• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Best 1600x1200 LCD?

O

obiwansotti

Gawd
Joined
Dec 13, 2002
Messages
1,003
I NEED a new monitor, my old CRT is getting really ugly.

I want to get an LCD, but I don't want to sacrafice much to get it.

I don't want a 1280x1024 monitor with their 0.93:1 pixel shape, it makes photo editing and desktop too funky for me. And the 1024x768 panels are way too small.

I'm hesitant to go widescreen as I know alot of games can be a pain to get running correctly and their typically isn't a good 4:3 resolution for a monitor that is native 1680x1050, (not much supports 1400x1050).

So what are you guys buying?

Should I just stick with a CRT?
 
I'm looking into possibly getting a Samsung 214T soon(21"/1600x1200/8ms/900:1 Contrast ratio). Unfortunately they don't seem to be in stock most places right now and there are hardly any professional/user reviews for them at this point.

I guess many people would say a Dell 2001fp LCD(20"/1600x1200/16ms/400:1 Contrast Ratio) but I'm thinking that's kind of an old panel by now(when did that come out, like 2 years ago?). We're right on the cusp of newer, better panel monitors coming out(like the 214T).

If you need something RIGHT NOW, I'm not sure what to suggest.
 
I recently bought Samsung SyncMaster 204T and can't be more happier with the monitor.

I have few other monitors to compare such as Dell 1905FP, 2005FPW and 2405FPW and performance of this monitor is impressive.
 
I owned the samsung 204t as well, and it is an excellent screen. Unfortunately the ghosting was too much to bear. I now own the Dell 2405FPW and it is the best screen I have ever personally seen. You can still run apps at 1600x1200, stretched or not, and they look fine. It's a great screen, and my recommendation right now. If you wait, the 214t and 244t seem to be the high end screens of the future.
 
Aren't the pixels on all LCDs square? I remember measuring a 17", and the screen dimensions were actually 5:4, just like the resolution. I cannot imagine it would be different for 19" models.
 
Ahriman4891 said:
Aren't the pixels on all LCDs square? I remember measuring a 17", and the screen dimensions were actually 5:4, just like the resolution. I cannot imagine it would be different for 19" models.
Click to expand...

It should be 4:3 if the panel resolution is 1600x1200.. at least, unless they designed it to make everything look distorted. Just like the 1920x1200 widescreen models are 16:10.
 
joecrouton said:
I owned the samsung 204t as well, and it is an excellent screen. Unfortunately the ghosting was too much to bear. I now own the Dell 2405FPW and it is the best screen I have ever personally seen. You can still run apps at 1600x1200, stretched or not, and they look fine. It's a great screen, and my recommendation right now. If you wait, the 214t and 244t seem to be the high end screens of the future.
Click to expand...

I never would have agreed with you until one of my roommates bought one.

Wow. Not only does it look awesome in person, but you are right - stretched or not, it looks great. A testimony to that is my friend playing Starcraft.

Yes, Starcraft that runs at 640 x 480 looks just fine >> except its at 24" (lol). One of my biggest worries, and it looks just fine. Maybe it's cuz you sit back (that you can't tell), or maybe the interpolation is better, but whatever it is--interpolation/resolution is no longer an issue.
 
UrielDagda said:
It should be 4:3 if the panel resolution is 1600x1200.. at least, unless they designed it to make everything look distorted. Just like the 1920x1200 widescreen models are 15:10.
Click to expand...
16:10
 
UrielDagda said:
It should be 4:3 if the panel resolution is 1600x1200.. at least, unless they designed it to make everything look distorted. Just like the 1920x1200 widescreen models are 15:10.
Click to expand...

I was talking about 17 and 19 inchers, with 5:4 1280x1024 res. My comment was regarding the OP's

I don't want a 1280x1024 monitor with their 0.93:1 pixel shape, it makes photo editing and desktop too funky for me.
Click to expand...

I just don't know where he got the 0.93:1 pixel shape from. I.e. his math is clear, he fits 5:4 = 3.75:3 res . into 4:3 screen, so pixels are approx. 1 unit wide and 0.93 (3.75/4) units tall. Coming from a CRT, he is used to 1280 being funky. What I am saying is that the screen on 17" and 19" LCDs is not 4:3, it's correctly proportioned so that pixels actually are square. I measured my friend's old 17" Dell LCD, it's 5:4. So no need to worry about that :)
 
hmm.. This is interesting... I was pretty sure that the specification for computer monitors called for square pixels (there must be some standard, right?). SDTV did not; from what I heard, it took some pressure on the HDTV consortium to accept square pixels as a standard for the high-def generation.. Keep in mind that whoever entered the data on the samsung website could screw up. Could any owners of that monitor measure the screen and share the results?

As for games, *most* modern games allow for FOV setting by means of some simple hack. So the actual screen resolution becomes irrelevant--it's just a matter of viewport dimensions fitting screen dimensions. But obviously, you wouldn't want to purchase that Samsung, if it is in fact 4:3, and go through the hassle all the time.
 
samsung does list other monitors as 5:4. and the LCD TV/monitors in the 17" and 19" range are deffinetly 4:3 so TV displays correctly.

HDTV does infact use square pixels, but DVD for instance is 720x480 for either 4:3 or 16:9.

I think I would still prefer a 4:3 monitor with square pixels but the fact that some 17" and 19"(heck maybe most of them) are 5:4 and retain square pixels gives me some options.
 
The 2001FP and Apple 20" ACD seem pretty nice, even though the 2001FP is pretty old now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top