LCD Displays with 8ms Response Time Emerge in Weeks

[caz67]

Hi.

I don't know if you guys have seen this. This should be a very sweet LCD.!!


BenQ

 

[konakona]

Originally posted by: caz67
Hi.

I don't know if you guys have seen this. This should be a very sweet LCD.!!


BenQ

thx for sharing but...

it's still a LCD. some dislike LCDs due to response time, but there is more to bias against the LCDs : gimme some real gorgeous colors and competitive pricing, or i am gonna wait till OLED become avaialble.

 

[Lonyo]

Colours and (for me) bad resolutions are the real issue I have with LCD's.

Give me 1600x1200 at 18" or 19" any day.
So far you have to go 20" for a 16x12.

 

[RedShirt]

Oh come on now people. Once you go LCD and get used to it you'll never want to go back!

I believe my Sony 17 inch 16ms response LCD gives me better and more vibrant colors, sharper text, and just better all around picture than my old Samsung 900NF.

Great news caz67, thanks for the info.

 

[konakona]

more vibrant colors

I am very glad my eyes seeing the exact opposite. that helps me save money!

 

[JackBurton]

My next monitor. Beautiful looking LCD, with a low 12ms response time (not 8ms, but good enough). And using Sony's XBrite technology, this monitor should produce an AWESOME image.

P.S. And this is coming from a guy with a Sony G500 CRT monitor.

 

[Davegod]

yay, LCDs now half way to me considering buying them.

they've halved response time, now they just need to halve prices. (ok, have current top models in mainstream pricing).

 

[bates747]

JackBurton: Do you mind posting an evaluation of your Sony after you get it? I looked at a few at CompUSA but did not like how reflective the screen was compared to others. There was nothing actually running on it so I could not tell how much of an issue this would be.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: bates747
JackBurton: Do you mind posting an evaluation of your Sony after you get it? I looked at a few at CompUSA but did not like how reflective the screen was compared to others. There was nothing actually running on it so I could not tell how much of an issue this would be.

Dude, as soon as I get it, I'll definitely post back.

 

[Koing]

The 'reflextiveness' is apart of the coating and the screen. Helps to make the images very bright and vibrant. Some people HATE it but some LOVE IT. Looks VERY good on their laptops imo though.

Koing

 

[bates747]

The 'reflextiveness' is apart of the coating and the screen. Helps to make the images very bright and vibrant. Some people HATE it but some LOVE IT. Looks VERY good on their laptops imo though.

I normally use my machine in dim light but not totally dark. If the reflectivness is negligable under those conditions, that Sony will be very appealing.

 

[Carbonadium4]

Originally posted by: Lonyo
Colours and (for me) bad resolutions are the real issue I have with LCD's.

Give me 1600x1200 at 18" or 19" any day.
So far you have to go 20" for a 16x12.

http://www.mwave.com/mwave/vie....hmx?scriteria=1559371
Princeston 19" LCD @ 1600x1200

not the greatest review but the only 19" i know available

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Lonyo
Colours and (for me) bad resolutions are the real issue I have with LCD's.

Give me 1600x1200 at 18" or 19" any day.
So far you have to go 20" for a 16x12.

Exactly! Why are LCDs these days, so low-res? I'm guessing it is because of yield/cost issues.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: Lonyo
Colours and (for me) bad resolutions are the real issue I have with LCD's.

Give me 1600x1200 at 18" or 19" any day.
So far you have to go 20" for a 16x12.

Exactly! Why are LCDs these days, so low-res? I'm guessing it is because of yield/cost issues.

You want high res, here you go...
2560 x 1600 goodness. Never said it was cheap though.

 

[naruto1988]

lol. i'm perfectly happy w/ my 25ms 17" LCD. no problems with it whatsoever. i am a gamer too. either i don't have ghosting or i don't know enough about it to distinguish it.

 

[Mday]

yeah, seems like they are going down to 8 bit color to get these response times

 

[FishTankX]

Time and time again, the reason has been stated.

There's no demand for high resolution displays on a desktop.

Resolutions on LCD's can be much, much higher than their desktop counterparts. Some 15" laptop LCD's can easily achieve resolutions only atainable by 19" CRT's. But the desktop LCD counterpart's are stuck in the doldrums simply because people don't use their computers at that resolution. And it's important to optomize the apearance of the native resolution.

Not to mention the horrendous amounts of deadpixels it would add.

 

[bluemax]

Originally posted by: FishTankX
Time and time again, the reason has been stated.

There's no demand for high resolution displays on a desktop.

Resolutions on LCD's can be much, much higher than their desktop counterparts. Some 15" laptop LCD's can easily achieve resolutions only atainable by 19" CRT's. But the desktop LCD counterpart's are stuck in the doldrums simply because people don't use their computers at that resolution. And it's important to optomize the apearance of the native resolution.

Not to mention the horrendous amounts of deadpixels it would add.

To support your argument, even CRT's fit in that category. 90% of them will only do 1280x1024 @ 60Hz, 1024x768 @ 85. Garbage compared to the Sony Trinitron I used to have..... before I sold one and the other blew up.

I've spent a lot of time in monitors lately... for the last week I've been limping along with only the center 60% of my screen. Full width, but I can't see the top or bottom. Yep. Time for a new monitor.

Wish I could afford an LCD... I can't even really afford a CRT right now.

 

[Wahsapa]

im holding out for OLED.... LCD seems like a waste to me

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: FishTankX
Time and time again, the reason has been stated.

There's no demand for high resolution displays on a desktop.

Resolutions on LCD's can be much, much higher than their desktop counterparts. Some 15" laptop LCD's can easily achieve resolutions only atainable by 19" CRT's. But the desktop LCD counterpart's are stuck in the doldrums simply because people don't use their computers at that resolution. And it's important to optomize the apearance of the native resolution.

Not to mention the horrendous amounts of deadpixels it would add.

Indeed. People have to keep in mind that from web user logs that the most common resolutions used by people are 1024x768 (50%) and 800x600(35%).

By the way, I'm not really convinced that yields would go down with smaller pixels. I think the surface area of the physical defects would stay about the same, the number of bad pixels go up, and the percentage of bad pixels to go down. (but that's just my speculation)

 

[50]

I've heard a couple people say they are waiting for OLED in this thread, what is the ETA on OLED though(I doubt we will see any monitors within the next year or so)? I really couldn't live with CRT's for 3 or 4 more years without a LCD.