Forum: Geek Forum
Topic: TFT's
started by: CatKnight
Posted by CatKnight on Nov. 30 2001,20:12
I'm thinking about getting a 17" tft for around 躔. I was wondering what their ups and downs are. Also, if anyone knows where to get them for even cheaper then 躔, that would be nice. 
Posted by miNus on Dec. 01 2001,04:18
The only thing about LCD's that bug me are when you get one (and you do fairly often) that has pixels stuck on or off. We have two at work, and each has 2 or 3 pixels that are permanently green or red. I mean, it's not much, but it is kind of annoying.Another possible problem is that they run REALLY well at one resolution, but not so well at others. A 17" would probably be around 1152x864 or 1280x1024 or so. Which isn't a bad resolution, but then again, I didn't think 1024x768 was a bad resolution until I got my 19" monitor  I guess what I'm trying to say is that you are kind of stuck at the optimum resolution... But DAMN they are nice... did you see the IBM T220? *drool*
Posted by ASCIIMan on Dec. 01 2001,04:29
And don't think of trying to do any type of serious graphical work with them 'cause they make the colors kinda screwy.
Posted by ASCIIMan on Dec. 01 2001,06:59
That's only if you get the cheap ones (ie less than about 軆 for an analog 17", less than about 輪 for a digital 17").
Posted by DeadAnztac on Dec. 01 2001,07:15
How about because you can get a 21" Sony GFD CRT for the same price as a 15" TFT? Or perhaps because if you get a non-top-of-the-line TFT your frames will start blurring together? Or maybe it won't operate at a higher FPS? Or perhaps it won't be poreous and will substitute pixel structure, because it can't adjust the actual pixel size? Something like that. Despite all the hype I don't think it's worth it. ...Though, if I had Ů,500 and I could spend it on NOTHING else but a monitor I would most definitely get < this >. ------------------
~Anztac [ Pertinaciously disconsolate ]
Posted by miNus on Dec. 01 2001,11:50
And I, would get < this >.22" TFT. Maximum resolution: 3840x2400. Gimme a hell yeah!
Posted by Rhydant on Dec. 01 2001,16:51
holy christ on a stick.thats bigger than my tv o_O
Posted by CatKnight on Dec. 01 2001,17:29
my main concern is for games and dvd's. i've heard that there is a lot of ghosting in games when stuff moves fast. same for dvd's.
Posted by ASCIIMan on Dec. 01 2001,18:08
Damn thats thing gots a mighty slow refresh rate.
Posted by miNus on Dec. 01 2001,18:38
I don't believe the refresh rate is measured conventionally... notice the "displayed as quad 960x2400 stripes @41HZ"
Posted by ASCIIMan on Dec. 01 2001,19:24
It still means it can only repaint the screen 41 times a second.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Dec. 01 2001,19:59
LCDs display frames differently than a CRT. I can see so much flicker on a 60Hz CRT that I can't even look at it for fear of seizures, but I can't see *any* flicker in my 15" DVI flatpanel, and it runs at 1024x768x60Hz.CK... just make sure your flatpanel is *digital*. A good CRT is a lot sharper than most analog LCDs, even high-end ones. DVI flat panels, on the other hand, are the bomb... ridiculously sharp and flicker/jitter free
Posted by ASCIIMan on Dec. 02 2001,01:05
No flicker, but the lower refresh rate does mean that for 3d or high-framerate 2d (ex fast-forwarding), the steps in between pixel movements are greater. For general 2d this is okay, but can become annoying with 3d. The other time this can cause problems is when the framerates become aliased playing video with slower framerates (higher native framerate on the display means less time aliasing).
Posted by ASCIIMan on Dec. 02 2001,06:56
Looks pretty good for the price (you won't be getting much better unless you go >轜).If possible I would wait until you have another 贶 and get a low-end Samsung, NEC, Viewsonic, or IBM with dual inputs. Or you could always take out a loan and get one of < these >  .
Posted by miNus on Dec. 02 2001,09:30
Do you really NEED a TFT? How about going with a 19" or 21" CRT?
Posted by ASCIIMan on Dec. 02 2001,09:51
Lessee here, measuring dormroom desk.46"x22" - that's all the room I get to work on 17" monitor won't fit on desk w/ keyboard in front if I face it straight out from the desk, therefore it must be placed diagonally. Deskspace after monitor, keyboard, mouse: 18"x22" Add my laptop and no more desk space. This is the situation in which an LCD display would be useful. ed - I don't think I could fit a 19" or larger on here even if I tried. This message has been edited by ASCIIMan on December 03, 2001 at 04:54 AM
Posted by miNus on Dec. 02 2001,11:28
Well I can understand the space confinement, certainly.I'm not saying this in a RUDE way, but I was actually talking to CatKnight, anyway  Guess I should clarify a bit... But ever since I went to a 19" monitor, everything is totally different... 1280x1024 @ 75 Hz... damn it's nice. 21" is next, so I can run 1600x1200 @ 75-85
Posted by MattimeoZ80 on Dec. 02 2001,13:32
I run 1600x1200 on my 19"... took awhile to get used to it but its wonderful.
Posted by CatKnight on Dec. 02 2001,17:55
here is the one i was looking at
< http://computers.cnet.com/hardware/0-2295747-404-7545844.html?tag=st.co.2295747-311-7545844.dir.productinfo' > I would get a DVI one but I have a geforce2...no DVI input  so how does this one look? worth the money or total crap? because if it's not worth it, I might as well just < waste my money... >
Posted by ASCIIMan on Dec. 02 2001,20:00
I'm currently running 1280x960 @ 85Hz on my 17".
Posted by miNus on Dec. 02 2001,21:30
I like 5:4 (1280x1024) ratio better than 4:3 (1280x960), but it could just be me.I don't notice much difference between 75HZ and 85HZ (in a lower res, monitor can only handle 75 @ 1280x960). edit: But then again, I only paid 跌 for this monitor, shipped. Samsung 955DF This message has been edited by miNus on December 03, 2001 at 04:31 PM
Posted by ASCIIMan on Dec. 02 2001,22:49
I like my pixels square, and my circles to be of contant radius, but that's just me Anyways, I would run x1024, but only if I had a 5:4 aspect ratio display (ie, a 1280x1024 lcd 'cause it's pretty hard to find 5:4 monitors). I can still see the flicker at 75Hz, so 85Hz is pretty much a bare minimum for normal use, and is the highest refresh my monitor will support at that resolution (I have a MultiSync E750, and I still think it's the best non-flat screen 17" monitor, except for those sonys ). This message has been edited by ASCIIMan on December 03, 2001 at 05:51 PM
Posted by miNus on Dec. 02 2001,23:02
From Samsung's site:--- Samsung 955DF
Recommended Mode - 1280 x 1024 / 75Hz --- It looks like shit at 4:3 ratio.
It supports "1600x1200!!!", but only at 65 (they say 68) Hertz. This message has been edited by miNus on December 03, 2001 at 06:04 PM
Posted by ASCIIMan on Dec. 02 2001,23:51
From samsung's site (right out of the < owner's manual >:Active Display Area
Horizontal: 13.85"
Vertical: 10.39" 4:3 = 1.333
5:4 = 1.250
13.85/10.39 = 1.333 Looks like you got a display made for 4:3 aspect ratios (unless you have half inch black borders on both sides of your screen). This message has been edited by ASCIIMan on December 03, 2001 at 06:51 PM
Posted by miNus on Dec. 03 2001,00:00
WTF does this mean?"(Active display size is dependent upon signal timing and image size selection.)" And why would it be set up for 4:3, yet they recommend 5:4 and look best in 5:4?
Posted by ASCIIMan on Dec. 03 2001,00:43
quote:
Originally posted by miNus:
WTF does this mean?"(Active display size is dependent upon signal timing and image size selection.)"?
It means the monitor is just a set of electron guns pointed at a flat piece of glass. The position of the display will be dependent on the voltages coming off your graphics card +/- the tweaks you do with the on-monitor controls. quote:
Originally posted by miNus:
And why would it be set up for 4:3, yet they recommend 5:4 and look best in 5:4
Because it doesn't "look best" in 5:4. The monitor is being sold to consumers who generally don't care about details like this - they tend to think "bigger is better", and therefore the recommended resolution is 1280x1024 (the highest common resolution at >= 75 Hz) rather than 1280x960 or some other common 4:3 resolution. It's obviously not being marketed to graphics designers or engineers - people who would care about the aspect ratio being off.
This message has been edited by ASCIIMan on December 03, 2001 at 07:48 PM
Posted by CatKnight on Dec. 03 2001,01:58
i definately would like the desk space. i have no room at all with my monitor and keyboard (no room to do homework, etc). does this envision one have the incorrect aspect ratio that you guys were talking about? is that why some of the lcd's at the stores seem wider then regular monitors? will dvd's / games be in the correct proportion?if all goes well, I'll have this puppy on my desk by chanukah
Posted by DeadAnztac on Dec. 03 2001,02:22
Lookie what I can get for the same 軸 < http://arstechnica.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php?masterid=394891&ut=41198e378f05b9b4 > ------------------
~Anztac [ Pertinaciously disconsolate ]
Posted by ASCIIMan on Dec. 03 2001,04:54
LCDs always have the correct aspect ratio because by nature they have a single native resolution, so they can be manufactured in the correct aspect ratio. CRTs on the other hand support several resolutions, but most are in a 4:3 aspect ratio, so most CRTs are 4:3. 1280x1024 just happens to be the only really common resolution that isn't 4:3. In other words, if you get a 1280x1024 LCD it will be in a 5:4 format and have the correct aspect ratio; if you try to display 1280x1024 on a monitor it will be displayed in 4:3 and have an incorrect aspect ratio (ie pixels will be rectangular rather than square). The only way to correct this on a crt is to adjust it so you have black bars on either side of the image so the image is 5:4.
Posted by CatKnight on Dec. 03 2001,13:29
so if I run my 5:4 lcd monitor at 1024x768 it will be out of proportion?I don't know if my puter can handle max payne or rtcw at 1280x1024 
Posted by ASCIIMan on Dec. 04 2001,05:11
If you use the automatic scaling, it will be out of proportion at 1024x768. You should be able to turn it off in the LCD controls, though it probably won't matter for most games.
Posted by directhex on Dec. 24 2001,22:38
i was gonna spend £300 on a brand new high-end 15.1" lcd as soon as my parents pay me for doing well in my 1st year uni exams. time to throw out my old 14" (12.9 viewable) AST Vision4L, which copes remarkably well at 1024x768.
--directhex
|