Finally decided to jump on the LCD bandwagon

Well I've finally decided to put my Iiyama Vision Master Pro 510 22" Trinitron CRT to rest. Not that there is anything wrong with it, but it is very bulky, and it seems to have ongoing problems with geometry and landing (well it always has really).

So I'm replacing it with a 19" Samsung SM-913N, seems to be reasonably priced, at £185, and offers 8ms response time and 700:1 contrast ratio, which is pretty decent for the price, and it seems a well reviewed unit.

At least at this price, if something magical is round the corner in LCD technology I wont have wasted too much on it.

I'm guessing I wont be missing too much from actual screen size, as I'm sure I read 19" means 19" viewable on a LCD whereas on my 22" screen I am sure its only 20.1" viewable or something!

 

We bought a Samsung before CHristmas (a 32") and whilst it's good at a distance, if you sit too close you are only too aware of the terrible quality of Freeview transmissions. If I could rewind three months I'd probably not buy it again. It's as good as any of the others at the price, but the clarity is such that every little flaw in the picture is revealed with disturbing ease, and it can be distracting.

DVD is fine, however, though I'd arguably like a slightly blacker black. Motion blur is minimal, but I do notice some on occasions. Again, *much* more noticeable on Freeview, so probably not the fault of the panel so much as bad encoding/decoding.

John

PS. We live less than 1 mile as the crow flies from the Freeview transmitter and have a new aerial, so it's not a signal strength issue.

 

He's talking about a PC monitor not a LCD TV, it looks quite a good spec paul, I'd go for it.

I've got a 24" widescreen Dell and never looked back.

 

Ah, you're right. I hadn't had my coffee when I wrote that reply. Anyway, I have a pair of 20" Dell 2001FP monitors which I think are great, and affordable. I'm trying to justify replacing one with the new 30" Dell LCD (the Apple 30" being just that bit too expensive and the Dell warranty is much better)

 

The problem I have with 19" LCDs is that they offer nothing over 17" ones... both are 1280x1024 native resolution. 19" should use 1400x1050, with the 20 and 21" panels in 1600x1200.

That said, my CRTs are staying for now as LCD still can't touch CRT on colour fidelity for photo work. When OLED displays get going then it will be worth changing though (infinite contrast ratio - better than CRT, much better colour rendition than LCD, higher resolution than LCD (1900x1200 or so on a 17"), faster response times, etc).

 

I disagree... they clearly offer two extra inches

17" is just too small for me, and the resolution is ample for my needs.

 

My other rant is the 17" and 19" LCDs using a 5:4 shape. A squarer format in these days of an inexorable shift to widescreen seems a retrograde step (and the same applies to olympus' 4/3rds camera system using 4:3 when all other DSLRs are using 3:2). Thankfully not as bad as attempting to use 1280x1024 on a 4:3 CRT screen though.

 

Might want to refine that to 'Cheap LCD...' rather than tar all LCDs with the same brush. I'd also argue that a spider-calibrated LCD (such as my Dells are) will be more dependable than a non-calibrated CRT, even one designed for colour proofing.

However, proof of the pudding, etc...

 

OLED is stil a very long way off.

 

(I mean for commercial products).

I saw an OLED 2" screen at a CE show in germany 2 years ago - one word AWESOME even at 2"!!!

 

That doesnt really matter too much to me. Most software is still fundamentally 4:3 and for television and films, I have my 32" widescreen TV.

 

Yep it seems 1600 * 1200 is a novelty with LCD panels, to me it's a pre-requisite for 19" upwards

 

Heck, I'm such a resolution wh0re I find 2 x 1600x1200 panels limiting. I'm ready for the big time (dual 30" panels, spanning desktop of 5120x1600), except I can't afford nor justify the expense.

Still, it'd be REALLY NICE...

 

Personally, I'm quite happy with LCD 19inchers being limited to 1280x1024 or less, as some of us can't read fonts at 0.001 point size, a'la 1600x1200

That said, I'm still using CRT at home and will stick with CRT until I'm forced into LCD, kicking and screaming. I won't have valves in my hifi, so I'll look at them instead

 

Issac you are starting to sound like someone shouting in the desert mate

 

jtc,

In your experience, how do the equivalent Dells compare to the Apple displays in terms of image quality?

I'm certainly not a fan of LCD display technology from what I've experienced of currently available consumer products. There was another thread elsewhere in this forum that ran some time ago. The Apple Cinema LCD diplays are the only ones I've found for me to be a viable alternative to CRT. My CRT PC monitor broke recently, I looked in LCD but ended up with another CRT as I couldn't justify the cost of the 20" or 23" Apple displays that did float my boat. Just wondering how the Dell widescreen LCDs fair in comparison.

 

Henry, to be honest, I reckon the Dell 2001FP is 99% as good as the equivalent Apple panel. It's the same LG panel (or, I should say, it's the same line of panel - except mine are 5:4 ratio whilst the Apples are 16:9 ratio). I certainly don't regret buying my pair, and whilst the Apple panels have a certain style about them, I don't think the image quality of the Dells is necessarily any poorer than the (much) pricier Apples.

You can pick up the Dell 2001FP (5:4, 20.1" 1600x1200 rotatable panel with DVI, analogue and SVideo inputs) for around £500, or you could buy one of mine for £320 (and I'll put the proceeds towards the 30" )

 

You can buy an apple 20 inch for £549.

The prices have come down significantly.

 

Same price as a Dell 24 inch screen and having seen both, I'd take the Dell.

 

Well I've got the monitor now, and have set it up:

Observations:

Clarity - LCD definitely wins there, text is much more clear, and there subjectively seems to be more detail in photos - although thats probably as a result of it looks sharper.

Colour - The LCD definitely has more vivid colours, but you could argue they arent as natural as the CRT.

Contrast - CRT seems better here.

Resolutions - Obviously CRT wins here - 2048 x 1536 max. However, 1280 x 1024 is ample of my needs.

Stabilitiy - Picture is clearly more stable on the LCD.

Movement - The movement is more fluid on the CRT - the TFT is very good, but not as good as the CRT.

Geometry - LCD clear winner here.

Overall - not really a comprehensive victory for the LCD, in fact not even really a victory picture wise. Better in some areas, worse in others. Both are a compromise in one way or another. However, the fact the LCD takes up 1/4 of the desk space & consumes just 38 watts versus 165 watts makes it the overall winner.