LCD monitors - opinions?

Was in a local PC shop the other day and noticed that the price of LCD monitors have plumetted since the last time I looked. I could get an LG 18 incher for about €650 which is £460

So - are they any good? I'm using a Dell (rebadged Sony) 19" CRT flatscreen monitor atm which is very good but pretty bulky. An 18" LCD should give me about the same viewable area and support the resolution I use (1280x1024).

At work (in London) we have quite a few NEC 17" ones which look stunning when doing, errm, work (eg writing software, using word/excel etc) but are they up to scratch for playing fast moving games (not that I play many) and, more importantly, reasonably accurate photo editing?

Once calibrated, my current monitor gives me a very good colour match to my prints when I'm doing Photoshop work - are LCDs as good in this respect?

Michael.

 

It depends exactly what it is you want. TFTs are much cleaerer as you have a much higher frefresh rate. (in fact an active one). But in my expereince from the machines at uni CRT monitors offer better colour contrast.

TFT's are good because they emit much less EMF radition this and the higher refresh rate should main they are better for your health.

 

AT
TFT does not have a refresh, it only says that in CP cuz winbloz needs it.
As they are made of arrays of diodes these dont refresh, just change colur when needed

 

Hi Michael,

In a word NO for games the refresh rate isn't as high as a normal CRT.

Check out Tomshardware they are probally more informed than me.

 

Yep thats what I meant by the active refresh rate.

 

I have always been an advocate of CRT screens.

But the latest TFT screens, plugged into a high quality graphics card via Digital Video Interface (DVI) have the ability to look truly stunning, with vibrant, strong colours, awesome clarity and excellent contrast to.

Some still swear by CRT, and they are a good way to get decent performance and size on the cheap, but if you can afford it, TFT is much easier on the eyes.

I use one at work, and even though its still plugged into the machine via Analogue VGA, the pictures clarity and stability is still ahead of my 22-inch CRT. The better TFT's and graphics cards can produce stunning results.

The latest ones are also reported to be fine for games, although a one I used about a year ago through analogue VGA was a bit ropey, with unnatural movement, but by all accounts the latest ones have more or less fixed this problem in the better models.

 

Since I only play games every so often I think I can live with the slightly worse games performance. I think I'm definitely going to give one a go in the new year.

Cheers for the info.

CRT vs LCD - another case of tubes vs. solid state I guess

Michael.

 

Micheal
for games you need a screen with a rsponse time < 25ms
I think Hitachio produce some around 16ms

 

as Paul said, a higher graphics card/lcd combo would work out very nicely, thanks to the DVi input. i have one on my GeForce 3 Ti200 card so I'd be interested to see the results on a compatible lcd. The tfts I have seen have always struggled when scrolling up and down white Internet Explorer/Word pages although these were the type you see daisy chained together at PCW...
just a thought...

 

Yeah, everything Paul said. Definitely use the DVI connection if your graphics card has it.

I have an NEC 1760nx-bk and it is brilliant.

It is much easier to look at for long periods than a CRT (and I have a good one of those - an Iiyama Vision Master Pro).

A 16ms update rate is plenty fast for playing games. It is also faster than needed for DVD Video. I don't think very many 18 inchers do this yet but several 17 inchers do, including the above mentioned NEC which also benefits from a tilt, swivel and raise/lower base and looks good too (IMHO).

 

I am an extremely strong advocate of CRT screens.

Where they have the edge: Contrast, Colour Fidelity (no banding), Dynamic Range, Resolution, multiple resolution capability (LCDs look awful in anything but native resolution or a fixed fraction of, eg 800x600 on a 1600x1200 screen). For photographic work, CAD work, Movies, Games, etc CRTs have significant advantages. LCDs are no sharper than a GOOD CRT (like the 21" Sony that is my primary. My 19" secondary and 14" tertiary are less good), and at high resolutions the quality is as much to do with the output filters and circuitry of the graphics card (where matrox have an advantage. DVI improves this, but DVI does not allow for very high resolutions without resorting to more than one channel).

 

Hmmm, I have what I'd consider to be a very good 22-inch CRT (with a Sony tube), and even I have to admit that LCD monitors have not only caught up, but took over CRT these days Isaac. I fail to see how they are any better at graphics work or CAD to be honest, and the only domains left where CRT holds an advantage is resolution support and things with moving images. These two are also going to be non issues in the not so distant future.

LCD however, does not flicker at all, have extremely vibrant colours on the best models, consume less power and space, allow for digital connections etc etc.

CRT obviously has its die-hard supporters, but I must admit, despite my own prejudices, I have seen quality from LCD monitors that has really surprised me.

Now anyone who still thinks CRT is better, feel free if they would like to swap me a nice 18-inch flat-panel with DVI for my 22-inch Iiyama Vision Master Pro....

 

I have an NEC here at work - been using TFT since 1998 (due to my eyesight conditon - flicker on CRT causes me really bad headaches and I can see flicker >75hz). NECs are visibly better (to me) than my housemate's no-name TFT, but LHAtkins' Samsung TFT is quite good...

The NECs are the only ones I've seen that seem to refresh at a high enough speed to make gameplay fun - though admittedly I can't play games here at work - this is an unscientific method based on the speed it redraws when I move the mouse around

Bear in mind that the cheaper LCDs only really look good at their native (ie maximum) resolution; they'll often lose or double up lines to squeeze an alternative resolution onto the screen at full size; the first NEC I had did this but the newer ones seem to automatically interpolate for a better image.

I use a CRT at home still as I barely use it; when I get a new TFT (one day when I can be arsed) I'll have great fun thinking of the noisiest way of imploding the old CRT one. I have a great photo of my old Amstrad one getting the treatment from my mate Robbie Dee (CRTs still have the edge in the "fun to smash" stakes!):


Note that this is very dangerous...


It works well with TVs too:


Note that the bigger the "boritz" (TV), the bigger the "cheeoup" (implosion sound). 25 inch 1970s Philips TVs make a good noise - as my mate David Workman and I can testify. LHAtkins only knows about the sound one of them makes when you accidentally break it the safe way (by knocking out the safety stub by kicking the back of the electron guns on a backless one!).

Great days they were, great days... Mis-spent childhood alright!

 

You should not smash up old CRTs, no matter how much fun it is. There are charities that can recycle them to countries where they can't afford the latest kit. Schools and clubs are often grateful for them too.

 

Isaac, you brought up another issue I was worried about with LCDs: the non-native resolution thing. Since I normally run at 1280x1024 there aren't many games that will run smoothly at that res (on my poor old 933Mhz PIII + NVidia GeForce DDR) so I have to run them at lower resolutions which probably won't be an exact fraction of 1280x1024...

Still, games are the least of my worries, I only play them rarely. Much more important to me is digital photo editing as I do a lot of digital photography. I need a monitor that has good colour balance and dynamic range above all, resolution is imortant but not so critical. Also, the ability to tweak it accurately so I can calibrate its colours correctly (using Adobe Gamma or similar). I imagine that CRTs still have the edge here but if the all the digital photo editors who use Macs also use those gorgeous Apple widescreen LCDs then they must be OK so surely there are others as good?

I think in the end the easiness on the eye and ergonomics of an LCD will win the day for me. My cat won't be happy though...nowhere warm to sit during the day (he usually sits on top of my CRT monitor).

Michael.

 

About 6 months ago I swapped my CTX960 pro 19" CRT for a 17" Hitachi 174.
Putting this in context, the CTX was a high quality 19" using a well regarded Sony tube and 3 years ago cost £340.

The 17" LCD has just one disadvantage that I've come across, which is that it's slightly smaller screen (the CTX has an 18.1" viewable area). Apart from that, the LCD creams it.
With DVI there is no flicker, the picture quality is rock solid, stable, has perfect geometry and with this particular screen has a 16ms response rate, meaning that it's fine for games (I play a lot of CS).

When I bought the LCD, I did think that it would be great for work, and rubbish for games. How wrong I was, it substantially outperformed my CRT.

As for the running of games at 1280x1024 (native resolution for my screen), this is really down to how good your video card is, and NOT how fast your processor is. If you can, spend some more cash and get a decent vid card whilst you're at it, you won't regret it.

 

Ah - but the Pye b&w telly's flyback was knackered, and had done something nasty to the CRT when it went, and the Amstrad wouldn't sync at all, so I think both CRTs were dead...

My HP will probably be passed on actually 'cos it's not that bad, but it's a real temptation - smashing them is very dangerous but very cathartic...

After all, it allowed me to partake in a rock'n'roll fantasy - Rob had to hold me back from dropping the b&w out of my 2nd floor window (probably sensible - it would have made a right mess!).

 

Mike - thanks for the info. Looks like 17" LCDs have considerably better response times than 18" ones (16ms vs 25ms for equivalent LG models).

I realise that video performance is largely due to my graphics card. I may get a new one but, taking a look around the back I notice that my existing card has DVI output which I had never realised before - duh! :shame: So there's less of a reason to get a new card. I'll see how it goes with games performance and if it's really bad will think about a new card.

I think I am going to go LCD - the LG L1710B being the model I think I'll go for. Has DVI in, a USB hub (really useful) and a 16ms response time and it won a bunch of PC mag awards fairly recently. Can't be bothered to do much more research

Michael.

 

I guess the comment made eariler on about CRT vs LCD being akin to old arguments like valves vs solid-state or maybe CD vs vinyl is certainly true.

ATM, I'm a CRT fan. Judging from what people have said, I guess one of the reasons for this is because I am not at all suseptible or troubled by flicker or interlacing, not even at 60Hz refresh! Although I do find a refresh of > 75Hz to be noticeably more restful and easier on the eye over extended periods of viewing/useage, but like I said this has nothing to do with me actually being able perceive screen flicker.

My main complaint about LCDs is that colours always look pastey to me, and most annoying of all is the shimmering effect you get as you move your head around whilst scanning/reading a large area of text say for instance. I know this is more something that can be leveled at older LCD displays, but which more modern designs are gradually becoming less guilty of, but I'd say it's probably the most off putting aspect of LCD displays for me.

During my lunch break from work today I had a quick browse in the nearby Panasonic/Technics shop and looked at some of the LCD displays on show and was distinctly no plused by what I saw. I think the most impressive LCD display I've seen was a 17 inch widescreen LCD TV that Sony had on show at their display in the foyet of this year's Bristol Hi-Fi Show, retail price of £1k (they also had a larger 32inch based on similar technology on display)! Now when quality like that starts to become available for say circa £300 then maybe I might consider swapping my 17 inch Iiyama Vision Master Pro CRT (driven by a Matrox graphics card because I don't play games), then maybe I might consider a change over.

BTW any recommendations/opinions of what people consider to be representative as state of the art in LCD displays to impress me?

 

Yep, Samsung 191T, we got one of these at work, and driven by a good graphics card, the results are stunning IMO.