new Samsung LCD

[Wombat]

1280x1024 was the max. resolution of some old video card. I used to know the exact model, but I can't remember/find it now. They used every bit of memory possible for the frame buffer of some card.

[Michel Carleer]

Well, the LCD monitors 17" and up are not 4:3, they are 5:4 and the pixels are square. Not the same for CRT though.
By the way, video QCIF (or is it CIF?) is 352x288 in PAL land. It has however an aspect ratio of 4:3, which means the pixels are not square. On the other hand, DVD or DV is 720x576, which is 5:4 (once again PAL).
Now, which resolution should a monitor have? And with what pixel aspect ratio?
Finally, add to that the NTSC formats and widescreen TV.
I guess we should all use variable aspect ratio monitors, the kind that can be stretched at will.

[Greebe]

Exactly. Putting 1280x1024 on a 4:3 aspect ratio monitor is dumb. Try image/photo/video editing when it's all vertically squished.

I'm willing to bet it was a marketing maneuver to one up the competition... then we had the snowball effect and the rest is history

[Reverend Maynard]

I am curious how 1280x1024 ever wormed it's way into the mainstream. And how 1280x960 didn't. I've never cared enough to sit down and figure out if 1280x1024 is the only odd-ball resolution, but assuming it is, why is it supported over 1280x960?

[Gurm]

Agent31,

Perhaps because 50% or more of video cards don't support that resolution at any given time?

- Gurm

[Agent31]

one thing that has always got me about the 17" LCDs, is that they're specced natively at 1280x1024... which is actually a different height-width ratio to almost all other resolutions.

why can they not make one which is 1280x960, I wonder?

[Allankyoto]

Yeah I haven't really tried to run that many games in anything other than 1280x1024. I changed the desktop to other resolutions and it looked pretty bad (in comparison to the ultra-crisp 1280x1024). I've been playing NWN so it's important to be able to read the text. I noticed how much easier on the eyes this game is with this monitor.

Oh and I read the new 17" LCD monitor roundup review over at www.tomshardware.com. It's a shame that this monitor wasn't there. I think it would have done very well. It's funny considering the cheapest 17" tested was the $800 Viewsonic one. This one is $200 cheaper than any of them and with a contrast ratio of 350:1, a brightness of 250cd m2 and a 25ms pixel refresh rate. I think it can go toe to toe with any of them.

Of course I just dished out $600 for a new screen so I'm just a little excited about it.

[Gurm]

Hrm, play with it. The Viewsonic and Cornerstone models have REALLY good scaling, once it's maximized you really only notice the effect with text.

- Gurm

[Allankyoto]

Yeah thanks for the info! My Geforce 3 is good and can run most games at 1280x1024 without choking. I guess though that if I want to continue running in that resolution smoothly for games I'd get a Parahelia but I'm going to have to have to hope for REALLLY improved drivers. Then again I could get ATI's or Nvidia's next gen cards when they are released. Decisions, decisions.

Turning the resolution to anything other than 1280x1024 looks pretty ugly unless you run it in a window with your desktop set to the native resolution. That takes a lot away from the immersion factor though.

[Gurm]

Yes, sort of.

LCD's that are listed as 17" actually have 17 viewable inches... making them the equivalent, say, of your average 19" monitor. Add to that the pixel-perfect capability to run at 1280x1024 (my 19", while nice, is relegated to 1152x864 due to looking like CRUD at 1280) and you have a winner. If I had a spare $600-$800 I'd pick up this Samsung, or viewsonic's equivalent.

- Gurm

[Allankyoto]

Hmmm. I guess I need to get a bit more educated on LCDs. Thanks Gurm!

In any case, the LCD is being marketed as Samsung's new 'high spec' model here in Japan. From personal experience the quality is excellent and it looks great in games too. I think that this is the LCD that starts to take flat screens to gamers ( at least those of us who want to still be able to see when we reach the ripe old age of 40 ). Doing the current exchange rate it works out to cost around $600 U.S. dollars. That's not a bad price for a high quality 17" LCD. Oh and for those of you with a Parhelia who want reasonable refresh rates so that you can mix in your LCD with a CRT this LCD can do 75hz at 1280x1024.

Oh and is it just me or do LCD's look bigger than they are actually listed at? Do they have a larger viewable area than a regular monitor?

[Gurm]

25ms is very nice. But it's one-way.

It's the time from full-off to full-on. And the time back. NOT the total time - nobody makes an element that will do that yet.

- Gurm

[Allankyoto]

Well I guess I should have been a bit more specific with that pixel refresh thing. Here in Japan there are various stores that are listing the pixel refresh rates as 25ms up and down (there is kanji with up and down next to the numbers). I think part of the reason is that some manufacturers don't have any pixel refresh rate information clearly listed in their brochures. I know that in all the models I've looked at here in stores (Kansai area Japan) that Sharp and NEC don't have that number anywhere on any of their official stuff. Customers are left to ask the store staff what the rate is and when they can't find it in the material they have to find out somehow. My guess is that they call up Sharp or NEC or others companies ( I can't remember exactly which ones don't list the rate) and ask them directly. They then post up the sign. This is happening in some major department stores here not just in some little "Mom and Pop" operations so it's no fluke.

Anyway it was my mistake in saying manufacturers were listing them this way. I should have said stores here in Japan are listing them this way. Sorry for the confusion

[Greebe]

Still the 25ms pixel refresh is not a misread. It does not seem to be 25 up and 25 down as some manufacturers try to list their LCD's.

No manufacture specs +/-25ms. If you have seen this it's a misprint.

[Allankyoto]

Hmmm. No blurring in 3dmark 2001 at all even though the framerates are very high. I wonder if my blurring in Army Ops was because of vertical sync being enabled. Time to go check that out. ;-)