LCD's = crap because...

[matrix563]

I'll take the non-technical route and say this:

- I can pick my monitor up with one hand. I can also rearrange my desk setup anytime.

- Oh, and my eyes don't hurt reading text for long periods of time.
LCDs FTW.

2 hands (1 would be too unbalanced ) for me anyways lol

my first lcd was a 19 inch. the next was a 37. games seem to be smoother with vsync on limiting the fps to the refresh of the lcd. if i am right, the fps still is over the 60fps limit, but what gets sent to the display is 60fps, am i right? (depending on the graphic card's render ability)

 

[Benny]

That's not what I meant - no CRT's use HDMI except certain 30+ inch CRT HDTV's. What I meant is that VGA has every capability to equal DVI/HDMI in signal and picture quality on CRT monitors.

in theory yes, but not anymore due to FCC compliance regulations that make it impossible to send a perfect analog signal... can't find a link to the mod but some might remember "breaking" the low-pass filters back in the old days ^_^
it's unfortunate that the 8800 in the name of the ultimate analogue signal cards is only a coincidence.
http://www.canopus.co.jp/press/2001/ssh-hdtv.htm
they even featured jumpers to manually tune the low-pass filters.

Let's hope sony gets all oled problems sorted out and puts an end to the CRT LCD disputes... (but still a dual-link displayport QWUXGA+ 120Hz 10bit wide gamut monitor probably won't come anytime soon..)

 

[Benny]

2 hands (1 would be too unbalanced ) for me anyways lol

my first lcd was a 19 inch. the next was a 37. games seem to be smoother with vsync on limiting the fps to the refresh of the lcd. if i am right, the fps still is over the 60fps limit, but what gets sent to the display is 60fps, am i right? (depending on the graphic card's render ability)

very likely, I only know of TVs that accept a maximum of a 60Hz signal. (the 120Hz ones fill the extra frames with internally calculated images.)

 

[TridenT_Boy3555]

Your opinion. CRTs are not very practical, but you can use them if you want. Oh and I have no problems playing CoD4 on my Samsung 226BW. Looked at your rig specs too, maybe you need a better computer?

 

[SH1]

I have a 21" sony and it runs @ 75HZ 1600x1200 and it still gives me headaches

75Hz is too low. Try 85Hz for something ergonomic...

 

[SH1]

Currently I'm using a 21" Sony Trinitron FD CRT that I love which does 1600rez@100hz and 1280rez@140hz.

I've recently tried out a 22" 2ms Samsung and a 22" 2ms Viewsonic LCD that I purchased to only test then return them and was very disappointed in the performance.

I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed with most displays compared to your Trinitron. It's a real shame they don't make them anymore.

OLED and other technologies might finally offer some relief though...

 

[Dunan]

I think that LCDs are far superior for a couple of reasons.
#1 As far as I know there is no HDMI input for CRTs, which gives a better signal, and better picture.

#2 More R&D has been put into LCDs since 2000, and they are probably more superior in ways I don't even know.

From personal experience I like the clearer crisper picture, and although it takes some getting used to, it's even harder to go back. Another aspect you may be dissapointed in is that the wide screen monitors can use a higher resolution, and this taxes your system which results in glitchy gameplay.

honestly, nothing could be farther from the truth.

LCD's may be superior in brightness (a gimmick to make the horrible black levels look blacker, the secret to realism and depth) and weight, but that about it. There's nothing worse than watching a movie with a lot of black levels or playing a game like splinter cell (which i challenge anyone to tell me that it actually looks good, or even playable on an LCD) and seeing the blacks (greys) completely washed out and have zero detail and depth.

people dont realise that LCD's were introduced for the office, and not really meant for the home because of their sad picture quality. the only companys that make acceptable LCD's are NEC, LaCie and EIZO, and can run into the multi-thousand dollar range.
movie and production studios dont use LCD's for anything, in fact they use FW900's for color clarity, because that's how you'll see it on the big screen.

you can pry my HP 24" CRT from my cold dead hands before i go LCD

 

[matrix563]

you can pry my HP 24" CRT from my cold dead hands before i go LCD

reported

jk

i will never go back to a crt. lcd's have their weaknesses but my eyes thank me everyday

 

[Dunan]

I'll take the non-technical route and say this:

- I can pick my monitor up with one hand. I can also rearrange my desk setup anytime.

- Oh, and my eyes don't hurt reading text for long periods of time.
LCDs FTW.

I've NEVER had any eye discomfort or strain on any CRT monitor, and i look at one for many hours a day.

and CRT lovers have no qualm about the weight since they look so much better.

 

[SmokeRngs]

I've avoided buying LCDs for years now. To begin with, my old NEC FE950+ is still going strong and because of that have not had a compelling reason to drop a load of cash on a new display. While I would love a larger display and resolution, I would have to spend a lot of money on a decent LCD running a higher res than what I'm running on my 19" CRT. Yes, I'm running 1600x1200 on this thing. It refreshes at 75hz at this res and I have no trouble with that. I don't get headaches or eyestrain and I sometimes stick myself in front of this display for 12+ hours with no breaks except to take a piss or get something to eat or drink.

I prefer the color reproduction of a CRT over LCD. I've looked at many LCDs and none of them have the same color reproduction as my 6 1/2 year old CRT.

Of all the LCDs I have used, every one of them seems to give me eyestrain and/or a headache. Don't ask me why, I have no clue. I just seem to be the opposite of most people in this regard.

When I move to my new area at work, I'll be getting a new system which would be coming with an LCD. I flat at told my new supervisor that the LCD wasn't acceptable and I would need to have a CRT. If the IT department tries to deny me a CRT, I would just bring a spare from home. I'm currently using a 17" Gateway branded Trinitron at work and have been using that for the last 4 years. It works well enough. It doesn't do nearly as high of a resolution as I would like, but it's usable. The LCD they were going to stick me with would actually be a drop in resolution from what I'm currently using which is also unacceptable to me. Personally, I would love to have two of the 17" CRTs for double the desktop space but I doubt that will happen.

I'm not going to go into gaming on an LCD as I haven't done any gaming on a recent LCD so I'm not sure how they have improved in that aspect in a few years. However, when I used one before on someone else's system, it was hell on my eyes.

My other problem with LCDs is native resolution. I don't like being stuck at a single resolution. For my normal desktop stuff it's not a problem, but for gaming it would be hell. For me to purchase an LCD it would have to be a minimum of 24" with a really high res. I won't accept anything less than the vertical 1200 I'm using right now. Being able to drive a game on a widescreen LCD with a vertical res that high would require one hell of a video card. I don't have the funds or desire to spend the amount needed for a video card which could drive that. I keep my video card purchases at a max of $250. I'll spend a mountain of cash on a great display as it's likely to last me for many years, but I can't say the same about a video card.

I currently have a dual display setup of my 19" CRT and another 17"CRT and never plan on going with a single display setup again. I could get a good 24" LCD for my main display which wouldn't be a problem for desktop work (as long as it doesn't kill my eyes or give me headaches) and keep my 19" as the secondary display for my gaming needs. If I can find the right LCD and have the funds for it, I might do this in the future.

For the most part, I'm holding out as long as I can for another display technology to come along that has the advantages of CRT and LCD with few to none of the drawbacks of either. I'm not searching for "the perfect display" as that will probably never happen, but the drawbacks of LCDs for my needs and uses is a serious hindrance to my adoption of them.

 

[vick1000]

I hate LCDs, but I'm finally happy with my Dell 2005fpw. IPS is the only thing to compete with CRT in picture quality, especially in dark games and movies.

 

[Shottah_king]

I hate LCDs, but I'm finally happy with my Dell 2005fpw. IPS is the only thing to compete with CRT in picture quality, especially in dark games and movies.

What are you talking about? IPS has the poorest black quality of all the lcd panels. When have you seen an IPS with a very high contrast ratio.. never. The average is about 800:1. IPS panels cannot display shades of gray and blacks accurately like a CRT. Trying running Bioshock or UT3 in clone mode with a CRT and you will see exactly what I am talking about. Actually its not just IPS panels its PC LCD technology on a whole.

 

[TomGreen321]

Used to have a 19" Trinitron and loved it. But every LCD I have had is just so much clearer, it's ridiculous. I'll deal with slightly reduced black levels, if it means I never have to use a CRT monitor again. They're way to big, hot and power hungry as well.

 

[kumquat]

What are you talking about? IPS has the poorest black quality of all the lcd panels. When have you seen an IPS with a very high contrast ratio.. never. The average is about 800:1. IPS panels cannot display shades of gray and blacks accurately like a CRT. Trying running Bioshock or UT3 in clone mode with a CRT and you will see exactly what I am talking about. Actually its not just IPS panels its PC LCD technology on a whole.

It's not just PC LCD technology, it's LCD technology in general.

 

[behr]

I have a question:

I see some laptops with 15" screens have much better quality than bigger LCDs. Is this because of the resolution or the panel type?

If it is because of the resolution, what would be the minimum resolution to get a good image quality for 22"? I am guessing 1600x1050 is not enough.

Also, why are people saying to avoid 22"? Is it because of the TN panel or there is a problem with the aspect ratio? 22" is the perfect size for me, not too big not too small. 24" did not seem too big at the store, but I am not sure if I want to spend so much time in front of it.

Thanks.

 

[Benny]

It's funny the that the weight and size of a displays even plays a part in a discussion about image quality, the only real size advantage that is loosely related to the usable picture of an LCD is its small frame that makes multi display setups more comfortable.

IPS has the poorest black quality of all the lcd panels

yes BUT it's the best in regards of being able to tell apart the dark gray from the slightly less dark gray at all angles ^_^ not being able to distinguish between the dark shades is only a problem if the display is falsely calibrated.

BTW the legal issues tat held back Canon from building SEDs (flat fixed pixel CRTs) seem to have been resolved, so the big monitors (probably ~50'') will go in production early next year. This together with Sonys XEL-1 OLED-TV that features a dot pitch equal to a LCD Monitor gets my hope up that we'll see some good stuff for PC use before 2009.

 

[Benny]

I have a question:

I see some laptops with 15" screens have much better quality than bigger LCDs. Is this because of the resolution or the panel type?

If it is because of the resolution, what would be the minimum resolution to get a good image quality for 22"? I am guessing 1600x1050 is not enough.

Also, why are people saying to avoid 22"? Is it because of the TN panel or there is a problem with the aspect ratio? 22" is the perfect size for me, not too big not too small. 24" did not seem too big at the store, but I am not sure if I want to spend so much time in front of it.

Thanks.

It might be because a smaller pixel pitch will not be resolved by your eyes so the image will seem a lot clearer when you are not distracted by the individually visible sub pixels. (the 1280x800 res of my 3007wfp-hc feels a lot more comfortable than that of a 32'' TV with equal simulated spec except for resolution, the 4-pixel-clusters blend the subpixels more nicely when viewed from the same distance)

you can use http://www.tvcalculator.com/ to compare theoretical the pixel sizes.
The panels used in Laptops can be as diverse in type and resolution as they are in normal monitors, so there can't be a clear answer to your question.
A 22.64'' display @ 2560x1600 (typical 30'' res) would have the same pixel density as a 15'' 1600x1200 screen.

all 22'' on the market at the moment are TN which is why most won't recommend them for picture quality. (some PVA coming up)

 

[Conker]

I use a crt since it was cheap and it has no lag in games. Every lcd i touched has some kind of lag when moving fast in shooter games. The colors look great but from what the above said crt technology isn't dead yet and is still moving forward. I just don't like the lag pretty much for me . My crt runs and looks great so i'm good

 

[Benny]

crt technology isn't dead yet and is still moving forward.

even sony is using LCD monitors for its production equipment so it's about as dead as it gets. http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/markets/10007/market_10007.shtml
there still are a few CRTs but the bigger ones have been discontinued. A more accurate preview of cinema reproductions is possible with a wide gamut projector.
The only way CRTs are moving forward is that much of the technology is used in SED and FEDs.

 

[Blahman]

Wow I'm glad I avoided this thread until now. I get so pissed off when people say "the human eye is limited to 24/30/xx fps". It's so mindnumbingly retarded, and then I have to go and explain in-depth why that is not the case... fortunately someone else did that for me

 

[MrGuvernment]

Wow I'm glad I avoided this thread until now. I get so pissed off when people say "the human eye is limited to 24/30/xx fps". It's so mindnumbingly retarded, and then I have to go and explain in-depth why that is not the case... fortunately someone else did that for me

No worries, i share your pain, you would think BY NOW this myth would be busted, period

i think it is time to contact Myth Busters about this

 

[Benny]

No worries, i share your pain, you would think BY NOW this myth would be busted, period

i think it is time to contact Myth Busters about this

I wouldn't trust the busters to much, for example: there is (the busted) deadly quicksand it's only created by tiny air pockets after a sandstorm rather than water...

Back on topic:
it's been painful, I actually had to edit out some swearing in my explanations ^^;
I just remembered that a lot of videogames run at 60fps it was very obvious with early playstation games: 30fps Toshinden vs 60fps Tekken.
It was odd to see the less fluid Toshinden after playing Tekken for a while.

 

[Dunan]

Used to have a 19" Trinitron and loved it. But every LCD I have had is just so much clearer, it's ridiculous. I'll deal with slightly reduced black levels, if it means I never have to use a CRT monitor again. They're way to big, hot and power hungry as well.

SLIGHTLY reduced black levels? more like CONSIDERABLY reduced black levels.
the CRT in my sig according to the specs has a 10,000:1 contrast level. thats 10 times the contrast ratio of your typical LCD. TEN TIMES.. thats not 'slight' in any way.

for the record, the benq LCD i have in my sig takes about 20 less watts of power, and puts out MORE heat than my CRT. the difference being the LCD puts out the heat in my face, and the CRT puts out the heat from the top of the monitor.
people are silly in complaining about the weight of crt's the difference is NOT that big, with the only exception being 21" and larger models.

to me, the only drawback to CRT's IS their weight, i'd have to agree but the positives far outweigh the negatives when comparing CRT's to LCD's.

 

[Red Falcon]

Thanks for viewing my thread, below I have a couple questions regarding wide-screen gaming and field of view benefits that I need answered, if you can take the time to answer them I would greatly appreciate it.​

Ok so here is a little info on my past gaming experience with LCD's and CRT's...

I'm a serious gamer in 1st person shooters and have a ton of experience as you can see from my xfire profile. I allways get 1st place every server, every map I play in for COD2, COD4, and Joint Operations. I'm very competative in getting this 1st spot and keep training everyday to keep this position....

Currently I'm using a 21" Sony Trinitron FD CRT that I love which does 1600rez@100hz and 1280rez@140hz.

I've recently tried out a 22" 2ms Samsung and a 22" 2ms Viewsonic LCD that I purchased to only test then return them and was very disappointed in the performance.

While running COD2@1680x1050 on these LCD's I noticed something very very different about how the game looked and felt performance wise. It seemed like I was lagging when making quick movements looking around quickly it just seemed like the movement wasn't as smooth as my CRT and the LCD's seemed almost blurry to me in fast action. Because of this I wasn't able to get off the quick headshot snapshots as easy as I could with my CRT due to this issue.

Ok so with that said above you can tell I'm biased against using LCD's, but in the process of building a new PC setup for a squad mate he keeps getting told by his peers that he shouldn't get a 21" Sony Trinitron FD CRT for $150 and should drop $300 for a 22" LCD when his main focus is fps gaming.

The only thing that I see as an unconfirmed advantage for LCD's is the wider Field of View that you get when running in wide-screen mode. The questions that I have are simple...

1.) Does COD2 & COD4 wide-screen mode really give you a wider field of view then the standard 4:3 that I'm accustomed to with my 21" CRT??

2.) Is there a 22" LCD out there that is better then these (2) models that I tested which can perform better then a Trinitron FD?

I just find it hard to believe that running in wide-screen mode actually lets you see more of the map to the left and right of the screen.

I think the reason your LCD sucked so much was because it was a Viewsonic, aka bottom-of-the-barrel crap.

Try getting an Apple, Sony, or any other brand that has worth to its name.

...and yeah, this is a troll thread.

 

[xsoulbrothax]

I may have missed it, but I didn't see it noted -

Whether or not you actually 'see more' in a game on a widescreen is entirely up to the game developers themselves and the engine in particular that you're using. UnrealEngine 3 and Bioshock specifically caught hell for the 'widescreen' settings the engine used at default, where it cropped off the top and bottom (vert-) instead of extending the horizontal viewing angle (hor+).

In general right now, UnrealEngine 3 doesn't, UnrealEngine 2 does, Source does, CryEngine2 does... and in UE3 you can force wider FOVs to emulate the proper FOV, but I think it gets flagged as cheating. Call of Duty 2 does proper widescreen, as does CoD4 according to that screenshot. I have no idea whether or not Joint Operations does or not, but I'd be willing to guess it does, given the general intent of the game and the way it was designed/played.

 

[Benny]

I think the reason your LCD sucked so much was because it was a Viewsonic, aka bottom-of-the-barrel crap.

Try getting an Apple, Sony, or any other brand that has worth to its name.

...and yeah, this is a troll thread.

.. darn just can't stop feeding the trolls..

Samsung actually makes the panels used in many higher end monitors by other manufacturers (like EIZO), and viewsonic had the best 19'' gaming monitor crown for a while.
Sony doesn't even sell LCDs outside of japan, and apple, well ok, you antecedently got this one right. The 20'' is probably still an expensive s-ips completely without scaler so it shouldn't have input lag...

 

[Benny]

I may have missed it, but I didn't see it noted -

Whether or not you actually 'see more' in a game on a widescreen is entirely up to the game developers themselves and the engine in particular that you're using. UnrealEngine 3 and Bioshock specifically caught hell for the 'widescreen' settings the engine used at default, where it cropped off the top and bottom (vert-) instead of extending the horizontal viewing angle (hor+).

In general right now, UnrealEngine 3 doesn't, UnrealEngine 2 does, Source does, CryEngine2 does... and in UE3 you can force wider FOVs to emulate the proper FOV, but I think it gets flagged as cheating. Call of Duty 2 does proper widescreen, as does CoD4 according to that screenshot. I have no idea whether or not Joint Operations does or not, but I'd be willing to guess it does, given the general intent of the game and the way it was designed/played.

here's a list:
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/index.php/Master_Games_List_-_A

 

[kriminal]

hehe didn't know "pro-gaming" was getting top scores in pubs

 

[Dapperdan]

I'm a serious gamer in 1st person shooters and have a ton of experience as you can see from my xfire profile. I allways get 1st place every server, every map I play in for COD2, COD4, and Joint Operations. I'm very competative in getting this 1st spot and keep training everyday to keep this position....

I just find it hard to believe that running in wide-screen mode actually lets you see more of the map to the left and right of the screen.

Do you still live at home? Cause with that many hrs of play and being 24yrs old, I find it hard to believe that you make time for work.

And how can you be a "serious gamer" and not know that wide screen gives you more to see then 4:3?

 

[Borgschulze]

So I loaded up Counter-Strike: Source, on my LCD which I love minus the shit black levels.

fps_max 30 - Completely unplayable and choppier than a butcher knife.
fps_max 40 - Same
fps_max 50 - Playable, not silky smooth though.
fps_max 60 - Pretty nice, tons of screen tearing now, perfectly playable aside from annoying tearing.
fps_max 70 - Less tearing, same playability.
fps_max 80 - No tearing anymore, silky smooth like a oil and water.
fps_max 90 - Just ever so slightly nicer, playability wise it was more enjoyable.
fps_max 100-200 - No discernible difference at all after 90 fps.

This guy isn't a pro by a long shot, I have more hours in CS than him by far and I barely play.

Diablo II.. I would have well over his amount of hours logged there for ALL of his games. Go home, oh wait, you're there still at 24.

 

[Rock&Roll]

I used to be an LCD skeptic. I was completly ignorant of the varying panel technologies. As well, I was turned off by the high price. For over a year, I had a perfectly functional FW-900 CRT. PQ on the FW-900 = total hotness. I had that thing calibrated just right. When it died, I was quite troubled in how to should handle it.

Since the FW-900 is not serviceable by anybody, at least not for a price less than what the a new 24" LCD would cost, I decided to shop for an LCD. I wasn't shopping seriously, but I decided I would take a shot on the Soyo 24" since it was cheap. If it sucked, I would take it back.

I'm telling you, the colors on this panel hold up very well with my FW-900. All the detail and color that the FW-900 would display, I can see just as well on this LCD. Black levels included. (Granted, I'm not a pro photo editor) It weighs less, doesn't need "warm-up" time, and is easier to replace than a 100Lb unsupported CRT.

Dont get me wrong. If the FW-900 was still in production, I wouldn't even give a second thought to LCD's. But, things being what they are, it seems that LCD is as good as it get's these days, as good CRT's are getting pretty rare, or are getting pretty old. You guys with the 21" in trinitron's are probably pretty well off, since those are probably going to be more reliable than the 24".

The thing with LCD's is calibration. My laptop has a 1920x1200 TN with no adjustably accept for brightness. It's PQ sucks. Back black, bad everything. It's good for text stuff. The Soyo 24" is supposedly and P/MVA panel, and after a good bit of calibration, everything is pretty well comparable with a CRT. As well, I experience no input lag while gaming @ 1920x1200.

 

[okashira]

BTW the legal issues tat held back Canon from building SEDs (flat fixed pixel CRTs) seem to have been resolved, so the big monitors (probably ~50'') will go in production early next year. This together with Sonys XEL-1 OLED-TV that features a dot pitch equal to a LCD Monitor gets my hope up that we'll see some good stuff for PC use before 2009.

Please provide a source.

 

[Arcygenical]

Wow I'm glad I avoided this thread until now. I get so pissed off when people say "the human eye is limited to 24/30/xx fps". It's so mindnumbingly retarded, and then I have to go and explain in-depth why that is not the case... fortunately someone else did that for me

Anytime

 

[A13X]

Thanks for viewing my thread, below I have a couple questions regarding wide-screen gaming and field of view benefits that I need answered, if you can take the time to answer them I would greatly appreciate it.​

Ok so here is a little info on my past gaming experience with LCD's and CRT's...

I'm a serious gamer in 1st person shooters and have a ton of experience as you can see from my xfire profile. I allways get 1st place every server, every map I play in for COD2, COD4, and Joint Operations. I'm very competative in getting this 1st spot and keep training everyday to keep this position....

Currently I'm using a 21" Sony Trinitron FD CRT that I love which does 1600rez@100hz and 1280rez@140hz.

I've recently tried out a 22" 2ms Samsung and a 22" 2ms Viewsonic LCD that I purchased to only test then return them and was very disappointed in the performance.

While running COD2@1680x1050 on these LCD's I noticed something very very different about how the game looked and felt performance wise. It seemed like I was lagging when making quick movements looking around quickly it just seemed like the movement wasn't as smooth as my CRT and the LCD's seemed almost blurry to me in fast action. Because of this I wasn't able to get off the quick headshot snapshots as easy as I could with my CRT due to this issue.

Ok so with that said above you can tell I'm biased against using LCD's, but in the process of building a new PC setup for a squad mate he keeps getting told by his peers that he shouldn't get a 21" Sony Trinitron FD CRT for $150 and should drop $300 for a 22" LCD when his main focus is fps gaming.

The only thing that I see as an unconfirmed advantage for LCD's is the wider Field of View that you get when running in wide-screen mode. The questions that I have are simple...

1.) Does COD2 & COD4 wide-screen mode really give you a wider field of view then the standard 4:3 that I'm accustomed to with my 21" CRT??

2.) Is there a 22" LCD out there that is better then these (2) models that I tested which can perform better then a Trinitron FD?

I just find it hard to believe that running in wide-screen mode actually lets you see more of the map to the left and right of the screen.

i know exactly what you are talking about, but i went through 2 LCDs ( viewsonic vx724 and vx2025wm) before encountering your problem. It may seem to you like all LCDs have a ton of input lag, but they dont. It IS hard to find out before you buy one because many people dont notice it, and theres no "spec" that tells you how responsive they are. The only real way to find out is to game on one and try it for yourself.

Fortunately, there ARE some LCDs that have near-crt responsiveness. I can verify from my ownership of them that the ViewSonic VX724, VX2025Wm, and GatewayFHD2400 all are free of noticible input lag.

Since your looking for a 22", i guess i could reccomend the Gateway HD2200, but if i were you i would just jump up to the Gateway FHD2400. It looks amazing, and with UltraResponse enabled it has a 3ms response time, and pretty much ABSOLUTE ZERO input lag.

 

[(cf)Eclipse]

Sony doesn't even sell LCDs outside of japan.

the monitor sitting on my desk is begging me to disagree with you

http://www.eclipseoc.com/image/DSCF6926.jpg

 

[Borgschulze]

http://www.eclipseoc.com/image/DSCF6926.jpg

I thought we agreed on Chinese, I didn't want Italian food again.

 

[Red Falcon]

.. darn just can't stop feeding the trolls..

Samsung actually makes the panels used in many higher end monitors by other manufacturers (like EIZO), and viewsonic had the best 19'' gaming monitor crown for a while.
Sony doesn't even sell LCDs outside of japan, and apple, well ok, you antecedently got this one right. The 20'' is probably still an expensive s-ips completely without scaler so it shouldn't have input lag...

lol @ the noob statement

Many of my coworkers use *recent* Sony LCD monitors. WTF are you talking about?

...and yeah, Viewsonic is crap. Maybe they held the title for a while (when??? ), but their current LCDs all suck. I don't really care about specs, I want to physically see how it performes. Color, response, quality, etc. These are all important factors. I don't care if the LCD is $2000. For all I know the LCD is a $2000 paper weight. Oh, and dead pixels. Every Viewsonic I've seen in the last two or three years (save one) has had too many dead pixels/spots to make me want one.

 

[Blazestorm]

I had a FW900, the cons outweighed the pros, glad I went to a 24" LCD... Soyo infact for $300, which is what I sold the FW900 for... paid $250 for it 9 months ago.

Either way, no input lag I can see, or tearing... not like my Viewsonic 19" back in 2004... Ghosting was so bad I returned it the same day and went back to my 17" trinitron.

It's of no issue now imo...

 

[mathesar]

I had a FW900, the cons outweighed the pros, glad I went to a 24" LCD... Soyo infact for $300, which is what I sold the FW900 for... paid $250 for it 9 months ago.

Either way, no input lag I can see, or tearing... not like my Viewsonic 19" back in 2004... Ghosting was so bad I returned it the same day and went back to my 17" trinitron.

It's of no issue now imo...

I take it your FW900 wasnt in proper working order? A properly working & calibrated FW900 is hard to beat. Unfortunately its getting harder to find them in top condition due to there age. Im still very happy with mine.

 

[behr]

OK, I see now why people are recommending 20"s. There is more S panels at the lower price.

So, let's suppose there are two LCDs, one smaller and one bigger. They have both the same pixel density and same panel type. Do they have the same image quality or does the bigger have worse?