Technical knowledge on LCD monitors needed

[IgnorantBliss]

Until now I've been a fierce CRT supporter, but recently I've gotten tired of the image distortion around the egdes on my monitor and how I can never get the view to be a perfect rectangle. I'm also a bit tired of the space the 19" CRT takes on my desk (I don't like keeping stuff on top of my monitor, so that space as a storage area doesn't work for me). So, I'm thinking of switching to an LCD at last. But I want to make sure the LCD screen I get is free from distortion also. I'm now testing my husband's 19" LG Flatron, and everything else looks pretty good to me, but when I fire up the Sims 2 (using the same resolution as the native resolution of the screen, 1280x1024 pixels) the image looks slightly squished: shapes that are supposed to be round are slightly oblong. Since the aspect ratio of the screen is 5:4, does this distortion mean that the signal of the game image is actually 4:3 or something like that, and that it gets squished to fit the 5:4 screen? Or why does this happen? Also, do all of the 19" of the standard shape have the same aspect ratio? I'm not talking about the pixel dimensions/native resolution, because those are always the same, but the actual, physical dimensions of the screen. Because when I compare the physical measurements of my CRT and hubby's LCD, which are both 19", the aspect ratio of the measurements is different: the LCD is 5:4 while the CRT is 4:3. And does that aspect ratio then change when you go up to a 20" or 21" LCD screen (standard, not wide screen)? When I look up LCD monitors online, they never mention the physical aspect ratio of the screen, so it's hard to tell from that information what it is. I would very much appreciate if someone knowledgeable could clarify this for me. I'm pretty OCD about image aspect ratios being correct, and I don't want to spend hundreds of Euros on a monitor I'm going to hate.

[Simsample]

Have you tried the square pixels setting in the game options? This is meant to stop distortion in game due to differing monitor aspect ratios.

[IgnorantBliss]

Yes, and I didn't notice any difference whether or not the square pixels options was selected 

[KevinTMC]

Also, some monitors (like mine) have an option to leave black bars top/bottom or on the sides as appropriate, to avoid stretching or interpolating pixels. That shouldn't be an issue if you have the game set to run at the LCD's native resolution, but thought I'd throw that out there anyhow.

And I know where you're at regarding making the switch. I had played around with Samsung and LG LCD models and wound up running back to my old trusty NEC CRT; but then a year and a half ago, I finally found what I was looking for. I luuurve my ViewSonic Pro Series display, running off the digital signal from my nVidia card. (I'm sure you already know that a digital input is a must; and that lightning-quick response time, such as these ViewSonics have, is important for games.) The color is, admittedly, still slightly less satisfying than a CRT; but never having to monkey with impossble-to-get-just-right screen geometry ever again, that is a wonderful thing. Calibration is such a snap with an LCD running off a digital signal.

[dizzy]

The thing on my LCD that's tough to calibrate is the contrast. LCDs like contrast that's a bit more extreme than CRTs.

[IgnorantBliss]

Also, some monitors (like mine) have an option to leave black bars top/bottom or on the sides as appropriate, to avoid stretching pixels.

That sounds like a cool option, will have to keep an eye on that.

I'm sure you already know that a digital input is a must; and that lightning-quick response time, such as these ViewSonics have, is important for games.

Yeah, based on what I've been reading over the past couple of days, DVI seems to be strongly recommended (although nobody ever explains in detail exactly how it affects the image quality). And for the response time I've been looking for 8ms or faster.

[jsalemi]

Yeah, based on what I've been reading over the past couple of days, DVI seems to be strongly recommended (although nobody ever explains in detail exactly how it affects the image quality). And for the response time I've been looking for 8ms or faster.

Less processing steps.  DVI keeps the whole signal path digital, while the standard video path to a CRT has to change the signal to analog at some point.  And if you put a digital monitor on the standard VGA output, then the monitor has to convert the analog signal back to digital.  So in all those back and forth changes, the signal can get distorted a bit.

[J. M. Pescado]

Until now I've been a fierce CRT supporter, but recently I've gotten tired of the image distortion around the egdes on my monitor

If you're getting weird distortion around the edges, try moving your speakers away. CRTs can be affected by the magnetic fields generated by the speaker magnets.

[LynnMar]

just puttin my two cents worth in.   I am glad to know that I am not the only one that can't get their CTR monitor to be a perfect square.   what the hell is a pin-cushion anyhow?   

some days when I am in a manic mood I will fool with my monitor for hours trying to get it to look right and other days I just say" heck with it,  I don't care if its round today or square or si-goggaly. I'm not in the mood to fool with it  today.    rolf

[Hegelian]

In my experience, only top-end CRTs have near-perfect geometry. I've never seen it on a sub-US$500 CRT. I had it with a 15-inch MAG back iin the days when that company made high-end monitors, and more recently an Eizo FlexScan FX-C6 (17-inch) I had also had near-perfect geometry. Of course, it was $650 when I bought it in 1998.   

Using a modern graphics board that supports dual monitors, I have an upper-end LCD for Windows work and an inexpensive CRT for games. Works very well. 

[IgnorantBliss]

If you're getting weird distortion around the edges, try moving your speakers away. CRTs can be affected by the magnetic fields generated by the speaker magnets.

I don't have any speakers on my desk (I use ear phones only), so, unfortunately, that's not going to help, either .


Since my first post I've been reading more, and did eventually find out that the 20" monitors with a pixel resolution of 1600x1200 do actually have a 4:3 aspect ratio, as opposed to the non-desireable 5:4 ratio of the 19"/1280x1024. I think I'll go for that. I'm now seriously considering Samsung SyncMaster 204B (20.1"). It appears to have all the options I'm looking for. Now, if only I could test the game on that also before buying it.

Less processing steps.  DVI keeps the whole signal path digital, while the standard video path to a CRT has to change the signal to analog at some point.  And if you put a digital monitor on the standard VGA output, then the monitor has to convert the analog signal back to digital.  So in all those back and forth changes, the signal can get distorted a bit.

I understood that, yes, but the people who recommend getting a DVI, saying "it looks so much better!", they never specify how it looks better, where they notice the difference. But, yes, I'm going for DVI in any case.

[idtaminger]

Color be damned, those things are UGLY! Giant and bulky and just seriously, seriously fug. (Okay, so maybe not some of the Mac monitors, but still, they're HUGE!) I switched to LCD yrs ago, before they were even standard, and I've never once considered going back.

[neriana]

So how your monitor looks on your desk is more important to you than the actual image on your monitor? Ooookay then. I guess they have to sell cars that get like 5 miles per gallon to someone too.

When they start making LCDs that are as good with color as my el cheapo CRT, AND at a reasonable price, I may consider getting one. Until then, I'd rather not spend hours upon hours trying to get an acceptable color value on a monitor and only ending up with "passable".

[J. M. Pescado]

I have no idea what this "color value" business is. It seems like strange babble, as I've never fiddled with any kind of "color value" on any monitor. However, LCDs dissolve into a blurry mass of poo anytime you scroll about or do anything which causes motion. And THAT is bad.

[Sleepycat]

I have two computers for playing TS2 on (my daughter plays on one of them)

One has a CRT 19 or 20" set at 1024x768 I believe, the other (mine) LCD 20.1"  set at 1280x1024 in-game and out and frankly I don't see much of a difference between the two when playing. Colors are slightly different but hell I've seen that between CRTs.

certainly haven't seen it dissolve into a blurry mass of poo when I scroll about 

[Shivani]

Well, for what it's worth, I'm using an AG Neovo F-419 LCD and I've never had any problems with it in conjunction with... well, anything, Sims 2 included.  And it certainly doesn't go all wonky when scrolling.

[Frankenbeasley]

I'm using a Samsung SyncMaster 913n, playing all games at 1280 x 1024. No colour problems, no distortion and no wonky scrolling. Prior to this I was using a 17" LG LCD and before that I had several LG CRT monitors. I've liked them all but I like this one best. I only know two people who still use CRTs, one is a traditional animator who has only just got in to computers because he got given someone's old kit and the other is a dealer who is inordinately cheap and lives in something halfway between a hovel and a squat.

[J. M. Pescado]

certainly haven't seen it dissolve into a blurry mass of poo when I scroll about 

LCDs are very sharp and crisp when the image is static, but the moment it begins to move, anything moving looks like a watercolor painting someone pissed on until it stops.

[IgnorantBliss]

Pescado, have you seen any of the newer LCDs with fast response times? I believe the faster response times are supposed to reduce the blurriness in movements.

[KevinTMC]

I understood that, yes, but the people who recommend getting a DVI, saying "it looks so much better!", they never specify how it looks better, where they notice the difference. But, yes, I'm going for DVI in any case.

With DVI the image is crisper and doesn't need to be tuned, since the digital monitor is not having to try to sync up with an analog signal. It's the difference between the video card telling the monitor "light up a few pixels right around here", and it specifying precisely which pixels to do exactly what with.

It's a more important consideration for text than for gameplay...but how many of us here don't spend hours at a time staring at computer text?

And I don't know what monitors Pescado is looking at, but I don't get blurry masses involving any sort of excreted substance...but then, I also don't use any LCDs with a response time longer than 8ms.

[IgnorantBliss]

OK, placed an order on the Samsung Syncmaster 204B 20.1". Will likely take a couple of weeks until I get it, the store is out of them and will get more from the importer on October 3rd.

[KevinTMC]

New shiny stuff on order! How exciting!

Be sure to let us know how the new display works out.

[Hegelian]

The LCD display I use is a Samsung 193P (19-inch), connected to the DVI output on the graphics controller. I find it excellent even though the backlighting is not uniform across the entire display area (not uncommon with LCDs). Native resolution is 1280x1024 (5:4), which is as high as I would like for a display this size (any higher and text would just be too small). It had three gray pixels out of the box, in use they are invisible—I can't even find them now.

"Blur" or trails on an LCD is a concern when running games with lots of fast motion—driving games and first-person shooters. Unfortunately, the publicized response times dished up by manufacturers are highly suspect, being open to a lot of fudging—there is more than one way to test response time, and real-world testing can reveal that an 8 ms response time is more like 16-20 ms when gaming. The best LCD tests I have found are those on Tom's Hardware.

I have played TS2 on this Samung LCD and it's okay—nothing particularly wrong. However, one of the big weaknesses of LCDs is their difficulty in displaying subtle gradations and shadow detail. Some of this is the technology and some is because of the backlight. This is why CRTs are still preferred for serious photo-editing (also because LCDs are more difficult to calibrate with a colorimeter—monitor calibration is necessary if you want your image to appear the same when printed as it does on your monitor, or if you want the color balance to be correct when the digital file is displayed on someone else's computer), with the exception of a few very expensive graphic LCDs like the Eizo ColorEdge models (US$1700-2700 for the 21-inch models). Sadly, high-quality CRTs are disappearing:  Sony, NEC/Mitsubishi, and Eizo have all seem to have discontinued their pro graphics models, although NEC still does have a few lower-performance CRTs. My gaming CRT is a 19-inch Samsung that cost around US$170; it's fine for games but I wouldn't want to use it as my only monitor. OTOH, I wouldn't use the LCD for photo editing.

The Samsung 193P is not rated for a particularly high response time, but I have played Half-Life on it and didn't have any problem with trails. What I did have a problem with is the poor performance with tonal gradations, which made it difficult to see much of anything in dark environments. It didn't help that Half-Life (as far as I remember) doesn't support the Samsung's native resolution, and with the screen image reduced to 1024x768, the degradation of image quality was quite apparent. TS2 does support 1280x1024, and the game works perfectly well on the LCD ,but it looks significantly better on the CRT, set to 1280x960 to match the 4:3 aspect ratio of the montior (Samsung 997MB). On the CRT, the 3D looks more three-dimensional, and shading and gradation of colors looks better and more smooth. The overall image is both more smooth and has more apparent depth on the CRT than on the LCD, even though the LCD cost more than three times as much as the CRT.

No decent modern LCD should show swimming or smear when scrolling around the screen in Windows. The primary cause of LCD displays looking like crap is that a large proportion of LCD users insist on setting the resolution too low, so that the image needs to be "blown up" to 1024x768 or 800x600 using software built into the monitor, and this generally makes the screen image look terrible—text is blurry and everything seems to have a shadow around it. Running an LCD at less than its native resolution pretty much defeats the image-quality advantages of the monitor, which should display razor-sharp text (as long as you don't enable the ClearType font-smoothing built into WinXP; this may make the character looks smooth, but it also makes them look blurry).

One thing to note about many LCD monitors (and new CRTs as well) is that out of the box they are way too bright. It is often necessary to back way down on the "brightness" (black level) until you can approximate a true black on a grayscale chart. Also, the standard color temperature setting of 9300K is too blue for most uses—6500K is probably a better choice. Some Samsung monitors come with rudimentary calibration software, and Samsung users should use it. Photoshop used to ship with Adobe gamma (does it still?), and I have found it easier to use than the Samsung software. But really, it's best to use real calibration tooks like Gretag-McBeth's One Eye products to get not only your color but your brightness and contrast settings correct (and no, with CRT monitors it is not automatically best to set "contrast" (white level) and brightness at maximum!). Setting contrast and brightness doesn't need to be guesswork—there are tools and procedures that allow you to set these with considerable precision. I can't tell you how many LCDs and CRTs I've seen with such wrong-headed settings that they would induce in me a nasty headache within ten minutes of continuous use.   
http://www.normankoren.com/color_management.html

[idtaminger]

So how your monitor looks on your desk is more important to you than the actual image on your monitor? Ooookay then. I guess they have to sell cars that get like 5 miles per gallon to someone too.

When they start making LCDs that are as good with color as my el cheapo CRT, AND at a reasonable price, I may consider getting one. Until then, I'd rather not spend hours upon hours trying to get an acceptable color value on a monitor and only ending up with "passable".

See, the problem w/ 5mpg cars is that, surprisingly, anyone with a functioning brain would notice.

Maybe your eyes detect a different color spectrum or something, but frankly, I've never noticed any difference at all btwn CRTs and LCDs, and if a difference exists, it must not be very drastic since very few pple even know it exists.

So...ugly monstrosity that, gee, shows a couple more colors!, or sleek flatscreen that appears to perform just as well...Hmmm...

[neriana]

Well, I am very picky about color. CRTs don't just show a few more colors; the contrast, shadows, color richness, etc., are all far better than any LCD I've ever seen, including really pricey models. I can see the difference just on the Windows desktop, let alone in the many computer games I play. My CRT is a flatscreen anyway, and I like how it looks. My kitty can sit on it too .