LCD terms, what to look for.

[emericanchaos]

i've been looking into purchasing an LCD but while surfing around i found all these terms that i knew nothing about. i decided to do some research after posting in here and i made this little write up to help other people learn some of these terms and understand what is good to have in a LCD monitor and what sorts of things they should look for in a given monitor size.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LCD.
An LCD is a liquid crystal display. LCDs are most often used for notebook computer screens and is used in electronic computer projection equipment. It is important to note that Liquid crystal displays do not emit light. They only control whether light gets through them or not. The specifics are quite technical and rely on something called the "polarization" of light. For more on polorization check out http://travel.howstuffworks.com/sunglass.htm

Active and passive matrix LCD.
Active matrix LCDs are more responsive and therefore appropriate for full motion video, computer animation, and fast mouse movement. Active matrix also provides a higher degree of color saturation.

Contrast ratio.
Contrast ratio is an average measurement of a totally white image vs. a totally black image at the 9 points described in lumens measurements. The higher the contrast ratio, the more vibrant the colors will be. Look for monitors with 250:1 or better.


Brightness
Brightness influences contrast (and thus readability) but it's more a comfort thing -- most CRTs display low-100s in brightness, so an LCD of any kind will still be 2x brighter. Brightness should be 250cd/m or better.

Color
Alot of companies will give you the number of colors. Most LCD's are 16.7 Million colors (24bit).

Dot Pitch/Pixel Pitch
The picture on your monitor is made up of lots of tiny dots of the same color. The dot pitch is the distance between dots that make up the image on your screen. The smaller the distance between dots, the better the image. .264 seems the be the best, most others are .29x. if you can get lower than .264 than you'll be very well off.

Response Time
Response Time refers to the screen's input signal reaction speeds, and the time required for the screen to turn from completely white to completely black and vice versa. Technically, this is referred to as the sum of (Rise Time (tr) + Fall Time (tf)). Response time is measured in milliseconds (ms, 1 second = 1000 milliseconds). In general, our eyes can take 24 successive still images per second as an active image. Movies for example display 24 images per second, and television displays 30 images per second.

Generally, lowest response is best. Response times on larger LCD's tend to grow higher. Try to stick around 24ms. On Larger LCD's (19"+) this will be somewhat difficult BenQ LCD's offer 17ms response times for 17" or smaller LCD's. The rest of their numbers are average. If gaming is your thing than these would most likely suit you best as the rest of their specs are about average but the ultra low response will offer smoother play.

[Hookem]

Well IMHO response time is the most critical...16ms is the bar right now...Hictachi CML174 and a couple of others...If it has 16ms response time you should be gettin the very latest technology...;)

[HotKoala]

Here we go. My guide for another friend who queried on the same topic. Decided to add so that it didn't seem incomplete and therefore leading to wrong conclusions.

Screen Size and Resolution:

LCDs are measured from one edge of the screen to the other. CRTs are measured from the it's physical edge to the other. As a result, while LCDs are smaller, its screen size is a few notches higher.

17" CRT - 15" LCD
19" CRT - 17 to 18.1" LCD
21" CRT - 19 to 20" LCD

Do remember a 19" CRT with viewable size of 18" is of course larger than a 17" LCD.

15" LCD 1024X768
17-18.1" LCD 1280X1024
19" 1280X1024 - 1600X1200
20" 1600X1200

Take into consideration the screensize and ratio if you intend to game. The lower you get from the native resolution, the worst the game will look, even if you do have a hardware calibration unit. Even worst is when the aspect ratios are different.

If your videocard plays at 1024X768 and no more, you'll be seriously dissapointed when you game on a 18.1" monitor. Or it can be a excuse to upgrade once again.


Contrast Ratio:

Light intensity from the brightest white to the darkest black. Higher contrast ratio means better colour reproduction. The better the colours will look and be displayed, the more detail and saturation. LCD range is from 150:1 to 600:1. They average around 350:1 and 450:1. 350:1 should be the minimum.

Contrary to popular belief, while CRTs are capable of displaying more colours than a LCD, many do not. You get what you pay for.

Colour Depth:

Most LCDs can display 15.2 million colours. That's 8 bits per primary. Remember, the alpha channel doesn't really exist. Merely a blend of the 3 primaries. To decrease the response rates, some manufactors start at 262K colours then use varying voltages to output 14.9 million colours.

As far as that goes, it's not much different from what most CRTs actually display. Again, even so, it is still preferred that you stick with a high-end CRT if you demand 100% colour accuracy. Tried and true.

Response Rate:

Mostly been covered by original poster. Just to add that some manufactors will usually state their tr time. You have to add tr and tf together to get the full response time.

In addition, they will commonly state those response time given several conditions. Say 80% contrast and 50% brightness. If you want full colours, you will bring those up and response will suffer. This varies upon monitors.

Being that there are so many ways mislead, a 30ms spec'd monitor may very well ghost LESS than a 20ms spec'd monitor. When contrast et brightness are turned up, same applies.

Refresh Rate:

Ignore this. LCDs don't flicker at 60Hz. Most glass screens only do 60Hz. Few will do 75Hz. Models that state they do 75+ are 90% of the time limited by the glass screen and circuitry anyways. Either way, you won't see any flicker.

Analogue or Digital:

Digital is clearly better to the keen. On LCDs will hardware calibration, it's subtle but still there. There are problems with using analogue connection to a LCD and those are usually sync problems. This leads to "shimmering" lines and irregular sized text. You can adjust it by eye or have hardware calibration do it for you.

All LCDs have adjustments by hand. If you don't know what it is, it's fustrating and usually leads to no gain.

Hardware is harder to come by in that they come on $1000+ models generally. But you get other features that are well worth it. Most are passable. EIZO's hardware unit is a whole in a league of its own.

As far as quality. DSub < DVI-A < DVI-D

Cables:

Not all cables are created equal. There is no such thing as a high quality bundled cable. While most of us would say it's very well good enough, it never hurts to get a new one if you experience excessive ghosting blurriness or dull colours. Do not mix and match cables as some meet the requirements for their monitor only. In that I mean, bandwidth. Higher resolution monitors require higher bandwidth. Using a cable from a 15" unit will be far from great on a 18" unit. Leads to horrid picture quality, shimmering, shaking, ghosting, et-c.

Brightness:

LCDs are all bloody bright. If you look at a unit over 250cdm^2 for too long, you're asking for trouble. Since LCDs do depend on the backlight for colour, take this into consideration. There are always gamma adjustments to make if dark areas are too dark. No different from a CRT.

Backlight:

While many manufactors use the same screen in their display, they will use different backlights. Quality will vary. Which is why, for example, NEC and Hitachi, even though they use the same panel in their 16ms monitors, the NEC has better colour.

Backlight are of very high quality nowadays. Many have a life of >40,000 hours. That's 4.5 years of 24/7/356. 9 years at 12/7/356. How many of you even do 12 hours a day?

Burn-in & Screen Fade:

Unlike CRTs, the LCD screen never degrades over time. It will be just as crisp 4 years from the day you opened it up for the first time. This makes it a very good long term investment. You can keep it att 100% contrast and brightness and it will never degrade. Do that on a CRT, and you've cut its life in half.

It is still possible to burn in an image on a LCD screen. Say, you left your desktop on for 12 hours. To rid of that, just run a screen saver the next time. If you actually did get a burn in image, again run something with motion for the same amount of time and the image will soon disapear.

Dead Pixels:

CHECK to see what the manufactor policy is on this. Some will let you return after 3 dead pixels. Some will be 7-8 sub pixels. Some will be 5 but only if they're noticable spot and/or in a cluster. If this bothers you, check before you buy.

Technology on dead pixels have improved by quite a bit from even last year. It's rare to have a fully dead pixel now. A dead sub-pixel is one that displays one colour and only that one no matter what the others are doing.

Not to be confused with a lazy pixel. These change a bit slower than the others. Usually, this is normal on a new or display that hasn't been used in a while. Use the screen for 5-10 minutes in some fast movement game and you'll find it has vanished.

Keep the screen clear of dust particles as those may block a pixel and you may see it as being dead till you wipe it.

[HotKoala]

Again, not all LCDs are created equal. Here are real world specs of today's common LCDs.

Acer AL732: DVI, SubD, Video, S-Video in, nice design, small bezel, built-in speakers w/ 2x audio-in (PC and video), grayscale not pure gray, trise 14 ms, tfall 6 ms, 77-200 cd/m² contrast 576:1, settings for shortest response times: contrast 80, brightness 80, picture too bright and noticeable loss of bright grayscale detail at those settings.

ADI A715: DVI, SubD, nice design, built-in speakers, headphone out, height adjustible, poor analogue image quality, very good digital quality (on par with the others), ok interpolation (others are better, ALL screens always interpolate to full-screen, distorting the image a bit since they're 5:4), trise 12 ms, tfall 9 ms, 100-184 cd/m² (this might be too bright for dimly lit rooms, turning darker only possible by reducing contrast), contrast 394:1, settings for shortest response times: contrast 100, very noticeable loss of bright grayscale detail at this setting.

Hitachi CML174SXWB:
17", 262K/14.2M colours...blah display. Many others are much better using the same panel.

NEC-Mitsubishi Multisync LCD 1760NX: DVI, SubD, nice design IMHO, small bezel, height adjustible, problems with dark grayscale, but stays gray, doesn't become colored, brightness needs long to stabilize, trise 12 ms, tfall 5.5 ms, 70-250 cd/m², contrast 499:1, settings for shortest response time: contrast min. 50, brightness 100, picture too bright and slight loss of bright grayscale detail at this setting.

[PhobMX]

IMHO the best balanced 17" LCD right now is my Hitachi CML174... 16ms response time and 450:1 contrast ratio for $475 is unbeatable. Not to mention view angles aint an issue :D

[HotKoala]

http://monitoroutlet.com/237846.html $531

Same panel. Better quality picture. $60 more. Any single one of the ones I posted above would be better. And they use the same 16ms panel you guys love.

The Hitachi's actual contrast ratio is closer to 410:1

[Cisco Kid]

I have to buy a monitor real soon and I figure I will go LCD. Up to now I have figured on the Nec 1760NX here in Vancouver for $670 canadian = $485 US. I PLan to buy local as well.

But I have come across the Samsung 171N Silver 17" TFT LCD , it does not have DVI but I can get for $70 Canadian less. Reviews I have found say it will game quite decently. I am not a huge gamer but I will game every other day or so for 30 minute to an hour.

Should I consider the Sammy based on my wallet or spend the extra for the NEC and benefit from DVI with my 9500 Pro??

What would be a good CRT in 19" for cheaper as I see they can be had for alot cheaper as well (this will prolly be another thread on its own)

Cisco KId

[PhobMX]

I'd go for DVI... dunno but some ppl says analog is a disgrace for lcds

[Hookem]

I have this Sony 19” CRT… http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/en/-/USD/SY_DisplayProductInformation-Start;sid=iSgqqTNFmeYq6w2QB_ggonxUDC0yMCoNjMk=?Cat alogCategoryID=HPAKC0%2eNUdUAAAD1BRmOZmju&Dept=cpu&TemplateName=item%2fsy_item_b&ProductID=9aMKC0%2eNkDMAAAD1iDmOZmjy&ContentItemPage= Awesome specs…dual inputs…Probably the best electronics, specs and the picture aint bad either…But with the 24.dot pitch across the entire screen and what I consider the best picture is this Mitsubishi http://www.necmitsubishi.com/products/home/mitsubishi_index.cfm Warm, vibrant colors…Picture will knock off your feet…These monitors will come in about 360.00 to 400.00 and believe me they are really nice pieces…NEC, Samsung, make excellent aperature grill monitors…The ViewSonic P95 is a “best buy” in my book…Can be had for under 300.00…Here is a link that does a comparison of 19” CRT’s http://www6.tomshardware.com/display/20020319/index.html …Some good information, talks about shadow mask versus aperature grill technology…Good read…Of course I bought my Sony a couple of weeks before I found out about the Hitachi CML 174…But I have no regrets…Take a pretty high dollar LCD to hang… :D

[HotKoala]

Heh, it has been stickied=)

One more to add before I'm off to work.

Dot Pitch(Desktop LCDs only):

The native/optimal resolution of the LCD unit is how many physical pixels it has. A monitor with a resolution of 1280X1024 has 1310720 pixels total.

On average it's something like:

15" 1024X768
17-18.4" 1280X1024
19 1280X1024-1600X1200
20" 1600X1200

The most common aspects are either 3:4 or 4:5. The diagonal completes the triangle. Let's take the 17" units because they seem to most popular and therefore more relevant to this crowd.

17" = 374mm

Therefore:

Vertical length = 270mm
Horizontal length = 338mm

To find pixel pitch:

Vertical Length / Vertical (Native) Resolution = Pixel Pitch

In this case:

270mm/1024=.264mm
338/1280=.264mm

Both are the same because, unlike CRTs, LCD pixels are square not rectangular.

.26mm is the standard for 17" monitors and you aren't likely to find any lower/better.

15" .297mm
17" .264mm
18" .28mm
19" .294mm for 1280X1024 models
19" .257mm for 1600X1200 models
20" .255mm

Note higher resolutions generally have higher pixel pitches.

Generally you won't find much deviation from that unless you've a wide screen or a Laptop(but they're a whole different story). But the formula for finding dot pitch is always the same. You can derive one or the other given two.

Desktop LCDs don't have a higher dot pitch mostly due to cost. They have to be somewhat competitive with the CRTs. Since you have sharper pixels on a LCD, the pixel pitch between the two can not be compared anyways.

[HotKoala]

Originally posted by Penguin4x4
Sorry for this somewhat n00bish response, but since both LCD's and CRT's share the same 4:3 screen ratio size (640/480 = 800/600 = 1024/768 = 1154/864 = 1600/1200 = 4/3), shouldn't it be 1280 x 960 instead of 1280 x 1024?

Not all CRTs and LCDs share the same aspect ratio.

1280X1024 resolution LCD monitors are naturally 4:5.

1024X768, 1600X1200 resolution LCD monitors are naturally 3:4.

While most CRTs are indeed 3:4 (draw a circle in a 4:5 resolution and you get an ellipse) I know of quite a few wide screen ones too. Their aspect ratios are also different.

Keep this in mind when you pick out a LCD. Does your card game well at 1280X1024? Are the vast majority of your games 3:4 aspect?(100% of those old ones are)

If so, does your monitor have hardware calibration?

If not, your games will either play in a tiny window in the centre equal to however many pixels the game uses, in the upper left corner equal to however many pixels the game uses, or stretched across the entire screen messing up the aspect ratio.

That last part was my experience with Matrox, nV, and ATi driver resizing. Their drivers all resize and position differently.

[HotKoala]

Originally posted by Audioaficionado
Great sticky HotKoala http://forum.oc-forums.com/vb/images/icons/icon14.gif

How does the Benq FP767 analog only LCD stack up against the DIV competition? I've heard only good things but have you found anything about them I should be conerned about?

http://www.benq.com/display/lcd_fp767_specs2.html

I actually don't like them much. Colour quality is lacking compared to others using the same panel(meaning every single one I listed in this thread use the same 16ms panel. Other things such as backlight and electronics make some better than others.). I only posted the ones with DVI *and* analogue inputs using the same panels. Analogue only were skipped because DVI quality is simply better that instant. On an exceptional LCD however, you'd be hard pressed to see the difference. None of the above are exceptional LCDs.

[HotKoala]

Up to your priorities. If gaming is your most important, then the 16ms are probably your best bet.

I perfer better colour and...well, just about everything else. I can live with the oh so slight ghosting that comes on 25ms panels.

If I were to buy a panel, not for myself, I'd def get the one you linked to there. How many people would know the difference or even really care so long as it's a LCD?

[lightbulb8817]

I'm glad I ran into someone that knows soooo much about LCD. I'm getting ready to purchase one.

What's the difference between the NEC 1760V and the NEC 1760NX? The V is considerably cheaper and they both use the same panels. There are differences in stand structure (I think)... but is there a difference is picture quality?

THANK YOU!

edit: I'm gonna cut to the chase-
Which 17" 16ms LCD do you recommend?

[emericanchaos]

wow this got stickied! i never knew. well thanks i feel special. hot koala has alot of good info in here too. good job to you too!

[HotKoala]

Originally posted by SwishBish33
HotKoala -

For someone who likes to game on a semi-daily basis, would a Samsung 957MB be better than a BenQ FP767? Is the color reproduction on that model really that poor? THANKS

What do you do other than game? Unless you photoshop; anything that doesn't need 100% colour accuracy, your eyes will thank you for getting a LCD over a CRT.

LCDs are getting more affordable. People are finally realising LCDs aren't anywhere as bad as their past myths.

[HotKoala]

Originally posted by New2me
Hot koala, im born and bred here in australia, never knew anyay that ate Koala's :D !! How they taste?

Who said anything about _eating_ them?

[SwishBish33]

Koala-

I'm a LCD newbie, and a CRT newbie when it comes to the real technical stuff, so please bear with me. What needs 100% color accuracy besides photo editing? Games? Nothing? I don't do any, or very little, photo editing, so that isn't important. Is the image quality (sharpness, brightness, etc) better on the FP767 (getting rave reviews from users on this forum) compared to a CRT, even one as good as the Samsung 957MB (that keeps getting rave reviews from people who have it also). I am willing to buy the 957MB over the FP767 if the image quality is better on the CRT, but if it is the same or better on the LCD, I'd rather get that as it would be EXTREMELY nice to have the desk space. Is the ghosting on an LCD noticeable too, even with a 16ms response? If that isn't a problem either, then the FP767 is the way to go. Also, Koala, just curious, how come you said you didn't like the FP767 that much? Sorry for all the questions. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[HotKoala]

The FP767 is more than ideal for you then. Chances are you won't even notice the differences in colour reproduction unless you were trained to do it or worked on images where it was apparent to the eye(you'd see dithering when there isn't any on a CRT)

Ghosting isn't much of a problem on <25ms models. Numbers do vary though, across panels. I think you'd be more than happy with the FP767.

I don't like it because I'm a bloody elitist ******* that doesn't like to settle for less. Huge strain on the wallet though=P If I were to, say, choose between the highest quality CRT or the FP767, I'd go with the FP767 everytime for productivity reasons. Can't work if you have eye strain.

[SwishBish33]

Koala -

So the image quality between the highest quality CRT and the FP767 is going to be the same? What's the risk of getting one with dead pixels? Thanks man. Never met anyone as knowledgable about LCDs than you. Thanks for helping me out. Just outta curiosity, where did all the LCD experience come from? Personal use?!?! If so, you the man!

[SwishBish33]

Can anyone tell me if the image quality of the FP767 or a comparable 17" LCD is equal or better than the 957MB or other comparable 19" please? This seems to be the last sticking point for me in my decision between the FP767 or the 957MB. Also, how common are dead pixels? Thanks

[PhobMX]

dude, i have an lcd, look in sig... im a serious gamer and im all about looks in computer stuff... believe quality wont be an issue, i used to be wary like you are now but im happy now

[emericanchaos]

Originally posted by SwishBish33
Koala -

So the image quality between the highest quality CRT and the FP767 is going to be the same? What's the risk of getting one with dead pixels? Thanks man. Never met anyone as knowledgable about LCDs than you. Thanks for helping me out. Just outta curiosity, where did all the LCD experience come from? Personal use?!?! If so, you the man!

a good LCD shouldn't look any differenct than a good CRT. the only difference would be animation and motion situations like gaming and movies. some montiors will "ghost" meaning the pixels don't change over fast enough. and even still a higher end LCD will do just fine.

[HotKoala]

Originally posted by SwishBish33
This seems to be the last sticking point for me in my decision between the FP767 or the 957MB. Also, how common are dead pixels? Thanks

I actually don't have that CRT model but the FP767 is nothing to sneeze at either.

Dead pixels used to be common. They aren't anymore unless the vendor somehow carelessly handles the monitor knocking it every which way. It depends on your usage as with everything else. The more you use it, the more it deteriorates. LCDs don't deteriorate anywhere near as fast as CRTs though. 3-4 years for a CRT as opposed to 9+ years for a LCD.

CRTs just die altogether or fade. LCDs have backlight life that will eventually die(9+ years). They don't fade in quality like CRTs do though.

[SwishBish33]

Well, as long as the image quality is the same between the LCD and CRT and ghosting isn't an issue, which it doesn't seem to be on the BenQ based on what everyone is saying, I think I'm going with the FP767. Unless anyone decides to steer me the other way over the weekend (I'm ordering on Monday)

[stephpar]

Is there a 19inch LCD out there worth it's weight in quality and near-nothing ghosting that could possibly considered? I love the Samsung thin bezel models myself, but I gather they ghost way too much for gaming. So what is there then, or are the Samsungs really just fine? Koala or others please chime in...thx.

Steph

[emericanchaos]

Originally posted by Twister
Great research on this subject !
Maybe add info on how to check for dead pixels to go along with the rest of the info ?

there is a bit of info on that. a dead pixel is either completely dead, as in not working, or won't change color anymore. the latter type usually stays a dark color like deep greens.

[HotKoala]

Originally posted by stephpar
I love the Samsung thin bezel models myself, but I gather they ghost way too much for gaming. So what is there then, or are the Samsungs really just fine? Koala or others please chime in...thx.

Steph

I think anything at or below 25ms is more than ideal for gaming. It's only the first person shooters that require less. Even then, not so much so to be bothersome.

Dell uses the samsung models in their 19" LCDs. If you like those, you'll like the samsungs.

[Twister]

Love my NEC !!
I also purchased the 15" Benq for my other computer and it sits 4' away on the same desk. If their 17'' is as good as the 15", Great choice ! These are the only 2 LCD's I can comment on from experience.
No ghosting in games on either. No dead pixels on the NEC and 2 on the Benq and I had to really stare to find them.

[Audioaficionado]

Not everyone likes the Benq fp767

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,976780,00.asp

http://www.epinions.com/content_100137537156

But if I get an LCD soon, I'd still get it as most seem to like it.

Larger LCDs are nicer for large desktop area but I think they also have slower response times too.

Imagine the price of one of those large wide screen panels like the Apple that had sub 20ms response rates if you could even find one.

[HotKoala]

Larger LCDs have a better transition response time and by now, always a better display overall. That is why a 25ms display can feel faster than a 16ms display. Yeah, so the specs don't say it, but as you've probably noticed, there are many ways to come up with numbers that don't exist(I love Viewsonic's over-inflated specs).

There is more than one kind of LCD technology out there too. That makes it even more misleading. The only thing you can really compare is monitors of the same class to eachother. You can't compare a 18" LCD to a 20" LCD.

IBM's "Big Bertha" T221 still reigns supreme above all other LCDs for sure=P

Larger LCDs also have a much better greyscale in general.

[HotKoala]

Wait a year. I bought 18.1" LCDs back when they were $1200. Now they're 1/2 that price and have better qualty. Pay $1200 for a 18.1" LCD today and you have a mind blowing monitor.

The T221 has been going down approximately $2000/year from $10,000. I have hoping for 1/2 its price a year but apparently IBM monitors hold their value very well. Might have something to do with their exceptional support. Replace monitor under warranty in a few days *and* they'll pay shipping costs.

[Piepz]

Piepz deleted post.

[Audioaficionado]

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=8578

HotKoala,

Now I see why you like that monitor so much.

You also need to get an expensive pro 3D card to even use it's full capabilities.

[Piepz]

Somebody can tell me one thing - 262,144 colors are 16,7M colors? Am I right?

[Audioaficionado]

How about this Sony?

http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproduct.asp?description=24-006-067&DEPA=1

[Mr.Guvernment]

any one give any thought to what is the best 18' / 19' LCD out their right now ni the $350-$500 US range?

i am searching myself tons but others feedback would be nice..

[HotKoala]

Originally posted by Piepz
Somebody can tell me one thing - 262,144 colors are 16,7M colors? Am I right?

Does 262,144 = 16,700,000?

No=)

Originally posted by Audioaficionado
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=8578

HotKoala,

Now I see why you like that monitor so much.

You also need to get an expensive pro 3D card to even use it's full capabilities.

Or one of these: http://matrox.com/mga/products/p_hr256/home.cfm

I will have that monitor in my posession soon as there's a card powerful enough to play at a 9+Mega-Pixel resolution=P

[keio]

i have an LG 17" LCD-TFT 1710S and its very good and cheap also

[Mr.Guvernment]

Originally posted by HotKoala


Does 262,144 = 16,700,000?

No=)



Or one of these: http://matrox.com/mga/products/p_hr256/home.cfm

I will have that monitor in my posession soon as there's a card powerful enough to play at a 9+Mega-Pixel resolution=P

Good old matrox still kicking butt in that market - first triple display cards and now those! nice.

[redface]

thanks for your intfo emericanchaos

[chawks2]

I love it. You should buy it. :beer:

http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProductDesc.asp?description=24-001-156&depa=0

[Audioaficionado]

I love it. You should buy it. :beer:

http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProductDesc.asp?description=24-001-156&depa=0

Response Time 20ms

[Hellion]

Sigh, the wonders of the search engine, i wonder how many idiots started useless threads AFTER this was started. TY for the help.

oh, I love it. You should buy it. :beer:

http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProductDesc.asp?description=24-001-156&depa=0


What is so special about this (http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProductDesc.asp?description=24-001-156&depa=0) moniter? how is it better than this (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=24-004-002&depa=1) one? i dont understand yet, so im trying to learn, BEFOR i buy this time around. lol.

[mils128]

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=24-001-172&depa=1

I like this oen the best good response time and not that expensive

[rcillig]

I got the SyncMaster 712n and love it.

[Madmike2]

Looking for anyone with experience with this company, or who knows which manufacturers panel they use. AG-NEOVO F-419 19" LCD...any help would be appreciated :D

[Acko]

Great info here Guys

I have decided after nearly 4 yrs with my beloved 19" Iiyma Vision Master Pro 450 CRT which was the dogs wotsits back then, that I should upgrade to a LCD, after reading many reviews etc. I have ordered & should receive my 19" Viewsonic VX912 this week. It has a 12ms response time. 500:1 contrast. DVD conection. Anway heres a link if you`re interseted.
http://www.viewsoniceurope.com/UK/Products/LCDX/VX912.htm
I will let you know what I think when I set it up.

Acko

[CunningLinguist]

I'm looking at a couple different 19" LCD monitors:
The CMV them has a 600:1 contrast ratio and a 21ms response time with a .294 pitch, and the NESO is a 500:1 contrast and 16ms response time with a .297 pitch. They're both at similar prices. Any suggestions as to which to buy?

[PhobMX]

dunno man, but if you are looking for a dirt cheap 19" REAL GAMING LCD go for this one:

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=24-009-022&depa=1

it has both 500:1 contrast ration and 16ms response time, both are the minimum requirements for what i consider a gaming lcd. either more response time or lower contrast ratio are a matter of preference, but these are the safe specs to look for

[CunningLinguist]

dunno man, but if you are looking for a dirt cheap 19" REAL GAMING LCD go for this one:

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=24-009-022&depa=1

it has both 500:1 contrast ration and 16ms response time, both are the minimum requirements for what i consider a gaming lcd. either more response time or lower contrast ratio are a matter of preference, but these are the safe specs to look for

Yeah, the acer is the one I decided on. I wasn't sure how a lower contrast ratio would affect appearance (other monitors in the same price range are 600:1 and 700:1)

[Audioaficionado]

The 19" Benq is looking pretty good to me now.

http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProductDesc.asp?description=24-014-063&depa=0

No wall wart and it has a DVI input.

[anothermbdusted]

so audio you dont have any problems with this monitor?no ghosting of any kind? can you rotate the monitor?

[Audioaficionado]

The Acer is on my daughter's AMD Shuttle rig and she doesn't run any hard and fast gaming but I watched some DVDs and I didn't notice any problems.

Now that she has my old MSI Ti4600 maybe she'll get something faster than The Sims II LOL.

[anothermbdusted]

k i was hoping you had done some games on it i think ill go for the ben q then thanks as the ld90+ has went through the roof

[Cowboy X]

A guide to manufacturers' dead pixel policies :

Old ............ http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20030319/index.html

Newer ........... http://www.behardware.com/articles/519/page1.html


Now here is something on contrast ratios :

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20040226/index.html

[Audioaficionado]

Here's a great article on LCD terms and technology over at xbit labs.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/lcd-guide.html

[danman81]

Well IMHO response time is the most critical...16ms is the bar right now...Hictachi CML174 and a couple of others...If it has 16ms response time you should be gettin the very latest technology...;)

i tend to think that response time is not the only factor depending on what you use the monitor for, if you play games then yes response time is all you really need to look for, but if you dont play much games or watch movies, and just use your monitor for work and reading text and such, then you want to look for brightness and contrast ratios and size of course

perhaps?

[Burnt_Ram]

i just bought a Acer 1913B 19"
800:1 20-23ms access time (some specs say20ms some 23ms ?)

this monitor sucks for gaming ! WAY to much ghosting !
it only has VGA no DVI.

i bought it for 180.00 cdn, and i don't want to take it back if theres a way to fix the ghosting ? is there ? please say yes ;)

[gram_vaz]

my 2cents to add to this lcd sticky. when shopping for a lcd monitor it's important to stick to reliable brands. many manufacturers stretch the truth about their specs. brands that have proven themselves trustworthy when it comes to their specs are samsung, benq, LG, nec. dell and iiyama are supposed to be good brands as well when it comes to lcd monitors.

as for specs what you should look for is for contrast it should be at least 450:1; the higher this number the better. too low a contrast and the picture looks washed out. for response time it should be 16ms; lower doesn't matter as there is no noticeable blurring at 16ms.

another thing you may want to keep an eye out for is manufacturers often have to use 6bit color panels to achieve low response time. the difference between 6bit and 8bit color is minimal but it's still there. try to get an 8bit panel if you can. samsung has come out with 8ms 8bit panels, those are really nice.

also, try to get a monitor with dvi. with vga there is the risk of conversion problems such as blurriness and picture noise. this is rare but still best to have dvi to avoid any image degradation problems especially if your on an older card when they used to use less quality ramdacs.

[gram_vaz]

i just bought a Acer 1913B 19"
800:1 20-23ms access time (some specs say20ms some 23ms ?)

this monitor sucks for gaming ! WAY to much ghosting !
it only has VGA no DVI.

i bought it for 180.00 cdn, and i don't want to take it back if theres a way to fix the ghosting ? is there ? please say yes ;)
sorry but no way to fix ghosting. 16ms is when ghosting stops.

[Burnt_Ram]

sorry but no way to fix ghosting. 16ms is when ghosting stops.thx Gram. guess it's going back then. damn shame, the price was great ... ohwell :(

[Ven0m]

And what's with these new 4ms displays - is difference that noticable to pay more?

[drunkn.bear]

Good post, can help with your buying process. Not the most up to date, but still pretty good.

[aznkc730]

And what's with these new 4ms displays - is difference that noticable to pay more?

imho, its kinda pointless. anything under 16ms total response time can pretty much gaurantee that you wont get ghosting. On the other hand, if you want high PQ, it does matter. A lot ppl dont realize that the response time is just measuring how fast the lcd can "draw" the picture. back in the day, just drawing the picture without lagging (ghosting) was a thing to be proud of. The trend today is that LCD makers are focusing more on accurate color reproduction. instead of just a a response time given, many lcd makers are giving a grey to grey response time, With faster response times like 4 ms, the color stays true no matter how fast the image is moving across the screen.

[bLack0ut]

Can anyone update this sticky? seems a wee bit old school :D, I think the standards have changed from last year.

[Ven0m]

I've got an andvice for potential buyers.
If you look for high quality LCD display, you have to examine it, but first check how good CRTs work, to compare good LCD against good CRT. A few of my friends were thinking that they found good LCD to buy until they compared them against some of the best CRTs.
LCDs are better and better, but still most are really bad compared to top CRTs (well, unless you have no room on desk), so I'd suggest you to double check display you're going to buy not to regret. However if it's pretty good compared to high-end CRTs, you have guarantee that you'll be pleased with it.

[Smizack]

Can anyone update this sticky? seems a wee bit old school :D, I think the standards have changed from last year.

I was thinking the same thing.

"Try to stick around 24ms. On Larger LCD's (19"+) this will be somewhat difficult BenQ LCD's offer 17ms response times for 17" or smaller LCD's."

[Jumpin Jack]

I have a 3 year old Olympic 19" CRT that I use for gaming and have resisted the urge to which to LCD upto now. So from what I've read, I should be looking for an 19" or high widescreen LCD at 12ms or less in responce time.

Can anyone advice me on a good brand/model to select from? :confused:

[habbajabba]

I just bought a 5ms (now the norm) 22'' lcd (Newegg). Can't wait to hook it up.
Does anyone know if it is worth replacing the front glass on an NEC 19'' crt?
Might make a descent 2nd monitor. Then again maybe just a small 17'' new lcd for specific monitoring aps would be much simpler.

[cozmo_d]

Hey is this monitor any good?

I do gameing movies video basicaly everything

SAMSUNG 940BX Black 19" 5ms DVI LCD Monitor with Height Adjustments 300 cd/m2 1000:1
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824001080

I realy know nothing about tft's except what Ive read here in this thred
I know I want digital with 700:1 or better with low response time.

Whats with all the wide screens 1440x900 ? can my vcard support it should we stay away from widescreen? Sounds like trouble for some games?

maybe I should stick with power hog radioactive crt :|

[Cowboy X]

It would be better for you to post this question as its own thread . You are more likely to get replies from people who own or researched this monitor that way . You will also need to provide the make and model of your video card so then memebers will be able to tell you if it can handle the resoloution in question .

[emericanchaos]

sorry i've been away for awhile. i'll do some research and see about updating this post.

[Thund3rball]

Wow this is really OLD! We get so many LCD questions around here and this poor sticky has grown white hair :(

[Twister]

No kidding !
I didn't know I still had a subscription active for this thread !
Back then I had just paid $499 for the NEC 1760 17" LCD monitor. It had a16ms response time which was "State of The Art" at the time.
Now you can pick up a 21" wide screen LCD with 5ms response time for around $200 bucks now.
By the way, that NEC is still strong and clean on my backup system today !

[mista ting]

this should have info on panel types S-IPS, TN, MVA, PVA ect... its a must know now a days when shopping for LCD's

[Audioaficionado]

You of course can Google for that too and post it here.

My Philips 47" 1080p LCD has S-IPS :D
Very nice off axis viewing compared to cheaper TN panels.

[BigJk-47]

I have to warn you guys.....

I just got a job at a service center as a evaluator and the amount of ILO/Vizio LCD's we get in everyday is absurd.

Especially ILO,typical life is 8 months and the mainboards/panels fry out.Vizio isn't as bad,I would stay away though.

I'd say 50% are ILO,25% vizio,25% all others.

[OBLIVIONLORD]

Heh, it has been stickied=)

One more to add before I'm off to work.

Dot Pitch(Desktop LCDs only):

The native/optimal resolution of the LCD unit is how many physical pixels it has. A monitor with a resolution of 1280X1024 has 1310720 pixels total.

On average it's something like:

15" 1024X768
17-18.4" 1280X1024
19 1280X1024-1600X1200
20" 1600X1200

The most common aspects are either 3:4 or 4:5. The diagonal completes the triangle. Let's take the 17" units because they seem to most popular and therefore more relevant to this crowd.

17" = 374mm

Therefore:

Vertical length = 270mm
Horizontal length = 338mm

To find pixel pitch:

Vertical Length / Vertical (Native) Resolution = Pixel Pitch

In this case:

270mm/1024=.264mm
338/1280=.264mm

Both are the same because, unlike CRTs, LCD pixels are square not rectangular.

.26mm is the standard for 17" monitors and you aren't likely to find any lower/better.

15" .297mm
17" .264mm
18" .28mm
19" .294mm for 1280X1024 models
19" .257mm for 1600X1200 models
20" .255mm

I'm a little confused on this. 1 inch = 25.4mm but, you are showing that 17" = 374mm which 17 * 25.4 = 431.79mm.

Am I missing somthing here?

[OBLIVIONLORD]

noone?

[OBLIVIONLORD]

anyone please?

[secure]

anyone please?

lol, im not sure about the dot pitch, but it is a really old post to be honest, so it needs to be updated too.

[OBLIVIONLORD]

well that sucks. would be nice if the poster would check in here to see if anyone responds

[OBLIVIONLORD]

"Refresh Rate:

Ignore this. LCDs don't flicker at 60Hz. Most glass screens only do 60Hz. Few will do 75Hz. Models that state they do 75+ are 90% of the time limited by the glass screen and circuitry anyways. Either way, you won't see any flicker."

I'd like to clear something up here....

This is a concern since every LCD has a display controller which processes the input data into pixel data and does this at the rated speed for whatever the LCD is capable of doing. This is independent of pixel response time (twisting to untwisting of the Chrystal's via Electrode) since test methods are not the same from manufacturer to manufacturer. Pixel response can be 1ms from 1% grey to 100% grey yet only get the information as fast as the display controller can translate to it.

Therefore...

At 60hz if you are viewing 24fps then 24/60 = 2.5 repeated times 1 frame would be shown at the speed of 41.2 milliseconds per frame of the 24 since 1000/24 = 41.2.

vs

At 120hz / 24fps then 24/120 = 5 repeated times 1 frame would be shown at the speed of 41.2mil per frame of the 24.

120hz = images being thrown at the screen as fast as 8.3 milliseconds per repeated image. This again is 5 times 1 frame will be repeated at 8.3 * 5 = 41.2milliseconds = 24fps
vs
60hz = images being thrown at the screen as fast as 16.6 milliseconds per repeated image. This again is 2.5 times 1 frame will be repeated at 16.6 * 2.5 = 41.2milliseconds = 24fps

120hz is obviously not going to give you as much of an afterimage as you would see at 60hz. Not everyone can see this though.

[T1Cybernetic]

I am looking for a new monitor as my old (ahem CRT) is getting a bit dated :( So this is a friendly buzz buzz bump for some updated information?

[aznkc730]

I've written this a bunch a times in replying to people's questions about lcds, so I'm gonna post some info here for people to refer to:

Basically, what emericanchaos posted in 2003 remains true, so I'll just briefly summarize and update:

First off, all lcds today are active matrix, we've moved well past the passive lcd generation.

Contrast Ratio - The higher the better. Shows how much of a "contrast" the lcd can pump out between the darkest black and the whitest white. Bigger means more accurate color reproduction, more vibrance, etc. beware of dynamic contrast ratio as these are greatly exaggerated and don't really give you an accurate idea. Try to find real contrast ratio online or in reviews

Brightness - this one doesn't really get talked about anymore since most lcds manufacturers usually have 300-400 nits (cd/m2) of brightness. It used to be important because cheap lcds back in the day couldn't overpower office building lights, leading to horrible image rendering and image quality. Anything over 400 is great, but it's not going to be beneficial unless you plan to shine a 1000w halogen lamp directly towards your monitor.

Response Time - faster the better, but again, not much of an issue these days unless you are a gamer. Averages these days are usually in the single digits (<10ms)

Dot Pitch - not much of an issue these days unless you're up in the 27"+ size but still stuck at a 1920x1200 or lower native resolution. as usual, look for the smallest ones, as these will give you less blotchy text (or other small shapes that need high resolution)

With that said, let's get into the most important aspects of purchasing an lcd these days: size, color accuracy, and response time.

Size
I would say size must be the first consideration, since LCDs generally are well built and most people stick with their purchase for years. Whatever you do, don't go too big, or you will regret it.

My boss got a nice bonus one year and decided to spend it on a shiny new dell 30" lcd. He put it on his desk and had to turn his head constantly to see everything. Imagine watching a movie from the front row. Now imagine having to do that from 9-5 each day. That's why you don't want to go too big.

With prices what they are today, I would say the sweet spot is a 24" monitor for all around use desktop use. Word documents displayed in full screen are actual sized, which is real helpful if you do any type of design work like i do. Desktop space is plentiful for having multiple windows open without it feeling like you're being cramped or wasting space. Games are immersive, and you don't have to turn your head back and forth like my idiot boss to follow the action. If you split the time between desktop use and multimedia usage (watching movies, etc) then you can go bigger. There's not much need to go smaller than 24" unless you're on a real tight budget.

Color Reproduction and Response Times
Before differentiating the color differences between types of LCDs, I will say the average user sitting in front of their LCD will not really notice a huge difference between the panel types. It only becomes important based on your specific needs and usage.

TN - Cheapest, most prevalent type of panel. This has the worst color accuracy, for two reasons. One, it displays the 16.7m colors not using the full 8-bits per color but by dithering 6+2 bits. What that means is instead of showing true periwinkle blue, it will show one blue pixel next to a yellow pixel and let your eyes fool you. This is why TN panels have the lowest gamut (color space) in comparison to PVA/MVA and IPS panels. Also, the viewing angles on TN panels are the worst in comparision to the other types. The further you move away from the direct center of view (up, down, left, right), the worse the colors get until the screen becomes unviewable. However, the one redeeming quality of TN panels are that they have the fastest response times (4 or 2ms G-to-G). If gaming is what you do, then a TN is for you.

S-PVA, S-MVA - More expensive than TNs but less so than S-IPS panels. These display much better color accuracy and have a higher gamut due to using true 8 bit color to display 16.7 m colors. If you want to get nitpicky, S-MVA is better than S-PVA, although it is less common and slightly more expensive. These types of monitors also have great viewing angles, so are perfect for collaborative design work, or just having friends over to watch a movie.

The reason why S-PVA/MVA panels haven't pushed TN panels off the market is because they have slower response times (16ms-8ms), and some people even report noticeable input lag (like in Samsung's 215TW). Thus, most gamers tend to stay away from S-PVA/MVA panels. On the other hand, if you're not a hardcore gamer, watch a lot of movies or do graphics work, these types of LCDs are perfect.

S-IPS - The absolute best and absolute most expensive LCD panel type of the three. It combines the fast response of TN panels with the color accuracy and viewing angles of PVA panels. Of course, these will cost you an arm and a leg. These types of panels are really for the money-is-no-object crowd and for professionals. For example, if two doctors are looking at a digital slide for colon cancer, you sure as hell want them to see the same color and display the accurate color regardless of where they're standing. Other than that, not much need for an IPS panel for the everyday user.

Well that turned out to be a much longer post than expected. Finally, with all the knowledge you have now, how do you go about finding out what type of panel the LCD you're itching to buy is? The easiest way is to visit tftcentral.co.uk and search for the panel type based on the model. They have a large database and got good reviews of popular monitors as well. If the database doesn't have it listed, you can go by these specs to help you out:

If it's cheap, got a <4ms response time, and the vertical viewing angle is less than 178 degrees, it's most likely a TN
If it's relatively expensive, and has 178 degree viewing angles for both vertical and horizontal, it most likely is a S-PVA
If its ridiculously expensive, has 178 degree viewing angles for horizontal and vertical and has a low response time, you're either getting scammed or getting an IPS panel

[Route44]

aznkc730, this is well timed. I need to find a new monitor to replace my old CRT that is dying on our second system and what you posted is much, much appreciated. It contains the information I was looking for because as you correctly state people hang on to their monitors for long time. Thanks!