LCD flat panel feedback please?

[DaveW]

You would NOT like the looks or level of detail on the screen in other than
Native Mode.

 

[Mxsmanic]

The native res of the LCDs is 1280x1024! Though that's great for looking
at graphics, I'm not so sure it's great for my purposes. Can anyone
attest to how these monitors look at that res in terms of menus and
such? Are the tool bars and menus tiny? Or does anyone know what they
look like in a lower res than the native?

Some LCD monitors do an excellent job of displaying lower than native
resolutions. The monitor itself does the interpolation and the images
displayed are very smooth and readable. My Eizo does this, and I'm sure
there are others that work the same way.

However, if you buy a monitor that _does not_ do this, then you'll need
to run either at native resolution or at some near multiple of native
resolution. For example, 800x600 looks fine on a monitor with 1600x1200
resolution, because it's exactly half the linear dimensions.

It gets more complicated if you choose to use ClearType. In that case,
you really need to run at native resolution.

 

[KJ]

NewEgg is a great place, lots of selection, and prices are generally good.
My complaint is that their shipping is both expensive and slow (relative to
others), so I always try to shop around first. But, I did buy much of my last
computer from them, for the convenience.

I shoptoo. I get charged tax from NewEgg b/c they are local so I try to
buy elsewhere if the price is better. In this last system I put together
about half the stuff was still cheaper from NewEgg. The processor and
mobo came from GA and NY however.

Not stated, but dot pitch is only a CRT specification, about the spacing of
phosphor dots. This sensor (phosphor dot) is not aligned with the video
pixels of the signal. Even if by miracle, the spacing were exactly the same
(it's not), the phosphor is still likely half a pixel low or to the right of
the video pixel, so the pixel is straddling phosphor dots. The CRT screen
resolution 1280x1024 pixel signal is not related to the phosphor dot pitch
which attempts to reproduce it. So you do want dot pitch to be small on CRT,
that being your best shot at it.

Yeah and I was wondering b/c I heard it doesn't apply to LCD yet they
had DP specs. The 17"'ers are .26 but the 19" (as with CRT when you get
into 21"'ers etc) is .29. I don't know why they give a dp spec if it
isn't releveant except maybe they know people look for it from buying
CRT all these years.

On a LCD, the only meaningful number is the native resolution. That is also
the exact definition and location of the LCD transistor photo sensors. A
sensor is exactly a video pixel, by definition. The so-called dot pitch
(spacing between these pixels?) simply has no alternative but to be in perfect
alignment with the native resolution, the 1280x1024 pixels. This perfect
alignment is why LCD is so sharp for text (at native resolution). 1280x1024
pixels is all we need to know.

I see. Thanks for explaining.

The other relevant specs would be contrast ratio and of course viewing
angles. Brightness is fine if it's 250 or over from what I understand
from a PC World article. (And for gamers, response time.)

At non-native resolutions, then LCD starts acting more like CRT, with video
pixels straddling photo sensors, and sharpness degrades substantially, more so
than for CRT.

We could easily compute the LCD dot pitch, and some ads do. We know the
1280x1024 pixels, and we know the 19 inch diagonal, thus the geometry. This
would show a 17 1280x1024 LCD has a 11% smaller dot pitch than the 19
1280x1024 LCD, but we already knew that (if same resolution) by just comparing
the 17 and 19 inch sizes. Same number of pixels in a smaller area is always
higher resolution, but a smaller picture.

Ah-ha! Got it! Great explanation.

Even if the LCD dot pitch computation were larger than the CRT (possibly is,
the LCD spacing will obviously be whatever the 1280x1024 pixels define it to
be), the LCD has the overwhelming advantage of being perfectly aligned, which
is better even than a smaller dot pitch on the CRT trying to show 1280x1024
pixels in random manner. Perfect alignment has much to be said for it.
Perfect is all we need, and the most we can hope for. Now, if they could just
get the color right.

Yeah it washes out and changes hues from different angles. The PC
WOrld article says getting a high contrast ratio minimizes that (min
400:1 and 600:1 is better) but they also said (in so many words) if you
render images for a living or find it very important you'll want a CRT
instead.

So I looked at Best Buy today b/c it's closer than Frys. A whole line of
LCD's in a row on a useless loop of images that look breathtaking and
have absolutely nothing to do with how text will display. Finally a
page of text flits by but I don't think it was a real page. I think it
was an image [of an open spreadsheet] b/c the text looked fuzzy on ALL
of them.

I finally found a Sony hooked up to a system. Opened a Word processor.
Looked great in native res. Plenty big. But no sales card to say what
the model was or how much. I looked on the back of the panel but I
didn't have a pen handy. Eh. I'll go to Frys sometime this week.

I hate shopping in real stores.

KJ

 

[KJ]

I use a computer quite a lot. Not as long as 12 hours a day, but can
easily sit at mine for 3 or 4 hour stretches and only 2 feet from the
monitor without any eye tiredness. The only time I've noticed problems
such as those has been when the monitor refresh rate has been set
incorrectly. Have you tried playing around with the refresh rate
settings at all?

Just a thought.

Yeah refresh rates make a big diff. It isn't my CRT I'm concerned about
-- it's quite doable how it's set. I was just concerned about being
stuck at a very high res on a LCD. But I think it'll be fine as long as
the screen is large enough, and I can use Large Fonts.

Thanks for your suggestion,
KJ

 

[KJ]

Some LCD monitors do an excellent job of displaying lower than native
resolutions. The monitor itself does the interpolation and the images
displayed are very smooth and readable. My Eizo does this, and I'm sure
there are others that work the same way.

Can you give me the model? I'be be curious to look at the specs.

However, if you buy a monitor that _does not_ do this, then you'll need
to run either at native resolution or at some near multiple of native
resolution. For example, 800x600 looks fine on a monitor with 1600x1200
resolution, because it's exactly half the linear dimensions.

Ah, yeah. I see how that would work...

(But I think only very large screens have a native res of 1600x1200 in
which case I wouldn't need 800x600. But I see the point you're making.)

It gets more complicated if you choose to use ClearType. In that case,
you really need to run at native resolution.

That makes sense...


KJ

 

[Thomas Wendell]

Visit a some resellers, preferrably with a variety of models, and test.....


--
Tumppi
Reply to group
=================================================
Most learned on nntp://news.mircosoft.com
Helsinki, Finland (remove _NOSPAM)
(translations from FI/SE not always accurate)
=================================================

 

[Mxsmanic]

Can you give me the model? I'be be curious to look at the specs.

The FlexScan L885. I think many or all Eizo models do this, however.
Lower resolutions look quite smooth and clean.

(But I think only very large screens have a native res of 1600x1200 in
which case I wouldn't need 800x600. But I see the point you're making.)

I run at 1600x1200, with a 20-inch screen. It's just right.

 

[John Weiss]

The native res of the LCDs is 1280x1024! Though that's great for looking
at graphics, I'm not so sure it's great for my purposes. Can anyone
attest to how these monitors look at that res in terms of menus and
such? Are the tool bars and menus tiny? Or does anyone know what they
look like in a lower res than the native?

You should ONLY use an LCD at its native resolution.

A 19" LCD at 1280x1024 should be fine for your purposes. Go to a computer shop
and look at a few!

 

[John Weiss]

Pocketbook says a 17" LCD ($250-$300) is all I can afford. I just spent
nearly $1000 buying the components for a new system I'm building, and my
CRT works fine, but I'd like a LCD for space and to utilize the DVI on
my new graphics card.

Use your CRT until you can afford the LCD you really want/need.