Flat panel LCD displays

[Herb_The_Perb]

I just bought a 17" Pro View flat panel LCD display, and have a week or so to play with it before I need to return it if I don't like it. With a rebate, it will cost $200 US, plus tax.
This is a model #PL713s, with
1280x1024 native resolution,
16 ms resp0ose time,
70/70 degree viewing angle.
pixel pitch is 0.264 mm
brightness 260 nits
contrast ratio 450:1
Does this sound like an OK set of specs?

It is definitely brighter and more legible for text (and also larger) than my old 17" CRT monitor, but I'm wondering if I should go for something better -- or am I getting good bang for the buck here? A 19" of the same brand qould be even more legible, since small text lettering would be about 12% larger. The price premium would be about 30% more, however.

Also, the poorly-written manual seems to imply that I can set the monitor for lower resolutions than 1280x1024, but is this really possible? Isn't the pixel size fixed and inflexible? Would, say, a 800x600 resolution simply mean a smaller image?

 

[hitrack]

looks good to me for general purpose use. I would personally want bigger if I was into gaming/multimedia, but for web, email, spreadsheets....no worries.

 

[gravitas]

dunno.....at home I've got a 17" LCD, at work a 19", notebook with a 15" and another one with a 14.1" and my little iBook with a 12" (which is usually the one I watch porn on) and they all seem fine to me and I'm as blind as a bat.

IMO like hitrack says unless ur into gaming buy the 17" and use the saved money on another toy

 

[FuZzYknUckLeS]

the bigger the monitor, the further away ya sit. keep that in mind. i agree with above. 17" is sufficient for home. as for gaming, do peeps actually still do that on a pc? i've been using the xbox and my regular tv for the last few years.

 

[Sonny]

Response time is very important, says my techie friend. Apparently images are slower on most 19 inch models.

 

[hitrack]

I'm seriously eyeing this. Yah it's expensive but if ya can drop 300 on a BJ and it seems everyone on this board can, this only cost a few BJ's.

Gateway 21" HDTV-Ready LCD Monitor

 

[sdw]

I just bought a 17" Pro View flat panel LCD display, and have a week or so to play with it before I need to return it if I don't like it. With a rebate, it will cost $200 US, plus tax.
This is a model #PL713s, with
1280x1024 native resolution,
16 ms resp0ose time,
70/70 degree viewing angle.
pixel pitch is 0.264 mm
brightness 260 nits
contrast ratio 450:1
Does this sound like an OK set of specs?

It is definitely brighter and more legible for text (and also larger) than my old 17" CRT monitor, but I'm wondering if I should go for something better -- or am I getting good bang for the buck here? A 19" of the same brand qould be even more legible, since small text lettering would be about 12% larger. The price premium would be about 30% more, however.

Also, the poorly-written manual seems to imply that I can set the monitor for lower resolutions than 1280x1024, but is this really possible? Isn't the pixel size fixed and inflexible? Would, say, a 800x600 resolution simply mean a smaller image?

The Pro View that you have is old technology. The newer LCD monitors have a faster recovery time, a higher viewable angle and better contrast. If you like the one you have, that’s not a problem, but it’s the reason it can be had for $200.

I’ve linked the best manufactures below. I like Samsung, but all three make very nice, reliable displays.
http://www.samsung.com/
http://www.viewsonic.com/
http://www.hp.com/

Vancouver pricing can be found here:
http://atic.ca/

A 17 inch LCD panel is about equal to a 19 inch CRC. I do a lot of spreadsheets and usually have a lot of open windows, so I like a bigger LCD monitor.

LCD panels have a native resolution. There are electronic tricks a manufacturer can do to make the panel display other resolutions, but it's better to run it at the native resolution. I use the native resolution for normal work and let games choose the resolution they want.

 

[threepeat]

Specifications for LCD monitors can be subject to all kinds of marketing ploys, so they are a rough guide at best. I find reviews to be the most useful when making a buying decision. Check out this link: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00079FP0Y/002-7200383-9275226?v=glance&n=172282

My personal opinion is that the extra size of a 19" monitor is worth the $70 price premium, but it's really an individual thing.

A 17" monitor has a native resolution of 1280x1024, meaning that's the number of pixels that can be displayed, and is the resolution at which you will get the clearest picture. You can set the monitor to a lower resolution than that, like 1024x768 or 800x600, etc., but the monitor will need to scale its display down to meet these resolutions. It's watchable, but you should go with native resolution if at all possible to avoid the downconversion.

A 800x600 resolution will actually result in a larger image than at 1280x1024, because each displayed pixel takes up relatively more space on the screen.

Hope that helps

P.S. If it was my money, I would take this monitor http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=13687&vpn=FP71G+&manufacture=BENQ&promoid=1006 over the Proview.

 

[Randy Whorewald]

I bought this 19' unit for not much more money. It also has a faster response time, and 700:1 contrast ratio. I am very pleased with it.

http://www.anitec.ca/product/5835/samsung_syncmaster_920n_black_19"_tft_lcd/

 

[therealrex]

Contrast and response time are the important ones I wouldn't worry about viewable angle unless someone else will be looking at it as well If you drop another hundred you can get 600:1 contrast and 4ms response time which may or may not make enough of a difference its kinda subjective.

 

[Herb_The_Perb]

Thanks to all the responders.

A new question:
One linked review refers to blurring -- does that mean text blurring while scrolling, which I assume is related to response time?

 

[sdw]

Thanks to all the responders.

A new question:
One linked review refers to blurring -- does that mean text blurring while scrolling, which I assume is related to response time?

A slow response time shows up as mouse trails (you can see the trail that shows where your mouse moved across the screen) and the screen blurs while you scroll. That's why I think that 16ms is too slow. The LCD monitor actually slows you down if the responce time isn't fast enough.

 

[Randy Whorewald]

Thanks to all the responders.

A new question:
One linked review refers to blurring -- does that mean text blurring while scrolling, which I assume is related to response time?

Blurring occurs when fast motion on screen is hindered due to slow response time. My LCD TV does that during hockey games. Probably shoulda got the plasma.

 

[threepeat]

Reponse time

Response time is important, but unless you are a gamer I wouldn't make it the be-all and end-all. There are trade-offs. Here's a couple of articles regarding this:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/02/15/8ms_19/
It hasn't taken manufacturers long to move from 12 to 8 ms response times for 19" displays - on paper, at least. We've learned to take their optimistic interpretations of reality with a grain of salt. What remains to be seen is whether they're worth the extra dollars. Remember that on the 17" models, the improvement in response time was accompanied by a substantial reduction of viewing angles and deterioration of the color rendering.

Also, check out this article regarding manufacturer response time measurements:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2004/10/15/benq/page4.html

Basically it's saying that response time can be quoted by manufacturers as the best possible response time rather than the average response time (as measured across all colour transitions), so it may not be really valid to say a monitor with a 16 ms response time is necessarily faster than one with a 20 ms response time. It's like saying the engine on a Honda S2000 can produce 240 hp. Yes it can, but only at 9000 rpm. If you drive under 3000 rpm in real world conditions, the 240 hp is only useful for bragging rights.

 

[SingleInVan]

In the previous 2 or 3 years the prices for lcd's have dropped dramatically. I paid $800 CAD for a Samsung 17 inch with a 16 ms response time.

If you are into any sort of gaming on the computer, I would highly recommend you look for one with at least an 8 ms response time. With the prices at this level, it will cost you $20 - $50 more, but I believe it is definitely worth it.

I always do my pc shopping on www.ncix.com
You can just browse for prices, order online for delivery or go in person to one of their 3?? locations.

Pick up 'The Hub', a newspaper magazine, and you can browse every different store in the lower mainland.

 

[PoorGuy]

You guys just missed the 12 Days of Dell.ca Deals (ended yesterday). LCD's:

Dell E196FP 19-inch Flat Panel LCD Monitor - $269
Dell UltraSharp 1907FP 19-inch Flat Panel LCD -$289
Dell UltraSharp 1707FP 17-inch Flat Panel LCD - $239
Dell 20" 2005FPW widescreen LCD for $499
Dell 20" 3007FP for $449
Dell 24" 2405FPW widescreen for $849

These deals only come twice a year! My friend grabbed a 2005FPW. Free shipping and free three year warranty!

 

[Herb_The_Perb]

OK -- I may have identified a good alternative:

Brand name = LG (didn't get the model #, but it's either L1732TQ or L1732T)
4 ms response
1400:1 contrast
170 x 170 degree viewing angle
300 cd/m^2 brightness
currently sellin for $280 USD (I'm in Seattle)

Anyone know about this brand?
It seems that the specs are good, based on what people have said here.

 

[missing link]

I got a 19" acer wide screen..best thing on the market in my oppinion..cost me $349 can