AVS Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,736 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi Guys,


Dell is making life tough for those of us who had written off LCD monitors as being way too expensive to compete with CRTs in the bang for the buck arena.


As Seven previously posted here the 2000FP is now way cheaper ($799.20

before coupons):
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/p...4&sku=320-4105

This is definitely within big tube CRT territory. :cool:


Now for the hard part:


I currently use a 22" Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2060u CRT monitor which is a good performer:
http://www4.tomshardware.com/display...05/crt-07.html
http://www4.tomshardware.com/display...05/crt-17.html


Why change?


- It weighs 60 lbs and has a big footprint, forcing me to have a huge desk in a small office area. Some LCDs can even be hooked onto the wall, allowing a tiny desk surface and freeing up precious real-estate for other purposes.


What is won?


- Easier on the eyes - from what some folks say the absence of refresh scans make LCD displays less tiring to look at all day long, although I know a fellow who has a Sun LCD display and put a glare mask over it to protect his eyes! :confused:


- Dark bezel makes it unobtrusive in your home interior while beige stands out more? Plus it is smaller and less space invasive.


- Any thing else I forgot?


What is lost?


- Color accuracy, when testing HT equipment using it as a monitor?


- Smooth pans, ie no ghosting, even with the highest motion?


- Non directive viewing angles.


- No more resolution choice at best picture quality (ie dictated by DVI native rate).


- Any thing else I forgot?


On balance?


- Is the Dell 2000FP just the best of an early development technology which has far more progress to make before it dethrones what a mature CRT technology can provide?


- Now that the price differential is no longer an issue, would switching from high-end CRT to high-end LCD be a step backwards?


Thanks in advance for your advice -
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,736 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
You've got all the pros and cons lined up, except for loss of contrast ratio and deep blacks. Now you have to decide what the most important items are. Another pro is that the LCD can be used as a computer monitor or as HDTV or NTSC display.


For my money and uses, I spend hours a day at my computer. I switched from a Hitachi 17" CRT to a Samsung 17" LCD and it was heavenly. I was locked at 1280x1024, and the colors were different. But, I don't do photo editing or anything that needs really accurate colors, and I don't play fast games a lot so the slow refresh doesn't bother me. I code, so I have vast areas of the screen that never change and LCD's high persistance are a real asset in that case. (100Hz refresh on my CRT completely eliminates flicker too, though.)


Plus, if you can get rid of a big desk, what a bonus!


LCD is even bearable (to me) for watching movies, but isn't fast enough for others.


VESA 100 is a standard mounting bracket that almost all LCD panels have. You pop off the stand and attach a stationary or adjustable wall-mount that has four mount points on 100mm centers.


Again, you have to decide what criteria are important for you and go from there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,736 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Hi Torginator,


Thanks for the helpful explanations. The only LCD displays I've seen are either lackluster early models (need I explain?) or poorly set-up store displays showing desktops. No cool photos, no game demo mode, no video. Apparently the Dell 20 incher has a 25-milliseconds speed which is second only to a few other panels that are 20-millisecond. Whether this translates into smooth gaming at high frames per screen or natural motion with video sources remains to be determined.


I guess that for DVDs/video sources grey blacks is definitely a drawback, as I glare at the deep deep onyx black of the framing of this AVS page in my Mits CRT screen... As for colors, a Milori Colorfacts calibration should get to the bottom of them, if they're there. No 10-bit processing I'd guess.


Has anyone tried the Dell 2000FP's Composite or S-VHS inputs? Just curious, in case its internal scaler works.


Glad to know that the VESA 100 means that all I have to do is bolt it to the wall. :cool: I'll have to find a good swivel/tilt wall mount for this baby, and it'll rock.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
I purchased a Samsung SyncMaster 240T recently and I must say that it is one of the best purchase decisions I have ever made. Running 1920x1200 in DVI is a miracle. It's like seeing for the first time if you've been blind. The 240T has a good response time (on the order of like 25ms I believe), but I still find it to be a bit blurry for some games. This is primarily my working monitor at this point, but I have found it very good for watching DVDs on as well.


I don't know what sort of price range you're talking about since I never really had an interest in a 4:3 display device, but I was also impressed by the technology itself from working on some other computers at work that possessed simple 17" LCD screens that also displayed a magnificent image.


If the larger LCD screens were more cost effective I'd probably purchase one (and I still might if I go crazy). I wish DVI support was more common in AV equipment.


[edited to make me look like less of a moron by posting incorrect info]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
260 Posts
"- Easier on the eyes - from what some folks say the absence of refresh scans make LCD displays less tiring to look at all day long, although I know a fellow who has a Sun LCD display and put a glare mask over it to protect his eyes!"


You know, I had thought the same with the absence of refresh rates, however it's really a catch 22 here. For instance i was looking at Sony's 17" PED($999) and it's response time is solid(22ms) and contrast superb(500:1) and it was very bright and sharp in it's color seperations, however i had one problem with it, it's brightness at default settings was nasty on my eyes.

It gave me a tired like feeling and after 1hr of viewing it was as if i had no slept in days.

I was so into LCD's for years however as much as i love this 17" LCD(it has it all,componet inputs,480p/720/1080i comp.,ect)..and i still do, it's brightness is so high it's like looking into a fireplace or sorts.

I hope i can still one day handle this brightness or lower it so it's effects are not so nasty, becasue it would make a perfect pc&console LCD display.

It's a shame because it's obvious the high brightness makes for a better display however if you're going to be staring into a LCD for hrs, you don't want it too bright.


It's(the high brightness) probably why you're friend needs to put a glare mask over his SUN LCD display.


So first, i'd recommend you may want to check into how you're eyes can handle a comparable LCD screen.(same contrast and brightness ratio's)


Philip O.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
I'm a bit dazzled by the brightness of my display as well. Kind of funny when I was worried it might not be bright enough. Unfortunately you don't get much control over this. I have my brightness set at 0 and find it still a bit bright. The blacks are very nicely black in a properly dim setting though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,172 Posts
I find a lot of the response time stuff overrated. I think most people will find the gaming performance / fast-motion performance of the Dell quite acceptable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,600 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by rogo
I find a lot of the response time stuff overrated.
I disagree. With all of the eye-candy on the newer games, ghosting can be distracting. It is tough to use just a quoted response time to judge the gaming performance. Supposedly 25ms or less is okay, but if you go to Tom' Hardware can read his take on it. They've been reviewing 15" and 17" LCDs and recently reviewed a new run of 17" LCDs.


Something else to consider with gaming is with a large LCD you'll want to run at the panel's native resolution which, for a 20" I think is 1600x1200. That is tough on a graphics card. With a CRT you can run lower resolutions without the distortion issue that can happen with LCDs.


Still, LCDs are pretty cool. I got a Dell deal that gave me a P4 2.5GhZ, 512MB DDR 2700, decent periphs, and a 15" digital FP for $825. I pitched the idea to my wife, telling her the FP would be hers. She LOVES it... but she doesn't play and FPS games.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
I run it at 1024x768 and it looks fine because of the resolution and small dot pitch.


Response times are very good, i've only noticed blur a few times when moving extremely ridiculously fast. i used to play quake and wolfentstein and they were fine.


get the dell!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,235 Posts
i'm gonna chime in for the crt. it'll give you the ability to lock into a wide variety of resolutions and display them in their native form, and the blacks and contrast ratio will be greater. no doubt the dell lcd is a solid display, but lcd really has yet to live up to a good crt in terms of picture quality, and the more recent trinitron/slot mask based crt monitors are VERY nice
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,001 Posts
The specs on response times do not tell the entire story, unfortunately. For instance, the 2000fp's response time is 25ms and seems very good. Blur only happens in things like fast spins. However, when you look at the 1800fp, it's not nearly as good.


Also, if you look at Fujitsu MVA based panels (ie. Viewsonic's 900VX), they have huge problems with the white to black transition, eventhough they have 25ms total average response times.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,172 Posts
Tweak: That's fine. I've just seen a fair amount of gaming on the original Apple Cinema Display. Maybe for the hard core, it is woeful, but my friend who owns one is really quite happy with it. He doesn't mind that it is "inadequate." My point being that YMMV.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top