[Iron_Dreamer]

I can only recommend the CTX S962G, I set one up for my stepmother's system off the DVI output of a Matrox G450, and it looks KILLER. Absolutely wastes my Samsung 900NF crt, except in low level black detail. The handle on the back of the monitor is quite handy, and I like the fact that it has the power supply inside, so that is on fewer wallwart cluttering up your outlets/powerstrips.

EDit: linky! duh, : http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProduc...103-184&depa=0

 

[Helter Skelter]

My advice is to go for a 17" monitor instead, as you'll get the same resolution (1280x1024) in a less expensive package. Samsung makes some very good ones, the 710T and the 172X in particular. The NEC LCD1770NX looks pretty good too.

These are all around $400 (or a bit over) at newegg, all have contrast ratios of 500:1 or better, all have a response time of 12ms, and all have DVI inputs.

Or if you can save up a little bit, I HIGHLY recommend the Dell 2001FP 20.1" LCD when it's on sale (which it frequently is, just keep an eye on Slickdeals). Lately it's been going on sale for about $550. It's huge, looks great, it's got a ton of features, a 16ms response time, and it's friggin' FANTASTIC for the price.

 

[Stephonovich]

One thing no one's mentioned so far... almost all LCDs below 20" have a native resolution of 1280x1024. While this doesn't matter much for your average user or gamer, it matters a ton for graphics designers, or even web design, to some degree. Standard resolutions (640x480, 800x600, 1024x768...) have a 4:3 aspect ratio. Same as full-frame movies (well, 1.33:1, but who's couting?). 1280x1024 is 3.75:1, which, yes, makes a difference. The nearest 4:3 resolution is 1280x960. Next standard size is 1600x1200, which is what you get with a ~20-24" LCD.

 

[roadtonowhere08]

I implore you to not put all your eggs into the "response time" basket. Here's the thing: 19" monitors with low response times use panels that are just optimised for speed, NOT quality of viewing. The viewing angles are low and I dare you to look at one from a lower position. Notice something? The picture is GONE.

Now take a look at an LG® Flatron L1930B. Better all arond in terms of quality and viewing angles. AND it has a 25ms response time. Not much difference for a lot better quality. Don't believe me? Check it out yourself. I'd rather sacrifice a tiny bit of speed in exchange for a screen that I can see from a variety of angles and has better picture.

Let THIS be your LCD Bible. A bit long, but you will be a better person after reading it.

 

[Helter Skelter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephonovich One thing no one's mentioned so far... almost all LCDs below 20" have a native resolution of 1280x1024. While this doesn't matter much for your average user or gamer, it matters a ton for graphics designers, or even web design, to some degree. Standard resolutions (640x480, 800x600, 1024x768...) have a 4:3 aspect ratio. Same as full-frame movies (well, 1.33:1, but who's couting?). 1280x1024 is 3.75:1, which, yes, makes a difference. The nearest 4:3 resolution is 1280x960. Next standard size is 1600x1200, which is what you get with a ~20-24" LCD.

Most web and graphic designers I know only worry about fitting stuff to their minimum target resolution, which is usually either 800x600 or 1024x768. Nonstandard aspect ratios like 5:4 (1280x1024) don't make a lick of difference unless you're running it on a monitor that can't display it properly (read: CRTs), or you're trying to play a game that doesn't support the resolution or aspect ratio. Same goes for movies. Whee, you get some black bars, you get those with widescreen movies on 4:3 monitors too.

It wasn't mentioned by anyone because it's a complete non-issue.

 

[Stephonovich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helter Skelter Most web and graphic designers I know only worry about fitting stuff to their minimum target resolution, which is usually either 800x600 or 1024x768. Nonstandard aspect ratios like 5:4 (1280x1024) don't make a lick of difference unless you're running it on a monitor that can't display it properly (read: CRTs), or you're trying to play a game that doesn't support the resolution or aspect ratio. Same goes for movies. Whee, you get some black bars, you get those with widescreen movies on 4:3 monitors too. It wasn't mentioned by anyone because it's a complete non-issue.

If you're designing for a 5:4 aspect ratio, stuff is going to look odd when re-sized for 4:3.

 

[roadtonowhere08]

I think Stephonovich meant was things like graphic design, where things like circles and spheres are not cross compatible with the different aspect ratios. A circle done on a 4:3 will look lopsided slightly on 1280x1024.... unless you like the black bar look

 

[breadnbutter]

If I understand it correctly the physical measures of such a LCD are not in a 4:3 ratio either, so the pixels are still square. Therefore you should not get any problems if you use the native resolution.

However, I think that there is a problem with games and non-native resolutions. If you reduce the resolution for higher framerates I fear that most games offer mostly 4:3 resolutions like 1024x768. Then the game graphics will look slightly "warped" (people look slightly larger and thinner if I am right).
Please correct me if I am wrong, I do not have an LCD myself.

Actually this is one reason why I have not bought an LCD so far, especially as this is (like often with comuters) a result of the mind boggling stupidity of the IT industry. There is absolutely no reason why LCD's can't have a 4:3 ratio. My notebook uses a 1400x1050 resolution, which is perfect! But there is no single display on the market with this resolution! This is even more annoying because with digital cameras they changed the aspect ratio from the old standard for pictures to 4:3 - to avoid having black bars when viewed on monitors. And now they change the display ratios - Argh!

 

[Hello]

Quote:

However, I think that there is a problem with games and non-native resolutions. If you reduce the resolution for higher framerates I fear that most games offer mostly 4:3 resolutions like 1024x768. Then the game graphics will look slightly "warped" (people look slightly larger and thinner if I am right). Please correct me if I am wrong, I do not have an LCD myself.

Pretty much any LCD monitor should be run in it's native resolution -- otherwise, you get a noticeable drop in picture quality. But, if you do run in a non-native resolution, the picture is still fine -- just not as good.

 

[Helter Skelter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadtonowhere08 I think Stephonovich meant was things like graphic design, where things like circles and spheres are not cross compatible with the different aspect ratios. A circle done on a 4:3 will look lopsided slightly on 1280x1024.... unless you like the black bar look

Again, a non-issure unless you're using a 4:3 CRT (and 99.9% of all CRT computer monitors are 4:3, the one exception I know of being a particular model made for Sun, iirc). LCDs with a native resolution of 1280x1024 all have a physical 5:4 aspect ratio, thus no distortion occurs. LCDs have square pixels, and as long as your monitor is using DVI for signal input, there wil NEVER be any distortion or streching while using the native resolution of the display.

You're correct that there's no reason LCDs can't have a non-4:3 aspect ratio, I was not attempting to imply that this was the case, and you are incorrect in assuming that this is the case. My laptop's screen is also 1400x1050 (4:3), my desktop's LCD is a Dell 2001FP running at 1600x1200 (also 4:3), most 15" desktop LCD displays are 1024x768 (again, 4:3). There are yet others, too. There are plenty of LCD panels laptop and otherwise that run widescreen resolutions like 1920x1200, 1680x1050, 1600x900, 1280x768, and many others.

 

[Asmo]

Just poppin in my 2 cents, I recently got a 19" LCD too, I got the BenQ FP937s, its 500:1 contrast ratio, 12 ms response, DVI, and has a good picture, the downside is it uses 6 bit panel colors instead of 8 bit colors (resulting in 16.2 million total colors instead of 16.7) if you are a graphic designer you would not want a 6 bit panel as you can sometimes see grainyness in super high quality graphics (i have not noticed anything yet with windows/gaming/movies etc)

Its better than the FP931, cost a bit more tho.

 

[breadnbutter]

Helter Skelter: I meant that all 19" desktop displays on the market (as far as I know) have the same non 4:3 ratio. I guess that your 1600x1200 display is bigger than 19"?

Personally I would love to get a 19" with 1400x1050, that would be the perfect size for me. 1600x1200 might be a little too small at this size?

And maybe one day in the distant future the desktop will be scaleable (due to SVG and so on, I think with Linux this already works partly). I think this is long overdue. Maybe Avalon will be capeable of think? Anyway, I am a bit off topic here

 

[AdamWill]

"I wanna buy a 19" LCD"

Do you need the space saving over a CRT? Do you mind about worse colour reproduction, slower response time and lower resolution? Do you pay a lot for power?

1 point for 'yes' to q. 1, 1 point to 'no' for q. 2, 3 and 4, 1 point to 'yes' for q. 5. If you score two points or less, reconsider your decision. LCDs are 'cool' these days, but CRTs are still the best choice in many situations. For a given amount of money, you can usually buy a CRT which will give you a bigger display area, higher usable resolution, better colour reproduction and better response. LCDs have the advantage in size, weight and convenience (you don't need to carefully adjust the display), but not really anywhere else. The biggest problem I have with desktop LCDs is their ridiculous resolution limitations - it's very hard, and very expensive, to find *any* desktop LCD screen capable of over 1280x1024 resolution, which a $200 19" monitor can display perfectly well. a 21" monitor capable of giving a good clear picture at 1600x1200 resolution goes much cheaper than a 19" or 20", 1280x1024 LCD display.

 

[Wodgy]

Does anyone know of any desktop LCDs with a native resolution of 1400x1050? I really like that resolution because it's in the middle between 1280x1024 (too small) and 1600x1400 (too large). I don't really need or want a 20 inch monitor on my desk -- my living room TV is smaller than that.

I'd also consider for one of the widescreens with 1680x1050, but they all seem pretty expensive, relatively speaking, and with an LCD I insist on buying locally rather than mail order, because I need to inspect for bad pixels before buying.

 

[Helter Skelter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by breadnbutter Helter Skelter: I meant that all 19" desktop displays on the market (as far as I know) have the same non 4:3 ratio. I guess that your 1600x1200 display is bigger than 19"? Personally I would love to get a 19" with 1400x1050, that would be the perfect size for me. 1600x1200 might be a little too small at this size?

There seems to be some confusion. Yes, pretty much every 19" desktop LCD on the market are 1280x1024, a 5:4 aspect ratio. They are using a physical 5:4 aspect ratio as well, though, so no distortion or "warping" is happening unless you stray from using the native resolution (native is 1280x1024, so displaying a standard 4:3 resolution like 1024x768, say, for a game, is going to look a bit odd. This bugs some people, others don't mind it). Same story with 17" displays. I fully agree that the existance of an "in-between" resolution like 1400x1050 on desktop displays would be most welcome, as it would actually offer a good reason to go for a 19" display over a 17".

Yes, my monitor (Dell 2001FP) is a 20.1" display. I believe that it is more or less the perfect size for the 1600x1200 resolution. Nothing looks "too small" on it. On the contrary, if I use my laptop with it's 1400x1050 display for a while and then switch over to my desktop, everything loks a bit too large for a while until my eyes adjust.

AdamWill: LCDs have come a long way. Response times of 16ms or better are perfectly fine for pretty much anything you could hope to do with the monitor, including watching movies and playing fast-paced games with lots of movement. Color reproduction, depending on the model, can be just about as good as most half-decent CRTs out there (this is not to say there arent's some nicer CRTs out there that don't excel in this regard). I'd say that unless you're doing graphics work which absolutely requires perfect color reproduction (which you're never going to get anywhere, really), there's no reason except for cost NOT to go with an LCD. Not having to put up with eye strain from staring at a CRT all day is worth the cost alone, for me.

Wodgy: I'm afraid there aren't any desktop LCDs running at 1400x1050 (yet, at least). I can recommend the Dell 2005FPW (1600x1050), which is another great bargain. As I understand, it uses the same LCD panel as the 20" Apple displays. Similar to the 2001FP (and much unlike the Apple displays), it goes on sale very frequently, often for under $600. Now, I know you want to buy locally, but let me assure you that the only things this ensures is that a) you pay entirely too much money, and b) you don't get any bad pixels out of the box (they may still develop later on). Speaking of bad pixels, Dell has a 30 day satisfaction guarantee. If in that period you find any bad pixels or other problems with your newly delivered monitor, you call them up, send it back, and they send you another. You are free to keep doing this until you get one you are satisfied with. Really, though, don't wory about it so much.

What happened with my 2001FP is that it arrived and I thouroghly inspected it for bad pixels when I got it and for a while after that. I didn't notice any, which pleased me. Currently, several months later, I have 4 pixels that have problems with them. I only ever notice them on black backgrounds and when I'm looking for them. They're so small as to be easily mistaken for a tiny speck of dust on the screen, and that's when I'm looking for them. On lighter backgrounds than almost pure black (that is, %95 of the time), they're completely invisible.

Wow, this post got long...