LCD Monitor Suggestions

Because of the Christmas season, any items purchased at a BestBuy/FutureShop can be returned for a full refund. I have been using this opportunity to test out an array of LCD monitors.

Sadly however, I find the LCD market somewhat dissappointing, especially for a graphic artist.

Can anyone recommend an 19' LCD monitor with a resolution of at least 1280x1024 (which is what I use on my 17' CRTs. oh well), a response time adequate for gaming, and most importantly, PROPER GRADIENT DISPLAY.

Of all the monitors I have tested, none can begin to properly display gradients, displaying transitional lines at intervals inside the gradient. Furthermore, their color reproduction has been inadequate, and Brightness/ Contrast is an area of worry.

Again, anyone recommend an LCD monitor that will allow a person to effectively design and edit images on a computer (with a price range of about $500).

its true that the lcd market is not as great as they would like you to think it is. i cannot recommend anything because Im having the same issues. I think you may have to look beyond the stock at large box stores.

Why are you looking for an LCD?  You yourself list quite a few reasons why they suck compared to CRTs (of which you apparently already have at least two).

>>3 Presumably you're also an advocate of steam-powered CPUs.

>>4
I'm an advocate of sticking with what works until something provably better comes along, and evaluating upgrades against cost and convenience whenever that happens.

From your tone, you seem like an advocate for automatically buying what's new instead of determining what's good for yourself.

>>4
>>5

stop arguing between "OMG UBER NEW" and "this runs ok now as 10 decades ago"
because it will end on rock&troll-ing

lcd is good for HIGH definition (1900x1600) and crt are good for LOW resolutions (1280x1024)

btw, i'll suggest you to keep your CRT for at least 3-4 month, till new screen get on the market (or the older one's price is reduced).

i use AVidAV 17" lcd at 1280x1024 (with a secondary crt at 1024x768) and it's working great (at great resolution i need to reduce refresh rate, but it works fine too)

>>6 lcd is good for HIGH definition (1900x1600) and crt are good for LOW resolutions (1280x1024)
Simplistic evaluation is simplistic (and wrong).

LCD is good for discrete pixel/sub-pixel addressing and screen geometry (like all fixed-resolution display technologies), light weight and slim profile, but fails for black levels, picture processing latency, small viewing angle, resolution inflexibility (scaler required for non-native resolutions and scan frequencies), and screen door effect.

CRT is the BEST technology for image quality.  Think of any criteria that pertains solely to picture, other than whatever comes as part of being non-digital (such as screen geometry non-desicrete pixel addressing), and CRT is best.  Non-picture-related strengths include variable resolution and high viewing angle.  Downsides are weight and depth required for the tube.

It's obvious that LCD's strengths are not in image quality.  It is the cheapest and least impressive of all the new digital technologies including LCoS/D-ILA/SXRD, plasma, and DLP, none of which have solved the illumination problems that cause their black levels to look like shit compared to CRT.  If the OP had only answered my question, "Why are you looking for an LCD," with an answer like "I need something light and thin to carry to LAN parties," I'd have no problem recommending a good LCD.  Otherwise, stick with the fucking best display technology out there and save your money for when these POS technolgies can catch up.  But no, he said he was going to use it for designing and editing images.  Who the fuck would buy a sub-$1000 LCD for that and be happy with it compared to a much cheaper CRT?

My recommendation:  Find a Diamondtron or non-Dell Trinitron from 2000 or later on eBay for less than $300 at the size you want.  You will get fine sharpness, excellent geometry, vibrant color, and accurate gamma that will last for years longer than it would take for any of the pixels in even the most expensive LCD to go dead.  And you will be able to resell it for almost the same amount as you paid for it years from now, because people who know about CRTs are always on the look out for more.

>>7 I think you've got it wrong.  LCD 'fails for black levels'?? I think you'll find it's actually one of it's many strengths.  Latency is the only thing I'll give you out of that pack of lies - as far as 'small viewing angle' is concerned, it's obvious you haven't even checked one in the last three years - they now have just as good a viewing angle as CRTs - they also have perfect image geometry - squares are actually square on an LCD.  Amongst their many other advantages are: low power consumption - thus low heat output, lack of flickering , they don't gradually gass like CRT tubes do and they weigh a fraction of the CRT equivalent.  As for image quality, again where have you been the last few years.  I'm looking at this page on a nice 24" widescreen LCD with a 1920x1200 resolution, rock-solid image that beats the shit out of my old 21" Sony CRT (which cost a fortune and had a claimed resolution of 2048 x 1600 but was unreadable beyond 1600 x 1200).  Ten years ago I hated LCDs too, but a couple of years ago I checked again and realised they'd overtaken CRT technology forever. 
Whine all you like, with CRTs you're talking dead tech, and judging from the range of CRTs you can buy now, I'd say the majority of manufacturers agrees with me.

>>8
I think you've got it wrong.  LCD 'fails for black levels'?? I think you'll find it's actually one of it's many strengths.

i think if you do some research you'll find how much you're flailing.

>>8
Oh, wow.  Ad Hominem University graduates another champ.

I'm not responding to your technical analysis, other than to say that (1) yes, LCDs are the more power-efficient display technology, and (2) manufacturers themselves know LCD is cheap junk (to make, that is).  Read much news about Panasonic and their own internal LCD vs. plasma mindgames lately?  They're the only ones with guts these days, which is nice to see after their recent failures.  No, profit margins are higher (cheap as fuck for no-names like Olevia to make) and inventory logistics are more convenient (as with all slim profile screens) for manufacturers with flat screen tech than with CRTs.  That is why LCD is getting a strong marketing push.

Otherwise, enjoy your LCD.  It's not like you're spending my money or viewing your images with my eyes.  I will bypass the tech completely.  Until SED/laser/OLED can match CRT in PQ at the right price without failing like all the current backlit/bounced-light technologies, CRT is it for me.  But if I need a slim/light screen and didn't care about image quality matching CRT in the mean time, sure, I'd buy an LCD.  LCD has its purposes; it's just nice to be mindful of what they are.

>>10 'Ad Hominem University graduates another champ'
Well if it did, I graduated from the same institution as you, just a couple of years after you and with slightly more modern information.
As for profit margins being higher for LCDs, well yes of course, this usually happens when you compare old and new production techniques.  Valves were more expensive to produce than their successors, transistors.

In the meantime, I hope your old CRT lasts long enough for you to bypass current technology for something which satisfies your obviously 'unique' standards, though what that is God only knows.

>>11
I only raise the point to explain why LCDs are more attractive to manufacturers.  My concern is maximum PQ.  One would hope that this would not be a unique standard.

I have enough CRTs in service as HT displays and computer monitors from as early as over 15 years ago that still look beautiful, and I expect no less from the HD CRTs I've bought in the past 4 years for myself and for family (including a used Trinitron FD monitor, a new HFX73, and a floor-display HFX84).  I think I'll be okay until something else can finally catch up to CRT in PQ.  (Protip:  Don't run a CRT in torch mode; doing so will decrease the life of the tube and will result in a picture with unrealistic black levels that look almost as bad as your typical brand-new LCD.)

>>12 Well, they say 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'.  I've been staring at screens for a living for many years now (yes I'm an Analyst/programmer - well, an IT consultant these days) and I'm only too pleased to wave goodbye to CRT.  I only wish I hadn't thrown my old ones away, as I could have probably sold them to you, but no-one I know would have taken them, as they have all gladly followed the same route as me.

>>13
No worries.  Like I've been saying all along, LCD has valid applications.

>>1 recommend an LCD monitor that will allow a person to effectively design and edit images on a computer (with a price range of about $500).

I'd recommend LG L1952.

Costs about 200€, 4:3 1280x1024 native resolution, 8ms response time, 1600:1 contrast ratio and it is more lightweight & slim than most LCDs.

>>15
1280x1024 is 5:4, not 4:3

<A href="http://www.patekphilippewatches.us/">replica watch</A><BR><A href="http://www.patekphilippewatches.us/">cheap replica watches</A><BR><A href="http://www.patekphilippewatches.us">watches for sale</A><BR><A href="http://www.patekphilippewatches.us/Rolex/Day%20Date%20II/">Rolex Day-Date II watch for sale</A><BR><A href="http://www.patekphilippewatches.us/Breitling/">replica Breitling</A><BR><A href="http://www.patekphilippewatches.us/Movado/">movado replica</A><BR><A href="http://www.patekphilippewatches.us/Panerai/">replica Panerai</A><BR><A href="http://www.patekphilippewatches.us/Lady-watches/">Lady replica</A><BR><A href="http://www.patekphilippewatches.us/Rolex/Datejust%20II/">Rolex Datejust II watch for sale</A><BR>