!Upgrade to LCD monitor...

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Max Burke, Feb 16, 2006.

  1. Max Burke

    Max Burke Guest

    Looking to replace my aging analogue 17" CRT monitor with an LCD monitor....

    Planning to spend $500 - $600.

    Want one that has zero dead/hot pixel warranty, VGA/DVI inputs....

    Main use is Image/photo editing, web/internet use, only 'high load load'
    graphics games I play regularly are Sim City Rush hour and Trainz 2006; Play
    the occasional DVD but not enough to make that an important factor...

    Screen size 17' - 19' range...

    Video card that will be 'feeding' it is a nVIDIA GeForce FX 5200.

    I've only had a look at the Philips range so far, and a couple of Sony
    ones...

    Any other suggestions, brands and specs I should be looking for?

    --

    Replace the obvious with paradise.net to email me
    Found Images
    http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
     
    Max Burke, Feb 16, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Max Burke

    Steve Guest

    On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:35:05 +1300, Max Burke wrote:

    > Looking to replace my aging analogue 17" CRT monitor with an LCD monitor....
    >
    > Planning to spend $500 - $600.
    >
    > Want one that has zero dead/hot pixel warranty, VGA/DVI inputs....
    >
    > Main use is Image/photo editing, web/internet use, only 'high load load'
    > graphics games I play regularly are Sim City Rush hour and Trainz 2006; Play
    > the occasional DVD but not enough to make that an important factor...
    >
    > Screen size 17' - 19' range...
    >
    > Video card that will be 'feeding' it is a nVIDIA GeForce FX 5200.
    >
    > I've only had a look at the Philips range so far, and a couple of Sony
    > ones...
    >
    > Any other suggestions, brands and specs I should be looking for?


    19 inch viewsonics are in that price bracket - but are you sure that
    1280/1024 or 1440x900 is good enough? Refresh rate is not good ( 8ms )
    which may affect your gaming. There are faster LCD's around, but they're
    more expensive.

    Cheers,

    Steve
     
    Steve, Feb 16, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Max Burke

    Nova Guest

    Max Burke wrote:
    > Looking to replace my aging analogue 17" CRT monitor with an LCD
    > monitor....
    >
    > Planning to spend $500 - $600.
    >
    > Want one that has zero dead/hot pixel warranty, VGA/DVI inputs....
    >
    > Main use is Image/photo editing, web/internet use, only 'high load load'
    > graphics games I play regularly are Sim City Rush hour and Trainz 2006;
    > Play the occasional DVD but not enough to make that an important factor...
    >
    > Screen size 17' - 19' range...
    >
    > Video card that will be 'feeding' it is a nVIDIA GeForce FX 5200.
    >
    > I've only had a look at the Philips range so far, and a couple of Sony
    > ones...
    >
    > Any other suggestions, brands and specs I should be looking for?
    >


    You should read this article first
    http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_nvidia_hdcp_support/

    It might make you want to wait a little.... or make you choose very
    carefully..
     
    Nova, Feb 16, 2006
    #3
  4. Max Burke

    Ross Guest

    On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 20:50:31 +1300, Nova <> wrote:

    >Max Burke wrote:
    >> Looking to replace my aging analogue 17" CRT monitor with an LCD
    >> monitor....
    >>
    >> Planning to spend $500 - $600.
    >>
    >> Want one that has zero dead/hot pixel warranty, VGA/DVI inputs....
    >>
    >> Main use is Image/photo editing, web/internet use, only 'high load load'
    >> graphics games I play regularly are Sim City Rush hour and Trainz 2006;
    >> Play the occasional DVD but not enough to make that an important factor...
    >>
    >> Screen size 17' - 19' range...
    >>
    >> Video card that will be 'feeding' it is a nVIDIA GeForce FX 5200.
    >>
    >> I've only had a look at the Philips range so far, and a couple of Sony
    >> ones...
    >>
    >> Any other suggestions, brands and specs I should be looking for?
    >>

    >
    >You should read this article first
    >http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_nvidia_hdcp_support/
    >
    >It might make you want to wait a little.... or make you choose very
    >carefully..


    And remember, for photo editing you may want 16.7 million colours (24
    bit); not the 16.2 million colours (most are dithered) that you
    commonly find.
     
    Ross, Feb 16, 2006
    #4
  5. Max Burke

    TEX Guest

    Steve wrote:
    > On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:35:05 +1300, Max Burke wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Looking to replace my aging analogue 17" CRT monitor with an LCD monitor....
    >>
    >>Planning to spend $500 - $600.
    >>
    >>Want one that has zero dead/hot pixel warranty, VGA/DVI inputs....
    >>
    >>Main use is Image/photo editing, web/internet use, only 'high load load'
    >>graphics games I play regularly are Sim City Rush hour and Trainz 2006; Play
    >>the occasional DVD but not enough to make that an important factor...
    >>
    >>Screen size 17' - 19' range...
    >>
    >>Video card that will be 'feeding' it is a nVIDIA GeForce FX 5200.
    >>
    >>I've only had a look at the Philips range so far, and a couple of Sony
    >>ones...
    >>
    >>Any other suggestions, brands and specs I should be looking for?

    >
    >
    > 19 inch viewsonics are in that price bracket - but are you sure that
    > 1280/1024 or 1440x900 is good enough? Refresh rate is not good ( 8ms )
    > which may affect your gaming. There are faster LCD's around, but they're
    > more expensive.
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Steve
    >

    8ms not fast enough for gaming???? I thought 8ms is at the faster end of
    the LCD market....

    TEX
     
    TEX, Feb 16, 2006
    #5
  6. Max Burke

    XPD Guest

    "TEX" <> wrote in message news:1140084882.752381@ftpsrv1...

    > 8ms not fast enough for gaming???? I thought 8ms is at the faster end of
    > the LCD market....
    >
    > TEX


    8ms is fine for gaming, Steve must have money to burn and probably owns a
    4ms one ;)
     
    XPD, Feb 16, 2006
    #6
  7. Max Burke

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "Max Burke" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Looking to replace my aging analogue 17" CRT monitor with an LCD
    > monitor....
    >
    > Planning to spend $500 - $600.
    >
    > Want one that has zero dead/hot pixel warranty, VGA/DVI inputs....
    >
    > Main use is Image/photo editing, web/internet use, only 'high load load'
    > graphics games I play regularly are Sim City Rush hour and Trainz 2006;
    > Play the occasional DVD but not enough to make that an important factor...
    >
    > Screen size 17' - 19' range...
    >
    > Video card that will be 'feeding' it is a nVIDIA GeForce FX 5200.
    >
    > I've only had a look at the Philips range so far, and a couple of Sony
    > ones...
    >
    > Any other suggestions, brands and specs I should be looking for?


    If you really must have an LCD monitor then go for the very best specs that
    you can get. For photos the CRT monitor is damn hard to beat. The shading
    of lighter colours don't show up very good at all on an LCD monitor, the
    printed photo is nothing like what a LCD monitor shows in it's much more
    limited didplay. The flat look doesn't mean a damn thing if it means
    putting up with a low quality picture. And text is even worse especially at
    1024 resolution. The thinner parts of letters aren't as clear on a LCD.

    Perhaps for your price range you might find one that has good specs, they're
    also bound to improve a lot over the next year or so.

    E. Scrooge
     
    E. Scrooge, Feb 16, 2006
    #7
  8. Max Burke

    krazy Bob Guest

    "XPD" <....nz> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "TEX" <> wrote in message news:1140084882.752381@ftpsrv1...
    >
    >> 8ms not fast enough for gaming???? I thought 8ms is at the faster end of
    >> the LCD market....
    >>
    >> TEX

    >
    > 8ms is fine for gaming, Steve must have money to burn and probably owns a
    > 4ms one ;)
    >


    theres a 2ms LCD comming out in few weeks ive been told

    KB
     
    krazy Bob, Feb 16, 2006
    #8
  9. Max Burke

    Nova Guest

    Steve wrote:
    > On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:35:05 +1300, Max Burke wrote:
    >
    >> Looking to replace my aging analogue 17" CRT monitor with an LCD monitor....
    >>
    >> Planning to spend $500 - $600.
    >>
    >> Want one that has zero dead/hot pixel warranty, VGA/DVI inputs....
    >>
    >> Main use is Image/photo editing, web/internet use, only 'high load load'
    >> graphics games I play regularly are Sim City Rush hour and Trainz 2006; Play
    >> the occasional DVD but not enough to make that an important factor...
    >>
    >> Screen size 17' - 19' range...
    >>
    >> Video card that will be 'feeding' it is a nVIDIA GeForce FX 5200.
    >>
    >> I've only had a look at the Philips range so far, and a couple of Sony
    >> ones...
    >>
    >> Any other suggestions, brands and specs I should be looking for?

    >
    > 19 inch viewsonics are in that price bracket - but are you sure that
    > 1280/1024 or 1440x900 is good enough? Refresh rate is not good ( 8ms )
    > which may affect your gaming. There are faster LCD's around, but they're
    > more expensive.
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Steve
    >


    Anything under 16ms is fine for gaming, 8ms is _easily_ fast enough for
    gaming, not sure where you got your information that 8ms is not good..
     
    Nova, Feb 16, 2006
    #9
  10. Max Burke

    Richard Guest

    E. Scrooge wrote:

    > If you really must have an LCD monitor then go for the very best specs that
    > you can get. For photos the CRT monitor is damn hard to beat. The shading
    > of lighter colours don't show up very good at all on an LCD monitor, the
    > printed photo is nothing like what a LCD monitor shows in it's much more
    > limited didplay. The flat look doesn't mean a damn thing if it means
    > putting up with a low quality picture. And text is even worse especially at
    > 1024 resolution. The thinner parts of letters aren't as clear on a LCD.


    I dont know what you mean by the thinner parts of the text arnt clear, LCDs get
    a 1:1 mapping from the video card, so if there are any problems then you will
    see it on a crt as well. If you were looking in a shop then all bets are off as
    they most likly used the analog connection and didnt have the monitor locked to
    it properly. Monitors usually wont lock if you have cleartype turned on and no
    sharp edges on the screen so the automode can look really bad.

    > Perhaps for your price range you might find one that has good specs, they're
    > also bound to improve a lot over the next year or so.
    >
    > E. Scrooge
    >
    >
     
    Richard, Feb 17, 2006
    #10
  11. Max Burke

    frederick Guest

    E. Scrooge wrote:
    > "Max Burke" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>Looking to replace my aging analogue 17" CRT monitor with an LCD
    >>monitor....
    >>
    >>Planning to spend $500 - $600.
    >>
    >>Want one that has zero dead/hot pixel warranty, VGA/DVI inputs....
    >>
    >>Main use is Image/photo editing, web/internet use, only 'high load load'
    >>graphics games I play regularly are Sim City Rush hour and Trainz 2006;
    >>Play the occasional DVD but not enough to make that an important factor...
    >>
    >>Screen size 17' - 19' range...
    >>
    >>Video card that will be 'feeding' it is a nVIDIA GeForce FX 5200.
    >>
    >>I've only had a look at the Philips range so far, and a couple of Sony
    >>ones...
    >>
    >>Any other suggestions, brands and specs I should be looking for?

    >
    >
    > If you really must have an LCD monitor then go for the very best specs that
    > you can get. For photos the CRT monitor is damn hard to beat. The shading
    > of lighter colours don't show up very good at all on an LCD monitor, the
    > printed photo is nothing like what a LCD monitor shows in it's much more
    > limited didplay. The flat look doesn't mean a damn thing if it means
    > putting up with a low quality picture. And text is even worse especially at
    > 1024 resolution. The thinner parts of letters aren't as clear on a LCD.
    >
    > Perhaps for your price range you might find one that has good specs, they're
    > also bound to improve a lot over the next year or so.
    >
    > E. Scrooge
    >
    >

    I agree with you Scrooge. One of the main difficulties for photo
    editing is colour accuracy - in terms of adjusting colour balance on a
    poorly calibrated monitor, you are stuffed before you start to consider
    complications like printer profiles etc. I have no problems with getting
    good colour balance from my CRT. I do have problems with gamma, as I
    have a window in my office, and short of blocking out the windows and
    working in the dark or under artificial light, adjusting the gamma
    before editing levels in photos is essential for me. (I want a Pantone
    "Huey" for a simple solution to this).
    Having to deal with this, but also having to deal with the different
    brighness/contrast depending on viewing angle on a typical LCD would
    drive me nuts. I can't see that what used to be "quality" brands for
    CRT, Viewsonic and Sony pro models in particular, follows through to
    consumer level LCDs. The Viewsonic and Sony consumer LCDs look no
    better to me than the cheap CMV and no-name monitors. At a guess, they
    probably buy the panels from the same sources anyway. Beside them, a
    new Philips 17" model (can't remember model - but one with a "glossy"
    screen surface) looked much better than any of the above when comparing
    drop off in brightness as you shifted viewing angle. I can imagine that
    with any LCD, before attempting to adjust levels, it would be a good
    idea to check that your eyes are square to the middle of the screen.
    I've been told that Apple and Samsung make "the best" LCDs for photo
    editing - but haven't found anywhere that has them on display - where
    you can see and compare them. Apparently specs such as contrast ratio
    are practically meaniningless, as no standard is used, and I suspect
    "viewing angle" provides only a very rough indication of the degree of
    light fall-off expected.
    I would love the extra desk space I'd get if I ditched my CRT. But, if
    my CRT died now, I think I'd get a pro grade CRT - they go for low
    prices second hand, and would hopefully keep going long enough until
    there are better LCDs available at consumer level. Maybe when the
    makers have gotten over the race for having the fastest refresh rates
    and they might focus on churning out LCDs for photo editing - given the
    popularity of digital photography.
     
    frederick, Feb 17, 2006
    #11
  12. Max Burke

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "Richard" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > E. Scrooge wrote:
    >
    >> If you really must have an LCD monitor then go for the very best specs
    >> that you can get. For photos the CRT monitor is damn hard to beat. The
    >> shading of lighter colours don't show up very good at all on an LCD
    >> monitor, the printed photo is nothing like what a LCD monitor shows in
    >> it's much more limited didplay. The flat look doesn't mean a damn thing
    >> if it means putting up with a low quality picture. And text is even
    >> worse especially at 1024 resolution. The thinner parts of letters aren't
    >> as clear on a LCD.

    >
    > I dont know what you mean by the thinner parts of the text arnt clear,
    > LCDs get a 1:1 mapping from the video card, so if there are any problems
    > then you will see it on a crt as well. If you were looking in a shop then
    > all bets are off as they most likly used the analog connection and didnt
    > have the monitor locked to it properly. Monitors usually wont lock if you
    > have cleartype turned on and no sharp edges on the screen so the automode
    > can look really bad.


    You should try a few 15" LCDs at 1024. Where letters thin out they don't
    look good - tops and bottoms of "o" the thin parts of "e".

    CRTs give good real contrast of images etc a lot of LCDs don't. The display
    on LCDs looks dull - nice thin flat monitor but at the price of awful dull
    looking display.

    E. Scrooge
     
    E. Scrooge, Feb 17, 2006
    #12
  13. Max Burke

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "frederick" <> wrote in message
    news:1140135011.831437@ftpsrv1...
    > E. Scrooge wrote:
    >> "Max Burke" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>
    >>>Looking to replace my aging analogue 17" CRT monitor with an LCD
    >>>monitor....
    >>>
    >>>Planning to spend $500 - $600.
    >>>
    >>>Want one that has zero dead/hot pixel warranty, VGA/DVI inputs....
    >>>
    >>>Main use is Image/photo editing, web/internet use, only 'high load load'
    >>>graphics games I play regularly are Sim City Rush hour and Trainz 2006;
    >>>Play the occasional DVD but not enough to make that an important
    >>>factor...
    >>>
    >>>Screen size 17' - 19' range...
    >>>
    >>>Video card that will be 'feeding' it is a nVIDIA GeForce FX 5200.
    >>>
    >>>I've only had a look at the Philips range so far, and a couple of Sony
    >>>ones...
    >>>
    >>>Any other suggestions, brands and specs I should be looking for?

    >>
    >>
    >> If you really must have an LCD monitor then go for the very best specs
    >> that you can get. For photos the CRT monitor is damn hard to beat. The
    >> shading of lighter colours don't show up very good at all on an LCD
    >> monitor, the printed photo is nothing like what a LCD monitor shows in
    >> it's much more limited didplay. The flat look doesn't mean a damn thing
    >> if it means putting up with a low quality picture. And text is even
    >> worse especially at 1024 resolution. The thinner parts of letters aren't
    >> as clear on a LCD.
    >>
    >> Perhaps for your price range you might find one that has good specs,
    >> they're also bound to improve a lot over the next year or so.
    >>
    >> E. Scrooge

    > I agree with you Scrooge. One of the main difficulties for photo editing
    > is colour accuracy - in terms of adjusting colour balance on a poorly
    > calibrated monitor, you are stuffed before you start to consider
    > complications like printer profiles etc. I have no problems with getting
    > good colour balance from my CRT. I do have problems with gamma, as I have
    > a window in my office, and short of blocking out the windows and working
    > in the dark or under artificial light, adjusting the gamma before editing
    > levels in photos is essential for me. (I want a Pantone "Huey" for a
    > simple solution to this).
    > Having to deal with this, but also having to deal with the different
    > brighness/contrast depending on viewing angle on a typical LCD would drive
    > me nuts. I can't see that what used to be "quality" brands for CRT,
    > Viewsonic and Sony pro models in particular, follows through to consumer
    > level LCDs. The Viewsonic and Sony consumer LCDs look no better to me
    > than the cheap CMV and no-name monitors. At a guess, they probably buy
    > the panels from the same sources anyway. Beside them, a new Philips 17"
    > model (can't remember model - but one with a "glossy" screen surface)
    > looked much better than any of the above when comparing drop off in
    > brightness as you shifted viewing angle. I can imagine that with any LCD,
    > before attempting to adjust levels, it would be a good idea to check that
    > your eyes are square to the middle of the screen. I've been told that
    > Apple and Samsung make "the best" LCDs for photo editing - but haven't
    > found anywhere that has them on display - where you can see and compare
    > them. Apparently specs such as contrast ratio are practically
    > meaniningless, as no standard is used, and I suspect "viewing angle"
    > provides only a very rough indication of the degree of light fall-off
    > expected.
    > I would love the extra desk space I'd get if I ditched my CRT. But, if my
    > CRT died now, I think I'd get a pro grade CRT - they go for low prices
    > second hand, and would hopefully keep going long enough until there are
    > better LCDs available at consumer level. Maybe when the makers have
    > gotten over the race for having the fastest refresh rates and they might
    > focus on churning out LCDs for photo editing - given the popularity of
    > digital photography.


    Thank you, Frederick. I like to see the nice rich colours with plenty of
    good contrast on the pictures I'm editing as well. Editing can be done on a
    LCD but with a lot more guess work that the picture will look as expected
    when printed out. There's very little life in picyures on a LCD compared to
    a CRT. Perhaps some of top range LCD monitors are getting a lot better
    hopefully.

    E. Scrooge
     
    E. Scrooge, Feb 17, 2006
    #13
  14. Max Burke

    Max Burke Guest

    > Nova scribbled:
    >> Steve wrote:


    >>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:35:05 +1300, Max Burke wrote:
    >>> Looking to replace my aging analogue 17" CRT monitor with an >>> LCD
    >>> monitor....
    >>> Planning to spend $500 - $600.
    >>> Want one that has zero dead/hot pixel warranty, VGA/DVI inputs....
    >>> Main use is Image/photo editing, web/internet use, only 'high
    >>> load load' graphics games I play regularly are Sim City Rush hour
    >>> and Trainz 2006; Play the occasional DVD but not enough to make
    >>> that an important factor... Screen size 17' - 19' range...
    >>> Video card that will be 'feeding' it is a nVIDIA GeForce FX 5200.
    >>> I've only had a look at the Philips range so far, and a couple of
    >>> Sony ones...
    >>> Any other suggestions, brands and specs I should be looking for?


    >> 19 inch viewsonics are in that price bracket - but are you sure that
    >> 1280/1024 or 1440x900 is good enough? Refresh rate is not good (
    >> 8ms ) which may affect your gaming. There are faster LCD's around,
    >> but they're more expensive.
    >> Cheers,
    >> Steve


    > Anything under 16ms is fine for gaming, 8ms is _easily_ fast enough
    > for gaming, not sure where you got your information that 8ms is not
    > good..


    After due consideration of various specs, prices, and availability (IOW if
    the shop had them in stock when I was there with the money, or would have to
    waste my time and order it for me)

    I went with an AOC LM726 that has similar specs to the Philips 170B6 but was
    $40.00 cheaper at Quay Computers.

    ATech computers could have got the sale (at $405.00) but they didn't have
    one in stock. I let them know why they missed out....

    http://www.anz.aocmonitor.com/nz/monitors_lm726.htm

    Initial impressions/use for games, Web use, and photo editing are that it is
    just as good as the no brand 17" PC Company CRT monitor it's replacing...

    Thanks for all the comments and suggestions.....


    --

    Replace the obvious with paradise.net to email me
    Found Images
    http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
     
    Max Burke, Feb 17, 2006
    #14
  15. Max Burke

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Max Burke wrote:
    > I went with an AOC LM726 that has similar specs to the Philips 170B6
    > but was $40.00 cheaper at Quay Computers.
    >
    > ATech computers could have got the sale (at $405.00) but they didn't
    > have one in stock. I let them know why they missed out....
    >
    > http://www.anz.aocmonitor.com/nz/monitors_lm726.htm


    Wow! AOC do 5 different 17" LCD screens? Seems the top three all use the
    same panel though, just cosmetic / mount / speakers differences.

    > Initial impressions/use for games, Web use, and photo editing are
    > that it is just as good as the no brand 17" PC Company CRT monitor
    > it's replacing...
    > Thanks for all the comments and suggestions.....


    Thanks for the report.

    Although "just as good as the no brand 17" PC Company CRT monitor" doesn't
    inspire confidence. ;-)
    --
    ~misfit~
     
    ~misfit~, Feb 18, 2006
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Silverstrand

    Samsung 910MP LCD TV Monitor Review at XYZ Computing

    Silverstrand, Jul 2, 2005, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    987
    unholy
    Jul 2, 2005
  2. Silverstrand

    Samsung 910MP LCD TV Monitor Review at XYZ Computing

    Silverstrand, Jul 10, 2005, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    919
    zachig
    Jul 10, 2005
  3. zxcvar
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    841
    zxcvar
    Dec 28, 2003
  4. Jason

    Canon powershot S1 LCD Vs Kodak DX6490 LCD??

    Jason, May 31, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    483
    Ron Baird
    Jun 7, 2004
  5. John
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    713
Loading...

Share This Page