All you need to know about LCD monitors

[Gabriel Torres]

There has been a new article posted.

Title: All you need to know about LCD monitors
URL: http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/artic...?cat=vga&id=87

Here's a snippet:
Liquid-crystal monitors (LCD – monitors), priorly restricted to notebooks, are now a reality for desktops. It is matter of time until liquid-crystal displays outnumber the traditional monitors in the ...

Comments on this article are welcome.

[Skye]

Maybe this review is in need of a little update? Not necessary, but I feel it could be more informative at this point.
Some of it is just due to technology changes: the review recommends a response time of 25ms or less, but 5-8ms now seems standard.

I guess I could express what I am looking for in a few questions:

- Is the native resolution bound in the way it was? Is this the same as the maximum resolution?

- Are there other things we need to know about contrast ratios, relating to colors perhaps, or influences on gaming?

- And can the manufacturer "lie" about the contrast ratio or response time? If yes, how can we call their bluff?

- Giants and widescreens are now available - what changes should we know about?

Also, maybe a few monitor reviews would be nice. If you can't get your hands on enough monitors, even statistical reviews from the manufacturer's detailed specifications alone would be helpful - just summarize what we are looking at and briefly why.

Right now, and this is written in March of '07 (so it doesn't come back to haunt me), the Samsung 931C is looking particularly nice. It is 19", has a maximum resolution of 1280 x 1024, a DVI input, a contrast ratio of 2000:1, and a 2ms response time. A couple other monitors come close to one of those last two features, but never both in the same box. Yet this monitor is over $100 cheaper than other Samsung models, and evenly priced or slightly cheaper models don't even come close to these stats. What's the gimmick?

[Gabriel Torres]

Hi,

Thanks for the suggestion. This article was written more than 2 years ago, so I should be updating it very soon.

Yes, maximum resolution is the native resolution of the LCD.

Cheers,
Gabriel.

[pavlidis]

guru gabriel!!!!
maybe its time to update this article

[Gabriel Torres]

I will! Just have a little bit of patiece!

Not only this one but several other articles/tutorials need to be updated.

Cheers,
Gabriel.

[Skye]

Heh, the day you let the world know of your skills is the day they break down the door to your lab demanding ... well, I don't know. Started to sound like a real quote there.

[a-l-e-x]

Originally Posted by Skye

Maybe this review is in need of a little update? Not necessary, but I feel it could be more informative at this point.
Some of it is just due to technology changes: the review recommends a response time of 25ms or less, but 5-8ms now seems standard.

I guess I could express what I am looking for in a few questions:

- Is the native resolution bound in the way it was? Is this the same as the maximum resolution?

- Are there other things we need to know about contrast ratios, relating to colors perhaps, or influences on gaming?

- And can the manufacturer "lie" about the contrast ratio or response time? If yes, how can we call their bluff?

- Giants and widescreens are now available - what changes should we know about?

Also, maybe a few monitor reviews would be nice. If you can't get your hands on enough monitors, even statistical reviews from the manufacturer's detailed specifications alone would be helpful - just summarize what we are looking at and briefly why.

Right now, and this is written in March of '07 (so it doesn't come back to haunt me), the Samsung 931C is looking particularly nice. It is 19", has a maximum resolution of 1280 x 1024, a DVI input, a contrast ratio of 2000:1, and a 2ms response time. A couple other monitors come close to one of those last two features, but never both in the same box. Yet this monitor is over $100 cheaper than other Samsung models, and evenly priced or slightly cheaper models don't even come close to these stats. What's the gimmick?

Im not sure this is the case now, but I remember reading that Samsung monitors were, in reality, 6 bit monitors, and not the normal 8 bit "true color" monitors others (like Viewsonic) are. When I replaced my Samsung with a Viewsonic, I noticed brighter and more vivid colors. But that might be due to lcd aging... which is another topic which should be covered in an update: right now Ive got two monitors, a Viewsonic 20" (1600 x 1200) which Ive had since 2003, and a Sony 19" (1280 x 1024) from 2005. Both seem to be going strong. I wonder how long these monitors are supposed to last?

[Gabriel Torres]

Hi guys

I finally took the time to update this tutorial... Sorry about this huge delay.

Cheers,
Gabriel.

[nhasian]

Hello Gabriel Torres,

First thanks for writing the article. It has a lot of useful information but I strongly disagree with your suggestion of getting a lower resolution monitor for users that read a lot of text. The higher the resolution is, the more crisp & clear (and less jagged) the text will be and it will reduce eye strain. If your using a high resolution display, you will need to adjust the DPI to compensate. For example, instead of the default 96dpi change it to 120dpi or 144dpi.

Guide to change dpi in Windows Vista http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/wi...windows/?p=740

Guide to change dpi in Windows XP http://www.brighthub.com/multimedia/...cles/2249.aspx

Guide to change dpi in Gnome Linux http://kevin.vanzonneveld.net/techbl...een_using_dpi/

Bottom line is everyone benefits from higher resolution displays.

If you only use your computer to browse the internet, write e-mails, use spreadsheets and word processing you will probably want to stick with a monitor with a lower resolution, because they are cheaper and won’t make your icons and letters to become very small.

[Gabriel Torres]

Thanks for your comments, I will change the tutorial sometime soon to reflect your ideas.

Cheers,
Gabriel.