Roach's LCD Guide for Idiots in the 21st Century

R

R0achTheWarHero

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
488
Soooo, you are going to buy an LCD but you're like omg Roach I am a noob, what LCD should I buy? Well I'm glad you asked. First we will cover:

Size
-------
- 15inch - do they even make these anymore?
- 17inch 4:3 - waste of time
- 17inch 16:10 - is this a joke?
- 19inch 4:3 - pretty dumb idea considering how cheap bigger ones are
- 19inch 16:10 - wow you got ripped off
- 20inch 4:3 - the first panel to consider, if you don't want to spend a lot and like 4:3 aspect ratio this is your option, the vertical viewing height is just enough to not be irritating
- 20inch 16:10 - SEEMS like a good idea at first, later on you will notice the vertical height is too short and wish you got something else
- 22inch 16:10 - If you're a cheap ass and want the biggest screen per dollar spent ratio then this is your choice, also the smallest 16:10 screen that has a large enough vertical height to not drive you insane
- 24inch 16:10 - you will probably be considered a pretty kool dood if you got one of these, probably score lots of chicks or mantrains or whatever it is you do
- 26-27inch 16:10 - would recommend this over the 24 if you can afford it, same rez but the dot pitch difference isn't a problem at all
-30inch 16:10 - not recommended, price is high, backlight issues are bad, resolution is very high and requires dual link cable and video card, poor for gaming usually even if running SLI with 2 highend graphics cards, 26 or 27inch probably better choice even if you have the money for 30' unless you have to get an IPS screen because they are more abundant in 30inches than 26-27.


Panel Type, Ghosting Effects, Color/Contrast and Appearance:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TN - 6bit + dithering : TN panels have come a long way and panels such as the Samsung 226bw S panel actually display similar color to many PVA/MVA/IPS panels, most don't though. The appearance of the monitor can be described as a bunch of fine grains of sand packed together or grainy in general. The type of ghosting seen on this panel type can best be described as a blur of solid mass with no transparency. If you're an artist or photoshopper on a budget, a calibrated 22inch S panel will work good. Samsung is the only TN panel manufacturer I know of that makes TN panels passable for photo work so don't bother attempting it with a chi mei or other brand unless they get their act together.

IPS 8bit - This panel type is the best for photoshop or artists, the sole reason is viewing angle. Many claim IPS panels have the best color but thats not really true, PVA panels and some MVA are doing just as good in the color department while having higher contrast at the same time, the only problem is VA panel technology has an inherent "black crush" effect on dark areas that hide detail. Being an artist myself, I can tell you there is really no workaround for dealing with black crush effect in drawing or editing workflow. If anything, trying to compensate for this effect would probably give you some bad habits that would make you a worse artist over time or just basically drive you crazy and end up selling the monitor. Panel appearance and ghosting of IPS appears similar to TN panels except with better color representation and similar to TV viewing angles.

MVA/PVA 8bit - As mentioned above, usually the best contrast ratio of panels, similar color accuracy of IPS panels. In terms of panel appearance and ghosting, MVA/PVA are completely different than IPS and TN though. Some will disagree but I'm going to go out on a limb and tell you that MVA/PVA does not look as natural as IPS and TN (based on experience with the LG246 MVA panel and Dell 2405 PVA panel). Whereas most TN and IPS panels appear to look like the image was created with fine grains of sand or "grainy", the MVA/PVA image appears slightly "muddy" kind of like it was created with high resolution crayons is the best way to describe it. The ghosting effect of these panels is completely different than TN and IPS. Instead of leaving behind a solid blurred mass in movement, these panels will usually leave more of a translucent ghost, there is still a blur of the solid mass but the majority of the ghost apperance length will usually be the translucent image.

*Will finish the rest later
 
I take it that from all your other threads that you still haven't gotten that nobody wants your opinion?

Basically, you said the only monitors worth buying are a 24 inch or 26/27 inch. Yeah, thats real bright :rolleyes:
 
Not sure whether he's trying to earn a sticky or antagonise.

Failing either way, really. Unlucky, son.
 
I think this thread is great and look forward for Roach to finish.
I am a CRT gamer right now and this will help me decide on an LCD.
I tried a 20" NEC LCD and was not happy. Roach hit it right on the money and called out the vertical space issues. I have not seen anyone to this point comment on how 20" widescreens are too verticaly small.

Good job Roach!!!!.

If you dont like his post, then dont read it. Even worse, why even spend your time commenting.
 
Don't we have a sticky very similar to this..(panel types anyways). This post kinda seems redundant, who needs someone to tell them what monitor size to buy?
 
DeadByDawn said:
If you dont like his post, then dont read it. Even worse, why even spend your time commenting.
Click to expand...

Because it isn't entirely correct, frequently contradictory, often confuses opinion for fact and is poorly written?
 
peacetilence said:
Why are you all being so hard on the guy? With some people's advice on here everyone would be expected to be using 180" digital projectors for monitors and a pair of Nautilus speakers for their 128kb/s mp3 collection, anything else wouldn't be [H]ard enough :rolleyes:. He's giving decent common sense advice.
Click to expand...

mp3s? Bah! FLAC is where it's at!! :D
 
DeadByDawn said:
I think this thread is great and look forward for Roach to finish.
I am a CRT gamer right now and this will help me decide on an LCD.
I tried a 20" NEC LCD and was not happy. Roach hit it right on the money and called out the vertical space issues. I have not seen anyone to this point comment on how 20" widescreens are too verticaly small.

Good job Roach!!!!.

If you dont like his post, then dont read it. Even worse, why even spend your time commenting.
Click to expand...
Feel free to follow this "guide" to help you make a buying decision but...trust me when I say that you are much better off researching on your own.;)
 
taylorwilsdon said:
Basically, you said the only monitors worth buying are a 24 inch or 26/27 inch. Yeah, thats real bright :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Exactly, worthless advice right here, the intent may have been good, but there is so much bias and assumptions in it that is worthless. Ever think people buy 17" and 19" because thats all they can afford?
 
"Basically, you said the only monitors worth buying are a 24 inch or 26/27 inch. Yeah, thats real bright"

It says
20" 4:3
22" 16:10
24" 16:10
26/27" 16:10
 
Useless guide, which doesn't even deserve to be called that.

Many people believe 26-27" are no good. 26-27" screens are arguably the worst buy you can make. For a few hundred more you can get 30" or for around half the price you can get a 24." Unless your eyes seriously cannot take 24" should you even consider 27", and if you're considering 27" you might as well cough up 200-300 more bucks for a 30."

20" screens don't have unbearable vertical height.

19" screens aren't ripoffs either. Some people simply can't afford more.
 
DeadByDawn said:
If you dont like his post, then dont read it.
Click to expand...
How can you tell you don't like a post without reading it?
----
What if the dot pitch on a 20" is too small for your eye sight but you don't have room for anything bigger?
 
well after reading that all i can say is at least your title is accurate.
 
IMO, the best budget LCD is a 20in....why, cause they're not much more expensive than a 19, and still 1 inch bigger, also they have 1680x1050 vs 1440x900 res.

I consider TN panels more than capable for games and text, but ordinary for HDTV.

If it wasn't for HDTV, I'd nominate any 8bit 24inch as the "real deal", but with 2.35 aspect ratio's costing you screen size, you're looking at a very skinny HDTV/DVD image on a 24.

I plan to get a 27 inch Dell or Samsung with my upcoming PC.
 
peTeMelster said:
Useless guide, which doesn't even deserve to be called that.

26-27" screens are arguably the worst buy you can make. For a few hundred more you can get 30" or for around half the price you can get a 24."
Click to expand...

It's amazing that you call my guide useless then post a bunch of completely wrong information.

What do we have here, a wide gamut 26inch for $650 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009101

Thats the same price as a 24 inch. Sure doesn't look like "double the price of a 24" to me. And a 30 is much more than "a couple hundred more dollars".

And just in case another fool wanders along saying "you are stupid it's not wide gamut" :

http://www.behardware.com/articles/658-1/lcd-tests-the-acer-and-dell-26-and-27.html
 
Nope, quite the useless guide.

I can hardly stop laughing at the fact that you would even link that POS 26" monitor to support your claims. Such a hypocrite. Especially coming from you, someone who is clearly overly critical of virtually all monitors. That 26" you linked will satisfy no one with your standards (which are clearly implied from all your posts, including your original post in this thread), so do us a favor and stop being the hypocrite.

A quality 24" monitor ($600-800+) will serve much better than that junk 26" monitor you linked, so don't even try to debate me. These arguments are all from your own perspective.

Hell, if you want to play that game, I just saw a 28" Viewsonic, that's right twenty-EIGHT inch for $650, but will it satisfy people according to your standards...absolutely not. Please...

A quality 26-27" monitor costs over $1,000. Check out the Dell 2707, the Samsung 27" incher for example.

I'm afraid you are quite wrong. The 30" is a mere 200-300 bucks more.

Price of Dell 2707 $1,019: http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=222-7315
Price of Dell 3007-HC $1,269: http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=222-7175

Generally speaking, you can purchase two 22" monitors for the price of one 24". And you can buy two 24" for the price of one 30".
 
Acer doesn't make the panel so saying that the panel is crap just makes you look more dumb since it's a samsung S-PVA panel just like the Dell. Other components such as those that scale or control backlight can make a difference and Acer could screw those up but I'm not a scaling whore personally and time and time again Dell has proved they are more than capable of screwing up those components too so it's a gamble no matter which one you pick. All I care about is how the picture looks while connected to a computer not a ps2 and if there is huge input lag or unbearable ghosting, nothing else.

You will notice that the monitor comes down to a 0,4 delta value after calibration, EQUAL to the Dell which is double the price. You would have to be a fool to pay double the price for the Samsung monitor that is doing the same performance and you proved thats what you are with your response.

Acer AL2616wd $650
Dell 2707 $1,019
Dell 3007-HC $1,269

Double the price, get out of my house with your nonsense and stop making yourself look like a fool unless you think a nicer case is worth $400 for the same quality panel.
 
Planar PX2611W 26" is supposed to be a decent wide gamut S-IPS monitor also, its around $1000. I am thinking of pulling the trigger on one myself. :D
 
i'd say the advise on getting good framerates out of a 30" monitor with SLI is spot on.

The guide isnt too bad, some are just in denial over a couple of points.

There are definitely some valid points there.
 
DeadByDawn said:
I think this thread is great and look forward for Roach to finish.
I am a CRT gamer right now and this will help me decide on an LCD.
I tried a 20" NEC LCD and was not happy. Roach hit it right on the money and called out the vertical space issues. I have not seen anyone to this point comment on how 20" widescreens are too verticaly small.

Good job Roach!!!!.

If you dont like his post, then dont read it. Even worse, why even spend your time commenting.
Click to expand...

What size CRT did you have previously? Because as far as I can tell a 20" WS is approixmately the same physical vertical height as a 19" CRT. Now in games a 19" CRT can look fine at 1600x1200 but for desktop it depends upon what desktop res one used. The drop from 1200 to 1050 isn't huuge though anyway.

But really to each his own, visual perception is different for everyone so what some like some others might not.


As for the 'don't comment unless you have something nice to say' er...as long as people are nicer than roach tends to be :rolleyes: there's nothing wrong with giving differing views.
 
- 20inch 16:10 - SEEMS like a good idea at first, later on you will notice the vertical height is too short and wish you got something else
- 22inch 16:10 - If you're a cheap ass and want the biggest screen per dollar spent ratio then this is your choice, also the smallest 16:10 screen that has a large enough vertical height to not drive you insane
Click to expand...
Considering I have both of those sizes of monitors I will say these two things:

One the vertical viewing height is not too short on my 20 inch and I have never even thought something like that, and I came from a 20 inch CRT.

Two don't call me a cheap ass you dumb fuck (I can call people names too), I'm 17 and don't have as much money as most people. I'm sorry I don't drop 1000usd on a monitor 'cause I like to watch movies and play games. I've already spend thousands on equipment and have a 37 inch TV, why would I bother with something bigger?
 
R0achTheWarHero said:
It's amazing that you call my guide useless then post a bunch of completely wrong information.

What do we have here, a wide gamut 26inch for $650 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009101

Thats the same price as a 24 inch. Sure doesn't look like "double the price of a 24" to me. And a 30 is much more than "a couple hundred more dollars".

And just in case another fool wanders along saying "you are stupid it's not wide gamut" :

http://www.behardware.com/articles/658-1/lcd-tests-the-acer-and-dell-26-and-27.html
Click to expand...

neither acer or newegg seem to call this monitor wide gamut, only one review site. furthermore as one reads the user reviews at newegg this 26 inch monitor is clearly inferior to better 24 inch panels for a number of reasons. one should not look at a larger monitor and say wow!! it only costs as much as a 24, what you should be asking yourself is WHY a larger panel would ONLY cost as much as a 24, the answer??? CHEAP DEFECTIVE HARDWARE.......DANGER WILL ROBINSON DANGER
 
Powerage said:
Considering I have both of those sizes of monitors I will say these two things:

One the vertical viewing height is not too short on my 20 inch and I have never even thought something like that, and I came from a 20 inch CRT.

Two don't call me a cheap ass you dumb fuck (I can call people names too), I'm 17 and don't have as much money as most people. I'm sorry I don't drop 1000usd on a monitor 'cause I like to watch movies and play games. I've already spend thousands on equipment and have a 37 inch TV, why would I bother with something bigger?
Click to expand...


you will lose vertical height on a widescreen monitor that is less than 22 inches as compared to a standard aspect ratio found on a CRT monitor or a non wide LCD monitor. So if you are shopping for a monitor that is less than 22 inches widescreen, go with a non wide monitor as the vertical real estate will be far more useful than the wide in a 19 or 20 inch lcd. that said there are several 22 inch widescreen monitors that should be in your price range so why not splurge on one of them??
 
applebook said:
The Acer is fairly well reviewed, but it's clearly inferior to the 2707.
Click to expand...

The acer is reviewed as having the same color post calibration and being faster for pixel response. The only problem with the acer is that their first revision didn't do native 1920x1200 on dvi due to some digital content protection that kicked in even while not watching movies but a dual link dvi cable bypassed it somehow. I haven't heard a single bad thing about it besides the case sucking and the dvi issue but for 400 dollars less than the dell I could live with a semi-ugly case.
 
Man, this getting ridiculous. It's obvious which monitor the OP has and very disturbing that he needs the self-validation from defending his choice in monitors and insulting everyone else in the process. :rolleyes:

/rant
 
"Man, this getting ridiculous. It's obvious which monitor the OP has and very disturbing that he needs the self-validation from defending his choice in monitors and insulting everyone else in the process"

Nope, you actually stole the line that I used about a lot of people I see on this forum because thats all I see people doing here and they get mad when you say something negative about the monitor they own. I'm not biased for any particular one. i got a LG246WP and the text is kinda blurry but otherwise it's decent (and a 20wmgx2 in the closet) and didn't mention either one in this thread. Looks like your "very disturbing" comment applies to yourself since your attempt at psychology was very disturbing due to being completely wrong, don't quit your day job o_O
 
Typical Roach post. I wonder if the "warhero" part in his name actually is true and he has gotten some kind of depression and delusions from wherever he was.

I mean let's face it: his "guide" was nothing but a rant and there is no useful information in it at all. There are no pro's / con's, no recomendations, no nothing that would even remotely count as a guide. Roach has become the George Bush of these forums: When he posts, people expect to either laugh or shake their heads in disbelief.
 
It just seems to me that this guy Roach has very very discerning taste in monitors so he's probably a graphic artist or something. Nothing wrong with having your own opinions man, but you shouldn't try and bully other people into thinking they have to get a 24 or 26" monitor to be happy. I've got a friend who's using a 15" lcd with a contrast ratio probably not exceeding 500:1 and he won't hear a word against it, it works fine for his purposes. I've tried to get him to upgrade, but he's just not having any of it, so I just let him be.

Not trying to bash anyone here, I'm just saying that no one has to treat this guide as the "end-all, be-all" official lcd handbook. Take what you need from it and move on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top