I got a 21 incher!
Tesselator
Ya I just got (yet another) 21" monitor. Ya I hear can ya thinking...
'Big deal' right? well I got it for $100 It's a Dell D1626HT trinitron
and the reason I mention it here is cuz the guy has 9 more for the same
price. I've noticed alot of "deals" like that lately. Ya think I should
buy them up or pass? Is there a market for such things? Are monster sized
tube monitors really on thier way out or is it just an economy thing that
has people liquidating thier physical assets? The sets are in mint condition.
Any thoughts?
js33
Thats not a bad deal but I do think the big, heavy CRTs are on the
way out as they consume alot of power, put out a lot of heat, are
big and heavy. Also the trinitrons have those annoying screen
connector lines in the top and bottom 3rd of the screen.
I am using 2 19" crts now and when they go out I will probably
replace them with LCDs assuming they get cheaper and better by
then. Or maybe just one 16:9 lcd that is as big as two 21" crt
assuming they don't cost 10K.
Cheers,
JS
"Tesselator" <jimm...@hotmail.dot.com> wrote in message
news:b43i2s$gsp$1...@catv02.starcat.ne.jp...
`Animasta
but I hear they have the best color quality out there. I own a 17" Sony
Trinitron monitor and have barely ever noticed those lines. They are
practically invisible, unless you actually look for them. :-)
--
`Animasta
3d modeler
http://www.freewebs.com/alkaline
"js33" <js...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:GLc9a.315014$SD6.16137@sccrnsc03...
CWCunningham
I don't think that CRT's will become obsolete too soon though.
They're cheaper.
They're more versatile. (My LCD has 2 resolutions, one of which is useful).
They have better color balance. (My LCD has visibly yellowed whites. The CRT
has adjustable color temperature).
At that price, you could buy a couple, cover them with table cloths and call
them end tables. Next time you need a monitor ....
--
CWC
==================================
My other e-mail package is a Commodore.
==================================
"js33" <js...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:GLc9a.315014$SD6.16137@sccrnsc03...
jin choung
whether they're going out or not, 21" for $100 is a SPECTACULAR DEAL!
you can make a nice mark up too! heck, i'll buy one off you for $200!
seriously, especially since LCDs are still not quite appropriate for gaming,
crt's are gonna be around for a good long while until lcd's hit the
price/performance sweet spot.
great deal. and if you got the desk real estate, enjoy.
jin
Jon Carroll
<charlesw-at-blackfoot.net> wrote:
>An iffy investment, CRT prices seem to be going down,
>I don't think that CRT's will become obsolete too soon though.
>They're cheaper.
>They're more versatile. (My LCD has 2 resolutions, one of which is useful).
>They have better color balance. (My LCD has visibly yellowed whites. The CRT
>has adjustable color temperature).
>At that price, you could buy a couple, cover them with table cloths and call
>them end tables. Next time you need a monitor ....
Also, CRTs have a better contrast ratio than LCDs usually.
--
-Jon Carroll
dra...@infi.net
"You're making me hungry. You won't like me when I'm hungry!"- Dexter
William Li
that's an incredibly sweet deal. i wish i could have one too!
js33 wrote:
> the big, heavy CRTs are on the
> way out as they consume alot of power, put out a lot of heat,
does that matter? ;)
> big and heavy.
you drag them around all the time? ;)
the most important reason to still use crt is their colour
output spectrum (analogue technology gives you infinite
colour range, the software/videohardware just has to take
advantage of it). a 24 bit lcd screen still has to be
developed. at the moment it's 18 bit for the lcd. useless
for colour-critical applications.
wl
Jon Carroll
wrote:
>the most important reason to still use crt is their colour
>output spectrum (analogue technology gives you infinite
>colour range, the software/videohardware just has to take
>advantage of it). a 24 bit lcd screen still has to be
>developed. at the moment it's 18 bit for the lcd. useless
>for colour-critical applications.
>
that is the case for cheap LCDs. more expensive ones display all 24
bits just fine.
Jeff Kilgroe
news:8qcc6v4djjs3graa3...@4ax.com...
>
> >the most important reason to still use crt is their colour
> >output spectrum (analogue technology gives you infinite
> >colour range, the software/videohardware just has to take
> >advantage of it). a 24 bit lcd screen still has to be
> >developed. at the moment it's 18 bit for the lcd. useless
> >for colour-critical applications.
> >
>
> that is the case for cheap LCDs. more expensive ones display all 24
> bits just fine.
Yeah, and most of the top ones from Sony, Princeton, Hitachi, Samsung, etc... Have
30bit capability as 10bits per color component is part of the DVI-D spec.
--
- Jeff Kilgroe
- Applied Visual Technologies | DarkScience
- www.appliedvisual.com
- Have a multiprocessor Windows system? Download xCPU, it's free!
Oak
side by side, which would you choose, strictly based on image quality?
It's sort of a "Vinyl vs. CD" question, I guess.
I haven't seen any of the high quality LCDs, so I'm curious.
Oak
"Jeff Kilgroe" <je...@appliedvisual.nospam> wrote in message
news:m2idnZqb5Po...@speakeasy.net...
Tesselator
Jeff, John, define expensive.
All the 17" equivalents I see are between $450 and $650.
Oak, I'm with you on not caring about desk space nor the slight differences
in price. (+/- 500 to me is nothing for a device that may affect my vision and
that I have to look at daily for 2 years or more.) But I'm not sure I know
which is the better image quality either. I would tend to assume that a fair
to good 21" monster tube will display crisper pixels (finer dot pitch) than any
LCD. But I don't honestly know. The dot-pitch for the two types of devices
seems to hang right around the same value (.19 ~ .25) on 17' format.
But I think there are other things to consider that my not be so easily
quantifiable; like phosphoric persistency in relation to scan refresh rates as
opposed to whatever methods of contention are used in LCDs and it's relation to
the relatively low refresh rates found on them.
My logic: Everytime I see an LCD in the shops that I like I suddenly realize it's
too damn small to work on. There are 21" LCDs. I know cuz I see them on the WWW
but who the heck has $5,000 to $10,000 for one of those when a 21"tube with /maybe/
better specs, is selling NEW for $250 and used (as in my case) for around $100.
Hehehe... All that said I still want an IBM T221:
http://www.c3mag.com/news/focus/newsanalysis_may02.htm
"Oak" <o...@cox.net> wrote in message news:QWB9a.146857$4F3.9...@news2.east.cox.net...
Will R
>
>Oak
I've played with the Apple Cinema LCD monitor at an Apple Store. It's nice,
damned nice. A friend of mine has a sweet Sony LCD monitor, as well. My Dell
laptop also has a decent LCD.
In my experience, the real nice flat panels (like the apple) show decent color.
OTOH, my dell laptop has some pretty obvious color cast to it.
Also, flat panels have traditionally been "smeary" leaving trails on moving
objects. On the real nice LCD's, this doesn't seem to be a huge problem.
Still, while LCD's have improved dramatically over the past few years, IMHO, a
CRT is still the way to go. The color is even and perfect on a CRT, with *no*
variation in viewing angle. (Which is a big deal if you are sitting close to a
pair of monitors -- the viewing angle changes a lot over the surface of the
screen!) CRT's exhibit *no* smearing.
I wouldn't mind working on one of the really expensive plat panels, as the
difference nowadays between CRT and LCD is pretty small, but I do still prefer
CRT.
------------------
Woooogy
I have to go back in time to pretend to be myself when I tell myself to tell
myself, because I don't remember having been told by myself to tell myself. I
love temporal mechanics.
Jeff Kilgroe
> side by side, which would you choose, strictly based on image quality?
In that situation, I would choose an LCD display, no second thought about it.
> It's sort of a "Vinyl vs. CD" question, I guess.
Yeah, I suppose it is...
> I haven't seen any of the high quality LCDs, so I'm curious.
Currently an upper-mid level or high quality LCD will run about 35% more than a top
of the line CRT of equal screen size (also keep in mind that an 18" LCD gives a
slightly larger viewing surface than most 19" CRTs). I personally, will spend
whatever it takes to keep my eyes happy. If my eyes are happy, I can work a lot
longer and be far more productive than if I have to strain my eyeballs on a
display. When I buy a new system, if I have to purchase a display[s] with it, I
always buy what I need there and then fit the system into the remaining budget, not
the other way around. A good monitor should last through more than a couple
systems! A powerful computer is worthless if you can't stand to use it due to poor
displays, poor input devices or poor chair/furniture.
Right now, LCDs are still expensive (for a good one) and this does present an issue
for a lot of folks, especially companies that must equip multiple employees with
systems. But LCDs have distinct advantages too. When I consider the two options,
this is the list of pro's and con's I come up with and what would be issues to
me...
For all CRT's, the pro's are: Price, uh... and uh, price.
For all CRT's, the con's are: Convergence is an issue, achieveing a perfectly
square image is impossible, even on a perfectly flat display - regardless of what
their marketing tells you. Bulky objects, generate electromagnetic fields, they
flicker (yeah, I can see flickering at anything lower than 80Hz on a trinitron),
power hungry, images can ghost, shadow, smear...
In addition to the above, for Trinitron CRT's, the pro's are: Sharpest image and
convergence of all CRT types.
Con's for Trinitron are: Those annoying horizontal aperture grille support wires!
What, you can't see them??? Then you need glasses. Also, Trinitrons usually have
varialbe dot-pitch, especially on the flat-screen displays. This is another
technique or trick to map that spherical scanning image from the electron gun to a
flat view surface. The lowest dynamic range and color saturation of all current
CRT types.
In addition to the above, for Diamondtron CRT's, the pro's are: Best color range
and temperature abilities of current monitor types.
Con's for Diamondtrons are: Those damned support wires! Variable dot pitch,
usually larger dot pitch than Trinitron counterparts. Sacrifices contrast and
brightness (and in some cases, clarity) to gain their edge in color reproduction.
In addition to the above, for Shadow Mask CRT's, the pro's are: Good dynamic range
and contrast - in some cases surpassing Diamondtron, NO SUPPORT WIRES!
Con's for Shadow Mask are: Lower overall brightness, no true-flat screens, lower
resolutions, price is higher than Trinitron/Diamondtron models for same overall
capabilities. Shadow Mask CRTs are slowly fading from the market, larger dot
pitch, lower resolutions, and screen image can have "splotchiness" or variable
splotches effecting brightness/contrast. Convergence can be a serious issue with
these displays.
LCD pro's: Perfectly flat, square display. Low space requirements and power
consumption. Capable of being 100% digital for no ghosting, shadowing, smearing,
etc.. No refresh rate flickering. Uniform dot pitch, no convergence to worry
about, no need for any kind of focus or adjustment, pixels are crisp and clear.
Good, digital models can provide greater dynamic range and color temperature than
most top of the line CRTs, brightness is very good. Pixels are just pixels, no
phosphores or aperture grille to deal with.
LCD Con's: Limited viewing angles, although this isn't really an issue on the new
top displays that have 160 to full 180 degree viewing. Lower max resolutions than
CRT's. Possibility of dead or stuck pixels, but most good LCD's don't really have
an issue with this and any decent manufacturer will warrant the display against
such things for at least 3 years. And price. Due to pixels being "just pixels"
they only have one native resolution and jaggies can develop in some odd-scaled
resolutions -- once again, not really an issue - just run everything at native res
or in common resolutions, games and all.
For comparision, Apple uses Mitsubishi's top of the line Diamondtron and LCD panels
for their Studio displays. When comparing LCDs, I find the best offerings from
Samsung, Sony and Princeton are noticeably superior to the Mitsubishi models.
With LCD displays, you're missing the boat if you don't hook them up to a digital
DVI-D interface and you will notice all the shortcomings of the VGA signal - often
this is mistaken for poor display quality. LCDs are far less forgiving than CRTs
and will show every little flaw in a non-digital connection. And actually see the
display in action before making a purchase decision, see if your eyes are happy
with it.
Tesselator
I'm not sure I follow on a couple of your points. They're not that
important for this topic but just for sake of discussion:
35% more? Ummm don't you mean between 500% and 3500% ?
By your rstimate I should be able to find a "upper-mid or hi quality
LCD" for about $300. I see some for $500~$800 in the shops but wouldn't
those classify as mid to lower-mid quality? At least they don't pass /my/
eyeball-test. And even at that price you're still talking 200%~400%.
"Perfectly square". Hmmm... Nothing man can produce can in fact
produce "perfect squares" . What do you mean? More easily square?
Closer to square? Not sure I follow: The squares on my CRT are pretty
dang square. I use a setup utility just for that. Don't LCDs have
fit, zoom or "Wide" capabilities? In such cases couldn't they too
be non-square? And how important is the difference between the two?
Flicker? You mean the flash of the refresh pulse?
Hmmmm, LCDs are worse. Wave your hand in front of one. In my imediate
test my hand speed created 3 fingers per finger on the LCD but 6 to 8
fingers per finger on the CRT which would be a "fuller" pattern or less
apparent flashing (errr... flickering). Think, if it were 100 fingers
per finger there would be none. Or do you mean like interlace type f
lickering?
"images can ghost, shadow, smear..." (?) Huh? Well that would be
the point in time when I threw the sucker out and bought something new.
Really if your CRT is doing this you need new equipment. Either your
Monitor itself, your cable, or your video card need to be replaced.
I suppose it /could/ also be that you have two _cheap-os_ sitting too
close to one another. That'll /sometims/ cause problems.
"Power hungry" I haven't checked in a few years but aren't they about
the same or in fact LCDs worse? According to my ampere meter here my new
dell draws 37 watts with an all white screen and 7 watts with an all black
screen at 85KHtz 1600x1200 though the rating on the back says 100watts & my
22" crt is rated at 115W. In comparrison the IBM T221 LCD that I have my eye
on is rated at 135 Watts. I know where you're comming from tho, when I
first started considering LCDs I thought a point of issue was going to be
power consumption but my initial findings were contrary. That might be
changing on the lower end LCDs tho... I do notice that when I place my
hand on the back of them in the shops that some of them are running alot
cooler than they were 2 or 3 years ago. Unless they have fans these days???
"If you can't see the lines you need glasses" Err.. I guess I need glasses.
But the Dr. says I have 2.0:2.0... Really, I have to move my face closer
than usual and scan the tube surface to locate them if there's anything
other than solid colors being displayed. But that IS with a 21" or 22"
CRT... With a 17" my face is usually half the distance from the screen
as with a 21" and so the lines are more noticable.
Like you say the happy eye-test is the best. So far and for my wallet
(<$2,000.00) there isn't really anything to consider buying as far LCDs
are concerned. All the units I have seen for less than $1000 are just
out of the question for any serious work.
All this said I didn't really intend to start yet another LCD vrs CRT
showdown at the LW-Kraal. Now that it's aimming in that direction I
don't mind ofcourse, but just so you know.
O :-)
"Jeff Kilgroe" <Jeff AT Applied Visual dot Com> wrote in message news:Bf2cnSgOHoK...@speakeasy.net...
Jeff Kilgroe
> Hi Jeff.
>
> I'm not sure I follow on a couple of your points. They're not that
> important for this topic but just for sake of discussion:
>
> 35% more? Ummm don't you mean between 500% and 3500% ?
> By your rstimate I should be able to find a "upper-mid or hi quality
> LCD" for about $300. I see some for $500~$800 in the shops but wouldn't
> those classify as mid to lower-mid quality? At least they don't pass /my/
> eyeball-test. And even at that price you're still talking 200%~400%.
A "high-end" 19-inch CRT costs around $575 and in some cases even more. An
upper-mid level, 17" LCD can be purchased for $775, which is 35% more.
> "Perfectly square". Hmmm... Nothing man can produce can in fact
> produce "perfect squares" . What do you mean? More easily square?
Hehe, while you're technically correct, I could also say you're being pedantic.
Anyway, it would be "much closer to square". Visibly it would be perfectly square
unless checked with a measuring device that is far more accurate and sensitive than
the human eye. Lines on a LCD display looks straight, lines on a CRT do not,
nowhere close. Square as the generalized term for straight lines and proper
proportions throughout the image - or at least within the limits of the technology
and also to a much greater degree than that which a CRT can achieve.
> Closer to square? Not sure I follow: The squares on my CRT are pretty
> dang square. I use a setup utility just for that. Don't LCDs have
> fit, zoom or "Wide" capabilities? In such cases couldn't they too
> be non-square? And how important is the difference between the two?
That would be aspect ratio... I can see where that would be confusing... When us
engineering and construction types talk "square" we mean that if you draw
horizontal and vertical lines that intersect perpendicularly, then they will appear
as a perfect right angle. CRTs like to distort and I after getting used to the
superior straight lines on an LCD it drives me insane trying to draw things on a
CRT.
> Flicker? You mean the flash of the refresh pulse?
Yep.
> Hmmmm, LCDs are worse. Wave your hand in front of one. In my imediate
> test my hand speed created 3 fingers per finger on the LCD but 6 to 8
If the LCD and incoming signal are properly configured, there should be no refresh
scan/pulse to percieve. LCD's don't scan or pulse like CRTs do unless something is
wrong.
> "images can ghost, shadow, smear..." (?) Huh? Well that would be
> the point in time when I threw the sucker out and bought something new.
> Really if your CRT is doing this you need new equipment. Either your
> Monitor itself, your cable, or your video card need to be replaced.
> I suppose it /could/ also be that you have two _cheap-os_ sitting too
> close to one another. That'll /sometims/ cause problems.
I agree, mostly. Although, I doubt you can get right up to your CRT and look at
individual phosphores and tell me honestly that you don't see any bleeding or
ghosting in high saturation areas or on high contrast borders. It's the way CRTs
work.
> "Power hungry" I haven't checked in a few years but aren't they about
> the same or in fact LCDs worse? According to my ampere meter here my new
> dell draws 37 watts with an all white screen and 7 watts with an all black
Hmmm... You could have a point there. I guess I always just took it for granted
and looking at the DC converters on my 171P LCDs, I see they have a maximum pull of
34W and they have an output of 9.6V and 2.7Amps. That means they have to sustain a
draw of just about 26W to power one of these. Actually, I think LCDs in general --
or at least a lot of cheaper models and earlier models do consume less power. But
newer displays have much better contrast and brightness capabilites and probably
use much higher-powered lamps in the displays, which account for the power
consumption. Look at notebook computer displays - very low power consumption, but
they also really suffer with brightness and contrast.
> screen at 85KHtz 1600x1200 though the rating on the back says 100watts & my
> 22" crt is rated at 115W. In comparrison the IBM T221 LCD that I have my eye
IBM T221 is a monster.. High res, but not really that great of a display -- poor
dynamic range, brightness is lacking and a contrast rating common to most $500
models. Decent viewing angles though. IBM is just riding on its high resolution,
even though it's a mediocre display other than that... It's actually a HDTFT
laptop style display... Kinda like the 1920x1280 Hitachi panel (oh, the T221 also
uses a Hitachi panel) used by Dell in the Inspiron 8500 notebook. High res, but
mediocre display overall and where IBM gets off charging $8K for that thing is
beyond me... Actually, it's priced that high due to its target market - high res
medical and satellite imagery. It could be useful for processing film and
photographs in super high res or even native scan resolutions, but the contrast
and dynamic range fall short of what is needed for that kind of work and the
T221 is *NOT* suitable for video, multimedia or animation I won't even get into
the issues of actually driving images on that display and all the problems
at it's high resolution.. As for power consumption, I would be really surprised
if it actually consumed that entire 135W - I'm pretty sure that's the max draw for
it's
AC converter. But perhaps it does, who knows.
> on is rated at 135 Watts. I know where you're comming from tho, when I
> first started considering LCDs I thought a point of issue was going to be
> power consumption but my initial findings were contrary. That might be
> changing on the lower end LCDs tho... I do notice that when I place my
> hand on the back of them in the shops that some of them are running alot
> cooler than they were 2 or 3 years ago. Unless they have fans these days???
> "If you can't see the lines you need glasses" Err.. I guess I need glasses.
> But the Dr. says I have 2.0:2.0... Really, I have to move my face closer
> than usual and scan the tube surface to locate them if there's anything
> other than solid colors being displayed. But that IS with a 21" or 22"
> CRT... With a 17" my face is usually half the distance from the screen
> as with a 21" and so the lines are more noticable.
Hehe, I've got some pretty good eyes. I don't know what my vision would be rated
as, but I go for an eye check-up about every 2 years and the eye doctor always
tells me I have substantially better than 20/20 vision. When they used to
administer eye tests in school, I was always accused of memorizing the eye chart
beforehand. I find that with the clarity of my LCD monitors, I can easily sit with
my face a good 3 to 4 feet away from the screen and work comfortably on some pretty
detailed stuff. With a CRT, I'm usually up close because they always look blurry
to me. I can pick out the support wires running through most images (with the
exception of real dark or black images that hide it) from across the room. I find
them horribly annoying and refuse to buy a trinitron/diamondtron because of them.
Especially since there is no actual reason for them to even exist on those displays
with current technology. Sony even has an aperture grille wire running through the
middle of their directview digital TV sets (most of the upper end of their VVEGA
series) and I find that terribly annoying too. It's like having a piece of thread
pulled tight across the screen.
> Like you say the happy eye-test is the best. So far and for my wallet
> (<$2,000.00) there isn't really anything to consider buying as far LCDs
> are concerned. All the units I have seen for less than $1000 are just
> out of the question for any serious work.
What do you think of the Samsung 171P and 191P? What about the Sony NX-70? The
Princeton Senergy 981 is quite nice - 19", 600:1 contrast ratio, 25ms pixel
response (no ghosting, smearing in animation, video and games), 1600x1200 res,
pivot capable, 170 degree viewing and 260cd/m brightness and all digital. ...Keep
in mind that the Sony GDM-FW900 24" wide CRT only has a contrast ratio of 480:1 and
a brightness of 250cd/m. The *ONLY* Sony CRT monitor I would ever even consider
buying is the Artisan GDM-C520K 21" display. It has a color calibration system and
a 600:1 contrast with 280cd/m brightness. I would buy a couple of those instead of
LCDs if it didn't have those annoying grille wires.
> All this said I didn't really intend to start yet another LCD vrs CRT
> showdown at the LW-Kraal. Now that it's aimming in that direction I
> don't mind ofcourse, but just so you know.
Yep, I probably just added fuel to the fire, but a CRT vs. LCD battle is not what
I'm trying to introduce here. I think it all comes down to what people, and their
eyes, are comfortable with. To me, LCDs don't suffer from a lot of the things that
make me hate CRTs. My eyes burn after using a CRT display, even a very nice one.
And, IMO, anyone who claims that real work can't be done with an LCD has probably
never tried. I do real work with LCDs all the time, including image processing,
print work and animation for video/DVD production, even a little bit of HDTV work
and it all comes out great with perfectly predictable and matchable results with
these displays. I have a much easier time matching up print output with my LCD
displays than with my CRTs. Lots of people are starting to feel this way, this is
why Apple has discontinued all their CRT displays, and Apple's LCD's are only
upper-mid quality level.
LCD technology will surpass CRT technology (actually, it already has, just not
affordably) within the next couple years. Computer displays will all be some sort
of TFT LCD or LEP panel within the next 5 to 7 years... I could be wrong, it might
take 10 years, but it will happen as soon as the economics make sense. My 171P's
that I'm staring at right now can be had for under $700 a piece now and you'd
probably laugh at me if I told you how much I paid for them a year ago. But my
eye's have not regretted the purchase yet. And the next workstation I have to buy
monitor[s] for will be equipped with either dual 19" or a single 24" widescreen
flat panel running off a DVI-D connector, of course.
Tesselator
"Jeff Kilgroe" <Jeff AT Applied Visual dot Com> wrote in message news:UvGcndans-y...@speakeasy.net...
> "Tesselator" <jimm...@hotmail.dot.com> wrote in message
> news:b4a717$c1u$1...@catv02.starcat.ne.jp...
> > Hi Jeff.
> >
> > I'm not sure I follow on a couple of your points. They're not that
> > important for this topic but just for sake of discussion:
> >
> > 35% more? Ummm don't you mean between 500% and 3500% ?
> > By your rstimate I should be able to find a "upper-mid or hi quality
> > LCD" for about $300. I see some for $500~$800 in the shops but wouldn't
> > those classify as mid to lower-mid quality? At least they don't pass /my/
> > eyeball-test. And even at that price you're still talking 200%~400%.
>
> A "high-end" 19-inch CRT costs around $575 and in some cases even more. An
> upper-mid level, 17" LCD can be purchased for $775, which is 35% more.
Hmmm My serches reveal that only a few models are over $500 in Japan
and the US searching I've done seems to produce the same results.
They are cheaper than that bro. For example the Dell I just bought
used for $100 sells new for $250 here and state-side. it has a 0.22mm
pitch, 2048x1536 @60 and 1600x1200 @85, has one-touch selectable inputs
(BNC and D-Sub), and it's 21". My 22" that I paid $600 for 18months
ago now sells for about $360 and My Mitsubishi 21 is selling for less
than or about $300 these days as well.
> > "Perfectly square". Hmmm... Nothing man can produce can in fact
> > produce "perfect squares" . What do you mean? More easily square?
>
> Hehe, while you're technically correct, I could also say you're being pedantic.
Ya, :P I was trying to get a definition out of you.
> Anyway, it would be "much closer to square". Visibly it would be perfectly square
> unless checked with a measuring device that is far more accurate and sensitive than
> the human eye. Lines on a LCD display looks straight, lines on a CRT do not,
> nowhere close. Square as the generalized term for straight lines and proper
> proportions throughout the image - or at least within the limits of the technology
> and also to a much greater degree than that which a CRT can achieve.
>
> > Closer to square? Not sure I follow: The squares on my CRT are pretty
> > dang square. I use a setup utility just for that. Don't LCDs have
> > fit, zoom or "Wide" capabilities? In such cases couldn't they too
> > be non-square? And how important is the difference between the two?
>
> That would be aspect ratio... I can see where that would be confusing... When us
> engineering and construction types talk "square" we mean that if you draw
> horizontal and vertical lines that intersect perpendicularly, then they will appear
> as a perfect right angle. CRTs like to distort and I after getting used to the
> superior straight lines on an LCD it drives me insane trying to draw things on a
> CRT.
But all mine are "Perfectly Square" by that definition. I just held up a
small carpenters square to 3 diffferent models and they're all dead-on in
all areas of the screen.
> > Flicker? You mean the flash of the refresh pulse?
>
> Yep.
>
> > Hmmmm, LCDs are worse. Wave your hand in front of one. In my imediate
> > test my hand speed created 3 fingers per finger on the LCD but 6 to 8
>
> If the LCD and incoming signal are properly configured, there should be no refresh
> scan/pulse to percieve. LCD's don't scan or pulse like CRTs do unless something is
> wrong.
Yup! My mistake. OOPS! Reflected light from my CRT caused me to think
the LCD was strobbing when I waved my hand. :P Hehe
> > "images can ghost, shadow, smear..." (?) Huh? Well that would be
> > the point in time when I threw the sucker out and bought something new.
> > Really if your CRT is doing this you need new equipment. Either your
> > Monitor itself, your cable, or your video card need to be replaced.
> > I suppose it /could/ also be that you have two _cheap-os_ sitting too
> > close to one another. That'll /sometims/ cause problems.
>
> I agree, mostly. Although, I doubt you can get right up to your CRT and look at
> individual phosphores and
I have to look at individual phosphores to see it? Perhapps we shoud
add the term "perceivable" to some of these adjectives. Hehe After a
good sneeze the little specs of fluid magnify to reveal pretty crisp
edges.
> tell me honestly that you don't see any bleeding or
> ghosting in high saturation areas or on high contrast borders. It's the way CRTs
> work.
Nope. not a bit. Not even a little bit. Are we talking about the same
things? I get more aboration from the fluid in my eyes than the monitor
produces. I've had monitors in the past that did that tho. If I couldn't
solve it by whatever means within a day or two I threw the sucker out or
sold it. Usually in my limited expirience, that's caused by cheap RGB
cables or too long cables. All my cables now are 1meter or less and nearly
an inch thick. I donno who makes them but I get them from one of the TV
Studios I do work for. But any good (Thick, short, double/tripple shielded)
cable should give ya a nice clean ghostles smearles signal. Cabling and
propper adjustments. If I can't see crisp jaggies in 8pt text on a 1600x1200
screen (using "Small Fonts") I don't want the monitor.
Oh bummer. Yet another case of marketing hype and misleading specs... :-/
> As for power consumption, I would be really surprised
> if it actually consumed that entire 135W - I'm pretty sure that's the max draw for
> it's AC converter. But perhaps it does, who knows.
Hehehe
I think this is a case where your extra-ordinary vision is actually a curse.
The only time I actually "notice" them is on an all white screen like in an empty
text documment or something. Dust specs and little tiny blotches of grime bother
me much more.
> > Like you say the happy eye-test is the best. So far and for my wallet
> > (<$2,000.00) there isn't really anything to consider buying as far LCDs
> > are concerned. All the units I have seen for less than $1000 are just
> > out of the question for any serious work.
>
> What do you think of the Samsung 171P and 191P?
Best of the bunch but both too small to work on for any length of time.
1280x1048 is crap. No thanks. Jaggies at the size & rez are hidious.
They have a 21" that will do 1600x1200 but that's $2k If I'm gonns spend that
much it prolly won't be on a pannel monitor.
> What about the Sony NX-70?
NX-70??? You sure you got the model number right? Anyway the only Sony LCD
I've ever seen that I liked was not available indivually. It was part of a
flip down Keyboard / Wide-screen console thingy. Vivo or something. And
again way too small to "work" on. The one decently priced that /almost/ cuts
it is called SDM-S81. it's 18", 400:1 but again only does 1280X1024. :(
The Sony that IS good enough is the SDM-P232W/B 23" but now we're at $3k :(
it does do a nice 1920x1200 tho :)
> The Princeton Senergy 981
Not sure I've ever seen this one but if it's in a similar class as the others
here I won't be buying one anytime soon.
> is quite nice - 19", 600:1 contrast ratio, 25ms pixel
> response (no ghosting, smearing in animation, video and games), 1600x1200 res,
> pivot capable, 170 degree viewing and 260cd/m brightness and all digital. ...Keep
> in mind that the Sony GDM-FW900 24" wide CRT only has a contrast ratio of 480:1 and
> a brightness of 250cd/m. The *ONLY* Sony CRT monitor I would ever even consider
> buying is the Artisan GDM-C520K 21" display. It has a color calibration system and
> a 600:1 contrast with 280cd/m brightness. I would buy a couple of those instead of
> LCDs if it didn't have those annoying grille wires.
Ya that looks pretty good. But $1800 for a 0.24mm pitch? What, it's just a little
richer color and some extra controls ya? Hmmm I don't think I need that for 3D/Cad
work. I just need a fine dot pitch, an large viewing area, High resolution 1600x1200
or better, and a nice pro-level overscannable video monitor sitting next to it.
The GDM-C520K might be cool if I did alot of color print work or something tho.
Ya, put in on the new Matrox. So the hot setup for me is two crisp 21" ($300) CRTs
sitting side by side on a fast OpenGl card and a Video monitor running off of a
nice D1/D2 framebuffer/TapeDeck.
> > All this said I didn't really intend to start yet another LCD vrs CRT
> > showdown at the LW-Kraal. Now that it's aimming in that direction I
> > don't mind ofcourse, but just so you know.
>
>
> Yep, I probably just added fuel to the fire,
Hehehe ya, but it's all fun!
> but a CRT vs. LCD battle is not what
> I'm trying to introduce here. I think it all comes down to what people, and their
> eyes, are comfortable with. To me, LCDs don't suffer from a lot of the things that
> make me hate CRTs. My eyes burn after using a CRT display, even a very nice one.
I don't have that problem tho :) I love CRTs I was hoping that the next step
would be a true 3D monitor using some kind of phase-intersecting laser light or
something but not LCD Bla!
> And, IMO, anyone who claims that real work can't be done with an LCD has probably
> never tried.
You might have a point there. I have tried on 17" lap-top screens and it is indeed
just too darn small. I look at the <$1K units in the shop and just assume it'll
be the same thing (or probably worse) when connected to a workstation.
> I do real work with LCDs all the time, including image processing,
> print work and animation for video/DVD production, even a little bit of HDTV work
> and it all comes out great with perfectly predictable and matchable results with
> these displays. I have a much easier time matching up print output with my LCD
> displays than with my CRTs. Lots of people are starting to feel this way, this is
> why Apple has discontinued all their CRT displays, and Apple's LCD's are only
> upper-mid quality level.
Wouldn't that have more to do with production costs rather than some indefinable
"will of the people" thing? Usually Co. decisions are so. Especially Apple.
> LCD technology will surpass CRT technology (actually, it already has, just not
> affordably) within the next couple years.
Yup! Now THAT I agree with. :D
> Computer displays will all be some sort
> of TFT LCD or LEP panel within the next 5 to 7 years... I could be wrong, it might
> take 10 years, but it will happen as soon as the economics make sense. My 171P's
> that I'm staring at right now can be had for under $700 a piece now and you'd
> probably laugh at me if I told you how much I paid for them a year ago. But my
> eye's have not regretted the purchase yet. And the next workstation I have to buy
> monitor[s] for will be equipped with either dual 19" or a single 24" widescreen
> flat panel running off a DVI-D connector, of course.
>
:D
Jeff Kilgroe
>
> Hmmm My serches reveal that only a few models are over $500 in Japan
> and the US searching I've done seems to produce the same results.
> They are cheaper than that bro. For example the Dell I just bought
I wouldn't consider any of the monitor offerings from Dell to be "top of the line".
> used for $100 sells new for $250 here and state-side. it has a 0.22mm
> pitch, 2048x1536 @60 and 1600x1200 @85, has one-touch selectable inputs
> (BNC and D-Sub), and it's 21". My 22" that I paid $600 for 18months
Go look at the ViewSonic and Mitsubishi models that have DVI-D input (yes, there
are CRTs with digital inputs).
> Ya, :P I was trying to get a definition out of you.
Figured as much.
> Yup! My mistake. OOPS! Reflected light from my CRT caused me to think
> the LCD was strobbing when I waved my hand. :P Hehe
;-)
> I have to look at individual phosphores to see it? Perhapps we shoud
No you don't have to look at individual phosphores, but that was an example of how
you can see it throughout the display. But I have yet to see *ANY* CRT with
perfect convergence an no red or blue shift in the corners. They get better with
each new re-design, but still are flawed in this area just the nature of the beast.
> add the term "perceivable" to some of these adjectives. Hehe After a
> good sneeze the little specs of fluid magnify to reveal pretty crisp
> edges.
Perception is in the eye of the beholder - I can sit 4 feet from my 19" CPD-G420S
(which is a $375 monitor from most good vendors) and still see color bleeding in
the corners and when doing photo work, especially at 1600x1200, I have to
continuously scroll the image up and down to make sure I'm really seeing what I
think I'm seeing on the lines that are interefered with by the grille wires.
>> T221 is *NOT* suitable for video, multimedia or animation I won't even get into
>> the issues of actually driving images on that display and all the problems
>> at it's high resolution..
>
> Oh bummer. Yet another case of marketing hype and misleading specs... :-/
Yep, all marketing hype on that one... IBM essentially developed the LCD panel
used in the display, but Hitachi actually produces it (they may have other
manufacturers now as well). But due to its exceptionally high resolution, it has
to be driven in "sections" - this makes it unacceptable for working with full
motion graphics such as video/animation and the color and contrast abilities are
pretty poor in comparison to most mid-range LCD screens. I could see its
usefulness for very detailed CAD work or large scale engineering diagram work,
medical imaging and satellite imagery. But at that price point, it's almost more
of a status symbol to own one than a real issue of being productive.
> I think this is a case where your extra-ordinary vision is actually a curse.
> The only time I actually "notice" them is on an all white screen like in an empty
> text documment or something. Dust specs and little tiny blotches of grime bother
> me much more.
I know I have exceptionally good eyes and I also focus on details to the point of
insanity... I have a bad habit of analyzing little details instead of looking at
"the big picture". Dust specs and other things on the monitor drive me batty and
beware ye who leaves a fingerprint on my screen - thou shalt perish in flame.
>> What do you think of the Samsung 171P and 191P?
>
> Best of the bunch but both too small to work on for any length of time.
> 1280x1048 is crap. No thanks. Jaggies at the size & rez are hidious.
I use dual 171Ps at home and love them. For animating and general work, they're
just great. But for serious modeling work or any detailed CAD work, I agree,
1280x1024 is a bit too small. The Princeton Senergy 981 is a 1600x1200 19" LCD and
has a 600:1 contrast with 260cd/m brightness. I have used it a few times on a
collegue's system (he just got it 2 weeks ago) and I have to say it is the best
display out there of any type for running at 1600x1200 - it would be the equivalent
of a 20.5" CRT. Of course, if you want
They have a 21" that will do 1600x1200 but that's $2k If I'm gonns spend that
much it prolly won't be on a pannel monitor.
> NX-70??? You sure you got the model number right? Anyway the only Sony LCD
> I've ever seen that I liked was not available indivually. It was part of a
> flip down Keyboard / Wide-screen console thingy. Vivo or something. And
> again way too small to "work" on. The one decently priced that /almost/ cuts
> it is called SDM-S81. it's 18", 400:1 but again only does 1280X1024. :(
> The Sony that IS good enough is the SDM-P232W/B 23" but now we're at $3k :(
> it does do a nice 1920x1200 tho :)
I'll have to check the model number, it's at least a year old, but ahead of its
time when it was released. Sadly, looking through Sony's current offerings, I'm
not impressed. :-( And the SDM-P232W/B 23" is on par with the rest of their
current offerings (lacking). The Samsung 240T is 1" larger, same resolution,
faster pixel response, almost as bright with much better contrast for $850 less.
> Ya that looks pretty good. But $1800 for a 0.24mm pitch? What, it's just a
little
> richer color and some extra controls ya? Hmmm I don't think I need that for
3D/Cad
> work. I just need a fine dot pitch, an large viewing area, High resolution
> 1600x1200
You shouldn't place so much concern on the dot pitch. 0.24 is quite small on a 19"
display at 1600x1200. Keep in mind that the dot pitch advertised on flat-screen
CRTs is the center pitch and it expands the farther out from the center it's
measured. Most 19" CRTs have a 0.22 to 0.25 mm variable pitch, most 22" CRTs can
have up to a 0.28mm pitch in the corners.
> or better, and a nice pro-level overscannable video monitor sitting next to it.
> The GDM-C520K might be cool if I did alot of color print work or something tho.
> Ya, put in on the new Matrox. So the hot setup for me is two crisp 21" ($300)
CRTs
Matrox? Ugh...
> Hehehe ya, but it's all fun!
:-)
>> And, IMO, anyone who claims that real work can't be done with an LCD has
probably
>> never tried.
>
> You might have a point there. I have tried on 17" lap-top screens and it is
indeed
> just too darn small. I look at the <$1K units in the shop and just assume it'll
> be the same thing (or probably worse) when connected to a workstation.
I find that 1280x1024 on a 17" display is just about right with the distance I sit
from them. But like I've said before, for serious CAD work or other work with lots
of fine line detail, I would need a higher-res display. So I think we're in
agreement there.
> Wouldn't that have more to do with production costs rather than some indefinable
> "will of the people" thing? Usually Co. decisions are so. Especially Apple.
Possibly, but I know that they sell their LCDs like crazy and their CRT sales were
dwindling... People want Apple's LCDs as opposed to their CRT displays, so Apple
probably made a good business decision and killed the product that was starting to
lose them money. Most people buying Macs these days are buying the 17" LCD Studio
Display. It's the best selling LCD monitor out there.
> Yup! Now THAT I agree with. :D
:-)
Tesselator
"Jeff Kilgroe" <Jeff AT Applied Visual dot Com> wrote in message news:hfqdnRCL7Z0...@speakeasy.net...
> "Tesselator" <jimm...@hotmail.dot.com> wrote in message
> news:b4d3io$ki6$1...@catv02.starcat.ne.jp...
> >
> > Hmmm My serches reveal that only a few models are over $500 in Japan
> > and the US searching I've done seems to produce the same results.
> > They are cheaper than that bro. For example the Dell I just bought
>
> I wouldn't consider any of the monitor offerings from Dell to be "top of the line".
Who said anything about "Top of the line"? "Top of the line" all too often
just means "rip-off" anyeay. They work; they are super-sharp and display pretty
pictures. They are as good as or about as good as the top of the line so what
would be the point in in spending extra? Color space? It's not needed for my
work which it NTSC video anyway. For game work? Not needed there either really
where ya want to know what it's going to look like on the "Typical" gamers setup.
For film? Hmmm probably not. For print work yes I could see it.
> > used for $100 sells new for $250 here and state-side. it has a 0.22mm
> > pitch, 2048x1536 @60 and 1600x1200 @85, has one-touch selectable inputs
> > (BNC and D-Sub), and it's 21". My 22" that I paid $600 for 18months
>
> Go look at the ViewSonic and Mitsubishi models that have DVI-D input (yes, there
> are CRTs with digital inputs).
What for? I mean I have a basket full of DVI-D <-> D-SUB HD 15Pin converters.
Would there be any difference? Really... I don't know. This is just for
connectivity's sake or is there some advantage?
> > Ya, :P I was trying to get a definition out of you.
>
> Figured as much.
>
> > Yup! My mistake. OOPS! Reflected light from my CRT caused me to think
> > the LCD was strobbing when I waved my hand. :P Hehe
>
> ;-)
>
> > I have to look at individual phosphores to see it? Perhapps we shoud
>
> No you don't have to look at individual phosphores, but that was an example of how
> you can see it throughout the display. But I have yet to see *ANY* CRT with
> perfect convergence an no red or blue shift in the corners. They get better with
> each new re-design, but still are flawed in this area just the nature of the beast.
Okay now you've got me sitting here with several optical devices looking at the corners
or my monitior. I have a strong reading glass... Nope no color shift on the Dell...
wait, wait, the Mitsubishi has a little: In just the very corners about 1/2 inch in
from either direction. The Sony 22... Yup there too but only the the first 3 pixels
or so... about 2mm worth. Hmmm that what you talking about?
How about the over bright washed out areas that surround the parimiters of all
LCDs? Not worse?
> > add the term "perceivable" to some of these adjectives. Hehe After a
> > good sneeze the little specs of fluid magnify to reveal pretty crisp
> > edges.
>
> Perception is in the eye of the beholder - I can sit 4 feet from my 19" CPD-G420S
> (which is a $375 monitor from most good vendors) and still see color bleeding in
> the corners and when doing photo work, especially at 1600x1200, I have to
> continuously scroll the image up and down to make sure I'm really seeing what I
> think I'm seeing on the lines that are interefered with by the grille wires.
Ya bro that sounds like a bad monitor. I'd get rid of it. Get yourself a nice
Dell or something. LOL But all seriousness aside, If I had one like that I
would indeed chuck it.
> >> T221 is *NOT* suitable for video, multimedia or animation I won't even get into
> >> the issues of actually driving images on that display and all the problems
> >> at it's high resolution..
> >
> > Oh bummer. Yet another case of marketing hype and misleading specs... :-/
>
> Yep, all marketing hype on that one... IBM essentially developed the LCD panel
> used in the display, but Hitachi actually produces it (they may have other
> manufacturers now as well). But due to its exceptionally high resolution, it has
> to be driven in "sections" - this makes it unacceptable for working with full
> motion graphics such as video/animation and the color and contrast abilities are
> pretty poor in comparison to most mid-range LCD screens. I could see its
> usefulness for very detailed CAD work or large scale engineering diagram work,
> medical imaging and satellite imagery. But at that price point, it's almost more
> of a status symbol to own one than a real issue of being productive.
O-Well Damn, looks like I have to wait longer now for a decent LCD to show up. :(
> > I think this is a case where your extra-ordinary vision is actually a curse.
> > The only time I actually "notice" them is on an all white screen like in an empty
> > text documment or something. Dust specs and little tiny blotches of grime bother
> > me much more.
>
> I know I have exceptionally good eyes and I also focus on details to the point of
> insanity... I have a bad habit of analyzing little details instead of looking at
> "the big picture". Dust specs and other things on the monitor drive me batty and
> beware ye who leaves a fingerprint on my screen - thou shalt perish in flame.
LOL.. We're the same in those respects.
> >> What do you think of the Samsung 171P and 191P?
> >
> > Best of the bunch but both too small to work on for any length of time.
> > 1280x1048 is crap. No thanks. Jaggies at the size & rez are hidious.
>
> I use dual 171Ps at home and love them. For animating and general work, they're
> just great. But for serious modeling work or any detailed CAD work, I agree,
> 1280x1024 is a bit too small. The Princeton Senergy 981 is a 1600x1200 19" LCD and
> has a 600:1 contrast with 260cd/m brightness. I have used it a few times on a
> collegue's system (he just got it 2 weeks ago) and I have to say it is the best
> display out there of any type for running at 1600x1200 - it would be the equivalent
> of a 20.5" CRT. Of course, if you want
Ya that sounds good enough. How much is that? I don't seem to pull anything up on
a search or two. Please tell me it's $495 hehe... And 600:1 that sounds good
although I haven't yet stumbled on a definition for this numeric. But 400:1 seems
to be "typical" and larger numbers /sound/ better.
O :-)
The DELL I just got is 22 ~ 25 and you can see where it becomes 25. It's just in
the corners but it's noticable. The 22" is .19 to .22 and the Mitsubishi 21 is
.21 ~ .25 That's the first spec I look for in a CRT. From there I scope on the
convergence thing to see if it's solid and even across the display. The only
other thing I care about is having two selectable inputs. I almost never have
to do anything serious with Print work so I'm not conserned at all with color space
but as I understand it it IS an issue on LCDs cus they are (or were) so terribly
bad and washed out. Or so dark that you couldn't see anything. They've come a long
way since then but I understand why that spec is meaningfull on an LCD even to the
casual user where it wouldn't be within the recognizable history of CRTs.
> > or better, and a nice pro-level overscannable video monitor sitting next to it.
> > The GDM-C520K might be cool if I did alot of color print work or something tho.
> > Ya, put in on the new Matrox. So the hot setup for me is two crisp 21" ($300)
> CRTs
>
> Matrox? Ugh...
Really? I thought they were thee ticket for print work? Err uh, 2D stuff...
>
> > Hehehe ya, but it's all fun!
>
> :-)
>
> >> And, IMO, anyone who claims that real work can't be done with an LCD has probably
> >> never tried.
> >
> > You might have a point there. I have tried on 17" lap-top screens and it is indeed
> > just too darn small. I look at the <$1K units in the shop and just assume it'll
> > be the same thing (or probably worse) when connected to a workstation.
>
> I find that 1280x1024 on a 17" display is just about right with the distance I sit
> from them. But like I've said before, for serious CAD work or other work with lots
> of fine line detail, I would need a higher-res display. So I think we're in
> agreement there.
Uh-oh, look out... O :-)
> > Wouldn't that have more to do with production costs rather than some indefinable
> > "will of the people" thing? Usually Co. decisions are so. Especially Apple.
>
> Possibly, but I know that they sell their LCDs like crazy and their CRT sales were
> dwindling... People want Apple's LCDs as opposed to their CRT displays, so Apple
> probably made a good business decision and killed the product that was starting to
> lose them money. Most people buying Macs these days are buying the 17" LCD Studio
> Display. It's the best selling LCD monitor out there.
Yup, So I guess the two are really the same in this case. Hehe Mac users have always
seemed more driven by fasion and fad... I wonder how much /that/ applies here? Hehe.
Soon I want there to be the condition where I don't have to worry about all this.
A time when LCDs are cheap ($250) and consume 1/50th the power and can display
very many different resolutions, and are more colorful than CRTs and accept all
kinds of inputs from video and computer devices and, and, and. It's getting there.
Too slowly for me but what the heck, it's already better than it was. I'd still
rather have a "real" 3D display. Interactive would be nice :P
Jeff Kilgroe
> Who said anything about "Top of the line"?
I did... ;-) comparing some of the better LCDs to "top of the line" CRTs
pricewise... The whole 35% difference comment.
> "Top of the line" all too often
> just means "rip-off" anyeay. They work; they are super-sharp and display pretty
> pictures. They are as good as or about as good as the top of the line so what
> would be the point in in spending extra? Color space? It's not needed for my
> work which it NTSC video anyway. For game work? Not needed there either really
> where ya want to know what it's going to look like on the "Typical" gamers setup.
> For film? Hmmm probably not. For print work yes I could see it.
Definitely for film. Much greater need for color range with film - even more so
than with print in most cases.
> What for? I mean I have a basket full of DVI-D <-> D-SUB HD 15Pin converters.
> Would there be any difference? Really... I don't know. This is just for
> connectivity's sake or is there some advantage?
Yep, full digital signal as opposed to analog, once again greater color range, and
a few other minor features that nobody would really care about. Overall, it's a
clarity and color issue. Somewhat analogous to cassette tape vs. CDs. I know
quite a few people who don't like DVI-D and/or LCD displays because the image is
"too crisp" or "too sharp". Comes back to that whole what your eye prefers kind of
thing.
For doing HDTV work, it's almost a requirement to have DVI-D so that the entire
color gamut of HDTV can be seen and worked on - standard VGA can't do it.
> Okay now you've got me sitting here with several optical devices looking at the
corners
> or my monitior. I have a strong reading glass... Nope no color shift on the
Dell...
> wait, wait, the Mitsubishi has a little: In just the very corners about 1/2 inch
in
> from either direction. The Sony 22... Yup there too but only the the first 3
pixels
> or so... about 2mm worth. Hmmm that what you talking about?
Your monitors are magically better than any I have ever seen. Or every CRT that
has been shipped into my half of the world has been dropped no less than 3 times
out of a moving truck.
> How about the over bright washed out areas that surround the parimiters of all
> LCDs? Not worse?
Good LCD displays don't suffer from this if adjusted properly, none of that here.
>> Perception is in the eye of the beholder - I can sit 4 feet from my 19"
CPD-G420S
>> (which is a $375 monitor from most good vendors) and still see color bleeding in
>> the corners and when doing photo work, especially at 1600x1200, I have to
>> continuously scroll the image up and down to make sure I'm really seeing what I
>> think I'm seeing on the lines that are interefered with by the grille wires.
>
> Ya bro that sounds like a bad monitor. I'd get rid of it. Get yourself a nice
> Dell or something. LOL But all seriousness aside, If I had one like that I
> would indeed chuck it.
Then I would have to chuck all 8 of them that I own, plus all of the other
trinitron/diamondtron displays. The grille wires increase the dot pitch between
the two effected rows of pixels by a factor of 3 and often cast a slight shadow or
halo on high contrast images. Maybe my eyes are a curse, but like I said, I can
see the things from quite a distance, and they drive me nuts when I'm actually
working on that screen.
> O-Well Damn, looks like I have to wait longer now for a decent LCD to show up.
:(
...Just depends on how much money you want to spend. ViewSonic has (or did have) a
22" 4:3 LCD that had 1920x1440 resolution. I know someone who owns a pair, but I
don't know what price they currently sell for or if they're still available.
Mitsubishi also also had the same display as they manufactured the panel that
ViewSonic used in their sets. I thought Apple was also going to sell that panel in
a large display, but they went with widescreen models for all sizes above 17".
> Ya that sounds good enough. How much is that? I don't seem to pull anything up
on
> a search or two. Please tell me it's $495 hehe... And 600:1 that sounds good
> although I haven't yet stumbled on a definition for this numeric. But 400:1
seems
> to be "typical" and larger numbers /sound/ better.
Senergy 981 - you can see the specs and info at Princeton's web site - although, I
now see that it's really a 1280x1024 display and costs less than $900, which is
still too high. The one I played with was running at 1280x1024, but I thought it
just did an exceptional job of scaling to that resolution. Hmmmph.
Instead, take a look at the Samsung 210T. It's a 21.3" with real 1600x1200
resolution and a 0.25 dot pitch (yeah, a bit higher than a lot of newer CRTs, but
also constant and doesn't give that expanding spider web effect). It also has a
500:1 contrast and 250cd/m brightness so it's in line with most good CRTs and it
has a 27ms pixel response, so it'll be great for video/gaming/animation, etc..
This one can be purchased for about $1250 from most good vendors - my local
distributor that I use for most of my computer parts and such has it for $1195.
So, about $500 more than the Sony 21" DeluxePro, which I would gladly pay to not
have any flicker or support wires. And I rarely run anything higher than 1600x1200
on a 21" screen. It's only $50 more than the 22" DVI-D equipped Mitsubishi
DiamondPro.
> Really? I thought they were thee ticket for print work? Err uh, 2D stuff...
They have that reputation because that used to be so... These days, they have zero
advantage and in many ways are inferior to offerings from nVidia and ATI. The
visual quality has been a bit better on ATI as of late because they were using
better RAMDACs than the nVidia cardmakers, but ATI's quality has slid a little -
especially on the OEM cards now that they sell their chipsets to cardmakers like
nVidia does. And nVidia is supposedly better with the GeForceFX line. But I run
DVI on all the displays that depend on color and image quality, and in that
situation, the RAMDAC isn't an issue, it's a straight digital pipeline.
> Soon I want there to be the condition where I don't have to worry about all this.
Would be nice.
> A time when LCDs are cheap ($250) and consume 1/50th the power and can display
> very many different resolutions, and are more colorful than CRTs and accept all
> kinds of inputs from video and computer devices and, and, and. It's getting
there.
> Too slowly for me but what the heck, it's already better than it was. I'd still
> rather have a "real" 3D display. Interactive would be nice :P
I think we're there now with the exception of price. It seems that a year ago,
there were a lot more resolution choices available for LCD panels But I'm thinking
that the more limited choices now have a lot to do with the prices nearly dropping
in half in the past year. Anyway, 1600x1200 seems to be the resolution of choice
for the nicer 19" and larger LCDs (although they seem to be extremely scarce
right now) while 1280x1024 is finding a niche with the 17" displays. I bet in
another year, we'll see more options and lower prices - as is the usual with this
kind of stuff.
spam-david@designscienceinc.com David Hogan
displays.
Brizon
off :)
--
Chris
ICQ: 170582108
--
"David Hogan" <no spam-...@designscienceinc.com> wrote in message
news:v6pulip...@corp.supernews.com...
Wilson
> Yep, all marketing hype on that one... IBM essentially developed the LCD panel
> used in the display, but Hitachi actually produces it (they may have other
> manufacturers now as well). But due to its exceptionally high resolution, it has
> to be driven in "sections" - this makes it unacceptable for working with full
> motion graphics such as video/animation and the color and contrast abilities are
> pretty poor in comparison to most mid-range LCD screens. I could see its
> usefulness for very detailed CAD work or large scale engineering diagram work,
> medical imaging and satellite imagery. But at that price point, it's almost more
> of a status symbol to own one than a real issue of being productive.
>
Have you even seen a T221? First, the panel is made by IDTech which
is a joint venture of IBM and a Taiwanese LCD manufacturer. Hitachi
has nothing to do with it. Second, the color is probably the most
accurate of all LCD panels. Plus there's a color LUT built-in for
storing calibration data. Its suitability to video/animation work has
nothing to do with the fact that it's "driven in 'sections'." The
Quadro cards genlock the two heads and there's no visible artifact
between the sections.
Jeff Kilgroe
news:6eb67e79.0304...@posting.google.com...
>
> Have you even seen a T221? First, the panel is made by IDTech which
> is a joint venture of IBM and a Taiwanese LCD manufacturer. Hitachi
> has nothing to do with it. Second, the color is probably the most
> accurate of all LCD panels. Plus there's a color LUT built-in for
> storing calibration data. Its suitability to video/animation work has
> nothing to do with the fact that it's "driven in 'sections'." The
> Quadro cards genlock the two heads and there's no visible artifact
> between the sections.
Yes, I have seen a T221. ...I'm not saying that you're wrong, about the IDTech,
you're probably correct. I had just always been told by many sources, including
IBM reps, that it was a Hitachi panel. And Hitachi sells the exact same display
for about $1K cheaper than IBM. ViewSonic also offers the exact same display and
also claims its a Hitachi panel (ViewSonic VP2290). IBM was indeed the first to
market this display due to exclusive contracts, but apparently those were only for
6 months or so as there are a few manufacturers now selling them.
It is indeed a very impressive display, but for that price it's rather prohibitive.
It's relatively lower brightness and contrast compared to many other much lower
priced (and much lower resolution) LCDs makes it less suitable for HDTV, that is
also taking into account its relatively slow pixel recovery ~38ms. So for video
and motion picture work you're giving up response time and contrast/brightess in
order to have the 2X to 3X higher resolution. Color accuracy isn't really a unique
feature of this display either, quite a few other "pro" level LCDs have the exact
same features. It all comes down to the capabilities of this display in relation
to its price when compared to other displays... Perhaps, I was too harsh and
judgemental before, but even if money wasn't a consideration, this is still not the
best LCD display for every job.
For super high resolution imaging, like satellite and medical image applications or
large format photo and print work, this would be an amazing display (if it fits
into the budget), but I wouldn't want one for serious video, multimedia or motion
picture work. For the needs and budgets usually associated with that type of work
I'd rather have dual 1600x1200 or 1920x1200 displays. But like I mentioned, for
super high res imaging work, I would probably find a way to buy one of these.
As for being driven in sections as I mentioned before, that can still be an issue
for some. To use the full capability of this display, one would need a video card
that can drive two dual-link digital DVI interfaces simultaneously at 1920x1200 per
channel. That is the equivalent of driving *4* 1920x1200 displays off of one card.
AFAIK, there isn't even a card on the market right now that can do this via DVI-D.
QuadroFX 2000 and 3D Labs Wildcat 7xx0 can do 2 DVI-D channels at 1920x1200 and
they're only certified for each DVI-D single-link at 1600x1200 and below. So right
off, you would be operating with analog signal to get full resolution out of this
display. The most efficeint way (right now) is two run an extended desktop of
1920x2400 via analog DVI-I over a one dual-link connector (or two standard DVI
connectors).
Ronald Stepp
> It is indeed a very impressive display, but for that price it's rather
prohibitive.
Ha! I've got an FP2000 20" LCD which rocks! It does 1600x1200 and I've
tried it in both SOFII and Unreal Tournament 2003 to see how it would handle
updating the screen, heard lots of nightmares about streaking, but this
thing is rock solid..
So if you are looking for an excellent LCD (not sure if you are), go with
this one from Dell.
Jeff Kilgroe
news:hRPja.23671$rd4.6...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
> > It is indeed a very impressive display, but for that price it's rather
> prohibitive.
>
> Ha! I've got an FP2000 20" LCD which rocks! It does 1600x1200 and I've
> tried it in both SOFII and Unreal Tournament 2003 to see how it would handle
> updating the screen, heard lots of nightmares about streaking, but this
> thing is rock solid..
> So if you are looking for an excellent LCD (not sure if you are), go with
> this one from Dell.
Yeah, the Dell flat panels are pretty good ones, I don't recall who manufactures
the current Dell offerings. Most issues with streaking or pixel "fallout" on LCDs
are usually caused by poor input signal rather than the display itself. Running
full digital DVI-D at resolutions above 1280x1024 can prove to be a problem for
some video card and monitor combinations. Funny thing is that ATI cards usually
are a part of those problem combinations. Running an LCD off analog DVI can
produce some ghosting and other artifacts, but usually only with a poor quality
cable or other interference. Running off a VGA cable can introduce even more
analog problems, but most are still not a problem under good operating conditions.
The Dell Ultrasharp 2000FP is a really nice display, the only real drawback to it
is the contrast ratio is 350:1, which is kinda low for LCDs these days, but it's
priced very well for a 1600x1200 LCD.
Wilson
> As for being driven in sections as I mentioned before, that can still be an issue
> for some. To use the full capability of this display, one would need a video card
> that can drive two dual-link digital DVI interfaces simultaneously at 1920x1200 per
> channel. That is the equivalent of driving *4* 1920x1200 displays off of one card.
> AFAIK, there isn't even a card on the market right now that can do this via DVI-D.
> QuadroFX 2000 and 3D Labs Wildcat 7xx0 can do 2 DVI-D channels at 1920x1200 and
> they're only certified for each DVI-D single-link at 1600x1200 and below. So right
> off, you would be operating with analog signal to get full resolution out of this
> display. The most efficeint way (right now) is two run an extended desktop of
> 1920x2400 via analog DVI-I over a one dual-link connector (or two standard DVI
> connectors).
Actually, is 1920x2400x2 when driven by 2 DVIs. I'm using the Quadro
FX 2000 right now and it's specifically marketed by nVidia/PNY to
support the 3840x2400 resolution. The monitor is DVI-D only, by the
way. The 3DLabs VP990 is also marketed to be compatible with 9MP
displays. The official IBM solution is the nVidia Quadro4 900XGL and
980XGL.
Where did you see a 9MP Hitachi LCD? Link, please?
--wilson