Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Need some help on computer monitors

  1. #1

    Default Need some help on computer monitors

    do u guys thinks it's a worthwhile investment to pay $499 for a 15" LCD Flat Panel - Analog (1024 x 768 at 60 Hz)?

    pls give ur comments and any other options available.. thanks!

  2. #2

    Default

    if u compare a 17" CRT with 15" LCD if really depends on your needs
    crt got better colours(for serious graphics work) and faster response time(for gaming, otherwise difference very minimum)
    if u dun need these then go for LCD, can save space and elecrticity(especially if u use all day) nicer design and emit less heat

    and btw if u buy LCD, choose one with 1024X768 at at least 75Hz, it will be easier on your eyes and also get DVI(if your graphics card support it)
    Last edited by Helbreath; 28th August 2003 at 02:55 PM.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    334

    Default

    Since this is a photography forum, I recommend you stick to CRT if space permits. I find it is almost impossible to calibrate a LCD monitor. If you need to do post processing on digital photos, what you see on LCD is not what you get. Worse still, the colour and brightness will shift depending on the viewing angle.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by linse
    Since this is a photography forum, I recommend you stick to CRT if space permits. I find it is almost impossible to calibrate a LCD monitor. If you need to do post processing on digital photos, what you see on LCD is not what you get. Worse still, the colour and brightness will shift depending on the viewing angle.
    i second that!

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    12,938

    Default

    It's harder to get accurate colours but if there is no need for high color accuracy, no harm getting LCD monitors. I myself got a 17" model
    Check out my wildlife pics at www.instagram.com/conrad_nature

  6. #6

    Default

    agree with the above posts. got rid of my crt at the beginning of the year, bought a 17" lcd, and regretting the decision.

  7. #7

    Default

    My notebook LCD screen has the best image I've ever seen, whether CRT or LCD. You can still see the picture in daylight (ie. outdoors) and don't have to be looking directly at it to see it properly. I'm not sure if there are desktop LCD's using this technology yet (notebook is Toshiba Satelite 5200), but would be worth waiting for it. No idea how hard it is to calibrate (using a spyder or other) as I've only done the Adobe Gamma calibration. But what I would be looking at is the resolution. My Notebook's screen goes up to 1600 x 1200. It's perfect for digital editing. 1024 x 768 is really limiting. Refresh rate is not such an issue... unless you want to play games on it as well.

  8. #8
    ClubSNAP Idol Adam Goi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    5,682

    Default

    I picked a Sony G420 over a Eizo 565 and I never looked back ...
    Last edited by Adam Goi; 28th August 2003 at 11:58 PM.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    424

    Default

    on the electricity saving bit, it doesn't add up to much $$-wise if you do your math, 24/7 or not.

  10. #10

    Default

    If you consider price/quality wise. it's better to get a CRT. And LCD doesn't have very good contrast as compared to CRT.

  11. #11

    Default

    was thinking of changing to LCD too. but then realized for the $$$ i'm paying for a 17" LCD, i might as well get a 19" CRT!!! i've always wanted a 19" CRT cos of the graphic programmes that i run. plus photoediting will be so much better!!!! tho elctricity wise, a couple more dollars a month is ok lah.

    only buy LCD if:
    1. run very ordinary tasks on PC eg check mail, office documents, presentations...

    2. you need to keep clutter and give space

    3. you leave your monitor "on" for very very long hrs.

    if not, CRT is the way to go man. bring down contrast to about 35, brightness to about 60, 75Hz and you can stay on the screen comfortably for long hours. but of course, must not forget to look at far distances every 45mins to save your eyes regardless!

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JermsDayOut
    if not, CRT is the way to go man. bring down contrast to about 35, brightness to about 60, 75Hz and you can stay on the screen comfortably for long hours. but of course, must not forget to look at far distances every 45mins to save your eyes regardless!

    contrast should be set at max. otherwise you might as well get a 350:1 contrast LCD monitor....

  13. #13

    Default

    ok..thanks everyone for ur kind comments.. think i'll be getting a 17" CRT.. haven't decide on the brand and model yet but planning to spend the minimum amount required la..

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    334

    Default

    I suggest you don't buy the cheapest CRT you can find as their refresh rates are not very high. Try to get one where you can use a 100Hz refresh rate at your resolution or choice. It will be a lot easier on your eyes. I think a lot of people who feel LCDs are better for your eyes are comparing to cheap CRTs.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Tampines, Singapore.
    Posts
    1,899

    Default

    I am using an LG Flatron 795FT+, highly recommended by HWZ forum, for 2 years now, very happy with it. Stupid me to have bought a Sony at first, dumb thing was unreliable and less sharp.

  16. #16
    Harrican
    Guests

    Default

    Hey just saw some offer on HWZ.. $599 17" monitor. and i think Philips also offering 17" monitor for same price now.. if only my old monitor didnt break down last month.. argh!!!

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by linse
    I suggest you don't buy the cheapest CRT you can find as their refresh rates are not very high. Try to get one where you can use a 100Hz refresh rate at your resolution or choice. It will be a lot easier on your eyes. I think a lot of people who feel LCDs are better for your eyes are comparing to cheap CRTs.
    LCDs are also better for your eyes because of lower radiation.

    Using a CRT monitor at max refresh rate of 100Hz+ is also not recommended because image quality degrades. 75-85 is fine.

    For photo-editing, i prefer CRT (until the prices of good LCD monitors drop), for office work over several hours, LCD anytime.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erwinx
    Using a CRT monitor at max refresh rate of 100Hz+ is also not recommended because image quality degrades. 75-85 is fine.
    That't why the monitors that can support 100Hz refresh rates without degrading the image quality cost more. I don't know about you but I do get less eye strain using 100Hz compared to 85Hz. I will get a headache after prolonged use at 75Hz. In fact, I can also perceive flickering in LCDs with lower refresh rates. I guess it all depends on how sensitive a person is to flickering lights.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •