LCD should I sacrifice contrast ratio and dot pitch for DVI?

Printable View

03-06-2003, 11:40 PM
GenIV

LCD should I sacrifice contrast ratio and dot pitch for DVI?

I got a Microtek C893 18" LCD.
400:1 contrast ratio.
.279 dot Pitch
but Analog input.

My sis also want to get an 18" LCD also. and I'm deciding of I should get her the same thing I got or the Dell UltraSharp 1800FP 18" LCD, cause it's on sale and same price.

specs:
350:1 (lower than Microtek)
.2805 dot pitch (lower than Microtek)
Analog & DVI input

the screen size, response time, viewable angle and max resolution is the same.

anyone of you that have seen a LCD on DVI and analog. any comments?
is it worth it to get lower Contrast ratio and slightly worst dot pitch in order to get a DVI connection?

(gonna hook it up to a Radeon 7500 DVI)
03-07-2003, 10:20 AM
ewitte

Re: LCD should I sacrifice contrast ratio and dot pitch for DVI?

Quote:

Originally posted by GenIV
I got a Microtek C893 18" LCD.
400:1 contrast ratio.
.279 dot Pitch
but Analog input.

My sis also want to get an 18" LCD also. and I'm deciding of I should get her the same thing I got or the Dell UltraSharp 1800FP 18" LCD, cause it's on sale and same price.

specs:
350:1 (lower than Microtek)
.2805 dot pitch (lower than Microtek)
Analog & DVI input

The dot pitch is not that much different. What is the max resolution on both of these? If they are the same resolution AND size the dot pitch is exactly the same. It may be 18" versus 18.1" which would make the dot pitch difference. I'm not sure about the 1800FP but my 2000FP at 350:1 actually has better color reproduction than the Viewsonic I had that advertised 450:1. The Dell should be way better than a no name brand.

Eric
03-07-2003, 10:48 AM
GenIV

hmm, true what u said

DELL IT IS!

thanks man.

btw: 2000FP drool....
03-07-2003, 11:29 AM
YahoKa

Dell, no questions asked. That's my $0.02
03-07-2003, 01:06 PM
masteraleph

Yeah, I'd go with the dell as well. They're actually quite good with LCDs (or, I should say, the Sammy and BenQ/Acer, who they rebadge, are really quite good with LCDs), and tend to be cheaper for the equivalent screens.
03-07-2003, 01:22 PM
ewitte

Quote:

Originally posted by masteraleph
Yeah, I'd go with the dell as well. They're actually quite good with LCDs (or, I should say, the Sammy and BenQ/Acer, who they rebadge, are really quite good with LCDs), and tend to be cheaper for the equivalent screens.

Dell is usually good about including items that cheaper LCDs don't usually as well. I'm not aware of a single model that does not have DVI. The 2000fp also has S-video and component video inputs.

Eric
03-07-2003, 01:42 PM
GenIV

just courious, all the desktop LCDs from various brands I seen have max resoultion of 1280x1024.

yet I seen Laptops that have smaller size screens and they go to higher resolutions.

why is that?

also when dealing with DVI are refresh rate irrelavent? cause I set my LCD to 75hz and it seems as "solid" as my old 19" CRT at 120hz.

anyone with any insite on LCD refreshrate?
03-07-2003, 01:53 PM
masteraleph

GenIV-

Actually, that's not quite true. All 17", 18", and most 19" LCDs have a resolution of 1280x1024 (btw there's a "native resolution" on LCDs). The reason is that on an LCD, the resolution is actually the number of pixels on the screen (that is, a 17" lcd with a native res of 1280x1024 is 1280 pixels in width and 1024 pixels in height). So obviously, you want to run at the native resolution so that everything will look right.

Thus, you can't have a small LCD with a 1600x1200 resolution- the pixels would be way too small. There are a few LCDs that are 19" with that res., but mostly it's 20" and above (for example, the 2000fp, mentioned in this thread, has a resolution of 1600x1200).

Laptops sacrifice certain things (i.e. refresh rate) to get to higher resolutions, IIRC.

Finally, on refresh rate: LCD do not refresh in the traditional sense. Instead, the pixels themselves end up changing. Most top LCDs out have a response rate of 25ms, with a few 17" models having one of 16ms. This means that, on the average, going between all color schemes, a high end lcd will respond (change) 40 times per second. Note that these numbers are averages- although with a 16ms screen you should be getting just over 60 changes per second, LCDs always change slower on the grey scale, so you may still notice some ghosting (blurring) as things move across the screen in games. You shouldn't in DVDs with most newer screens, since DVDs have few enough frames that they tend to not ghost.

Since the LCDs pixels will stay at a certain color indefinitely, while the CRT has to continually refresh itself in order to keep an image on the screen, LCDs will never flicker. Thus, although ghosting can be an issue on LCDs, flickering is not; this tends to make CRTs more suitable for games (no ghosting), but LCDs more suitable for long times staring at the screen (easier on the eyes). LCDs could be better, I suppose, for games as well if you're the obsessive type who spends 12 hours gaming...your UT2k3 scores may not be as good, but at least your eyes will work for a bit longer :)
03-07-2003, 02:25 PM
ewitte

Quote:

Originally posted by masteraleph
GenIV-

Thus, you can't have a small LCD with a 1600x1200 resolution- the pixels would be way too small. There are a few LCDs that are 19" with that res., but mostly it's 20" and above (for example, the 2000fp, mentioned in this thread, has a resolution of 1600x1200).

Laptops sacrifice certain things (i.e. refresh rate) to get to higher resolutions, IIRC.

Hopefully this "way too small" thing will go away when we get some OSs that use 3d. Too many people too lazy to change their font sizes ;) I wonder what the response time is on the new laptop that does 1920x1200 :eek:

Eric
03-07-2003, 03:46 PM
GenIV

my 30ms response time monitor seems to "refresh" like at 30fps.

I'm comparing it to scrolling. I was testing it on a Unreal Tournament. and it's running at around 100fps

anyway on my CRT ot would scroll smooth no problem. but on my LCD the game still reports as 100+ fps. but the scrolling is not smooth, it seems like the fps is only around 30-40fps.

I guess that's the response rate of the LCD.

so crap, when we get LCD with 16ms repsonse rate the scrolling will seem as smooth as 60fps.

so that's why alot of hardcore gammers don't like LCD. even if you can get say 100+ fps, the monitor can only be able to display around 40fps .....
03-07-2003, 08:59 PM
ewitte

Quote:

Originally posted by GenIV
my 30ms response time monitor seems to "refresh" like at 30fps.

Well 30ms is like 33fps.

Eric
03-07-2003, 11:42 PM
GenIV

yeah, that's what I figured. the smoothness of the game scrolling that I saw is like 30fps. wow I'm only 3fps off. how's that for a sensitive eye :)