??? where's the LCD thread?

[az]

It just vanished without warning.

Anyway, here is my answer to gurm (asking why AUO don't make a 18" 16ms panel):

TN isn't as good when it comes to viewing angles, thus you use IPS for bigger screens (bigger screen=automatically larger viewing angle at same distance). IPS is too slow, though. With a TN panel in an 18" screen, the viewing angle problem would be too noticeable, making people avoid those screens. Plus, 17" is the sweet spot for price/size, and has the same native resolution as 18". So maybe they will do an 18" 16ms panel, but they had to start with the optimal 17" one

But the newer NEC flat panel screens are really, really nice (and beautiful!).

AZ

[Gurm]

This is yet another thread, mysteriously gone!

Hmm... wasn't the other one yours, too?

- Gurm

[az]

Sorry, don't know what you're referencing at

Nowhere accidentally deleted his thread.

AZ

[Gurm]

Yeah I caught that. Thanks for the LCD info though.

- Gurm

[az]

Always a pleasure to know somethign you don't Gurm

AZ

[Gurm]

Hey, there are LOTS of things I don't know. The fact that I can't usually think of any offhand is irrelevant.

- Gurm

[CHHAS]

Not sure if it was brought up in the missing thread, I've been looking at an ACER AL732 17" TFT, looks pretty neat, but I'm not really in the loop with these things.

http://www.acer.com.sg/products/monitoral732/p_monitoral732.asp

Any opinions ?

[az]

It's almost as good as the NEC we were talking about (In fact, all 16ms LCDs use the same TN panel from AUO), has s-video and video inputs in addition to the dsub and dvi. The colors are not quite as stable when viewed from different angles as with the NEC, but almost, contrast is even higher. It's a tad slower than the NEC (20ms opposed to 17.5). Grays might seem a little colored, and with "fastest" settings it's even brighter (too bright) than the NEC (fastest settings are contrast and brightness 80). The built-in speakers are loud, but not very good.

Overall, it's a good screen with nice features (video-in) and nice design, but loses out (by a small margin though - best compare them for yourself) to the slightly more expensive NEC.

So, if you can get it much cheaper than the NEC or prefer its looks or need the video in, get it, otherwise I'd get the NEC

AZ

[The PIT]

Come on someone make an 18 model please.

[az]

I don't think we'll see one this season, maybe next. But for the reasons I explained above, don't hold your breath. 17" is bigger than 17" CRT, and big enough for most people, 18" has the same resolutions so many people won't see a reason to pay much more for that one inch - plus fonts look better on a 17" because of the smaller pixels.

AZ

[Indiana]

There are 18.1" TFTs with 1280x1024 resolution, so the resolution is not always the same for 17" and 18.1"

The Eizo L665 e.g. has this higher resolution and overall shows very good image quality. It's a bit slow, though, so nothing for the hardcore gamer.

[Paulr]

You should find that all LCD's from 17" - 18.4" all use 1280x1024.
In fact off the top of my head I cannot think of a panel smaller than 19" that has 1600x1200 as it's native resolution.

All the major monitor manufacturers are in agreement that this year for the first time ever LCD sales are going to outstrip CRT's.
Sony for example are soon to be stopping all CRT production with the exception of 21"+ displays.
Samsung have got a display with a 12ms response rate (17" again) all but ready for release, we should see it in a month or two - as 16ms displays don't ghost I'm not sure what advantages the 12ms ones will have, but faster is usually always better.

I think it is safe to say that if you are the "ultimate hardcore gamer" then nothing but a CRT is going to suit you.
If on the other hand you game, work, browse and arse around with your OS of choice then a fast LCD is going to do you just fine.
Just make sure you go no slower than 25ms response time and if you are a hardcore gamer (not the ultimate type) then make sure you go for 16ms-20ms.

[Wulfman]

Originally posted by Paulr
as 16ms displays don't ghost I'm not sure what advantages the 12ms ones will have, but faster is usually always better.

the times stated by the manufacturer are only reached under special brightness/contrast settings and are (depending on your settings) usually higher.

mfg
wulfman

[Indiana]

It's even worse: some manufacturers claimed times are nearly correct, others are way off, so a "25ms" panel can be in fact faster than a "20ms" panel...

To the resolutions point:
There still are quite a few cheap 17" TFTs with 1024x768 out there.

[cochese]

I have a samsung 191T and a samsung 172w

THE 191t when using DVI, trailing is very tolerable. Samsungs website says its less than 25ms response time but I think its probably just 25ms.

The 172w is @ 23ms, great for DVDs especially since it has the 16:9 aspect ratio