TR Forums

I've been clinging to my trusty NEC MultiSync FE992 for years. My monitor has started to darken a bit and the top left corner is a bit fuzzy. I've refused to buy a LCD because I play a lot of games, mainly FPS, and ghosting makes me angry. I'm very sensitive to input lag and when it can't keep up with my eyes it frustrates me. If Plasmas came in this size range I would snatch one up right away as they're everything I'm looking for in a monitor (response rates and contrast ratios on par with CRTs). My price range is $300-$400 and currently I'm looking at these two LCDs.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6824005113
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6824009152

Anyone in the same boat have recommendations? Should I still wait a few more years before buying for techonology to improve upon itself and stuff like OLED backlighting to become mainstream?

On the other hand I'm just looking for a good new monitor. Does anyone know of any really good CRTs that are still being sold in the 21" range?

i have a somewhat similar acer screen to the one you're looking at and i'm happy with it

but i'd definitely go with the LG simply because it's got a higher contrast ratio

I was looking at that too, but it's a ridicuous contrast ratio. Most LCDs seem to boast a higher then 1000:1 contrast ratio by using some other sort of method to measure it. The Acer has a 3000:1 CR, but that's still probably just 1000:1 measured in a different way.

Still don't like how they don't have a standardised method for measuring response rates and contrast ratios.

Measuring contrast ratios is simple. It's just the luminance of pure white (RBG 255/255/255) divided by the luminance of the black level (RGB 0/0/0). Dynamic contrast ratios are almost universally a gimmick, especially in relation to PC monitors. Quoted response times are only really useful for determining the type of matrix and whether or not the monitor's controller features an overdrive function or not. For example, 5ms TN LCDs rarely, if ever, see response times below 10ms. Often, real-life response times are in the 15-25ms range. Strangely enough, 6ms PVA displays with overdrive are generally faster than 5ms TN displays without. Buying an LCD monitor based on some manufacturer quoted specification is not likely to serve your best interest.

if you want better color vibrance you should really go for the LG, but the Acer isn't too bad either...

the acer screen that i have doesn't have ghosting or anything, don't really remember the latency but it's good enough IMO

The real contrast ratios of the screens are probably more like 800:1 for the Acer and 1000:1 for the LG.

In looking at the two displays, I would say that there's no competition between them. The LG wins hands-down.

JdL wrote:

The real contrast ratios of the screens are probably more like 800:1 for the Acer and 1000:1 for the LG.

In looking at the two displays, I would say that there's no competition between them. The LG wins hands-down.

i'd definitely go with the LG myself

Aye...

I learned a lot about different types of panels from this thread: http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1039222

BUT, in looking for specific types of panels, like a S-PVA or P-MVA, I have found that almost no manufacturers actually list the type of panels their monitors use.


I personally have never used a LG and as a secondary monitor I've used a Samsung, but what I noticed is all of their LCDs on newegg, no matter the model, have 5 eggs. I know it's not a reliable measure, but that says something when all your products can be rated so highely.

After some comparisons and thinking, I decided to retreat from the 24" to a 22" to save $100. Is it worth 2 extra inches?

I had a few models I was comparing to, but still opted for a LG for 40 dollars more then the Samsung model everyone and their mom seems to be buying. My friend actually has one at his house (the Samsung). I'll let you guys know how this compares to my CRT.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6824005109

When i was hunting for 22" LCD, i was looking for this one: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6824001273.

But in the end, i had to settle with Viewsonic, as that particular model was not available in India

This LCD thread is always a good place to check for purchase info..
http://forums.anandtech.com/categories.aspx?catid=31&forumid=1

Yeah I was prusing Hardforum and a few random sites with actual reviews of the product before I made my decision.

This is the Samsung everyone and their mom seems to be buying:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6824001268

You do realize it's a glossy screen right? Also, I hope you've got a DVI cable to go with it because it doesn't appear to come with one.

BTW, what's with glossy bezels on LCDs these days? I can well enough use the mirror in the bathroom, thanks.

crazybus wrote:

You do realize it's a glossy screen right? Also, I hope you've got a DVI cable to go with it because it doesn't appear to come with one.

BTW, what's with glossy bezels on LCDs these days? I can well enough use the mirror in the bathroom, thanks.

My preference depends on the environment. On a desktop I would want a matte, on a laptop I'm undecided.

Yup. I've never had a glossy screen, but I heard that particular monitors 'glossyness' is less then that of a CRT. I'm currently going from a CRT so I'm pretty sure I'll be alright. If I could've got that same screen in a matte I would have, but I didn't see one (there are other 22" around the same size, but they're slightly different).

I have a craptastic Samsun SyncMaster 914v to my left right now which has a matte screen and don't think it's really all that bad. Really indifferent.

Yeah, I got a DVI cable too.

Got it today... appearence is very professional, but shiny casing is prone to fingerprinting.

Initial startup the monitor is toooo bright and colors are washed out. I had to tone the brightness down to 40 and without setting the gamma to -50 the entire screen was washed out. There is noticeable color banding in certain dark scenes.

The colors are extremely vivid and it is very sharp compared to my old monitor. There is no longer any ghosting, but the screen goes slightly out of sync (not tearing) when moving real fast in CoD4. Guess they still need to improve a bit in response time. I don't mind the dead pixels, but the colors being washed out and having to set the gamma to -50 makes it seem somehow... off... even though it looks more normal then usual. Reducing the brightness helps, but it also causes the colors to fade. So I either need to burn my retines or stick with lower contrast levels.

If Newegg accepted returns, I would return it and stick with my CRT, but they don't so I'll have to get used to it.


On a side note, people seem to mention CRTs making their eyes go buggy, but I've never had problems with that. I'm the other way around. This LCD is making my eyes bug out. Could be that I have to get used to it.

Side note side note. Dynamic Contrast (LG calls theirs digital contrast ratio, DCR) is annoying. It's like HDR that is on all the time, so I notice my monitor getting darker and lighter, then darker again, then lighter. D:

Ah yeah, the CD I recieved with the user guide, forte manager, and 'driver' was actually warped so it wouldn't play. On inspecting their site I only found the user manual, but not the other two. Does anyone know if there are preset color management profiles somewhere?

Bensam123 wrote:

The colors are extremely vivid and it is very sharp compared to my old monitor. There is no longer any ghosting, but the screen goes slightly out of sync (not tearing) when moving real fast in CoD4. Guess they still need to improve a bit in response time. I don't mind the dead pixels, but the colors being washed out and having to set the gamma to -50 makes it seem somehow... off... even though it looks more normal then usual. Reducing the brightness helps, but it also causes the colors to fade. So I either need to burn my retines or stick with lower contrast levels.

You should not have to make any adjustments to the gamma -- that is what may have contributed to the color banding. Instead, you should look at reducing the brightness as much as possible while keeping the contrast ratio high. That done, adjust the color settings individually on the MONITOR (not through software) until they look accurate.

Also keep in mind that good LCD's are generally a LOT brighter than CRT's. You'll get used to it, and in 3 months, you'll be wondering why you didn't switch sooner

Bensam123 wrote:

Side note side note. Dynamic Contrast (LG calls theirs digital contrast ratio, DCR) is annoying. It's like HDR that is on all the time, so I notice my monitor getting darker and lighter, then darker again, then lighter. D:

Most monitors have a setting to turn DCR off if you don't want it.

My big question is, what about viewing angles?

That's the thing. Reducing brightness makes the colors look bland. Reducing contrast makes them look less vivid, the only way to make everything look normal is by reducing the gamma, it's like the entire picture is overexposed. I agree, you shouldn't need to touch the gamma. Maybe I have a defective monitor? Aparently some other people have the same issue. The colors appear to be off too. 6500k isn't nearly warm enough, but that comes with every LCD and needs to be manually tweaked I suppose (like monitors).

Aye. it looks like fEngine messes with DCR.

Viewing angles are well within tolerable limits. If you're standing you notice things are off, but not moving side to side and sliding around the room. If you're watching something with a lot of black it becomes more prevelant when you're leaning back in your chair and not looking at the appropriate angle. This is griping, compared to other LCDs I've seen (probably all TN), it's the closest I've seen to a monitor.