Are LCD monitors worth it?

[Overkast]

Originally posted by: ChuIt's not just that. Put a *PROPERLY CALIBRATED* trinitron next to one of those Apple Cinema Displays. I doubt anyone will vote for the apple being better based on image quality.

Actually Chu, the Apple Cinema Displays are plasma screens, not LCDs. I have one at work that I use for Graphic Design, and the image quality of plasma is very good. I understand the point you are trying to make regardless... I just wanted to give you an FYI about Apple cinema displays. Plasma and LCD are 2 different worlds.

 

[Alptraum]

Originally posted by: Moralpanic

Originally posted by: Chu

Originally posted by: Moralpanic

Originally posted by: Chu
. . . am I the only one here who prefers CRT? If your doing anything where quality is the most important factor . . . doing work on anything but a CRT is dangerous because your black point is so far off from where it should be.

-Chu

Probably because not many of us are professional digital artists.

It's not just that. Put a *PROPERLY CALIBRATED* trinitron next to one of those Apple Cinema Displays. I doubt anyone will vote for the apple being better based on image quality. There are plenty of really good reasons to buy an LCD. Hell, after lugging my monster to a lan party a month ago I broke down and bought (and it was a great excuse to finally get a 2nd monitor). Image quality, however, IS NOT ONE OF THEM. When I see posts saying that LCD's are "less fuzzy," it just irks the hell out of me. Yes, your average LCD will beat the hell out of some no name rebadge, but it can't touch a trinitron at half the price on image quality.

-Chu

I have a over $3500CDN ($2500USD) Sony GDM-FW900 here beside my 1800FP, and i much prefer the 1800FP to my daily tasks. It's so much easier on the eyes. True, i can get dual browsers on my Sony, but the clarity and ease of eyes on the 1800FP is just so much better.

At the last store i worked at, we had LCDs and CRTS side by side, and i've heard more customers say 'oooh' and 'aaah' from them then i ever did from a CRT.

I agree. I have owned and used at work many high end Sony and Mitsubishi (I prefer the Diamond Pros to Sony's tubes) over the years and prefer LCDs. I have a Samsung 192t sitting next to a Diamond Pro 2060u in front of me now and the 192t is much more enjoyable.

 

[InlineFive]

I find myself laughing at CRTs because they are so big and so hard on your eyes. After using my Viewsonic VP171b for a little under six months I try not to use a CRT because my eyes hurt then.

LCDs are definately worth your eyes, spend the cash!

-Por

 

[Auric]

Ditto PorBleemo. I needed at least 90Hz on my Trinitron to avoid discomfort but recently found even that becoming increasingly fatiguing. Thanks to recent Dell deals I figger I ended up with one nice LCD for about $250 (although I was happy to pay $400).

There is a common misconception about this suppos-ed "native resolution". In fact, an LCD is more accurately said to have a fixed number of addressable pixels. Depending on the particular model, it can then display resolutions up to the maximum while typically centered on the screen. In practical terms this means that a lower resolution can be chosen at the cost of a reduced area but while retaining perfect quality. The option remains to compromise quality by allowing VPU or FPD scaling to fill the screen. My 1280x1024 max FPD lacks internal options so always fills horizontally to use all 1280 addressable pixels but the VPU drivers can have their scaling disabled to thus allow different numbers of pixels vertically such as 960 or 768. This is particularly useful to avoid distorting the aspect ratio for games by allowing 1280x960. This is the way current Radeon drivers work but Geforce ones additionally allow to pad the output so may allow addressing other than the max horizontal as well, independent of FPD options.