Re: Some new monitors
- From: Paul <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 01:55:16 -0400
Mark G. wrote:
Thanks for all of the great input! But specifically regarding what I am up against and the info provided in the links.... what are your thoughts?
Thanks again.
The executive summary is, the specs are relatively meaningless. Of the
two Viewsonic web pages you quote, one uses the old measurement method
for LCDs. The other one uses the newer method (gray to gray). There is
no reliable conversion between them (because conversion from one spec to
the other, requires knowledge of the panel type).
To me, the 21" monitor is going to be the one you choose - it has better
viewing angle and could be using something better than a TN panel.
The 16ms number cannot be compared to the 4ms/8ms quoted for the other
display. Or compared to the CRT for that matter. LCDs and CRTs "persist"
in a different way, so again, you cannot compare how the two work.
If using the old method of measurement, I'd want a panel with
faster response than 25ms. With the new measurement, I'm not
sure it tells me anything - the number is even less meaningful,
because the measurement method was invented as a cheat. Sort
of like the stereo industry inventing "PMP" (peak music power)
years ago. I had to laugh about a year ago, when I saw what
appeared to be a set of 2W computer speakers, which had
listed a "600W" PMP spec. Just like that, a few of the LCD
parameters have now advanced to the point, that they cannot
be relied upon for selection purposes. Another one is
contrast ratio, where by turning down the backlight
dynamically, absurdly high contrast ratios can be quoted (3000:1).
That does not represent a change in how the panels work, but
represents using a trick to hide the real response.
That isn't helping anyone make a selection. (Because for
any serious work, I would disable such a function.) It
still does not mean that a CRT quality black color is
delivered by the product. It still looks different and
inferior.
*******
There are a couple articles here you can read. The first one compares
a couple of expensive monitors (just so you can see what panel types they
use, and what kind of specs they have). Such monitors might be used
by Photoshop experts (i.e. if their CRT broke, and could not be
repaired). The response time measurement is more detailed, and you
can see it is not a simple phenomenon.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/monitors/display/professional-monitors.html
Page 2 of this article "Response Time of Monitors and Eyes", compares
a CRT to an LCD. Page 3 shows how the persistence differs between
CRT and LCD, and why an LCD doesn't flicker. (There are visual
side effects, but they're not called flicker.)
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/lcd-parameters.html
Those are the best two articles I have right off hand, to give some
feeling for the differences.
There can be other phenomenon on LCDs, such as something called
"lag". Some expensive monitors have been known to have a problem,
where it takes a long time for the image to make it to the screen.
That has made some LCD monitors purely unsuited to gaming, for things
such as "first person shooter". The human user notes, that when they
"swing around" in a virtual world, it takes the LCD monitor several
frames before a response can be seen. An opponent with a CRT might
have "shot" them by then.
That is not the same thing as response time. Those unsuitable monitors
may not have any ghost pixels evident, so the response time of the
pixels is good enough from frame to frame. It is the processing
delay through the monitor chain that is excessive.
The two technologies just cannot be compared. As I said in my first
post, the most striking thing about the LCD, is that the borders
of the image are not distorted, don't jiggle and dance as the AC
power changes voltage. But for all other aspects of the image,
the CRT is better. If you could make a CRT with very good regulated
power circuits, and precise scanning circuits, I think it would be
superior to the best LCD you could dig up.
Since you'll have these things in your hands, you're going to know
all this soon enough.
Paul
.
"Paul" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:gcscgq$psu$1@xxxxxxxxxxxMark G. wrote:So I have been running my trusty old 21" Sony Trinitron Multiscan G500 for the last 6-7 years. When it came out, it was very high end and even at today's standards, it does well. But this monitor is HUGE! About 100 pounds to boot. Anyhow, got a couple of free monitors from work as they were upgraded. One 19" and one 21". Both LCD's. Would like to go to LCD's now and will run the 19" between 2 computers with a KVM switch. Anyhow, I was double checking the specs between my old Trinitron against the two newer Viewsonic LCD's and while I know they are different technology, it seems that maybe my Trinitron may still out perform the larger Viewsonic that was going to replace it. Below are some links for the 3 monitors. Am I reading them correctly? What I am trying to figure is this. I use my computer/monitor for photo editing, games, internet, and other general items. Will the larger Viewsonic perform as well if not better than my old Trinitron? Seems that the response time for the larger Viewsonic is 16ms. Old CRT's don't measure in those units. But it does seem that the resolution 'could' be better, but will it be as fast or faster? I know these are free so that is a good thing and I know I can just see how I like it after the switch, but I wanted to see if I could get some input from here on the board as to your alls thoughts on this? Here are the links for the specific monitors and sorry about the long post:I wish I could get some aspects of both display types.
Smaller Viewsonic:
http://www.viewsonic.com/products/desktopdisplays/lcddisplays/proseries/vp920b/
Larger Viewsonic:
http://www.viewsonic.com/support/desktopdisplays/lcddisplays/proseries/vp201b/
Sony Trinitron:
http://multi-com.stores.yahoo.net/sonmul21in24.html
Oh, one thing I should add. These Trinitrons always had 3 distinct horizontal lines at the 'thirds' of the monitor. But in the past 3-4 months, I notice mine now has about 15-20 diagonal (about 15-20 degrees) lines too when viewing black or darker screens. Is this a tell tell sign that it 'may' be going out or something?
Thanks much for all the input you can provide and again, sorry for the long post!
I'd like my CRT, to have the mechanical precision of my LCD. There is
no swimming, jiggle, jitter, pincushion, distortion of the image with
the LCD. The CRT on the other hand, likely has a "blacker black" color
to offer than the LCD. I've also found the LCD tiring to look at, and
in the case of mine, it cannot be turned down enough for comfort.
The larger LCD is a 4:3 aspect ratio, so you get to keep a decent
sized screen. If you went to the store today, the trend is to
"wide screen", and that is not my choice in a monitor. It really
all depends on what tools you use, and whether the real estate
can be used effectively in each case.
The best quality panels, happen to be the ones that have a
wide viewing angle. If the viewing angle is narrow, as you
move your head from side to side, or up and down, the color
of the image shifts. If your new monitor had a narrow angle, you'd
tend to keep your head centered in a particular spot, so that
the screen color from edge to edge was decent. Since the larger
monitor is 176 degrees (four degrees short of 180), with a
contrast ratio of 10, it should be decent in terms of the
ability to move your head a bit. I think mine is 178, but I
don't remember right off hand, what CR was used for that
measurement.
The finish of the panel (glossy glass-like on the front, or
otherwise), also affects perceived image quality. Mine has a
glossy finish, and text is almost readable on it. When I
was reviewing LCD monitors at big box stores, the non-glossy
ones had some parallax, and I couldn't stand it. So I hope
that your new screen is glossy, and easy to clean. (The description
says "anti-glare" and that makes me wonder whether it is the
other type.) For glossy screens, you should have control of your
ambient lighting. I would not recommend a glossy screen, for
a factory environment with fluorescent lights all over the
ceiling. But if you can move your desk lamp around, to
avoid glare, the glossy finish is great.
In terms of color gamut, the best LCDs might be the ones with LED
backlights. Most monitors have CCFL (cold cathode fluorescent)
lighting. Only a few use LEDs, as they're more expensive to
make. CCFLs have limited lifetimes, but based on the
posts to these newsgroups, it seems the inverter that powers
the CCFL, breaks before the CCFL tube does. So if you see
a 25000 hour life quoted for the CCFL, chances are a cheap
inverter will end the life of the monitor, before the tube
does. (The inverter makes 700 to 1000 volts AC to run the
lamps. The inverter frequency should be high enough, so it
is not audible.)
There are so few LCD monitors with LED backlighting, I've never
seen a post from someone who owns one. So it is hard to tell whether
they have observable failure modes or not.
As long as you don't toss the CRT, you can always go back. Just
remember to leave room on your desktop, so you can put it back.
Where my CRT used to be, is now filled with junk :-)
I also had to build a stand for my LCD. The top of the LCD
roughly lines up with my eyes. To do that, I bought pine
board in 1 foot by 1 foot by 3/4" thick pieces. I stacked
those, until the LCD was at a comfortable level. It took
seven pieces of board to build the stand. Each board is screwed
to the adjacent one. So the block is solid and doesn't wobble.
My LCD built-in stand has no vertical adjustment to speak of,
and could not accommodate that kind of lift.
Good luck,
Paul
- References:
- Some new monitors
- From: Mark G.
- Re: Some new monitors
- From: Paul
- Re: Some new monitors
- From: Mark G.
- Some new monitors
- Prev by Date: Re: Some new monitors
- Next by Date: Re: CD-ROM & DVD-RW Drives not accessible by XP
- Previous by thread: Re: Some new monitors
- Next by thread: Write protect a CD-RW
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
