«

Chris Wilkinson <> wrote in
news:44a7b982$:

> Hi there,
>
> MarkH wrote:
>> Chris Wilkinson <> wrote in
>> news:44a45ea3$:
>>
>>
>>>My 22" NEC Multisync is around AU$1500 new (although I only payed
>>>AU$169 for my near new one!), but the closest LCD I could find to
>>>that size and resolution (2048x1536) was around US$5000...
>>
>>
>> For NZ$3000 you can get a 30" LCD with 2560x1600(widescreen), what
>> LCD costs US$5000?
>
> Is that the Dell 3007WFP? Does 11ms (or 14ms?) response time cut it?
> My eyes say they're getting better, but CRT still wins...

It's a case of horses for courses. There are many users that would not
even notice the 11ms delay (I have just ordered the Dell 24" which is
6ms and a lot cheaper than the 30" - for me 1920x1200 is plenty)

> That has a range of sizes to see. Prices start pretty low, but most of
> the cheapies don't do the resolutions I'd demand of their panel size.
> Try find a 21" that does 2048x1536 without spending upwards of
> US$4400.

For some reason almost every 21" LCD uses 1600x1200 and if that is
suitable then the price is reasonable. It seems that NEC does the
2048x1536, but if the demand for that resolution is not high than the
price will be slow to drop. Basically you find that if you aren't happy
with what the majority want than you must pay quite a lot extra for a
speciality product.

My 19" LCD is 1280x1024 and my old 19" CRT can beat that, but I tend to
run the CRT at 1280x1024. For me the pixel size is fine at that res. I
come across quite a few customers that have the opposite problem to you
- they would be happier to run a 21" LCD at 1024x768, but they often
look blurry at anything other than their native resolution.

Since you got your 22" CRT at such a good price than you are pretty well
set to run for the several years that it is likely to take before the
LCD you want is available at a reasonable price, so you are doing very
well at the moment.


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 27-May-06)
"The person on the other side was a young woman. Very obviously a
young woman. There was no possible way she could have been mistaken
for a young man in any language, especially Braille."
Maskerade

On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 21:58:03 +1000, Chris Wilkinson <>
wrote:

>Hi there,
>
> wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 20:56:48 +1000, Chris Wilkinson <>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi there,
>>>
>>>GraB wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 09:15:17 +1000, Chris Wilkinson
>>>><> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hi there,
>>>>>
>>>>>thingy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Have a read
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://tomshardware.co.uk/2006/06/27/xxl_displays_uk/
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>I saw that same Dell on a Dell stand at a local Brisbane mall
>>>a short while back. Nice looking kit really, but I wasn't that
>>>impressed with movie playback...it was just too slow...
>>
>> Please define to slow...??
>
>Response time. Rapid movements in video showed evident ghosting
>and blurry appearance.
>
>Not something I experience with even budget CRT monitors...


But as the screens are refreshed at 60hz, you do not need very fast pixel
screens

60hz = 16ms

On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 21:56:54 GMT, MarkH <> wrote:

>Chris Wilkinson <> wrote in
>news:44a7b982$:
>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> MarkH wrote:
>>> Chris Wilkinson <> wrote in
>>> news:44a45ea3$:
>>>
>>>
>>>>My 22" NEC Multisync is around AU$1500 new (although I only payed
>>>>AU$169 for my near new one!), but the closest LCD I could find to
>>>>that size and resolution (2048x1536) was around US$5000...
>>>
>>>
>>> For NZ$3000 you can get a 30" LCD with 2560x1600(widescreen), what
>>> LCD costs US$5000?
>>
>> Is that the Dell 3007WFP? Does 11ms (or 14ms?) response time cut it?
>> My eyes say they're getting better, but CRT still wins...
>
>It's a case of horses for courses. There are many users that would not
>even notice the 11ms delay (I have just ordered the Dell 24" which is
>6ms and a lot cheaper than the 30" - for me 1920x1200 is plenty)



At a 60hz refresh rate its 16ms, so why the hype for faster screens..???

wrote in news:34mga2plmd9fk9466p7kp1oq62750l8tec@
4ax.com:

> On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 21:56:54 GMT, MarkH <> wrote:
>
>>Chris Wilkinson <> wrote in
>>news:44a7b982$:
>>
>>> Hi there,
>>>
>>> MarkH wrote:
>>>> Chris Wilkinson <> wrote in
>>>> news:44a45ea3$:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>My 22" NEC Multisync is around AU$1500 new (although I only payed
>>>>>AU$169 for my near new one!), but the closest LCD I could find to
>>>>>that size and resolution (2048x1536) was around US$5000...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For NZ$3000 you can get a 30" LCD with 2560x1600(widescreen), what
>>>> LCD costs US$5000?
>>>
>>> Is that the Dell 3007WFP? Does 11ms (or 14ms?) response time cut it?
>>> My eyes say they're getting better, but CRT still wins...
>>
>>It's a case of horses for courses. There are many users that would not
>>even notice the 11ms delay (I have just ordered the Dell 24" which is
>>6ms and a lot cheaper than the 30" - for me 1920x1200 is plenty)
>
>
>
> At a 60hz refresh rate its 16ms, so why the hype for faster screens..???

Confused again, naturally.

At a 60Hz refresh rate each pixel is refreshed every 16ms, from when the
pixel is refreshed it takes some time for that pixels visual appearance to
change. So the 16ms refresh rate is one delay, the pixel speed is another
- they add up!

An LCD with a 6ms grey to grey time will take 6-22ms to change from one
shade of grey to another. An LCD with a 16ms grey to grey time will take
16-32ms to change from one shade of grey to another. Faster is better!


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 27-May-06)
"The person on the other side was a young woman. Very obviously a
young woman. There was no possible way she could have been mistaken
for a young man in any language, especially Braille."
Maskerade

wrote in
news::

> But as the screens are refreshed at 60hz, you do not need very fast
> pixel screens
>
> 60hz = 16ms

Refresh delay + pixel speed delay = total delay.

The faster the pixel speed the shorter the total delay!




--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 27-May-06)
"The person on the other side was a young woman. Very obviously a
young woman. There was no possible way she could have been mistaken
for a young man in any language, especially Braille."
Maskerade

Hi there,

MarkH wrote:
> wrote in
> news::
>
>
>>But as the screens are refreshed at 60hz, you do not need very fast
>>pixel screens
>>
>>60hz = 16ms
>
>
> Refresh delay + pixel speed delay = total delay.
>
> The faster the pixel speed the shorter the total delay!

Exactly. Too many LCD monitors I see have a slow enough response that
the total delay is barely time enough to show rapid changes in video
smoothly. Maybe thats my eyes, but unless I can see a snappy video
response I would baulk at spending money on any LCD.

--
Kind regards,

Chris Wilkinson, Brisbane, Australia.
Anyone wishing to email me directly can remove the obvious
spamblocker, and replace it with t p g <dot> c o m <dot> a u