LCD display purchase advice please

[Andrew Z Carpenter]

Which of these LCD displays would you buy, looking at the following specs?

[Table best viewed in a fixed-width font]

Response Time 25 ms 14 ms 25 ms 25 ms 16 ms 25 ms
Image Brightness 260 cd/m2 370 cd/m2 300 cd/m2 300 cd/m2 260 cd/m2 300 cd/m2
Image Contrast Ratio 450:1 350:1 450:1 450:1 450:1 450:1
Image Max H-View Angle 140 160 140 140 140 120
Image Max V-View Angle 130 120 130 130 140 110

 

[JK]

What are the prices? What brands? What size? What resolution (1280x1024?)?

 

[GSV Three Minds in a Can]

Which of these LCD displays would you buy, looking at the following specs?

[Table best viewed in a fixed-width font]

Response Time 25 ms 14 ms 25 ms 25 ms 16 ms 25 ms
Image Brightness 260 cd/m2 370 cd/m2 300 cd/m2 300 cd/m2 260
cd/m2 300 cd/m2
Image Contrast Ratio 450:1 350:1 450:1 450:1 450:1 450:1
Image Max H-View Angle 140 160 140 140 140 120
Image Max V-View Angle 130 120 130 130 140 110

None unless I had previously seen them. Specifications come in the same
category as statistics (lies, damn lies, and ...). Response time, for
instance, may be quoted as on->off, off->on or off->on->off, even
allowing as they have picked the same definitions for 'on' and 'off'.
Ditto viewing angles. And what about screen brightness uniformity (25%
difference between edges and middles bugs me =MUCH= more than whether
the overall value is 260 or 370).

Go and look at them. Try whatever you plan to run. Buy whichever one you
like best. They're your eyes, backed up by your brain .. nobody else's
works quite the same (which is why some people bleat about the support
wires in a Trinitron tube, and I can't even see them until I look).

 

[Andrew Z Carpenter]

What are the prices? What brands? What size?
What resolution (1280x1024?)?

OK, here's the information straight from the
horses mouth, so to speak. And no, changing
supplier isn't an available option

http://makeashorterlink.com/?C5FE32919

Thanks for taking a look!

 

[Andrew Z Carpenter]

Go and look at them. Try whatever you plan to run. Buy whichever
one you like best. They're your eyes, backed up by your brain ..
nobody else's works quite the same (which is why some people bleat
about the support wires in a Trinitron tube, and I can't even see
them until I look).

An interesting idea. I didn't realise people still bought stuff
from physical computer stores any more! ;-)

Thanks for the advice.


Andrew

 

[Dave C.]

Which of these LCD displays would you buy, looking at the following specs?

[Table best viewed in a fixed-width font]

Response Time 25 ms 14 ms 25 ms 25 ms 16 ms 25 ms
Image Brightness 260 cd/m2 370 cd/m2 300 cd/m2 300 cd/m2 260
cd/m2 300 cd/m2
Image Contrast Ratio 450:1 350:1 450:1 450:1 450:1 450:1
Image Max H-View Angle 140 160 140 140 140 120
Image Max V-View Angle 130 120 130 130 140

110

None unless I had previously seen them. Specifications come in the same
category as statistics (lies, damn lies, and ...). Response time, for
instance, may be quoted as on->off, off->on or off->on->off,

I agree with you. But if quoted specs followed a standard and weren't
fudged at all, I'd pick number 5, counting from the left. -Dave

 

[JK]

Why only those monitors? Don't they have Sony, Samsung, Viewsonic, or
NEC monitors? If I had to choose one of the ones you selected, I guess
I would go with one of the Acer models. Did you price 18" and 19" models?
The wholesale prices on the larger lcd panel have dropped quite a bit, and
the 18" or 19" lcd monitors have dropped quite a bit in price, and will perhaps
drop quite a bit more soon? A 19" lcd monitor is much more comfortable to use
than a 17" one, and it might only be around $125-150 more.

 

[TMack]

OK, here's the information straight from the
horses mouth, so to speak. And no, changing
supplier isn't an available option

http://makeashorterlink.com/?C5FE32919

Thanks for taking a look!

IIRC CTX have a zero dead pixel standard whilst some other manufacturers
will insist that a few dead pixels is not sufficient reason for replacement.
I would certainly want to check the dead pixel policy of any manufacturer
before buying. Warranty is also an important factor - is it return to base,
onsite or replacement? Again, CTX have a no-nonsense straight swap policy
for most defective monitors - they will send a replacement and collect the
defective item within a day or two.

Tony

 

[GSV Three Minds in a Can]

An interesting idea. I didn't realise people still bought stuff
from physical computer stores any more! ;-)

Monitors are the =only= thing I'll actually bother to go look at (unless
I need a new keyboard .. but screwing up a Keyboard purchase is a £15
problem, whereas buying the wrong monitor is a bit more serious). This
is, after all, where the 'rubber hits the road', and I expect the damn
things to last for 5-10 years.

 

[jas]

Monitors are the =only= thing I'll actually bother to go look at (unless

I need a new keyboard .. but screwing up a Keyboard purchase is a £15
problem, whereas buying the wrong monitor is a bit more serious). This
is, after all, where the 'rubber hits the road', and I expect the damn
things to last for 5-10 years.

taking this into consideration does anyone know where in the west
midlands can you go view a fair range of quality tft screens? pc world
at j9 m6 is probably the only place I can think of that may have this?

 

[Daniel James]

Which of these LCD displays would you buy, looking at the
following specs?

Specs can be misleading. There's a good comparative review article
on LCD screens on the Toms Hardware site at
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20040609/index.html which
does a bit to demystify LCD specs - particuarly the section headed
"Attactive specs are not enough" and the link to Toms' "Do contrast
ratios really matter" article at
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20040226/index.html

The gist of the latter article is that screens that offer very high
brightnesses can be far too bright to view comfortably at their
brightest setting, but the quoted contrast ratio only applies at
that brightest setting and so is meaningless at comfortable
brightnesses. The suggestion is that some manufacturers use
over-bright backlights in order to improve the paper specs for
panels with relatively poor LCD elements.

The screen in column 2 in the original posting which offers only
1:350 contrast at a dazzling 370cd/m2 is equivalent to a much lower
contrast at a more comfortable level. This looks like a classic
example of what Toms' is talking about.

The screen in Col5 is almost as fast, easily bright enough, and has
far more contrast in real terms than the other panels listed. It's
still not very impressive when other (though, I suspect, rather
more expensive) monitors now offer 1:1000 contrast for similar
brightness levels. If I had to choose one of the monitors listed
from its specs alone I'd pick this one - but as these all look like
specs for fairly cheap panels I suspect I'd be disappointed that I
hadn't spent more.

Cheers,
Daniel.

 

[Daniel James]

And no, changing
supplier isn't an available option

http://makeashorterlink.com/?C5FE32919

Hmm. See: http://tinyurl.com/5v4rl

Of the two, I'll take the Eizo, any day.

Cheers,
Daniel.

 

[GSV Three Minds in a Can]

Hmm. See: http://tinyurl.com/5v4rl

Of the two, I'll take the Eizo, any day.

So would/did I .. until I had a problem, and had to send it back to Dabs
(where it came from) who sent it to Eizo's repair place in Germany (in
error .. it should have gone to the UK). After 6 weeks without it, Eizo
made Dabs give me my money back - needless to say I bought one with
on-site swap out.

The Eizo was probably a nicer picture .. the new one didn't look good on
black text on white background until I upgraded the system to WinXP with
'cleartype' .. whereas the Eizo worked/looked just dandy in regular
Win2k.

Anyway .. motto - check you have ON SITE swap out. Not 'back to base'
repairs.

 

[Andrew Z Carpenter]

Specs can be misleading. There's a good comparative review article
on LCD screens on the Toms Hardware site at
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20040609/index.html which
does a bit to demystify LCD specs - particuarly the section headed
"Attactive specs are not enough" and the link to Toms' "Do contrast
ratios really matter" article at
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20040226/index.html

The gist of the latter article is that screens that offer very high
brightnesses can be far too bright to view comfortably at their
brightest setting, but the quoted contrast ratio only applies at
that brightest setting and so is meaningless at comfortable
brightnesses. The suggestion is that some manufacturers use
over-bright backlights in order to improve the paper specs for
panels with relatively poor LCD elements.

The screen in column 2 in the original posting which offers only
1:350 contrast at a dazzling 370cd/m2 is equivalent to a much lower
contrast at a more comfortable level. This looks like a classic
example of what Toms' is talking about.

The screen in Col5 is almost as fast, easily bright enough, and has
far more contrast in real terms than the other panels listed. It's
still not very impressive when other (though, I suspect, rather
more expensive) monitors now offer 1:1000 contrast for similar
brightness levels. If I had to choose one of the monitors listed
from its specs alone I'd pick this one - but as these all look like
specs for fairly cheap panels I suspect I'd be disappointed that I
hadn't spent more.

Cheers,
Daniel.

Daniel,

Thank you very much. So far most people seem to be going for #5, the
Acer AL1721m. I'll be sure to read those articles you mention on Tom's
Hardware. As you observed, these are all at the lower end of the price
bracket, and while a 1000:1 contrast ratio would be very nice, at nearly
double the price that's just too much.

Thank you everybody for your input,

Andrew

 

[Daniel James]

So would/did I .. until I had a problem, and had to send it back
to Dabs (where it came from) who sent it to Eizo's repair place
in Germany (in error .. it should have gone to the UK).

Don't blame Eizo for Dabs's cock-up.

I have an Eizo (older model, lower spec) also from Dabs. It
developed a multi-pixel fault. I read what Dabs said about returns
on their website and contacted Eizo directly.

They got me to describe the propblem, agreed it sounded like a
fault, and got me to send the monitor back to them for repair. They
said it would take about ten days, so I gritted my teeth and sent
the thing off and dug out an old, huge, Iiyama CRT monitor (which is
on its last legs and has a distinctly wobbly image) to tide me over
(it's not as bad as it sounds, I was able to use my Thinkpad most of
the time).

After ten days I chased them up, and they explained that they were
going to have to replace the LCD panel and had none in stock and
were waiting for a replacement from Japan. At that stage they
offered to send me a replacement monitor on loan until they could
send mine back -- which they did, at their expense, though they were
under no obligation to do so.

I really can't fault the service, and they do offer a five year
warranty where most other manufacturers only offer three (or less).

I'd certainly buy Eizo again, and it's certainly worth paying extra
for a good product with good service ... though the advantage of a
cheaper monitor is that you can afford a second one as a spare.

Cheers,
Daniel.

 

[GSV Three Minds in a Can]

Don't blame Eizo for Dabs's cock-up.

I wasn't, but I do blame them for not providing on site swap out cover,
on what is one of the most expensive (as well as best) TFT ranges out
there. People can make up their own minds, but (unless Eizo fixed it)
they need to be aware that any problem (and we've both had one) will
result in them being TFT-less for at best 10 days, at worst 6 weeks.

 

[Daniel James]

... at nearly double the price that's just too much.

I do understand the financial concern. Although cheaper monitors
are generally noticeably less good than the top-price ones they may
well be acceptable -- only you can decide what's "good enough" for
you.

The thing to remember is that the screen is one of the few parts of
a computer that can actually hurt you if you skimp (eye-strain,
headaches, etc.) so it is worth spending extra in some cases.

The main point of my earlier post was to point out that
manufacturers' quoted specs can be very misleading.

Cheers,
Daniel.