Quote: Original post by Ravuya
Is this for Samsung, or Dell?[...]

All the high-res LCDs I've found, actually. None of the larger models by anybody seem to come with versatile stands.
Actually, I noticed I hadn't actually gone to samsung's website, so I did so, only to find they don't actually want you to look through their products (or they have a horrible web designer). It's insanely frustrating when site's don't have their products categorized in such a fashion that I can only look at ones I might possibly be interested in. A list of model numbers is neither necessary nor sufficient =-(

Quote: [...]According to Google, the SyncMaster 245BW can pivot to portrait mode out of the box; you just have to remove a locking screw from the base and then reattach it once the monitor is pivoted.

A locking screw wouldn't do, because I'm going to want to switch every time I change tasks (from coding to gaming to surfing to watching movies, etc).

Forgive me for being bitter, but LCDs just aren't at the point where they can compete with CRTs yet. It's frustrating to think I'm going to have to either pay ~9 times as much or get something significantly inferior in some way. In the end, I'm probably going to end up spending way more than I want to so I can get a nice monitor, but I'll hate the world for making that the choice instead of "CRT or LCD?" =-(

Quote: Original post by Extrarius
Forgive me for being bitter, but LCDs just aren't at the point where they can compete with CRTs yet.

Now you're just in denial. The competition is over. LCDs have won. The only area that LCDs need to improve is viewing angle and even that isn't an issue for the vast majority of people.

I use LG's 246 model (24" widescreen, I have their 245 model as a secondary model. Same monitor, different button positions), and it has a pivot function. That was one problem I had with Dells monitor, as it wasn't versatile enough, and was a foot under my line of sight.

As far as comparing them, behardware, and some other sites (I believe the original was from Germany) has a list of monitors, and you can compare color, screen response, etc, with pictures.

Quote: Original post by tstrimp
[...]That's only true with games that cap the refresh rate. LCD's only emulate refresh rate so that games and applications that require that information can use it.[...]

If they're just emulating it, why do they support so few numbers? If it was a simple software switch, it'd make the most sense for them to simply support every rate from 60 to 200 in 20hz increments or something like that, but instead they support a few various rates at lower resolutions and only 60 at higher resolutions. I imagine, then, that there are physical limitations such as the bandwidth required and the circuitry to process the high-frequency signal. Reguardless, this is the least important issue of those mentioned in this thread.

Quote: Original post by tstrimp

Quote: Original post by Extrarius
Forgive me for being bitter, but LCDs just aren't at the point where they can compete with CRTs yet.

Now you're just in denial. The competition is over. LCDs have won. The only area that LCDs need to improve is viewing angle and even that isn't an issue for the vast majority of people.

Feel free to point out a quality LCD that can run at 2048x1536 with no ghosting (10ms bwb or lower) with 100% of the NTSC color gamut and 0 dead pixels for $1000 or less. That's double the full MSRP of the CRT I want, and doesn't take into account that scaling on LCDs is just flat-out inferior due to the fixed physical pixels. The least expensive equivalent I've found so far is $2000 (Dell 3008WFP), but it does support a higher resolution. Perhaps you can find a better equivalent in both price and functionality..?
LCDs only won a popularity contast. They won hearts, not minds.

Quote: Original post by Extrarius

Quote: Original post by tstrimp
[...]That's only true with games that cap the refresh rate. LCD's only emulate refresh rate so that games and applications that require that information can use it.[...]

If they're just emulating it, why do they support so few numbers? If it was a simple software switch, it'd make the most sense for them to simply support every rate from 60 to 200 in 20hz increments or something like that, but instead they support a few various rates at lower resolutions and only 60 at higher resolutions.

The link I provided covered that.

Quote: Ok, so if an LCD monitor doesn't refresh itself many times a second, why does an LCD monitor still require a particular refresh rate setting in Windows? We previously discussed the fact that refresh rates are something only a CRT monitor needs because of the way it physically operates. Well it appears that LCD monitors need to emulate a refresh rate in Windows primarily for compatibility purposes with games and hardware. Games, Windows and your graphics card are all still designed around composing individual frames in the frame buffer, and sending these whole frames to your monitor one by one, with the timing for buffer flipping typically based on Vertical Blank Intervals - all things which were originally required for CRT monitors. Therefore LCD panels have to try to operate on the same basis, despite the fact that they don't have the same physical limitations of a CRT.

Let's look at an LCD's theoretical refresh rate, based on its response time rating. Consider the example of an LCD monitor nominally rated at an 8ms response time. Given 8 milliseconds is 8/1000ths of a second, in one full second it can refresh all the pixels on the screen (if necessary) 1000/8 = 125 times, which makes it equivalent to a 125Hz refresh rate. Yet no 8ms LCD monitor allows you to set a refresh rate even remotely close to this in Windows, nor do even 4ms LCD monitors. There are two main reasons:

1. Connection Limitations: A single DVI digital connection is like an Internet connection, it has limited bandwidth for digital graphics data; not enough to allow higher than 60Hz refresh rate at full 24bpp Color Depth for all resolutions, so typically all resolutions on LCD monitors using DVI are capped at 60Hz. Some LCD monitors using DVI do allow higher refresh rates, though the absolute maximum possible is 85Hz at 1280x1024. If you use a VGA analog connector instead, you can often select a refresh rate higher than 60Hz on an LCD, though again nowhere near the theoretical refresh rate limit based on your response time, partly because of the reason below.

2. Monitor Limitations: LCD manufacturers want to ensure that their monitors function satisfactorily in all situations, particularly since they often overstate response times. So typically they set the maximum supported refresh rates on their monitors such that they are relatively conservative and can meet the challenge of refreshing the entire screen as often as required in any situation without any ghosting. Furthermore, setting too high a refresh rate on an LCD, even if it's available, can actually result in problems in certain games and applications due to timing issues. So for reliability and compatibility purposes, LCD refresh rates are not as high as they could theoretically be.

As you can see, there are a few factors involved in why your LCD monitor may not provide a refresh rate as high as you might expect given its response time. The underlying reason however is that current graphics software and hardware is designed around compatibility with CRT monitors, and as such, LCD monitors are limited in some respects by having to emulate the same process.

Quote: Feel free to point out a quality LCD that can run at 2048x1536 with no ghosting (10ms bwb or lower) with 100% of the NTSC color gamut and 0 dead pixels for $1000 or less.

The only hangup there is the resolution. You can find plenty of then at 1920x1200 for well under that price. The only time you get that far outside of your price range is when you hit the 30" displays which have a resolution of 2560x1600. If you could "settle" on 1920x1200 or even 1600x1200 there are tons of options. As mentioned there are even those that can be rotated into portrait mode like the Samsung 245T.

As far as dead pixels go, I've had 6 LCDs and have not had any dead or stuck pixels until my wife left my earbuds on my laptop keyboard when she shut the lid. Of course this will vary based primarily on luck. Most make zero dead pixel plans available at an extra cost, but they will replace it for free if there are over a certain number of dead pixels or a certain number clustered together. Newegg's policy is:

Quote: There must be a minimum of 8 dead pixels to declare an LCD display defective and eligible for return.

Quote: Original post by tstrimp
[...]The link I provided covered that.[...]

And it basically said the same things I've said several times already in this thread - whether artificial or actual limitations, it sounds like it'll still result in either limited frames or limited frames with tearing.

Quote: [...]

Quote: Feel free to point out a quality LCD that can run at 2048x1536 with no ghosting (10ms bwb or lower) with 100% of the NTSC color gamut and 0 dead pixels for $1000 or less.

The only hangup there is the resolution.[...]

Which is exactly what I have been saying - LCDs cannot compete with CRTs on features for price. You can certainly pick some features and toss others and get only a slightly higher price, but resolution is a really big feature, and probably the single most important one for displays. On that note, I don't see much reason to go with 1600*1200 since widescreen LCDs go for the same price with those extra few pixels on the side.

Also, yay for sites not listing what kind of response time they're talking about. 6ms gtg might not be bad, but it's certainly not as good as 5ms bwb. It's also nice that they don't bother mentioning which are LED backlit, and what kind of TFT display they're using, etc. This would be so much easier if I could just actually compare and contrast the features instead of having to spend time hunting down every detail only to find it's not actually listed anywhere.

I'd appreciate constructive suggestions, such as an LCD with a good color gamut besides the 30" dell I mentioned. It's the only one I've been able to find that mentions the full NTSC gamut, and it really is something I'd like to have.

Quote: Original post by Extrarius
I'd appreciate constructive suggestions, such as an LCD with a good color gamut besides the 30" dell I mentioned. It's the only one I've been able to find that mentions the full NTSC gamut, and it really is something I'd like to have.

I realize it's hard to find out which LCD's use an LED backlight but if you can find them you will often get very close to or higher then the NTSC color gamut. Much better then what typical CRT monitors produce. I wish monitors would list the backlight they are using with their other specs.

one thing that pisses me off with monitors is its becoming harder + harder to find non widescreen monitors

eg ppl mention dell heres their large monitors (just checking their website nz)

20' widescreen
22' widescreen
22' widescreen
24' widescreen
27' widescreen
30' widescreen

ie every single one is widescreen, now widescreen would be great if it benifited the average pc user but it doesnt, 99% of the users read this webpage will scroll the page up + down (not left to right), even me that has no tv + watches all my films on the monitor do not want a widescreen lcd, cause it has less benifit for practically everything else, eg programming,modelling,art,music making 4:3 is a far better ratio

Quote: On that note, I don't see much reason to go with 1600*1200 since widescreen LCDs go for the same price with those extra few pixels on the side.

actually typically widescreen have fewer pixels, eg for a 20' lcd monitor 1600x1200 is bigger than 1680x1050

Quote: Original post by zedz
[...]actually typically widescreen have fewer pixels, eg for a 20' lcd monitor 1600x1200 is bigger than 1680x1050

Actually, I was talking about getting 1920*1200 instead of 1600*1200, as both are available for pretty much the same price with otherwise the same characteristics.