Joined
·
20 Posts
Howdy. I'm putting together a new PC, which I'll be using for video editing, desktop publishing (including photo editing), and good old web browsing.
The graphics card is a Matrox G550 with a Samsung SyncMaster 170T (17" LCD) on the DVI port. For the VGA port, I want to get a 19" CRT, which most of the time I'll be running in 1280x1024 mode to match the 170T -- I find it annoying to run dual monitors in different resolutions, since you can't arbitrarily drag windows back and forth without having to resize them to fit.
However, I'm also planning to get a PC-HDTV tuner card, so I want a monitor which can display full-resolution 1080i: 1920x1080, though I presume the image could be vertically centered on a display using the standard 1920x1440 resolution.
(Unfortunately I'll have to reboot and switch monitor cables around to get the CRT into this resolution, since the G550 will only go above 1600x1200 for the primary monitor, and if you have a DVI-D device (like my LCD) plugged into the DVI connector, it has to be the primary monitor. I guess the only way around this would be to get a PCI graphics card to drive the CRT and use the G550's second output as a dedicated NTSC out, but I don't think I'll have any free slots for a PCI graphics card -- see this Usenet post .)
Besides the 1920x1440 requirement, I want to get a monitor that can do sRGB, since that's the color standard for HDTV (as well as EXIF, PNG, etc.). Also I would think (perhaps incorrectly) that normal NTSC material would be more accurately displayed in sRGB mode (though I plan to use my TV for true NTSC previewing while video editing).
The March 2002 issue of Computer Buyer's Guide and Handbook magazine had a multi-page table that was extremely useful for surveying (most of) the CRTs currently on the market. I did find a few errors and omissions, but to be fair, most of the "errors" were in Max. Resolution, and it appears that the discrepancies arise because many monitors give a lower resolution on their spec sheet than they are actually capable of -- not sure if they leave out higher resolutions because they're non-VESA or because they don't comply to the TCO99 minimum refresh rate of 85Hz (probably the latter).
In any case, using this table and some corrected max. resolution figures I found elsewhere, it appears to me that there are three current-production 19" CRTs that can do 1920x1440 and sRGB:
I've read all the reviews of these monitors (or their immediate predecessors, when that was all that available) that I could get my hands on -- Cadalyst, CADence, Mac World, PC World, Tom's Hardware, individual reviews on Usenet or review sites, etc. However, I don't feel I'm much closer to making a decision -- there's a ton of conflicting opinion out there on CRTs, even when reviewers use fairly objective criteria like test patterns. In the worst cases, one reviewer will consider a monitor to be the best of those reviewed, whereas another reviewer will say the quality is only average. I feel much less equipped to choose a CRT than I did to choose any of the other components in this system.
Can anyone suggest which of the above three monitors would be the best one for my use? I guess I'd prioritize color accuracy above all, since if I want to look at something with perfect geometry I can look at it on my LCD monitor, but the same can't be said for color. I understand that some monitors don't do interlaced modes well -- any experiences with that on the above CRTs? Since I'll also be using this CRT during (two-monitor) web-browsing, I'd like text to be reasonably sharp as well.
Alternatively, is there a 19" which isn't capable of sRGB but IS capable of 6500K color temperature (which sRGB uses) and 1920x1440 that has significantly better quality than any of the above three monitors and which I would be better off with? According to the Computer Buyer's Guide table and my research, these are the other current-production 19" CRTs that are capable of 1920x1440:
It's possible that one or two of those are not actually current-production, and it's possible that I missed some (because I didn't come across an alternative claim about the max. resolution being higher than the one listed in the table or on the manufacturer's spec sheet).
I guess one other thing someone might suggest is that I'm stupid to think a 19" CRT could really fully resolve 1920x1080 and that I should get a 21" monitor (or bigger) and if I really feel like I must run it at 1280x1024 at around the same DPI as my LCD in non-HDTV use, I can use the geometry controls to shrink the 1280x1024 to use only a portion of the tube. If you think this is the case, let me know, but don't just say that a 19" is too small for comfortable viewing -- I don't mind sitting close.
The graphics card is a Matrox G550 with a Samsung SyncMaster 170T (17" LCD) on the DVI port. For the VGA port, I want to get a 19" CRT, which most of the time I'll be running in 1280x1024 mode to match the 170T -- I find it annoying to run dual monitors in different resolutions, since you can't arbitrarily drag windows back and forth without having to resize them to fit.
However, I'm also planning to get a PC-HDTV tuner card, so I want a monitor which can display full-resolution 1080i: 1920x1080, though I presume the image could be vertically centered on a display using the standard 1920x1440 resolution.
(Unfortunately I'll have to reboot and switch monitor cables around to get the CRT into this resolution, since the G550 will only go above 1600x1200 for the primary monitor, and if you have a DVI-D device (like my LCD) plugged into the DVI connector, it has to be the primary monitor. I guess the only way around this would be to get a PCI graphics card to drive the CRT and use the G550's second output as a dedicated NTSC out, but I don't think I'll have any free slots for a PCI graphics card -- see this Usenet post .)
Besides the 1920x1440 requirement, I want to get a monitor that can do sRGB, since that's the color standard for HDTV (as well as EXIF, PNG, etc.). Also I would think (perhaps incorrectly) that normal NTSC material would be more accurately displayed in sRGB mode (though I plan to use my TV for true NTSC previewing while video editing).
The March 2002 issue of Computer Buyer's Guide and Handbook magazine had a multi-page table that was extremely useful for surveying (most of) the CRTs currently on the market. I did find a few errors and omissions, but to be fair, most of the "errors" were in Max. Resolution, and it appears that the discrepancies arise because many monitors give a lower resolution on their spec sheet than they are actually capable of -- not sure if they leave out higher resolutions because they're non-VESA or because they don't comply to the TCO99 minimum refresh rate of 85Hz (probably the latter).
In any case, using this table and some corrected max. resolution figures I found elsewhere, it appears to me that there are three current-production 19" CRTs that can do 1920x1440 and sRGB:
- EIZO Nanao FlexScan T765
- iiyama Vision Master Pro 454
- NEC MultiSync FP955 (and FP955-SV, which is $1000+ due to its builtin SpectraView color calibrator, which appears not to work on the OS I'll be using, Win2K).
I've read all the reviews of these monitors (or their immediate predecessors, when that was all that available) that I could get my hands on -- Cadalyst, CADence, Mac World, PC World, Tom's Hardware, individual reviews on Usenet or review sites, etc. However, I don't feel I'm much closer to making a decision -- there's a ton of conflicting opinion out there on CRTs, even when reviewers use fairly objective criteria like test patterns. In the worst cases, one reviewer will consider a monitor to be the best of those reviewed, whereas another reviewer will say the quality is only average. I feel much less equipped to choose a CRT than I did to choose any of the other components in this system.
Can anyone suggest which of the above three monitors would be the best one for my use? I guess I'd prioritize color accuracy above all, since if I want to look at something with perfect geometry I can look at it on my LCD monitor, but the same can't be said for color. I understand that some monitors don't do interlaced modes well -- any experiences with that on the above CRTs? Since I'll also be using this CRT during (two-monitor) web-browsing, I'd like text to be reasonably sharp as well.
Alternatively, is there a 19" which isn't capable of sRGB but IS capable of 6500K color temperature (which sRGB uses) and 1920x1440 that has significantly better quality than any of the above three monitors and which I would be better off with? According to the Computer Buyer's Guide table and my research, these are the other current-production 19" CRTs that are capable of 1920x1440:
- Compaq P920
- Hewlett-Packard P920
- Hitachi CM721F (not positive about this one -- I found equal numbers of claims that the top resolution was 1600x1200 as that it was 1920x1440)
[*]LG Electronics 915FT+ (another dubious one)
[*]Philips/Magnavox 109[BSP]20
[*]Samsung SyncMaster 900ift (also a bit dubious)
[*]Samsung SyncMaster 900NF (this one too)
[*]Samsung SyncMaster 957FS (can't find any evidence of this CRT existing on Samsung's site -- did the magazine make it up??)
[*]TTX 8997
[*]Viewsonic P90f
[*]Viewsonic P95f
It's possible that one or two of those are not actually current-production, and it's possible that I missed some (because I didn't come across an alternative claim about the max. resolution being higher than the one listed in the table or on the manufacturer's spec sheet).
I guess one other thing someone might suggest is that I'm stupid to think a 19" CRT could really fully resolve 1920x1080 and that I should get a 21" monitor (or bigger) and if I really feel like I must run it at 1280x1024 at around the same DPI as my LCD in non-HDTV use, I can use the geometry controls to shrink the 1280x1024 to use only a portion of the tube. If you think this is the case, let me know, but don't just say that a 19" is too small for comfortable viewing -- I don't mind sitting close.
