels are incapable of responding that quickly to different states unless somehow what your rendering a specific color and or shade of color which somehow happens to be the panels fastest transitional color and or shade of color.
When talking about the "early adopter" thing, I meant the 3D side of things, not 120Hz. 3D is still way too underdeveloped. On the other hand, I can see the merits of purchasing one of these displays for its 120Hz refresh rates; however, these merits are not much of a factor for me and won't be until I can buy a 120Hz+ display with all the strengths of a 60Hz IPS display at a reasonable price.
-
Neither do the majority of people who buy 120hz LCD monitors, they don't give two ****s about 3D vision. They buy them for the close to CRT performance; that's the problem with LCDs too much sacrifices you either choose Image Quality + Slowness or Speed+Reduction in IQ.
Than its prob. good that i never had a decent CRT because my first TFT was like a salvation to me.
-
The thing that killed CRTs for me were their horrid blurring, image warping/not matching screen edges perfectly, the eye discomfort and headaches they caused, and the high-pitched ringing noised emitted by some. My first LCD which was dismal by today's standards was like a godsend even if its color and refresh rate were not as great.
-
The thing that killed CRTs for me were their horrid blurring, image warping/not matching screen edges perfectly, the eye discomfort and headaches they caused, and the high-pitched ringing noised emitted by some. My first LCD which was dismal by today's standards was like a godsend even if its color and refresh rate were not as great.
Same here. Came off FD Trinitrons as my very last CRTs. I guess if you're limited to buying an LCD monitor at the same level of what you might be able to pick up a CRT at in a thrift store but you still think you know your stuff, then CRT's are probably better. There are also some niche uses where they still genuinely have a place.
-
I remember a big, cheap CRT back in the '90s that smelled baaad and strongly.
Was that ozone? Can you smell ozone?
These kids today don't know how good they've got it :biggrin:
-
I remember a big, cheap CRT back in the '90s that smelled baaad and strongly.
Was that ozone? Can you smell ozone?
yes and yes. it is produced by the high voltage also in the tube tube (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube), not only on the surface of the screen.
copy machines and laser printers produce an aweful lot of ozone. crts not so much.
-
yes and yes. it is produced by the high voltage also in the tube tube (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube), not only on the surface of the screen.
copy machines and laser printers produce an aweful lot of ozone. crts not so much.
Ozone is also produced by ionizing air purifiers. In small concentrations it smells like an after rain freshness. In large concentrations it can be gagging. I'm pretty sensitive to the stuff myself, throws me into coughing fits. Asthmatics beware.
Concerning monitors, here's a decent deal on a 27" IPS.
http://www.techbargains.com/news_displayItem.cfm/272864
-
Ozone is quite toxic in high quantities. If your CRT is causing an abnormal amount of it to generate I'd suggest seeking out a replacement.
-
Same here. Came off FD Trinitrons as my very last CRTs. I guess if you're limited to buying an LCD monitor at the same level of what you might be able to pick up a CRT at in a thrift store but you still think you know your stuff, then CRT's are probably better. There are also some niche uses where they still genuinely have a place.
Oscilloscopes are one of the more common uses. Cathode Ray Tubes have a lot of unique qualities. They're interesting things.
The thing that killed CRTs for me were their horrid blurring, image warping/not matching screen edges perfectly, the eye discomfort and headaches they caused, and the high-pitched ringing noised emitted by some. My first LCD which was dismal by today's standards was like a godsend even if its color and refresh rate were not as great.
If you have blurring, image warping, and poorly implemented refresh rates... get better CRTs. My tubes never give me headaches. Bad CRTs are a billion times worse than a bad LCD (except Dell made a few LCDs with such bad ghosting that I'd consider a low-end CRT over them).
Fluorescent bulbs in LCDs sometimes give me headaches and in extreme cases, I start seeing stars. At my college, we have some HP flatscreens which, flicker rapidly.... it only occurs sometimes. Cheap HP ****!
I LOVE the ones that are backlit with LEDs though. Now *that's* progress.
If you have CRTs that ring, the answer is obvious. Change the Hz or resolution. I know of a CRT that rings in 800x600 but not 640x480. One of mine rings at 60Hz but not 75 (I prefer running mine at 60Hz as it produces a sharper picture).
-
Maybe you were fortunate enough to have high-end CRTs... the best I ever had was the one in my old 15" iMac from 2000 and a 17" Flat-faced Sony Trinitron, both of which had the problems previously described (though the Trinitron was a bit better in some respects).
And yes, I love my LED backlit IPS. Fluorescent backlighting blows.
-
For monitors I would recommend the ASUS PA-256Q and the PA-238Q I have both and will be buying a larger one once they release one and probably making the 246Q vertical as I use the 238Q to watch videos due to its aspect ratio and LED backlighting.
-
Prad has a lot of tests and tables of monitor features that are good for comparison. Not so good if you only read one test for a standalone opinion.
Benq 2410t is perfect!
24", FullHD, 120Hz, pivot function, height and angle adjustment, LED background, but slightly over 300€ per monitor.
It is my main monitor.
Totally agree, I have the same monitor and for some reason it's a lot less harsh on the eyes for reading text than any other monitor I've used. I'm not sure if it's a slight tint to the monitor, but i havn't been able to replicate it with my other screens and it's highly desireable if you spend a lot of time reading black on white. Definitely my go-to monitor if i had to replace one.
-
This might have already been pointed out in this thread but it bears repeating pixel response time means very little, any more its simply a marketing term there is no industry standard for measuring grey to grey response time. a better measure is the ISO standard, black to white. TN panels have been stuck at 8 to 5 ms, VA panels around 12 and IPS panels around 12. unfortunately when was the last time you played a game where there is a quick succession of black and white frames?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]30900[/ATTACH]
This is a graph of what actual response times look like on a TN panel, this monitor would probably be quoted at 10ms before overdrive
and that brings me to overdrive. Overdrive brings G2G into the picture
this technology is based on applying an over-voltage to the liquid crystals to motivate them into their orientation faster. This process forces them to a full white (inactive) to black (active) transition first. The crystals can then drop back down to the required intermediate grey level. This is helpful as the rise time of a liquid crystal was always the slowest part (response time = Tr + Tf). This technology does not help improve the ISO black > white transition much since that already received the maximum voltage anyway, but transitions from grey > grey are significantly reduced. The improvements in grey transitions however are helpful in producing a faster panel overall as these changes have always been slower colour changes in TFT panels and it is important that the response time is low across the whole range of transitions (0 – 255). Screens featuring RTC will normally show an improved responsiveness in practice and reduced motion blur and trailing. Manufacturers will usually quote a "grey to grey" (G2G) response time figure on screens using this technology since they are normally the fastest transitions available. Look out for "G2G" quoted in the spec sheets.
of course this is a double bladed knife properly done overdrive works GREAT at reducing ghosting and blur, but poorly done overdrive add more pain then it solves
Example
good overdrive
[ATTACH=CONFIG]30902[/ATTACH]
as you can see there are no artifacts around the car or speech bubble infact it looks as if its standing still, also note that this is a 120Hz TN Samsung
VERY BADLY DONE OVERDRIVE
[ATTACH=CONFIG]30904[/ATTACH]
as you can see there are black artifacts almost 3 frames deep. this is a 60Hz TN BenQ
ALL QUOTES AND IMAGES TAKEN FROM http://www.tftcentral.co.uk (http://www.tftcentral.co.uk)
-
Maybe you were fortunate enough to have high-end CRTs... the best I ever had was the one in my old 15" iMac from 2000 and a 17" Flat-faced Sony Trinitron, both of which had the problems previously described (though the Trinitron was a bit better in some respects).
I had a very nice Dell-branded Philips 19" shadow mask monitor that did 1600x1200 with beautifully sharp and clear text, then some very nice 21" Trinitrons at work. When the 19" finally died after about ten years I jumped to a 24" 1920x1200 Dell LCD. I need the 1200 vertical pixels though...1080 is just not enough. The 2560x1600 30" that Dell sells looks awesome.