i held out just as long as anybody buying an LCD to replace my beauty 19" CRT...
the ONLY area where it was a noticeable downgrade was in the black levels.
the LCD - smaller footprint. less heat. less power consumption. widescreen. higher resolution. brighter. perfect geometry. built in card reader. matches the rest of my setup.
There is an enormous thread on HardOCP singing the praises of this fine monitor. I use it myself and it's quite excellent.
People keep posting without reading the OP... 340 is too much!
Then you will be getting a tiny LCD monitor, that's not widescreen and has a mediocre refresh rate. There's no point in comparing them below $200 because they're all the same. Stick to a CRT because there's no point to owning an LCD 19" or smaller.
i held out just as long as anybody buying an LCD to replace my beauty 19" CRT...
the ONLY area where it was a noticeable downgrade was in the black levels.
the LCD - smaller footprint. less heat. less power consumption. widescreen. higher resolution. brighter. perfect geometry. built in card reader. matches the rest of my setup.
LCDs will never come close to even matching CRTs for resolution. Pixels per inch is way the fuck higher on a CRT. Not to mention CRTs have better brightness, contrast ratio, response time, etc. Size and heat and the lack of widescreen format monitors are the only downsides.
Thats one of the biggest lies going on in gaming today. If your game supports widescreen, and it's been a long long time since i've encountered a new game that doesn't, it is fucking AMAZING.
Really... I encounter more games that do not support it than those that do. Of course, they've been shitty EA titles. Battlefield, NFS: Carbon, etc. The widescreen hacks cut your field of view and have caused crashes for me at times.
That is just bad programming. Widescreen support is now required for "Gaming for Windows" certification so I think that problem will be resolved in future titles. Gaming is where widescreen really shines because you usually spend more time looking side to side than looking up and down.
I used a 17" LCD monitor with a 16ms refresh rate and a contrast ratio of 450:1 for several years without any issues. I prefer it over a CRT the same size because there is more viewable area and the colors seem more vibrant. Everything lower than 1024*768/2xAA looked like ass though.
2005fpw is still the best gadget in our house. Everyone watches movies and television in my room because the monitor is sex. I've got my ps2 running in through s-video, and while it's not ideal, it still looks great. Which reminds me, I've got some God of War to be playing right now in Picture-in-Picture.
Games are programming. Whether or not it's good or bad bares no relevance to the point that not all games support widescreen, even modern games (and pretty much no older titles).
I wish I could tell my drivers to resize images in multiples of the game's base resolution whilst cropping the rest.
"Oh, 1600x1200 monitor and a 800x600 game? No problem, we'll just double all pixels. No, no fucking filtering."
Alas, all I have is either monitor scaling (fuzzy) or 1:1 and cropping via drivers (which is tiny).
There is an enormous thread on HardOCP singing the praises of this fine monitor. I use it myself and it's quite excellent.
People keep posting without reading the OP... 340 is too much!
Then you will be getting a tiny LCD monitor, that's not widescreen and has a mediocre refresh rate. There's no point in comparing them below $200 because they're all the same. Stick to a CRT because there's no point to owning an LCD 19" or smaller.
Samsung SyncMaster 941BW
that monitor is 220 and a poster said it's damn great. I don't need the LCD to be huge when I ave a 27 inc HDTV right behind me. I only need it to do artwork and I just wanna make sure if I wanna play a game I can.
There is an enormous thread on HardOCP singing the praises of this fine monitor. I use it myself and it's quite excellent.
People keep posting without reading the OP... 340 is too much!
Then you will be getting a tiny LCD monitor, that's not widescreen and has a mediocre refresh rate. There's no point in comparing them below $200 because they're all the same. Stick to a CRT because there's no point to owning an LCD 19" or smaller.
Samsung SyncMaster 941BW
that monitor is 220 and a poster said it's damn great. I don't need the LCD to be huge when I ave a 27 inc HDTV right behind me. I only need it to do artwork and I just wanna make sure if I wanna play a game I can.
This just seems weird to me. I equate the following statements as being equally baffling:
"I JUST need the monitor to do artwork on"
and
"I don't need a very powerful computer, all my son wants to do with it is play video games"
I am a colorblind gamer. I don't need much of a monitor. My wife is an artist, her needs in terms of monitor and printer are WAY different. She needs really good color accuracy. If you are doing art on it, don't but it online unless you have seen it in person first.
Stats can lie like crazy and I have yet to see a stat that actually showcases accuracy of color reporoduction. And that is critical for artwork unless you are doing black and white, and even then your contrast ratio will be critical.
There is an enormous thread on HardOCP singing the praises of this fine monitor. I use it myself and it's quite excellent.
People keep posting without reading the OP... 340 is too much!
Then you will be getting a tiny LCD monitor, that's not widescreen and has a mediocre refresh rate. There's no point in comparing them below $200 because they're all the same. Stick to a CRT because there's no point to owning an LCD 19" or smaller.
Samsung SyncMaster 941BW
that monitor is 220 and a poster said it's damn great. I don't need the LCD to be huge when I ave a 27 inc HDTV right behind me. I only need it to do artwork and I just wanna make sure if I wanna play a game I can.
There is an enormous thread on HardOCP singing the praises of this fine monitor. I use it myself and it's quite excellent.
People keep posting without reading the OP... 340 is too much!
Then you will be getting a tiny LCD monitor, that's not widescreen and has a mediocre refresh rate. There's no point in comparing them below $200 because they're all the same. Stick to a CRT because there's no point to owning an LCD 19" or smaller.
Samsung SyncMaster 941BW
that monitor is 220 and a poster said it's damn great. I don't need the LCD to be huge when I ave a 27 inc HDTV right behind me. I only need it to do artwork and I just wanna make sure if I wanna play a game I can.
This just seems weird to me. I equate the following statements as being equally baffling:
"I JUST need the monitor to do artwork on"
and
"I don't need a very powerful computer, all my son wants to do with it is play video games"
I am a colorblind gamer. I don't need much of a monitor. My wife is an artist, her needs in terms of monitor and printer are WAY different. She needs really good color accuracy. If you are doing art on it, don't but it online unless you have seen it in person first.
Stats can lie like crazy and I have yet to see a stat that actually showcases accuracy of color reporoduction. And that is critical for artwork unless you are doing black and white, and even then your contrast ratio will be critical.
I do all color corrections on a Mac if needed, also it's mostly 3D stuff. Most of the printable stuff I do, the color matching isn't all that vital
listen fokker - you can't fokking tell me what my experience was like
2560x1600 is higher than any fucking CRT on the market. thats HIGHER RESOLUTION, like I fucking said
my LCD is also far brighter than my CRT was, and clearer for reading text
contrast ratio *I* mentioned as the only pertinent downside.
response time is a fucking NON-issue. I had more trails and ghosting on my CRT. I've seen dick all on this LCD
Certainly a 30" LCD has a higher resolution than any CRT on the market. Because they don't make 30" CRTs. The 24" Sony GDM-FW900 tops out at 2304x1440. That's 120.6ppi to your monitor's 100.6ppi. Monitors with higher PPI have clearer text (provided you enlarge the text to compensate for the increased resolution, obviously). Your monitor's max brightness is 300 cd/m2, the same as any CRT. Correctly calibrated monitors should actually average 100 cd/m2 so max brightness is irrelevant. If your LCD is brighter than your CRT, you just don't know how to calibrate a monitor correctly.
You're speaking from 'experience' and I'm speaking from knowledge of the fundamental properties of CRTs and LCDs. This doesn't just apply to one particular monitor versus another, this applies to most of the market (IBM's T221 excluded).
I was contributing my experience, which has been almost 100% positive, in moving from a quality 19" crt, to a 30" widescreen LCD.
The OP and others will take whatever they want from it, and you can leave it at that. Real life experiences should always be more important than on-paper specifications.
Deusfaux on
0
ViscountalphaThe pen is mightier than the swordhttp://youtu.be/G_sBOsh-vyIRegistered Userregular
There is an enormous thread on HardOCP singing the praises of this fine monitor. I use it myself and it's quite excellent.
People keep posting without reading the OP... 340 is too much!
Honestly, save up for a larger screen. Its not something you want to skimp out on. I've heard good things about hanns-g lcd's but your crt/lcd/primary output device is something you don't want to be cheap about your you will regret it.
Hoe slappa my friend take my advice as a fellow GoW player and buy this.
Dont ever look back, it may be a little above your spending wishes, but 1080p gaming on this baby is a beauty.
I have that one myself. Costco.com might still have it running. ZERO dead pixels. WoW looks nice too. I need to find a copy of UT2k4 and give that a whirl in widescreen. Hardforums(ugh) has a good thread on the sceptre x22wg
Hoe slappa my friend take my advice as a fellow GoW player and buy this.
Dont ever look back, it may be a little above your spending wishes, but 1080p gaming on this baby is a beauty.
I have that one myself. Costco.com might still have it running. ZERO dead pixels. WoW looks nice too. I need to find a copy of UT2k4 and give that a whirl in widescreen. Hardforums(ugh) has a good thread on the sceptre x22wg
Yea, Costco has it for $300 (after rebate). I think imma go with this option
I'm by no means a video expert, nor do I do that much crazy research before buying.
I purchased a Dell 2007WFP on a whim and couldn't find a single regret. It lists for about $360 which is more than you wanted to spend, but if you were to come across some cash (income taxes), this would be one to look at.
Honestly, save up for a larger screen. Its not something you want to skimp out on. I've heard good things about hanns-g lcd's but your crt/lcd/primary output device is something you don't want to be cheap about your you will regret it.
There. I have no prior purchasing with these kind but I have seen them in person and they are reasonable especially for that price.
I'm currently using that very display and i seems great to me, no dead/stuck pixels on arrival, nice crisp bright picture, sure you could get better but given the op's price range i would recomend it highly.
contrast is 700:1, you can do better for that price. The Sceptre one they suggested to me in this thread is suppose to be great and Spruchy said it's awesome for the 360 and can do 1080p
The one thing that really makes a LCD monitor not an option to me is the fact that they only look good in the native resolution.
So if i play some DIVX or some older games (and I love older games, anything from System Shock 1 to Wing Commander to Ultima 7), they'll look like crap.
Get the 215TW, option to use several inputs (composite, VGA, component, DVI or HDMI) without KVM switch FTW.
Unfortunally its (much) more expensive when the one listened in you link.
Dell screens are also awesome. Don't waste the money on Apple Cinema displays - less features, only slighty better picture quality.
The one thing that really makes a LCD monitor not an option to me is the fact that they only look good in the native resolution.
So if i play some DIVX or some older games (and I love older games, anything from System Shock 1 to Wing Commander to Ultima 7), they'll look like crap.
HDTVs don't seem to suffer from this problem as badly. Half-Life 2 at 640*480 looked jaw dropping on my HDTV but it looked like digital barf on my older 17" LCD monitor.
Has this changed for newer LCD monitors? How does 640*480 look like on a monitor with a native res of 1680*1050?
Maybe somebody here can help me out. I'm looking for something that has, in addition to the usual DVI and VGA ports, component video ports for my game consoles. Preferably something widescreen, of course. Also I'd like to keep the price low-ish, around $300. I've been looking on newegg but haven't found much; the cheapest seems to be a Samsung model for $450~, which is more than I want to spend. Any advice?
The one thing that really makes a LCD monitor not an option to me is the fact that they only look good in the native resolution.
So if i play some DIVX or some older games (and I love older games, anything from System Shock 1 to Wing Commander to Ultima 7), they'll look like crap.
HDTVs don't seem to suffer from this problem as badly. Half-Life 2 at 640*480 looked jaw dropping on my HDTV but it looked like digital barf on my older 17" LCD monitor.
Has this changed for newer LCD monitors? How does 640*480 look like on a monitor with a native res of 1680*1050?
Depends on how the monitor handles the scaling, but generally it doesn't look that good once you dip to half the native resolution and less.
Plus, HL2 at 640x480? Screw the monitor, invest the money into your system instead.
Also, not sure what the thread tree started meant about DivX. Video scaling is done by the video player, and unless you're using a P200 there's absolutely no reason to not run video at desktop resolutions.
Posts
the ONLY area where it was a noticeable downgrade was in the black levels.
the LCD - smaller footprint. less heat. less power consumption. widescreen. higher resolution. brighter. perfect geometry. built in card reader. matches the rest of my setup.
Then you will be getting a tiny LCD monitor, that's not widescreen and has a mediocre refresh rate. There's no point in comparing them below $200 because they're all the same. Stick to a CRT because there's no point to owning an LCD 19" or smaller.
LCDs will never come close to even matching CRTs for resolution. Pixels per inch is way the fuck higher on a CRT. Not to mention CRTs have better brightness, contrast ratio, response time, etc. Size and heat and the lack of widescreen format monitors are the only downsides.
2560x1600 is higher than any fucking CRT on the market. thats HIGHER RESOLUTION, like I fucking said
my LCD is also far brighter than my CRT was, and clearer for reading text
contrast ratio *I* mentioned as the only pertinent downside.
response time is a fucking NON-issue. I had more trails and ghosting on my CRT. I've seen dick all on this LCD
I used a 17" LCD monitor with a 16ms refresh rate and a contrast ratio of 450:1 for several years without any issues. I prefer it over a CRT the same size because there is more viewable area and the colors seem more vibrant. Everything lower than 1024*768/2xAA looked like ass though.
I wish I could tell my drivers to resize images in multiples of the game's base resolution whilst cropping the rest.
"Oh, 1600x1200 monitor and a 800x600 game? No problem, we'll just double all pixels. No, no fucking filtering."
Alas, all I have is either monitor scaling (fuzzy) or 1:1 and cropping via drivers (which is tiny).
Samsung SyncMaster 941BW
that monitor is 220 and a poster said it's damn great. I don't need the LCD to be huge when I ave a 27 inc HDTV right behind me. I only need it to do artwork and I just wanna make sure if I wanna play a game I can.
This just seems weird to me. I equate the following statements as being equally baffling:
"I JUST need the monitor to do artwork on"
and
"I don't need a very powerful computer, all my son wants to do with it is play video games"
I am a colorblind gamer. I don't need much of a monitor. My wife is an artist, her needs in terms of monitor and printer are WAY different. She needs really good color accuracy. If you are doing art on it, don't but it online unless you have seen it in person first.
Stats can lie like crazy and I have yet to see a stat that actually showcases accuracy of color reporoduction. And that is critical for artwork unless you are doing black and white, and even then your contrast ratio will be critical.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
MMOG Comic, Quests, and News. www.thebrasse.com
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824001088
Still in stock at NewEgg. MIR is valid until Jan. 31.
Massive Crystal Cavern!
I do all color corrections on a Mac if needed, also it's mostly 3D stuff. Most of the printable stuff I do, the color matching isn't all that vital
and there was much rejoicing.....
Certainly a 30" LCD has a higher resolution than any CRT on the market. Because they don't make 30" CRTs. The 24" Sony GDM-FW900 tops out at 2304x1440. That's 120.6ppi to your monitor's 100.6ppi. Monitors with higher PPI have clearer text (provided you enlarge the text to compensate for the increased resolution, obviously). Your monitor's max brightness is 300 cd/m2, the same as any CRT. Correctly calibrated monitors should actually average 100 cd/m2 so max brightness is irrelevant. If your LCD is brighter than your CRT, you just don't know how to calibrate a monitor correctly.
You're speaking from 'experience' and I'm speaking from knowledge of the fundamental properties of CRTs and LCDs. This doesn't just apply to one particular monitor versus another, this applies to most of the market (IBM's T221 excluded).
Right, so there was nothing ever to debate.
I was contributing my experience, which has been almost 100% positive, in moving from a quality 19" crt, to a 30" widescreen LCD.
The OP and others will take whatever they want from it, and you can leave it at that. Real life experiences should always be more important than on-paper specifications.
Honestly, save up for a larger screen. Its not something you want to skimp out on. I've heard good things about hanns-g lcd's but your crt/lcd/primary output device is something you don't want to be cheap about your you will regret it.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824254013
There. I have no prior purchasing with these kind but I have seen them in person and they are reasonable especially for that price.
Then I went from the 19" 1280x1024 LCD to a 17" 1920x1200 Notebook LCD and loved it even more.
Conclusion: I loves me the widescreen for gaming, AutoCAD, and everything in between.
Oblivion in particular is fantastic in widescreen format.
Hoe slappa my friend take my advice as a fellow GoW player and buy this.
Dont ever look back, it may be a little above your spending wishes, but 1080p gaming on this baby is a beauty.
I have that one myself. Costco.com might still have it running. ZERO dead pixels. WoW looks nice too. I need to find a copy of UT2k4 and give that a whirl in widescreen. Hardforums(ugh) has a good thread on the sceptre x22wg
$350.... damn boy. I dunno, shit I don't wanna go to work to get money for this! Also, I already have an HDTV, so I don't need the 1080p gaming
5ms 19" widescreen
I just got one and I love it.
However, I found it in an actual Frys store, and got it for what the after rebate price was, with another $50 rebate slapped on to it.
Yea, Costco has it for $300 (after rebate). I think imma go with this option
I need a new one. And i suck at spending money.
I purchased a Dell 2007WFP on a whim and couldn't find a single regret. It lists for about $360 which is more than you wanted to spend, but if you were to come across some cash (income taxes), this would be one to look at.
looks good, but you can go into a best buy and probably buy it. If you don't like it, it'll be easier to return
5ms and 2000:1 contrast.
only had it for one day, it's fantastic!
for 339 CDN I feel very happy with my purchase.
Disclaimer: Actual Google banner ad captured at www.serebii.net
contrast is 700:1, you can do better for that price. The Sceptre one they suggested to me in this thread is suppose to be great and Spruchy said it's awesome for the 360 and can do 1080p
So if i play some DIVX or some older games (and I love older games, anything from System Shock 1 to Wing Commander to Ultima 7), they'll look like crap.
But the Dell e207wfp is a 20" 5ms widescreen, HDCP compliant, and you can find it for around $250.
Get the 215TW, option to use several inputs (composite, VGA, component, DVI or HDMI) without KVM switch FTW.
Unfortunally its (much) more expensive when the one listened in you link.
Dell screens are also awesome. Don't waste the money on Apple Cinema displays - less features, only slighty better picture quality.
What is Dell's dead/stuck pixel policy?
Has this changed for newer LCD monitors? How does 640*480 look like on a monitor with a native res of 1680*1050?
Depends if you put anti-aliasing on or not...
Plus, HL2 at 640x480? Screw the monitor, invest the money into your system instead.
Also, not sure what the thread tree started meant about DivX. Video scaling is done by the video player, and unless you're using a P200 there's absolutely no reason to not run video at desktop resolutions.