[brj]

Ok, I'm on another research mission for the parents... new LCD monitors for Dad's office PC and Mom's Mac Mini at home.  Unfortunately, I've been keeping up more with processors and computer parts lately than LCDs, and it appears that the LCD market has been advanced quite a bit with some new panel types out there, including MVA and PVA matrices, that I haven't kept up with.

For those of you that have kept up better than I, do you have any recommendations for either a 19" 1280x1024 LCD or a 22" 1680x1050 LCD?  (Those sizes and resolutions were selected in an attempt to get a roughly similar dot pitch of sufficient size.)

Thoughts on selection properties:

• I'd prefer a more advanced monitor on general principle as a hedge against longevity, but to be honest, the primary use of these monitors won't justify moving too far up the price curve to get them.  Thus, fast response time would be nice for the occasional movie, but not at a 25% price premium.
• Even the older TN panels have plenty of viewing angle from my experience, so I'm not overly concerned about that either (but will take it if I can get it).
• Photo viewing is very likely on both, but there will hardly be any color critical post-production work going on.
• Ease of use is nice, but to be honest, I've never really messed around with an LCD once it was set up properly anyway, so I'm not overly concerned about ergonomics past my ability to set up the monitors for both of them.
• I do have concerns about overall panel quality and the dead pixels, especially when ordering from online vendors.
• Budget - call it anywhere between $200-325 shipped, and I'd prefer to bend that toward the lower end unless the panel is really worth it.
• Through work, I can get minor discounts on HP and Lenovo, and free shipping on Dell, but none of the deals are particularly mind-blowing.

I've read about quite a few options by this point, but they all seem to have various issues.

So... anyone have any particularly strong recommendations?  Many thanks for any help!


Edit: Corrected resolution of 22" monitor

[jqp]

Acer AL2216Wbd (22" LCD, 1680x1050)

http://arstechnica.com/guides/buyer/2007-holiday-upgrade-guide.ars/5

I have a couple of samsung's but this looks like a great deal

[satfrat]

I got my Acer AL2416W 24" 1920 x 1080 LCD (16 x 10 screen) for $700 but the price has dropped to around $500 now. Nothing fancy here, minimal controls and nothing you'd want to buy for good movie viewing but if you're just cruising the web like me, then it's pretty damn sweet! I had this thing sent brand new with the contrast at 90 (0-100). I have both the contrast & brightness set at 34 each and even then, it's too bright when I'm tryint to watch TV (this LCD sits next to my recliner in my home theater, yea, 2 monitors at once most of the time). This would be a massive screen with excellent resolution for a cheap price if you can find it. I've had mine awhile now so I'm sure it's yesterday's LCD.

Cheers, Robin

[brj]

Thanks for the replys, guys!  I'll check out the 22" Acer, but the 24" is definitely overkill for my parents.  Of course, if it were me, I'd be gazing longingly at a reburbed 30" Apple Cinema Display!

For reference, it appears that there is yet another resolution with a dot pitch similar to my target - 20" 1400x1050.  The LCD market has really exploded since I bought my 19" 2+ years ago!

19" 1280x1024 = 86.27 PPI or 0.2944 mm dot pitch
20" 1400x1050 = 87.50 PPI or 0.2903 mm dot pitch
22" 1680x1050 = 90.05 PPI or 0.2821 mm dot pitch

(PPI = pixels per inch)

[JohnR]

There was a thread in Eye Fidelity you may want to look up.

I'm looking at an HP w20 right now, which is I think right on your second resolution/size option. I really quite like it, more than I expected considering the cost - I think I was perhaps lucky with my choice on this one. I don't/haven't tried it for photo work and haven't attempted to calibrate it, but I just had a quick go at viewing photos and I'm not noticing any huge differences from my CRT upstairs (from memory). It's certainly waaay better than the laptop screen.

BTW yes it does go pink if you stand up while looking at it. So, as the doctor says, don't do that

[brj]

Thanks, John - I believe you are referring to this thread.  My requirements set is quite a bit less demanding on the color accuracy side, so I'm hoping that generates some different responses.

It seems that HP doesn't offer anything by wide screens in the commercial lineup, although they have a few in the business line.  The HP w2007 has some really good reviews, but they unfortunately don't appear to translate to the HP w2207, which has the dot pitch I'd like to achieve.  The LCD market really does seem to be a mess!

[EProvenzano]

Hi gents,

Sorry to ask this slightly off topic question....
Would someone tell me what the basic draw backs are to using a LCD TV, say a 32", as a computer monitor?

I love the idea of wall mounting a lcd tv as a monitor.  I'm hoping to free up some extra work space, and improve the look of my den by de-cluttering the desk.

Any thoughts much appreciated.
EP

[nathanm]

TVs have much lower resolution, you wouldn't want them for computer use.

[bpape]

Agreed.  If you want to use a TV, you'll want to get one that has true HD resolution - 1920x1080 and it HAS to be able to take progressive signals - not just interlaced.  PC's stopped outputting interlaced a long time ago.

Bryan

[hometheaterdoc]

TVs have much lower resolution, you wouldn't want them for computer use.

Huh?

Virtually every TV on the market today is at least 1280X720P, or 1366X768 (or some variant close to this), with an increasing number of units (mostly in the larger panel sizes) now full 1920 X 1080P.

The true 1080P panels are all more expensive than the 720P variants. 

But every single one of them will work as a computer monitor.  Every video card in a computer I've worked with in the last 4+ years can output at least 1280X720P.  That's a standard HDTV resolution.

TVs are starting to get away from it, but most used to come with a D-15 VGA connection on them.  I know every plasma I've had through here in the last 5 years did.  A simple DVI-HDMI adapter plug also allows connection to HDMI inputs, which most HDTVs nowadays are coming with 2+ HDMI inputs.

If the TV is across the room, most folks want to go with a lower resolution anyways to get larger font and icons to see it.


There is absolutely no reason why you can't use a flat panel TV as a computer monitor provided you've got a video card that will support the inputs on the back of the TV.  You might get a minor touch of overscan on a plasma, but not nearly as extreme as a lot of rear projection sets used to do. 

[bpape]

Sorry - I'd go nuts if I had to use a 720 line display resolution.  Minimum I use is 1280x1024 which means a 1920x1080.  What I said about having to accept a progressive signal is also still true.  Computer video is not output in interlaced formats.

Bryan

[brj]

You certainly can use a TV, but I'd have to agree... I could only use a TV for any length of time if it was 1920x1080 progressive, and that makes for an awfully expensive computer monitor.  Ahh... the 30" LCD monitors... 2560 x 1600!!

Anyway, back to reality and my search for a measly 1280x1024, 1400x1050 or 1680x1050 monitor...

[lonewolfny42]

Brian....Would this help......

or....this....

[satfrat]

Thanks for the replys, guys!  I'll check out the 22" Acer, but the 24" is definitely overkill for my parents.  Of course, if it were me, I'd be gazing longingly at a reburbed 30" Apple Cinema Display!

For reference, it appears that there is yet another resolution with a dot pitch similar to my target - 20" 1400x1050.  The LCD market has really exploded since I bought my 19" 2+ years ago!

19" 1280x1024 = 86.27 PPI or 0.2944 mm dot pitch
20" 1400x1050 = 87.50 PPI or 0.2903 mm dot pitch
22" 1680x1050 = 90.05 PPI or 0.2821 mm dot pitch

(PPI = pixels per inch)

If i were you brian, I wouldn't anything other than 1920 x 1080 resolution for your parents. The higher resolution would make for better reading and weak eyes come with old age. And the same holds true for a large screen. The large the screen, the easier reading will be. 24" is probably too much but a 17" or 19 or even a 20 " would probably be just right. The thing about a large screen is your parents won't have to sit on top of the screen to read text. myself with my 24" acer, I sit a good 3 feet away from the screen and it's pretty sweet not having to squint to read AudioCircle. Just food for thought,,,,

Cheers,
Robin

[ctviggen]

Oh you'd have to get something larger than 17 inches.  I think that's what I have, and the resolution I use is 1024x768.  Anything finer, and everything simply gets too small to read.  You have to start using large fonts and large icons, but then things get screwed up with that.

[brj]

Thanks for the input guys!  The screen sizes and corresponding resolutions that I laid out were very specifically chosen to provide a dot pitch comfortable to older eyes (and my own relatively younger eyes, for that matter).  Resolution alone doesn't address the issue, however, as high resolution on a small screen still makes for small default text sizes.  Thus, the specific combinations that I mentioned.  To be honest, the only reason I mentioned sizes besides the 19" 1280x1024 is that the prices appeared to be almost the same, and if I can get the extra screen real-estate at the same dot pitch for "free", then I'll take it!

Chris, thanks for the links!  I've been to most of the better (in my experience) review sites (tomshardware, anandtech, xbitlabs, pcworld, etc.) and will continue to search them.  The catch is that while it was pretty easy to find some general agreement between the sites a few years ago when I bought my own 19" LCD, there seems to be much less agreement now.  To be fair, however, that appears to be in large part because there are so many more choices now, and they encompass several different LCD technologies  (the older TN, the newer PVA and MVA matrix, etc.).  I've had time to learn of the existence of these new options, but that is about it so far.  My hope was simply that someone had already penetrated the LCD jungle recently, however, and had specific model recommendations as a result.

(The couple of times I've purchases an LCD in the past, I talked my way into a good deal at the local Fry's Electronics, where I could actually see the monitor I was buying - having researched it prior to going into the store - and knew that the unit I was buying was fully functional with no dead pixels, backlight bleeding, bad color temp, etc..  Unfortunately I don't have access to a store on the scale of Fry's here, and thus was looking to purchase on the Internet this time.)

[mcullinan]

If you go for the 1920 x 1080 make sure its HDCP compliant which means its able to display hidef material. I just got a Samsung 245T 24" to use because my 23 inch Apple display doesnt do Hidef for XBOX 360. Its expensive, relatively 689, but Im also using it for graphic design/web design. GL
Mike

[brj]

Just to provide an update in case others are interested...

After a ton of research, I ended up selecting the Asus LS201 20.1" 1400x1050 LCD monitor.  It is a true 8-bit, 16.8 million color screen, unlike all 22" widescreens that I looked up, including the highly reviewed HP, Viewsonic and Samsung models.  (Those monitors are all 6-bit, and achieve their 16.2 million colors through dithering, although they are often advertised as 16.7 million color screens.  For what it's worth, this wasn't a huge driver in my case, but it was a nice touch.)

In person, the screens look fantastic.  One is going back for a replacement since the panel appears to have been mounted on the stand a bit off of level, but the panel itself is wonderful - no dead pixels on either screen that I can see.  Contrast and brightness are excellent, and the gloss screen is very attractive without significant glare in their current location.  The 4:3 aspect ratio is also very convenient for viewing digital photos.  I can't objectively comment on the color accuracy, although the gloss finish does seem to make images "pop" a bit more than most LCD's I've seen.

For the record, this is the LCD monitor with the sapphire coating... the same stuff used to make watch crystals.  It is supposed to be the hardest screen currently made.  For those that wish to test the theory, I'd suggest first contacting these Ukranian gentleman that decided to test it using a crossbow - after failing to hammer a nail through it!

[DSK]

And CNET punched it with a  ring ....

http://www.cnet.com.au/desktops/monitors/0,239029422,339279486,00.htm

I've been reading all the reviews of late and saw that one. It seems like, as with audio, it often depends on the implementation ... it may not be safe to assume that all 8-bit screens are better than all 6-bit screens.

I'm currently thinking about the Viewsonic VX2255WMB ...

http://www.cnet.com.au/desktops/monitors/0,239029422,339279565,00.htm

Apparently it has crappy speakers but I wouldn't be using them anyway.

[Thump553]

Absolutely fascinating thread, some great info here.  I didn't even know that Asus sold monitors.