[Fineus]

The situation...

A games/graphics type who attends fairly regular LANs and therefore has the problem of lugging a 19 inch monitor across the country which weighs a lot... has become interested in LCD screens as a lightweight alternative but has no idea how good they are.

Anyone own one? I'd like it to be at least 17 inches (viewable) and good for graphics work / games...

[Stryke 9]

Me, I can't abide LCDs- the bit how you have to be looking at it just right or you can't see **** gets to me. And I've heard all sorts of stuff about them wearing out over time, too. But I don't know how much they've improved the visibility recently, they certainly are convenient, and I've never had a CRT last long on me, either.

[Cannikin]

LCD's typically are bad for fast-paced action games. Unless it has an exceptionally low reponse time (something like 16ms or less) you'll get a lot of trailing/blurring of images when turning or moving really fast.

[Flaser]

The very problem with LCDs when playing games is also the very reason why they are a dream for any animator of graphics guy:
-They have a completely arranged and geometrically correct grid of molecules.

The problem with games used to be their latency - that is fixed by most new LCD/TFT monitors. So what's the promlem?

The same thing I said above - because they have a certain number of molecules instead a phosporus screen with a mask, they can support only a certain kind of resolutions.
Namely integral divisions of their maximum resoltution.
The problem is with those resolutions where the picture has to be "smeared" to fit it.

I played Freespace 2 on TFT monitor that didn't go fine with 1024x768. I don't know if this problem is the own of all LCD monitors, but unless your games can support its native resolutions - on which they are more than superb - you can have problems.

[Odyssey]

16ms response time isn't all that hard to find these days. On dabs I found a really nice LCD (+DVI, don't get anything without that, otherwise there's practically no point), 15 inch, for under £200, with a 16ms response time. Would buy it if my parents didn't complain about the 3 monitors already cramping up this little desk ^_^

[Flaser]

Originally posted by Odyssey
16ms response time isn't all that hard to find these days. On dabs I found a really nice LCD (+DVI, don't get anything without that, otherwise there's practically no point), 15 inch, for under £200, with a 16ms response time. Would buy it if my parents didn't complain about the 3 monitors already cramping up this little desk ^_^

Did you have any problem with certain resolutions - in FS2 for example?
Did you manage to "test" it more thoroughly?

If yes, and yes; then how did you mange to fix it?

[beatspete]

Flatscreens to me, will always be better since each pixel is filled with 100% of the colour.  On a normal screen green, red, and blue dots are combined to produce colours.  Thus to see a pure colour, ie 100% red, 66% of the screen is actually black.

Stryke - i havent had problems with the angle thing, how much do you actually move about at your computer?

[Zeronet]

Originally posted by Thunder
The situation...

A games/graphics type who attends fairly regular LANs and therefore has the problem of lugging a 19 inch monitor across the country which weighs a lot... has become interested in LCD screens as a lightweight alternative but has no idea how good they are.

Anyone own one? I'd like it to be at least 17 inches (viewable) and good for graphics work / games...

I,ve heard they have odd resolutions.

[ZylonBane]

Originally posted by Flaser
-They have a completely arranged and geometrically correct grid of molecules.

"Pixels". Or "triads", to be even more specific.

Also, bear in mind that "flatscreen" is not synonymous with "LCD". There are flatscreen CRTs too, remember.

Myself, I'm waiting for OLED screens. Super-thin, low power requirements, extremely high saturation and contrast, nearly 180-degree viewing angle, and excellent latency characteristics.

[Black Ace]

Originally posted by ZylonBane
Myself, I'm waiting for OLED screens. Superflat, low power requirements, extremely high saturation and contrast, nearly 180-degree viewing angle, and excellent latency characteristics.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by ZylonBane
Myself, I'm waiting for OLED screens.

Hopefully, my next cellphone:

http://www.lge.com/c_product/mobile/ci_2/gsm_g7030.shtml
http://www.mobile-review.com/review/lg-g7030-en.shtml

[Martinus]

[color=66ff00]Yeah I'm looking forward to OLED, quite a clever bit of technology and cheap to produce in the long run. Gotta love inventive people eh?
[/color]

[Xelion]

Smart Idea OLED screens - hahahah - but by the time some company starts picking that up holographic displays will no doubt be available, even though they will be expensive they will be more advantageous than OLED screens.

Look at the current state where in: CRTs VS LCDs VS Plasmas, in other words; very-cheap VS getting-affordable VS hell-expensive...

But LCD & Plasma displays have there own unique features but both seem to have certain disadvantages people don't know about, of course CRTs do but there more to us than to it - eg like radiation, fatigue, etc but in Plasma/LCD they have pixel problems and power probs, need I go further no!!

On a more positive note and the response to Kalfireth's Q???
Source: Me, Design Graphics, PCPP Mag, Numerous other Mags +  Internet Sources... (note: there might be more advanced LCD displays I've missed).

Definitions & Information about the following features for a monitor can be found here: Click Here

Yahoo Currency Conversion note this will only get a price conversion and will not be inclusive of certain taxes depending on your location and also distance from manufacturing plant (shipping costs)...

Key Note: All display sizes are the viewable areas...
DP = dot pitch
Res = max resolution
B = brightness
C = contrast
Warranty for all displays is 3 years

Acer
Model: AL1931 || 19"
DP: 0.294mm
Res: 1280 x 1024
B: 300 cd/m2
C: 700:1
Price: AUD$1899

Model: AL1721 || 17"
DP: 0.264mm
Res: 1280 x 1024
B: 260 cd/m2
C: 450:1
Price: AUD$959

Model: AL732 || 17"
DP: 0.264mm
Res: 1280 x 1024
B: 260 cd/m2
C: 450:1
Price: AUD$999
Extra feature: Horizontal/Vertical Positioning then previous model


Benq
Model: FP991 || 19"
DP: 0.294mm
Res: 1280 x 1024
B: 350 cd/m2
C: 250:1
Price: AUD$1999

Model: FP791 || 17"
DP: 0.264mm
Res: 1280 x 1024
B: 400 cd/m2
C: 450:1
Price: AUD$1299


Eizo
Model: Flexscan L767 || 19"
DP: 0.294mm
Res: 1280 x 1024
B: 250 cd/m2
C: 500:1
Price: US$1399(AUD$2035)

Model: Flexscan L557 || 17"
DP: 0.264mm
Res: 1280 x 1024
B: 250 cd/m2
C: 500:1
Price: US$789(AUD$1298)


Mitsubishi Electric
Model: DV172/172B || 17"
DP: 0.26mm
Res: 1280 x 1024
B: 260 cd/m2
C: 500:1
Price: AUD$1199

Neovo
Model: X-174 || 17.4"
DP: 0.27mm
Res: 1280 x 1024
B: 220 cd/m2
C: 400:1
Price: US$999 (AUD$2998)


Philips
Model: 180P2G || 18"
DP: ??
Res: 1280 x 1024
B: 250 cd/m2
C: 350:1
Price: AUD$1699

Model: 170B4BB || 17"
DP: ??
Res: 1280 x 1024
B: 250 cd/m2
C: 300:1
Price: AUD$1199


Samsung
Model: SyncMaster 172W || 17"
DP: 0.297mm
Res: 1024 x 768
B: 450 cd/m2
C: 400:1
Price: US$649 (AUD$1499)

Model: SyncMaster 191T || 19"
DP: 0.294mm
Res: 1280 x 1024
B: 250 cd/m2
C: 500:1
Price: US$829 (AUD$1999)


Sony
Model: SDMX82 || 18.1"
DP: 0.2805mm
Res: 1280 x 1024
B: 250 cd/m2
C: 400:1
Price: AUD$1999

Model: SDMHS93 || 19"
DP: 0.294mm
Res: 1280 x 1024
B: 250 cd/m2
C: 700:1
Price: AUD$2009

Model: SDMS81R || 18.1"
DP: 0.2805mm
Res: 1280 x 1024
B: 300 cd/m2
C: 400:1
Price: AUD$2229

Certain features you wana look out for that you might miss are:

-dot pitch (the lower the better)
-dvi cable (can cause quality of picture issues if not the right one)
-and the warranty clause for dead pixels, because one thing you don't want is waiting for 4 dead pixels on screen..until you can claim a new LCD screen

well I hope this helps choosing the right Display

[Nico]

Originally posted by beatspete
Flatscreens to me, will always be better since each pixel is filled with 100% of the colour.  On a normal screen green, red, and blue dots are combined to produce colours.  Thus to see a pure colour, ie 100% red, 66% of the screen is actually black.
 

like you'd actually notice
ah, the geeks, they crack me up.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by beatspete
Flatscreens to me, will always be better since each pixel is filled with 100% of the colour.  On a normal screen green, red, and blue dots are combined to produce colours.  Thus to see a pure colour, ie 100% red, 66% of the screen is actually black.

You are missing a very important point. In real life, an object that absorbs 0% of the light energy along the visible spectrum appears as white. An object that absorbs all the green and blue wavelengths of light will appear "Ferrari red". But notice that last part... that object is not returning all of the light shone upon it... it only returns the 33.33% red spectrum (assuming the light is an evenly balanced "perfect" white light). Therefore, in real life, colored objects do not return "100% of the light, just with a color change"... it is the act of returning less than 100% that gives us color; depending on what part(s) of the spectrum are absorbed and what parts are reflected back, we get different colors.

Think about ultra-violet lights, aka "black lights". They generally give a room a definite purple tinge, hence the violet part of "ultra-violet". And most everyday objects are quite absorbent of UV rays, with one primary exception: certain white objects. With these objects, you see close to 100% of the UV light (which itself is invisible to our eyes) reflected back as white light in the visible spectrum. This is why white objects (most of them) seem to glow under UV light - they simply reflect the light into the color spectrum we can see, whereas the other colored objects do not - at least, not in such quantities.

So getting back to monitors, if 100% red pixels displayed with the same brightness level (the 100% is intensity, or saturation, not brightness, FYI) as 100% pure white, you would see all the red-colored objects unnaturally glowing. This effect can be imitated in Photoshop, btw.

[Xelion]

btw something I didn't mention eariler...when you end up going to the store and you want to choose a particular LCD, ask them to test a game or two on it as well...I've done this a few times in the past and it has worked greatly in my favour.

[Thor]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
I've never had a CRT last long on me, either.

Gee, what the hell did you do to it?  I have many ancient Monitors kicking around (Including a Commodore 64 Monitor, several Amiga Monitors (I use one as a small tv), some ancient 15" models, a 5 year old Sony 15", and then My circa 1997 21" IBM(Now that is a nice monitor, paid $200Cdn), oh, and I have a green monochrome monitor attached to a pet 2001)  So what have you been doing to yours?  

As for LCD's, not worth it for a gamer, yet.  however, I wouldn't mind a pair For running Premier 6.0 on.

[Taristin]

Well, I don't know what I'm talking about here, so ignore me if you must, but what about the active matrix crappies, and plasma screens?  Are they anything?

[Fineus]

Thanks for all your help guys - it seems the overall feedback is that it's not much good for gaming... but I'll just ask if there's a viable alternative to a *odding huge 19 inch monitor that can replicate good color and sizes without loosing performance? Price is an issue sadly...

[Nico]

if price is an issue, the only alternative would be, heh, a smaller screen a 14' is easy to carry. other than than: lighter= more expensive, and that's proportional.