LCD Monitors Recommendations [Archive]

ssjkakaroto

9th January 2007, 11:22

Hi all, my 10 years old Sony 17" CRT is displaying everything purple now so I thought it was time to upgrade my monitor :P

I was thinking of getting a WS LCD (20.1" or 22") but all the negative reviews I see in newegg are really concerning me.
Is there a good LCD monitor out there?? One that can be used to play games, movies and browse the net without "ghosting, back light bleed, lines of dead pixels, stuck pixels, dead dvi, etc, etc, etc"?

One of my main concerns is the tight viewing angle, although the specs usually say 170º/170º, many people report that if you incline a little bit you can already see purple/yellow on the opposite edge of the screen and since I'm never 100% straight in my chair, that would be really annoying.

What are your opinions?

TIA

drakend

9th January 2007, 12:06

Samsung SyncMaster 205BW for the way... it's a cheap and wonderful LCD: I have it and I have really no problems with it and all videos, games and so on look very well!

phatagnus

9th January 2007, 12:45

NEC LCD20WGX2 (AS-IPS Panel technology).

ssjkakaroto

9th January 2007, 13:27

That's a pretty sweet monitor phatagnus, but the price is salty.
I guess that's the cost of a good LCD monitor.

drakend: I'm comparing that monitor with the LG L204WT, and they look very similiar excepting the contrast ratio which is higher on the LG.

Dark Eiri

9th January 2007, 13:46

There's a DELL 20" wide AN-IPS LCD, I don't know exactly the model number, but take a look at Dell's website. IMHO, this is the best looking monitor ever. And it's not expensive.

SeeMoreDigital

9th January 2007, 17:22

Stick to your guns... and don't be tempted away from getting a wide-screen display!

Just in-case you were not aware... most wide-screen PC (and even PC/TV) displays below 24" have an aspect ratio of 16:10 and not 16:9 :(

Inventive Software

9th January 2007, 20:14

MPC's "Touch Window from Inside" sorts that out, so that the aspect ratio's correct. Stretch to window, and the AR's not too bad, watchable almost!

Doom9

9th January 2007, 21:33

@SMD: I've yet to see a 16:9 PC screen.. even the 30 inchers are 16:10. And consider the widescreen resolutions:
1280x800, 1440x900, 1680x1050, 1920x1200, 2560x1600
.. those are all 16:19 resolutions.

I've had LCD screens since 2001... a 17", 19", 21", 23" and now a 30". Starting from the 19" (sometime in 2002 I think), dead pixels and the viewing angle were a non issue, and in the age of 2ms refresh rates, games are a none issue as well. I've had one somewhat defective DVI port, also on the first screen, but I sold it to a guy who has no use for DVI.
With the masses of LCD screens sold today, there are really no serious problems remaining and you should not be scared at all of dumping those ugly monsters and get something sexy.

Inventive Software

9th January 2007, 21:40

@Doom9: That's 16:10, not 16:19. ;)

CWR03

10th January 2007, 00:39

A friend and I brought his laptop (one fast enough to run Half-Life² smoothly) into a store and hooked it into a ViewSonic LCD TV. The result was amazing - no ghosting from poor refresh rate, no tearing from bad synch (The NEC mentioned above has horrible tearing with games), and the desktop was clean, sharp and filled the screen with no overscan. If I remember correctly it was an N3260w, which at the time was on sale for $699 US. It has pretty much every input there is - we used it with VGA.

ssjkakaroto

10th January 2007, 02:30

Doom9, what were your 21" and 23" monitors?

The LG L204WT seems to be a pretty well balanced monitor (Desktop/Imaging/Gaming), at least I haven't been able to find a really bad review of it like I found for all the others :p

DewAsmara

10th January 2007, 05:27

Yup LG L204WT quite good,
Also BenQ WideScreen series (the new one) and Samsung. But price not cheap thought. I use LG 194WT and it is pefect for my works.

I am also looking WideScreen LCD Monitor about 26-30 inch that have refresh rate below 5ms to replace my old LCDTV as I will change all my bedroom home theater set to be full DVI/HDMI support ( I am not using for watch TV so that's why look for LCD monitor).

Mystiqq

10th January 2007, 07:13

Forget about the specs. They arent shy "lying" about them. For some, like Samsung 6bit with dithering means 8bit, which again is huge load of BS. Another thing are the reported speeds. For some it might look like LCDs has doubled in speed when in fact theyve just changed how its measured. I think its safe to assume that all new LCDs use the most "convient" way of measuring (grey-to-grey).

About viewing angles. You will never have perfectly "correct" picture. Even with the best viewing angles (IPS panels) you still get color shift in the sides and especially in the corners. On widescreens, that probably even more obvious i guess...

Only real good things about my LCD that i got few weeks ago is the colors and sharpness (HP LP2065, has latest S-IPS panel). Blacks are bad. Backlight "bleeds" and it "leaks".

What i mean by leaking is that the "framework" that keeps the parts together isnt perfectly aligned which makes the light "leak" through to the front of the panel. Some people have managed to fix this problem themselfs but...

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1032268&pp=20

Either you fix it yourself and void the warranty, or keep looking at it. :)

I personally am "bit" disappointed with the LCD displays as a whole. A lot of the quality has been sacrificed and for what?

foxyshadis

10th January 2007, 09:42

I'm willing to say that's just HP's commitment to quality shining though, if it wasn't such a tasteless joke... but it's true. Really, I wouldn't buy anything from them if they didn't make good servers. Viewsonic LCDs range from better-than-average to best-of-breed (the VP series), and are in a different class entirely. Not as cheap for the better ones though. I don't have much experience with other folks' favorite brands, but Samsung's high models are always solid screens.

Most models you can buy on the cheap are really nothing better than office and light distraction quality, although they're not as horrible as a few years ago. 19 inchers still seem to be where the highest quality monitors are found, above 20 maximum fidelity and speed tends to drop off fast.

You would do well to check the specifics at sites like:
http://www.behardware.com/html/cat/22/
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphics/displays/index.html
which both get very technical and demanding in reviewing monitors, unlike most reviewers, who only offer vague impressions.

This year will see new backlight technology in many more models, with better contrast and evenness, and a year or two from now the really new tech will filter down, SED and OLED.

Whatever you do, make sure you buy with a good return policy or you might get burned.

Doom9

10th January 2007, 10:05

Doom9, what were your 21" and 23" monitors?The 21" was a Samsung (21xT .. I don't recall the actual model number and the display has been replaced by a couple more generations). The Philips was the predecessor of the 230WP7NS/00.
They arent shy "lying" about them.That's why we have reviews and go to a store to see the display in real life. The best thing is to take your machine, hook it up in the store, play a game and see how the display fares.. those screensavers they have on won't tell you a lot.

ssjkakaroto

10th January 2007, 11:35

...go to a store to see the display in real life...That would solve all my problems but I have to order it from the US since there isn't a single decent LCD monitor in my city :(

Thx for the links foxyshadis

check

10th January 2007, 12:54

What i mean by leaking is that the "framework" that keeps the parts together isnt perfectly aligned which makes the light "leak" through to the front of the panel. Some people have managed to fix this problem themselfs but...

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1032268&pp=20

Just a note to say I have the 24" Dell (92407WFP), and I've had no such issues with it. I don't even think that particular model is sold anymore. Monitors seem to be about the only good thing Dell make thes days :p

Mystiqq

10th January 2007, 14:22

The 21" was a Samsung (21xT .. I don't recall the actual model number and the display has been replaced by a couple more generations). The Philips was the predecessor of the 230WP7NS/00.
That's why we have reviews and go to a store to see the display in real life. The best thing is to take your machine, hook it up in the store, play a game and see how the display fares.. those screensavers they have on won't tell you a lot.

This might be actually possible in some places but seriously, first, finding this particular display on certain store close enough where i live is just not going to happen. If i do find it, im 100% sure the price is just laughable from what it should be.

Anyways, finding a store that allows me to pick a display, hook the display into a computer just to test it... is not going to happen.

Ive seen this model on some people without any problems with backlight what so ever, and none of the reviews mentioned anything bad about it. Actually, it was the complete opposite, this model got good reviews on the backlight evenness.

Only thing you can do by hand picking the display in store is to "weed out" the possible pixel errors and backlight issues. Too bad the backlight issues etc. actually is just the beginning because the LCD technology as a whole is pretty... "incomplete".

Some of the newer techs like LED backlights etc. do look promising but the prices are just insane and it will take "few" years before these things actually enter the (mainstream) consumer market, if ever.

In the end, you just "pick your poison". If you want speed, you will get poor colors. Want good colors, you will get less speed. etc. Add on top of that some of the panel specific issues like (S-)IPS panels "image persistance", or TN panel dithering.

Besides that, LCDs are good. :o

Too bad they killed the AG displays like diamontrons and such. I own a 19" diamondtron CRT which just "owns" any shadow mask tubes, or LCD.

Doom9

10th January 2007, 18:35

@Mystiqq: how many LCDs with pixel errors have you actually owned (and bought new.. getting one with a known defect doesn't count)? pixel errors are pretty darned rare these days even by those manufacturers that don't guarantee 0 bad pixels. The only bad pixel (and it wasn't a dead one.. just one that shone out of context in certain situations.. most people wouldn't even notice) I've ever seen was on my first flatscreen. Since then, and despite the immense resolution I've amassed, I've not seen anything.

Blue_MiSfit

10th January 2007, 23:04

I can't stand being tied to one resolution! Scalers are bad!

SeeMoreDigital

11th January 2007, 11:04

I can't stand being tied to one resolution! Scalers are bad!Given most people here will be using their monitors to watch "encodes" maybe it's time they considered looking at a "full resolution" 1920x1080 (not 1366x768 or 1280x720) HDTV, rather than a PC monitor....

If physical size is an issue, we should start seeing 24", 28" and 32" full resolution panels sometime soon....

Inventive Software

11th January 2007, 13:29

That's my other gripe with HD panels at the moment. Why are they always 1366x768? Yes, it's 16:9, but 720p content has to be upscaled to fit the display. Why can't they use 1280x720?

Unless (and this is what I don't wanna hear) they base their display on 1024x768 4:3 resolution, and add the pixels either side to make it 1366x768......

Doom9

11th January 2007, 20:35

I can't stand being tied to one resolution! Scalers are bad!Get a 30 incher then.. you can run them at 2560x1600 or 1280x800 with zero scaling.. the former being optimal for day to day work and the latter for watching movies.
If physical size is an issue, we should start seeing 24", 28" and 32" full resolution panels sometime soon....Umm.. all 23" and 24" screens I've seen are 1920x1200.. and now there's a bunch of 27" coming at the same resolution.

SeeMoreDigital

11th January 2007, 21:34

Umm.. all 23" and 24" screens I've seen are 1920x1200.. and now there's a bunch of 27" coming at the same resolution.Yes, there are indeed widescreen PC displays offering these kinds of resolutions.... But like most widescreen PC displays they have an AR of 16:10 (aka: 1.66666:1). Plus they offer refresh rates that are too high for correctly displaying PAL interlaced sources....

Blue_MiSfit

11th January 2007, 21:51

Get a 30 incher then.. you can run them at 2560x1600 or 1280x800 with zero scaling.. the former being optimal for day to day work and the latter for watching movies.

Seriously? How does that work? It must just be pixel doubling (quadding), which can't be that pretty, though I guess you're essentially doing the same thing on a CRT?

~MiSfit

Inventive Software

11th January 2007, 22:06

2560x1600 is the native resolution, 1280x800 is a reduced resolution that you're probably right in saying is done by pixel doubling. It depends on the monitor in question, but it shouldn't look too bad.

Soulhunter

11th January 2007, 22:28

Doom9

12th January 2007, 08:51

Seriously? How does that work?One pixel becomes 4 pixels.. you'd be surprised how good it actually looks. At first, you will be somewhat put off because it looks so surreal (you're used to a completely different resolution on that screen), but it's really nothing different from reducing the resolution on a CRT display.. the pixels simply get bigger but that's it. It's just that on a CRT, you are not limited to two pixel sizes, but that's the only difference.

Blue_MiSfit

12th January 2007, 21:24

I see. Makes sense for a 30" beast monitor like that, but for your standard affordable 19-20.5", 1280x1024 @ 1/2 = 640*512, and 1680x1050 @ 1/2 = 840x525 no thanks :D

Still, anythings better than the craptastic scalers that most LCDs have.

@soulhunter - I wasn't able to distinguish the 4 blocks on anything other than unusably high brightness settings with my 21" G500 Trinitron. Maybe I'm just not sharp enough though :)

~MiSfit

Soulhunter

12th January 2007, 23:17

I wasn't able to distinguish the 4 blocks on anything other than unusably high brightness settings with my 21" G500 Trinitron. Maybe I'm just not sharp enough though :)

Hmm, I run my monitor with a brightness of just 35% and a contrast of 90% [the result of calibration with test-cards]. Maybe try it against a black background ie. via Wondows print/picture preview in diashow mode... Against a white background [ie. the browsers background] its almost impossible! ;]

Bye

*.mp4 guy

14th January 2007, 14:01

My GDM-F500 trinitron just barely shows the bars with my average usage settings (0 brightness, 80 contrast) with correct color settings (brightness 7, contrast 100) the difference was very obvious. I don't usually use the more demanding settings because they make X264 (and most other mpeg4 avc codecs) look like they use 16 bit RGB as their native colorspace. :( they look ok most of the time with the other settings though.

Soulhunter

14th January 2007, 14:55

One of the reasons I still encode via XviD -> DVD5, hehe...

Bye

Bond007

14th January 2007, 16:30

I could just see the 4 blocks (just) on my TFT (dell 2405fpw) which i have been very happy with since i bought it around 2 years ago for £566 inc vat.

Annoyed that I put a little scratch on it the other month, knocked a hard drive caddy on the screen when lifting it.

foxyshadis

15th January 2007, 02:21

All LCDs I tested so far produced inferior picture quality compared to CRT monitors... Its not just the "fixed" resolution or the absence of real black caused by the backlight... Its also the lack of fine contrast [while its easy to distinguish this 4 blocks (http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/5855/weakcontraststestkd0.png) on a mid class CRT, its hard-impossible on a LCD, no matter if a 300 Euro model or a 1500 Euro one]. Another thing that bugs me is that most LCDs internally dont work with full 24bit-depth [either you get banding on this sample (http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/7106/gradienttestfj1.png) or ugly dithering which trys to hide it... tho it seems the situation improved a bit recently]. Maybe I just tested the wrong models or my eyes are trained to much, but Ill stay with my "old n cheap" CRT till something better than LCD arrives... Probably SED!

Bye

Internally I believe many are 8bpp, cheaper ones 6 or 7 of course, but you would need 9 or 10bpp to output perfect 8bpp samples through the full range of brightness and contrast settings. So at any given setting, there are less effective bpp since you're only using a fraction of the range, leading to that banding/dithering. It's much worse on HD15 analog than DVI.

CRT is entirely unaffected, of course, but exchanges all kinds of calibration problems for it. (LCDs are typically badly calibrated, but don't necessarily have to be.)

SeeMoreDigital

15th January 2007, 11:18

Hi Foxy,

Congrats on becoming a Moderator :)

Cheers

Inventive Software

15th January 2007, 12:30

One question before I rush out and buy an LCD monitor... what's the difference between DVI connectors? One's D, can't remember what the other is! ::o Are they interchangeable with DVI ports? (OK that's 2 questions :D)

BTW, congrats to foxy for making moderator! :)

SeeMoreDigital

15th January 2007, 12:37

... what's the difference between DVI connectors? One's D, can't remember what the other is! ::o Are they interchangeable with DVI ports? DVI-I: has provision to carry "analogue" video signals, as well as "digital" video signals
DVI-A: carries "analogue" video signals only.
DVI-D: carries "digital" video signals only.

The input and output connectors are slighly different too. For-instance, a DVI-A "output" plug will not fit into an DVI-D "input" socket...

See here: -
http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/509/dviconnectortypessx0.png

EDIT: Yep... Post corrected

DewAsmara

15th January 2007, 12:48

I am sorry but have been post before, please refer to post from Tareek:

DVI connector :

Digital Visual Interface .

DVI-D : digital . DVI-A : analog . DVI-I : digital and analog .

DVI-DL indicates dual link DVI .

===========
And for addition DVI-D use 19 pin and DVI-DL use 24 pin+5 (Pin C1, C2, C3, C4 and C5).
Each connector have to be same, cannot cross connector.
So have to be carefull when choose your monitor/plasma/LCD.

Inventive Software

15th January 2007, 13:37

SeeMoreDigital

15th January 2007, 14:10

@SMD: That's an interesting pic. Cause according to that, I can put DVI-D (Single) or DVI-A in DVI-I. Right? Are the pins that aren't used on the male connector blocked off, or are they like some SCART leads I've had, and just missing a few pins?What are you thinking about doing, exactly?

You might find it easier to do what I have done.... I got rid of all my old "fat" (expensive) DVI cables and replaced them with HDMI cables... If I need to connect to an DVI device (such as my TV), I use an HDMI-to-DVI adaptor ;)

foxyshadis

15th January 2007, 14:13

You can plug a regular DVI-D cable into DVI-D (DL), however, if a screen has such a port you're probably going to need a DL cable and port on both ends to use the top resolution.

But I just checked my DVI port, it has holes for DVI-D (DL) only, no 4 A/I pins, so clearly it's not 100% that way, even though it also has an analog adaptor next to it.

DVI are expensive? I have far too many lying around. :p Same with S-video cables, I'd collect those from my old job and random people all the time. Maybe I should learn how to make HDMI, if those are going to explode soon...

Inventive Software

15th January 2007, 15:04

What are you thinking about doing, exactly?
Well, I'm just thinking about my current and possibly future graphics card at the moment (current being GeForce FX5200), and compatibility with a futureproof display.

SeeMoreDigital

15th January 2007, 18:25

Well, I'm just thinking about my current and possibly future graphics card at the moment (current being GeForce FX5200), and compatibility with a futureproof display.I too have a GeForce FX5200 graphics card....

From time-to-time I use it's DVI-I output to connect to the DVI-D input of my TV (using an HDMI lead with HDMI-to-DVI adaptors at each end).

As my TV also has a VGA input, so I'm also able to use an DVI(-I)-to-VGA adaptor with stock VGA lead....