LCD terms, what to look for.

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

gram_vaz

Member
 
Joined
Sep 11, 2004
Location
Long Beach, California
Burnt_Ram said:
i just bought a Acer 1913B 19"
800:1 20-23ms access time (some specs say20ms some 23ms ?)

this monitor sucks for gaming ! WAY to much ghosting !
it only has VGA no DVI.

i bought it for 180.00 cdn, and i don't want to take it back if theres a way to fix the ghosting ? is there ? please say yes ;)
sorry but no way to fix ghosting. 16ms is when ghosting stops.
 

aznkc730

Member
 
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
Location
los angeles, ca
Ven0m said:
And what's with these new 4ms displays - is difference that noticable to pay more?

imho, its kinda pointless. anything under 16ms total response time can pretty much gaurantee that you wont get ghosting. On the other hand, if you want high PQ, it does matter. A lot ppl dont realize that the response time is just measuring how fast the lcd can "draw" the picture. back in the day, just drawing the picture without lagging (ghosting) was a thing to be proud of. The trend today is that LCD makers are focusing more on accurate color reproduction. instead of just a a response time given, many lcd makers are giving a grey to grey response time, With faster response times like 4 ms, the color stays true no matter how fast the image is moving across the screen.
 

bLack0ut

Member
 
Joined
Dec 21, 2004
Can anyone update this sticky? seems a wee bit old school :D, I think the standards have changed from last year.
 

Ven0m

Member
 
Joined
Sep 7, 2003
Location
Warsaw, Poland
I've got an andvice for potential buyers.
If you look for high quality LCD display, you have to examine it, but first check how good CRTs work, to compare good LCD against good CRT. A few of my friends were thinking that they found good LCD to buy until they compared them against some of the best CRTs.
LCDs are better and better, but still most are really bad compared to top CRTs (well, unless you have no room on desk), so I'd suggest you to double check display you're going to buy not to regret. However if it's pretty good compared to high-end CRTs, you have guarantee that you'll be pleased with it.
 

Smizack

Dead Boomslang collector
 
Joined
Jun 26, 2001
Location
O.K.
bLack0ut said:
Can anyone update this sticky? seems a wee bit old school :D, I think the standards have changed from last year.

I was thinking the same thing.

"Try to stick around 24ms. On Larger LCD's (19"+) this will be somewhat difficult BenQ LCD's offer 17ms response times for 17" or smaller LCD's."
 

Jumpin Jack

Member
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Location
Australia
I have a 3 year old Olympic 19" CRT that I use for gaming and have resisted the urge to which to LCD upto now. So from what I've read, I should be looking for an 19" or high widescreen LCD at 12ms or less in responce time.

Can anyone advice me on a good brand/model to select from? :confused:
 

habbajabba

Member
 
Joined
Oct 29, 2005
Location
Oregon
I just bought a 5ms (now the norm) 22'' lcd (Newegg). Can't wait to hook it up.
Does anyone know if it is worth replacing the front glass on an NEC 19'' crt?
Might make a descent 2nd monitor. Then again maybe just a small 17'' new lcd for specific monitoring aps would be much simpler.
 

cozmo_d

Member
 
Joined
Dec 21, 2000
Location
Planet X
Hey is this monitor any good?

I do gameing movies video basicaly everything

SAMSUNG 940BX Black 19" 5ms DVI LCD Monitor with Height Adjustments 300 cd/m2 1000:1
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824001080

I realy know nothing about tft's except what Ive read here in this thred
I know I want digital with 700:1 or better with low response time.

Whats with all the wide screens 1440x900 ? can my vcard support it should we stay away from widescreen? Sounds like trouble for some games?

maybe I should stick with power hog radioactive crt :|
 

Cowboy X

Member
 
 
Joined
Oct 12, 2001
Location
Folding in Barbados
It would be better for you to post this question as its own thread . You are more likely to get replies from people who own or researched this monitor that way . You will also need to provide the make and model of your video card so then memebers will be able to tell you if it can handle the resoloution in question .
 

Twister

Member
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Location
California
No kidding !
I didn't know I still had a subscription active for this thread !
Back then I had just paid $499 for the NEC 1760 17" LCD monitor. It had a16ms response time which was "State of The Art" at the time.
Now you can pick up a 21" wide screen LCD with 5ms response time for around $200 bucks now.
By the way, that NEC is still strong and clean on my backup system today !
 

Audioaficionado

Sparkomatic Moderator
 
 
Joined
Apr 29, 2002
You of course can Google for that too and post it here.

My Philips 47" 1080p LCD has S-IPS :D
Very nice off axis viewing compared to cheaper TN panels.
 

BigJk-47

Member
 
Joined
Apr 14, 2002
Location
NY
I have to warn you guys.....

I just got a job at a service center as a evaluator and the amount of ILO/Vizio LCD's we get in everyday is absurd.

Especially ILO,typical life is 8 months and the mainboards/panels fry out.Vizio isn't as bad,I would stay away though.

I'd say 50% are ILO,25% vizio,25% all others.
 

OBLIVIONLORD

Member
 
Joined
Dec 11, 2003
Heh, it has been stickied=)

One more to add before I'm off to work.

Dot Pitch(Desktop LCDs only):

The native/optimal resolution of the LCD unit is how many physical pixels it has. A monitor with a resolution of 1280X1024 has 1310720 pixels total.

On average it's something like:

15" 1024X768
17-18.4" 1280X1024
19 1280X1024-1600X1200
20" 1600X1200

The most common aspects are either 3:4 or 4:5. The diagonal completes the triangle. Let's take the 17" units because they seem to most popular and therefore more relevant to this crowd.

17" = 374mm

Therefore:

Vertical length = 270mm
Horizontal length = 338mm

To find pixel pitch:

Vertical Length / Vertical (Native) Resolution = Pixel Pitch

In this case:

270mm/1024=.264mm
338/1280=.264mm

Both are the same because, unlike CRTs, LCD pixels are square not rectangular.

.26mm is the standard for 17" monitors and you aren't likely to find any lower/better.

15" .297mm
17" .264mm
18" .28mm
19" .294mm for 1280X1024 models
19" .257mm for 1600X1200 models
20" .255mm

I'm a little confused on this. 1 inch = 25.4mm but, you are showing that 17" = 374mm which 17 * 25.4 = 431.79mm.

Am I missing somthing here?