Coming out soon, finally an LCD *I* would find worth buying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD

As usual ppl mistake that we're talking about ghosting... :rolleyes:

I already said I COULDN'T notice the SLIGHTEST ghosting/blur in any game I launched on my bro's 4ms for example (this includes CS/UT/Q3 which are very sensitive to ghosting). That's not it, but every1 seem to think CRT lovers are talking only about ghosting when they say LCDs suck and :banana::banana::banana::banana:. Well it's not, I'm talking about refresh rate myself not response time. I know an LCD doesn't blink but it still has to change colors on the pixels where refresh rate seems to matter. The higher refresh rate the smoother gameplay, some notice this better than others, period. I'm glad I'm not the only1 to think the same one this one, HKPolice seems to share same view. I agree refresh rate doesn't matter as much on LCDs as the screen doesn't flicker, but when there's movements on the screen and the colors has to change, then it seems to matter.

If you don't notice any difference then good for you, I'd wanna move to LCDs myself but I've tried different LCDs at friends place (even a 2ms) but none just could give the same feeling and since I'm able to tell difference also between 60 and 75Hz on a LCD (trust me on this one it's not any difficult for me, I would be using analog 75Hz mode on my bro's LCD rather than DVI which is limited to 60Hz in the native res on his) I'm sure the refresh rate is the problem. If there would appear a 19" LCD with 100Hz and 8ms or faster response time I'd buy it anyday.

Is the technology not allowing it or don't they think it matters or what's the problem, I'm sure the company that made the 1st comp LCD to support 100Hz in the native res would become praised by gamers and sell very well. Of course the native res is still a slight prob with LCDs but it's not anything that would stop me from using one.

---

You're missing the point, tho. Because each pixel does not get "refreshed" there really is NO REFRESHRATE ON LCDs. Because we are dealing with individual pixels and not scan lines the responsetime is effectively the refreshrate. Although you may THINK you're not talking about ghosting, in reality, you are. Not that it's your fault, blame the ambiguous nature of the industry's nomenclature for that.

When it takes 2ms for the pixel to change, it's effectively capable of displaying 500hz. But because the colours produced by an LCD are not just one colour, but a multitude of repeating colours(once again, dithering), the refreshrate term does not apply. When you see one colur, you are effectively seeing the LCD "refresh" itself every few ms, for just one colour. This ends up being FASTER THAN A CRT, as a CRT scans each pixel in succession, and not every every pixel at the same time as an LCD could(assuming the controller can handle such a load).

Cadaveca,

I understand what you are saying about refresh rate for lcds. But the max framerate you can ever get with a 60hz refresh rate, at least with vsync on cuz tearing looks nasty, is 60fps; the comp is only outputting to the display 60 times a second. This IS a problem and manufacturers have been starting to make some LCD's, mainly tv's i think, with refresh rates up to 100hz.

Correct me if this is wrong, but i believe this is correct. If this is true it doesnt matter if the pixel is update 500 times per second, its updating the same color for many of those frames and is therefore just staying static.

also heres a monitor that actually finally sounds decent, from travbomb an NEC employee over at hardforums:

NEC will be launching the LCD2490WUXi this Nov/Dec with the A-TW-IPS panel. I think we will be the first to use it but i am not sure. The 23 inch panels are going to be discontinued across the board at some point here and replaced by 24's but that may not be until beginning of 07.

LCD2490WUXi - Preliminary Specs
$1400
1920x1200
12 bit LUT
Color Comp
Spectraview II Calibratable - Firmware Calibration.
4 Year warranty.
Fully adjustable - Height, swivel, pivot
178/178
500 cd/m2 (based off LG panel spec - not final)
800:1 (based off LG panel spec - not final)
6ms GtG (based off LG panel spec - not final)

Let me know if I forgot anything.

I did read the whole thread and I just wanna add something, having a p90f (crt) and tried a vx922 for a whole month, compared in clone mode, the LCD has a much higher contrast, possibly higher brightness (if set such) and most importantly, perfect geometry. Something I could add is that the first time I plugged the vx922, I felt my mouse was moving differently, setting it @ 75hz somehow fixed the problem, because I was usually running at 85hz on my crt. So it seems that either windows or something is acting up and I was feeling my mouse differently. I did not see ghosting at all on my vx922 but I got some tearing in BF2 which is probably related to the fact that I had vsync off. Another note I could add is that LCDs seem more vulnerable to low fps (sub-40 for my personal preference). It just seems like lag is more affecting my eyes, or something similar. Apart from that, I could see a bit of dithering in photoshop's color gamut but that's it. The overall monitor was better looking for both me and my family, while set in clone mode. Plus LCDs have very small footprints which is a good thing if you have a limited desk space. To conclude, the only thing I didn't like about the vx922 is the tearing I was getting in bf2, but that was due to vsync I suppose.

edit: sorry for double post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mat128

I did read the whole thread and I just wanna add something, having a p90f (crt) and tried a vx922 for a whole month, compared in clone mode, the LCD has a much higher contrast, possibly higher brightness (if set such) and most importantly, perfect geometry. Something I could add is that the first time I plugged the vx922, I felt my mouse was moving differently, setting it @ 75hz somehow fixed the problem, because I was usually running at 85hz on my crt. So it seems that either windows or something is acting up and I was feeling my mouse differently. I did not see ghosting at all on my vx922 but I got some tearing in BF2 which is probably related to the fact that I had vsync off. Another note I could add is that LCDs seem more vulnerable to low fps (sub-40 for my personal preference). It just seems like lag is more affecting my eyes, or something similar. Apart from that, I could see a bit of dithering in photoshop's color gamut but that's it. The overall monitor was better looking for both me and my family, while set in clone mode. Plus LCDs have very small footprints which is a good thing if you have a limited desk space. To conclude, the only thing I didn't like about the vx922 is the tearing I was getting in bf2, but that was due to vsync I suppose.

---

LOL. ALL LCDs have crap contrast compared to CRTs. The best PC LCD only has like a 700:1 contrast ratio or seomthing, CRTs have a near infinite ratio, of course if you wacked up your CRT's brightness to 100% then the contrast ratio changes dramaticly, but if your CRT is functioning properly, it will be able to display optimally at 0% brightness, wich is what mine is set to, blacks look completely black, no light leak at all. EDIT:Also, if i wack up the brightness on my CRT to 100, its bright enough to hurt your eyes, but at that brightness the contrast ratio goes down

My Samsung 215TW has a 1000:1 contrast ratio.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sephiroth8748

My Samsung 215TW has a 1000:1 contrast ratio.

---

And? Thats still nothing compared to CRTs

I have 2000:1 on my LG204WT. Still not as nice as a crt, but it's getting there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kemist

Correct me if this is wrong, but i believe this is correct. If this is true it doesnt matter if the pixel is update 500 times per second, its updating the same color for many of those frames and is therefore just staying static.

---

Yeah, you are right, to a degree. The pixel will "refresh" itself a few times displaying a single colour in order to keep sync with the slowest colour "refresh", as well as to display more colours. A TN panel, for example, as I mentioned before, only has 64 of each yellow, cyan, and magenta, and this only ends up giving some 200,000 colours, but ANY TN panel can display 16.7 or 16.2 million colours by quickly alternating one colour after another. This change happens so fast that we perceive it as a single colour, rather than two or three alternating.

Going from blue to red is very fast, but red to blue is much slower. in order to compensate for this, many colours may be used to make this transition smoother, and sometimes to lengthen the time the colour is displayed. When the timing of this is off, you get ghosting, and under very higher framerates, ghosting is a more common problem, as the pixel has less time in any given state. This is why we see TN panels as "gamer" LCDs...the faster response time means it can display more FPS before ghosting, of course, giving up a bit of colour quality to do so, however and IPS panel, with it's many more colours than a TN, has more colour transitions, so can deal with ghosting in an entirely different way, but, is still slower.

Anyway, this is where things get a bit confusing...in a CRT, a "refresh" is displaying one full screen, top to bottom; how long the cannon takes to "scan" the screen is what we are talking about.

In an LCD, a refresh is simply changing from one colour state to another, assuming the slowest colour transition is displayed only, and not the full range of colours available. An LCD with 60hz refresh can display EVERY colour at a minimum of 60hz...but some can, and are, displayed MUCH faster. And more often than not, it's not really 60hz, it's 62.5hz, but becasue comsumers are used to 60hz, 60hz is listed. But in that 60hz, that screen might actually be refreshed @ 180hz...but due to dithering we don't see it.

But then bring in a IPS panel, that is rated @ 60hz...it displays a far more varied colour palette, so it's refresh is really very different from a TN panel...it can display an almost limitless amount of colours, but it takes a bit longer to do so. It's also does not use as much dithering(depending on the LCD's controller and firmware), and therefore it's 60hz is a far more accurate to the CRT's labelling of "refresh".

response time on an lcd is changing from one colour state and back again, and usally rated @ black to white to black, or grey to white to grey. Obviously, by this standard, when you realize how LCD's work, it's quite obvious that even during that response time the pixel is displaying more than one colour state, and therefore is being "refreshed" more than once to do so.

Yes that makes sense. What i was getting at though is that if you are using Vsync with a 60hz refresh rate you are limited to 60fps. Earlier others were saying that this wasnt an issue, but this is obviously a lot less visual information than 75 or 100fps. Whether or not you can see the difference you can probably feel it with regards to responsiveness.

Well, that's a given, and one of the major reasons that I just got my first LCD a few months ago. I've been used to 1600x1200 @ 85hz, and sure, there is a slight difference in the way games look via the LCD, in regards to framerate, but to me, this is offset by the accuracy of a LCD in comparison to a CRT...a CRT, due to using a lens, will never have the definition of each pixel that a CRT does.

Haha i think the only conclusion we can form from this thread is that LCD vs CRT is personal opinion.

I don't think so. It's more of the application of the device that makes the difference. In all ways a LCD is inferior to a CRT...except size(only in footprint) and consumed materials. A LCD can be much bigger and retain more clarity than a CRT does...and when bigger is better...well...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kemist

Haha i think the only conclusion we can form from this thread is that LCD vs CRT is personal opinion.

---

The arguement is such a joke at times. The crt fanboys never admit that the overall viewing experience on a lcd is much better than a crt a good 70% of the time.

I've seen bad lcds and i get the majority of the arguement. People buy a $170 on sale 19" lcd see ghosting and put that on all lcds across the board. It just isnt that bad with the more quality lcds. To the op, that monitor is crap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrDeeds

The arguement is such a joke at times. The crt fanboys never admit that the overall viewing experience on a lcd is much better than a crt a good 70% of the time.

I've seen bad lcds and i get the majority of the arguement. People buy a $170 on sale 19" lcd see ghosting and put that on all lcds across the board. It just isnt that bad with the more quality lcds. To the op, that monitor is crap.

---

how is the viewing experience better?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrDeeds

The arguement is such a joke at times. The crt fanboys never admit that the overall viewing experience on a lcd is much better than a crt a good 70% of the time.

I've seen bad lcds and i get the majority of the arguement. People buy a $170 on sale 19" lcd see ghosting and put that on all lcds across the board. It just isnt that bad with the more quality lcds. To the op, that monitor is crap.

---

Okay... you can call me a CRT fanboy if you want, but I simply have not seen an LCD that is better (Why would I spend money to get the same?) than my 2x22" Lacie's at an affordable price! (I don't care about Power Consumption or Footprint)

I think you'll find that with a large amount of the poeple still using CRT's by choice.

Oh, and I take objection to you saying that I would compare a el-cheapo 19" to any other monitor... it's like comparing a 14" CRT to my Lacie's... Ths is XS, people are usually better informed. Don't treat us like idiot's, please.

And I'm not even getting into the whole"Mine os better than yours" argument.. I love my viewing experience, you love your's... end of, people are different, with different needs.

ugh my 19inch was 189.99 samsung 940bw, it has 4ms, but i use my viewsonic crt still.

Guys, ultimately it comes down to personal preferences. There is nothing wrong with CRT or LCD. One thing for sure is that LCD will replace CRT eventually as it gets even better. Technology changes to be more efficient, space saving, and a better product. And that is basically what LCD is aiming for. It's fine if you dont think it's better for you but it's a great alternative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrDeeds

The arguement is such a joke at times. The crt fanboys never admit that the overall viewing experience on a lcd is much better than a crt a good 70% of the time.
.

---

Like i said before, this is true with text/desktop stuff, but generally not true for video, and definitely not true for gaming. That probably is 70% of the time but if you are a hardcore gamer it may not be true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrDeeds

The arguement is such a joke at times. The crt fanboys never admit that the overall viewing experience on a lcd is much better than a crt a good 70% of the time.

---

This is simply horse crap (no personal offense). First off there isn't an LCD made (regardless of price) that can keep up with CRT image quality in video and gaming. Not a one. Every LCD I've tried has been been top end, well reviewed, well received, and well complimented by the media and users. And everyone one has had at least some issues with video and gaming compared to my high end crt.

Sorry but having an LCD that "isn't that bad" is not good enough for me. I demand a high quality LCD to be at least on par, if not better, than a high quality CRT. I'm not going to settle for nasty ghosting because its "not that bad." I want zero ghosting in face paced games and videos....Z-E-R-O.

The real truth is that the guys that like the LCDs simply tolerate less than great video and gaming viewing in exchange for better power consumption, smaller footprint, and (sometimes) better text/desktop stuff. More power to em, but I'm not willing to settle in the video and gaming departments.

EDIT- Just for giggles I hit up the local BB ad CC tonight and yet again, disappointment. They had the 204wt noted below, and it looked great except for uneven backlighting, colorbanding, and a little ghosting when playing a FPS. Desktop, IE, and text looked awesome though.

Actually, i think most LCD users that report they are happy have gone from a dying, dark CRT to a new fresh bright LCD, like myself. ALthough the framerate is better, side-by,side to my CRT's, the CRT's suck against the 204wt. Of course, I can hear it now"that's YOUR opinion".

Jeeez, all this warfare between LCD and CRT...

Look, nearly all cards have dual ports on the back right?

Right!

So get a top-notch LCD like the VP2030b (MVA! not cheapotastic ugly pixelation TN panels!) for photoshop/cad/general pc use...

and plug a top-notch CRT (like a diamontron/top shadowmask) to the other port, set the Nvidia/ATI profiles to use the monitor you want for D3D and there you go, sorted.

IMO, its the people that cant afford to buy a decent LCD or justify its purchase which are still living in the dark ages.

My VP2030b is SHARP, solid, colour clarity FAR exceed my old Mitsubishi 22" crt, and DVD's look beautiful, I get NO tearing in f1-2002 with v-sync OFF!!! no pixelation, no gradient crap and no backlight bleeding.

A top-of-the-range MVA panel is the way forward, TN's DO NOT COME CLOSE! and I HAVE tried a lot of panels, believe me, I've been through a 4 month RMA trial of a dozen odd TFT's, the new cheap LG's suck! SERIOUSLY! unless you've tried a VP2030b you dont know how much the difference is between a gneral entry LCD and a TOP-CLASS TFT, the 8ms on top-notch MVA's is normally as acurate as you're gonna get, and there is NO GHOSTING! NO BLEEDING!.... but the TN panels suffer a lot more, the 5ms and less on TN's is achievable in this day and age and current technology advancements, but its still the old-hat tech, and the pixels are visible, its like sitting up-close to a CRT! the whites might be BRILLIANT white but this aint supposed to be a washing-up power commercial! lol

There are some CRT owners who are genuinely not impressed, because they have been exposed to poor setups. I would suggest you look in the yellow-pages and find a design house, walk in and see their TFT's, most likely it will be Eizo or the top-of-the-line Viewsonics, in Mac users case its probably the huge Apple Cinema screens (which are consequently S-IPS, which is a good screen but not the best for FPS games!) This is why I rate the Viewsonic VP2030b soooo highly, its currently using the latest in MVA panels and at the same time its 8ms is REAL! all this 5ms and 2/4ms screens out there, rubbish! put them side by side to an MVA and you will see the difference, it REALLY is night and day... but get a pro to set them up and calibrate the ICM correctly before you fall for the 'see this one is wicked for its price' crap...

A screen is your gateway to the information super-highway and your pleasuere - games/pron whatever takes ya fancy... dont go cheap on it... you tend to keep a good screen a lot longer... look at the old diamondtron screen hardcore users for example!

Anyway thats my peice!

:)

I don't know where you get dying dark CRTs from...I have my CRT set to 0% brightness, at that its bright enough for everything. If I whack it upto 100%, its bright enough to hurt my eyes.

I believe SED technology will be the winner out of them all.

for those who dont know,
Instead of one big electron gun like in CRTs, there is a tiny electron gun for each pixel. It will have the same space profile as a LCD, but all the things that make CRTs rock

CRT guy: "buts i looked at teh lcd's at the local BB and they looked like teh :banana::banana::banana::banana:! it doesnt matter that those places have multiple monitors set up on a single, overly long piece of low quality vga cable instead of a decent dedicated quality DVI cable! lcd=teh shti because teh crt is teh 1337"


sorry all you crt fans, but lcd's have something crts will never have, perfect geometry and uniform pixel clarity.

This just keeps going back and forth. For the guys that say LCD/CRT is "teh uBer Roxxorrs 200056375x more beTTAR than teh oTohher 4 everyTHIngz". Here's a quote i saw over at [H], "Nobody can say CRT > LCD or LCD > CRT. As with so many other things in life, there are tradeoffs and depending on your application one will be better suited than the other."

The people saying that those that like CRT just havent tried high end LCD, this just doesnt fit, you can find many high end videophiles that still mourn the death of CRT because LCD/Plasma just cant compare in some ways. Likewise CRT isnt the king of everything; perfect geometry is nice, and so is text quality on LCD, but they both have their advantages and disadvantages and if you are able to delude yourself into believing that this isnt true for either then feel free. Like i said, i have a CRT and an LCD and use them for different things, the things that they are best used for respectively.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeStSiDePLaYa

CRT guy: "buts i looked at teh lcd's at the local BB and they looked like teh :banana::banana::banana::banana:! it doesnt matter that those places have multiple monitors set up on a single, overly long piece of low quality vga cable instead of a decent dedicated quality DVI cable!"

---

Actually, for the record, I've purchased 5 LCDs in the last 18 months, had each them at my house, connected all of them to my top end gaming systems with DVI cable.......and they still looked like CRAP when gaming. Ignoring the poor color reproduction and backlight bleeding, they were simply blurry playing fast paced FPS games.

LOL...I was told "you'll get used it." But, I don't want to have to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kemist

The people saying that those that like CRT just havent tried high end LCD, this just doesnt fit, you can find many high end videophiles that still mourn the death of CRT because LCD/Plasma just cant compare in some ways.

---

This is me. I don't dis the LCDs. As a matter of fact, my first post on this thread indicated just how bad I'd like an LCD. For general desktop use they are awesome. Not too mention the real estate and power savings too. They also simply look cool. I'd have one in a heartbeat if they could look good with faced paced gaming.

Perhaps others here on this thread have said CRTs>LCDs....I know I haven't. But I HAVE said that when it comes to fast paced gaming there still isn't an LCD that compares to CRT.....yet.

I think a lot of the arguement comes from tghe LCD guys that do not want to admit they have had to "settle" for something less in gaming when moving to LCD. As has been said...its a trade off between the technologies, nothing more. And, for me personally, a great gaming experience is paramount...therefore my preference to CRT......until now!! :eek: (that's right.....see below).