• 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.

Unimpressed with current LCD's

S

skullone

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 22, 2005
Messages
91
Well, I've been trying to keep an LCD for a couple months now -- I've now owned three.
Originaly bought an Acer 17", cant recall the model, but it was supposed to be pretty fast, with good color representation.
It had horrible contrast (for an advertised 700:1), horrible backlight bleed, and for the life of it, could not produce "black".
Returned it for a Viewsonic VX924, sites gave it usualy 8/10 on the reviews, said it was crisp, very little lag, with deep blacks.
Wrong. Granted, I couldn't get the thing to ghost (had great response time), the colors were horrible, and it too had bad backlight bleed on all the sides.
Then I got a Dell 1905 from recomendations on this site -- best one yet, but falls short on response time and producing shadows and black near eachother.

If I could, I would spend $500 on an LCD, just for it to be "perfect". I just want a 19" display, fast response times, no backlight bleed, and -excellent- contrast and color representation.
I have in front of me a Mitsubishi 930SB CRT. This is what LCD's should strive for (save for geometry, thats a CRT thing).

Why are LCD's comparatively so bad bad to CRT's?
And dont tell me not to compare a LCD to a CRT, both of them should display a reasonable picture.
And dont say "LCD's always look bad next to a high-end CRT". Then why am I paying a high-end price for all of these LCD's?

Is there ANY LCD that will meet my goals, or am I stuck with a high-end CRT for the foreseeable future?

Please give me some hope that I can have a high-end LCD soon :(
 
If you're obsessed about finding something more perfect for image quality on an LCD than CRT you're not going to find it.

Why do people have LCD's then? It's other benefits like, weight, size, power consumption, perfect geometry, easier on the eyes, and for text.

In order for LCD's to be quick they have to make certain sacrifices to do so. Some people weigh these sacrifices and still find it to be worth it, some do not.

I personally bought two 2005fpw's after using my trusty P95f+b and never looked back.
 
I know about the tradeoffs... but LCD's have been around for many years, and I would think a lot of those tradeoffs would be mute points now, with advancements in technology.

Right now, I just want to drop some cold hard cash on a "GREAT" LCD.
My defenition of "great" right now will be between $400-$700, 19-20" display, with good response times, and good color representation.

I'm really needing an LCD before a LAN part here on Feb 17th (PDX LAN, 500 people).
I dont want to cart my CRT there.. need just a high-end LCD to take to this LAN party :(
 
LCD's will allways suffer from thier associated problems, there is no solution. Basically its the side effects of the technology, you can continue improving them but thats it. LCD's are no comparison to CRT's when it comes to colour accuracy, contrast ratio,response time etc..., and you can yap/argue all you want.
 
Just due to how LCDs work they will always have some issues with black levels/contrast and response time compared to CRTs, however, there are some LCDs out there that do very well in these areas.

Check out the Dell 2001fp (if they still make it), I have one, bought it 2 years ago or maybe more, and it has very acceptable black levels and contrast (I think it is only rated at 400:1, but visually, it looks great, I can see all of the details in games even in dark scenes, and it is acceptable, though not ideal, for DVD viewing). The colors are very vivid and pure on it.

As for why do people go for them? Text is much sharper, as is the overall picture, no flicker, no blurriness, and for a computer monitor, I don't need perfect black levels or contrast. I am not using it as a home theater display, and desktop work doesn't require perfect blacks.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
...I personally bought two 2005fpw's after using my trusty P95f+b and never looked back.
Click to expand...

Hey I'm using the Viewsonic P95f+b right now. It has been trusty. Good monitor and only $300. But big. I accidentally dropped it from a height of about 3.5 feet when I first got it several years ago and it's still working great to this day.

But I'm with Skullone for now. Some things are impressive about LCD but most look fairly bad at non-native resolutions. I'm trying to make it to SED with this CRT but I'm getting bitten by the wide-screen bug. I also want to watch HDTV on mine so I'm hoping more will come out with HDCP soon.
 
I have a Samsung 740b, and I was skeptical of the quality at LCDs at first, but once I got this one -- my first -- I was pretty surprised.

I decided to get a quality 17" instead of a cheapo 19", and that was definitely the right choice to make. At the native res, it's pretty much as good as my old trusty CRT. The only thing I notice lacking from the CRT -> LCD transition is that there is less of a color range, ie, they're less vivid. However, that is a given when you consider how bright LCDs are.

I think it's a YMMV issue, depending on what you're used to.
 
I bought a Samsung 940b, and I couldn't be happier. I'm extremely picky about how my images look, and have bought and returned LCDs before. This one is great.
 
iJeff said:
I have a Samsung 740b, and I was skeptical of the quality at LCDs at first, but once I got this one -- my first -- I was pretty surprised.

I decided to get a quality 17" instead of a cheapo 19", and that was definitely the right choice to make. At the native res, it's pretty much as good as my old trusty CRT. The only thing I notice lacking from the CRT -> LCD transition is that there is less of a color range, ie, they're less vivid. However, that is a given when you consider how bright LCDs are.

I think it's a YMMV issue, depending on what you're used to.
Click to expand...

The color range on the 40b series is less vivid because they use 6-bit panels to acieve an 8ms average response time. 8-bit panels like the dell 1905fp sacrifice response times for more accurate colors. Some people don't even notice the difference, however.
 
I think one thing we should mostly agree on is that the OP should definitely NOT buy a LCD. Can just tell you won't like them. You don't want to be convinced the LCDs you saw were "one-offs" or setup incorrectly. You don't like them end of story. The viewsonics with good response time don't have the greatest contrast ratio or blacks, and the ones better at blacks have response rate tradeoffs. They've come a long way to some extent, but if you think "ick" when you see one, stay away.
 
Rereading I see stuff about LANs. Ok, so yeah there is one reason to buy one right there. But there you go... be realistic. Deal with it or not.
 
LCDs built in the last year or so are getting noticeably better. Less dead pixels, less bleed issues. My only real complaint any more is that the contrast ratios still kinda suck. Even on better displays. 800:1 and 1000:1 still doesn't cut it compared to plasmas.
 
plasma is a different technology and not meant for computer use, they suffer from other problems which make them more suitable for movie/display usage:

* blurry image.
* colour bleeding.
* noise.
* degradation in image quality over time.
* low life.
 
I'm looking foward to:

Samsung 940bf 2-4ms
Hyundai Q90u 3ms
Benq FP93GX 2ms

If you can't find an LCD just stick with a CRT. I sold my Dell 1905fp and Viewsonic VP930b on Ebay because I wasn't happy with their Motion-Blur. Now, I'm back to my 19" NEC CRT which does great in games.
 
I thought they had or were creating thin CRT's no? less then a few inches in thickness - so u get the size of an LCD almost but the benefits of CRT - i know i read about this!
 
If it's using CRT technology then are we going to still have some geometry, convergence, and focus issues? That's mainly why I stopped using them other than the fact they weighed a ton (should be fixed with this though).
 
-=Antimatter=- said:
The color range on the 40b series is less vivid because they use 6-bit panels to acieve an 8ms average response time. 8-bit panels like the dell 1905fp sacrifice response times for more accurate colors. Some people don't even notice the difference, however.
Click to expand...

I have used both and can tell the difference. I use 2 1905fp at work. They are great for that. I use a 19 crt at home for games and movies.

I do have a used 15" dell 1505 for lan parties. It's easy to move and has 15ms response. I do fine with it.
 
Riptide_NVN said:
If it's using CRT technology then are we going to still have some geometry, convergence, and focus issues? That's mainly why I stopped using them other than the fact they weighed a ton (should be fixed with this though).
Click to expand...

Nope, mixed blessing really. I will butcher this, but you will at least have an understanding.....

For SEDs, each pixel is lit on the same concepts as CRT, but each pixel is like a miny crt. High res CRTs are deep by definition, so the ray guns have proper spacing for high res. In order to beam out 1920*1200, my FW900 is deep like a mofo. Older CRTS are round, because as you can imagine, the ray guns and cast of light spread out, and have to be redirected to not be some bubbly round mess, which is done much better in later models.

LCDs have a native res. Each pixel is a certain size, and they can't just go *clink clonk* into a new res, each pixel is it's own. There is no shadow mask, no aperture grille. SEDs will produce there image similar to the CRT, cathode ray gun concept, but as each pixel has it's own ray gun, there will be no imperfect geometry. It's a perfect grid of pixels, each casting there color by their "mini gun." Why is this a mixed blessing? For hardcore image freaks it's not, but I'm guessing SEDs will bring the "native res" curse with it. You'll want to shoot for optimal res 100% of the time. SInce this is rarely complaint number one and I'm sure you put up with this for LCDs, then naturally, contrast ratios and response times that murder and bury LCD specs will appeal to you.
 
The explanation makes sense. Thankyou.

I can see at this point I'm going to make my current display last a few years and by then these should be out and more reasonable in price. As it is I'm pretty happy with my display except for the black levels.
 
Yeah, i would say just keep your current display and wait for SED prices to come down, but if you really really want a better monitor now, or soon, or if there just so happens to be a great deal on it, then i would aim for the Dell 2005.
 
skullone said:
I know about the tradeoffs... but LCD's have been around for many years, and I would think a lot of those tradeoffs would be mute points now, with advancements in technology.

Right now, I just want to drop some cold hard cash on a "GREAT" LCD.
My defenition of "great" right now will be between $400-$700, 19-20" display, with good response times, and good color representation.

I'm really needing an LCD before a LAN part here on Feb 17th (PDX LAN, 500 people).
I dont want to cart my CRT there.. need just a high-end LCD to take to this LAN party :(
Click to expand...

I don't know if you're going to find anything 'great' either. My experience with the 2005fpw has been great. Some people have had their share of problems with it however.

You're basically just going to have to stick to your CRT or just make a compromise. It seems however from the way you've stated things that 'technology' isn't where you want it to be yet, and you're not ready to make the compromise. So I recommend you simply avoid LCD's for now.
 
Skullone: you can't form an opinion on all current lcds with the knowledge you've gained from the models you bought. The Viewsonic and probably the 17" were TN panels, which are known to have poor CR and color reproduction. Then you buy an old PVA panel which ghosts a lot. What you need to get is a 2405FPW. 'nuf said
 
Sparrow_69 said:
Skullone: you can't form an opinion on all current lcds with the knowledge you've gained from the models you bought. The Viewsonic and probably the 17" were TN panels, which are known to have poor CR and color reproduction. Then you buy an old PVA panel which ghosts a lot. What you need to get is a 2405FPW. 'nuf said
Click to expand...

Then you get to deal with a slight input lag , depending on what type of games you play this might not be acceptable (wouldnt work for me, FPS online gamer) This has been covered here and here. Plus I still havent seen an LCD that comes close to a CRTs black level performance ,the 2405fpw does pretty well here but still loses some details in dark scenes & games, plus slight motion blur.

I'm with texuspete00 on this one..I've always been very picky with overall image quality so LCD just wont cut it for me, sticking with my FW900 CRT until something better comes along.
 
Riptide_NVN said:
LCDs built in the last year or so are getting noticeably better. Less dead pixels, less bleed issues.
Click to expand...

Hence one of the primary reasons I went with a Philips 150B3 a few years ago.. Zero dead pixel guarantee! :)
 
Sparrow_69 said:
Skullone: you can't form an opinion on all current lcds with the knowledge you've gained from the models you bought. The Viewsonic and probably the 17" were TN panels, which are known to have poor CR and color reproduction. Then you buy an old PVA panel which ghosts a lot. What you need to get is a 2405FPW. 'nuf said
Click to expand...

Friend of mine has a 2405FPW, and to run games at high quality at it's native res, I'll need to drop $2500 on a new system.
Plus, I did see input lag, wasn't horrible, but it would drive me nuts if I had to make very fine movements in a game or some such.
I figure I'll just stick with the LCD I have now, use it for LAN's and whatnot, then throw it away or give it to my mother (she doesn't care about image quality) once SED comes out.
If I could, I would buy a SED prototype for $5,000 just so I can a perfect screen.

I'll admit, I'm a hard person to please when it comes to displays... but I've got the money to blow, and there isn't a company making a product to fit my needs yet.
Just hope they make SED displays smaller than 40 inches...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top