[Retired] The LCD Thread

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Moab
Why are there no monitors for gaming that are above 19"? I know there is one all the way at the end at 20" but does that mean if you are a gamer and want an LCD that you shouldn't bother? 19" is kind of small, is there really no option for someone who plays fast FPSs and such and wants a decent sized LCD? I was looking to get a 21" or 22" but according to this there is nothing of decent quality good for gaming at that size that doesnt cost $1,000.

I'm not sure how this wasn't clear, but the [strict] Gaming section contains only the fastest LCDs (CAL competition/etc) for people who can't stand any lag. Simply put, none of the LCDs above 20.1" have matched the response time of 10 ms or lower (or their input lag is too high). That's pretty much the cut-off for that section. There are LCDs slightly slower but perfectly suitable for gaming in the Multimedia section.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Nullvoid
Hey guys.

Can anyone think of reasons as to why http://www.lambda-tek.com/comp...ndex.pl?prodID=1051637 this offer of an acer 2032wa at £196.54 might not be all it seems to be? I've already noticed their product description is for a 2032wm instead (which http://www.prad.de/en/guide/er...der=asc&Submit=compare according to prad.de is an S-IPS panel...hardly a terrible alternative), but I've trawled through pages and pages of user reviews of the site and it seems to come out with glowing recommendations all round.

It just somehow doesn't seem right as all the other stores I can buy from generally have 20/22" TN panels in that price range, with the P-MVA and S-IPS panels away up closer to £250 and beyond.

P-MVA panels themselves are cheap. (Looking at the 206BW and AL2051W prices at Newegg; the P-MVA is cheaper.)

So give it a shot.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: dedejean
Question for LG 226WTQ users,

i cant seem to use the "EZ ZOOM" button. Nothing happens everytime i pressed it. How does it suppose to work?

Not sure...check the manual. I know only certain resolutions are supported.

 

[graydog00]

xtknight,

I am in search of an LCD. Purpose is for general purpose text/web viewing, so it doesn't need to be the best possible, but I would like to get the best bang for the buck and be happy with what I get. Maybe used for light gaming in the future also.

I require the resolution to be greater than 1600x1200 so for widescreen at least 1920x1200. I do not really care widescreen vs 4:3 except for price. I want to keep the price reasonable.

i was originally looking at a Samsung 204B for $287 or a Dell 2007FP but from what I have read here, the dell is a lottery as far as what you will get, and the HP LP2065 is a better all around alternative to the 204B for not much more ($349 if I have read correctly). Anyothers you would recommend @ 1600x1200? What about @ 1920x1200?

Thanks, and great thread.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: graydog00
xtknight,

I am in search of an LCD. Purpose is for general purpose text/web viewing, so it doesn't need to be the best possible, but I would like to get the best bang for the buck and be happy with what I get. Maybe used for light gaming in the future also.

I require the resolution to be greater than 1600x1200 so for widescreen at least 1920x1200. I do not really care widescreen vs 4:3 except for price. I want to keep the price reasonable.

i was originally looking at a Samsung 204B for $287 or a Dell 2007FP but from what I have read here, the dell is a lottery as far as what you will get, and the HP LP2065 is a better all around alternative to the 204B for not much more ($349 if I have read correctly). Anyothers you would recommend @ 1600x1200? What about @ 1920x1200?

Thanks, and great thread.

Indeed the HP LP2065 sounds like a great choice for you (you get AMVA or S-IPS, neither of which are bad, but S-IPS which is actually the better of the two seems to be more prevalent with that HP model).

The BenQ FP241W is my favorite 24" recommendation. And it's available for relatively cheap these days. The 2407WFP is being phased out, and the 2407WFP-HC (high color gamut) is coming in. That model will offer brighter colors but questionable advantages with typical material. So, I'd stay with the FP241W for now until we really see how the high gamut stuff pans out. I'm not that crazy about it myself. They're still CCFL backlights, so it's not that much different. Just kinda less ideal for today's material so a lot of stuff will look oversaturated unless it's been properly calibrated to NTSC (fat chance).

 

[Nnyan]

First of all in all my research on LCD's this post has been the most useful, so my hats off to you xtknight.

My main problem with getting an LCD is the fact that I am VERY refresh rate sensitive. 60Hz on a CRT will have me feeling dizzy and nauseous within a few mintues. Now I understand that LCD's and CRT's are different when it comes to refresh rates (or so I've heard), so I don't know if my issue is directly related to refresh rate, lag or what. My problem is that even though it is not as bad as a low refresh rate CRT I will start feeling a bit dizzy/nauseous after 30-60mins on an LCD (for example my wife's Dell E207WFP).

I mostly use my PC to do gaming and some work related stuff. While I do watch some movies and use photoshop some its not a huge concern. I'm looking to get a 20-22" LCD that is very good with gaming and hopefully does not make me feel dizzy.

Based on my research I'm thinking of the Acer AL2051W or the LG226WT(X). I'm having problems finding the 226 in stock anywhere but I did notice that newegg had a new LG L204WT-SF in stock but I can't find a review for it. Anyone know how this stacks up?

 

[alins]

Mitsubishi introduces new 92% gamut 24-inch LCD monitor

http://www.engadget.com/2007/0...t-24-inch-rdt241w-lcd/

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Nnyan
First of all in all my research on LCD's this post has been the most useful, so my hats off to you xtknight.

My main problem with getting an LCD is the fact that I am VERY refresh rate sensitive. 60Hz on a CRT will have me feeling dizzy and nauseous within a few mintues. Now I understand that LCD's and CRT's are different when it comes to refresh rates (or so I've heard), so I don't know if my issue is directly related to refresh rate, lag or what. My problem is that even though it is not as bad as a low refresh rate CRT I will start feeling a bit dizzy/nauseous after 30-60mins on an LCD (for example my wife's Dell E207WFP).

IANAD (I am not a doctor) but I'd guess that the CRT being low refresh rate gives you a headache (that's a common condition). Then, I'd guess that the LCD giving you "issues" is either a lack of contrast causing bad eye strain or maybe too bright of a screen.

Either that or your nausea is something else, maybe a bad case of motion sickness.

I mostly use my PC to do gaming and some work related stuff. While I do watch some movies and use photoshop some its not a huge concern. I'm looking to get a 20-22" LCD that is very good with gaming and hopefully does not make me feel dizzy.

Based on my research I'm thinking of the Acer AL2051W or the LG226WT(X). I'm having problems finding the 226 in stock anywhere but I did notice that newegg had a new LG L204WT-SF in stock but I can't find a review for it. Anyone know how this stacks up?

The Acer AL2051W may not be a good idea for you (the glossy screen may make you go nuts). I'd stick to matte if I were you just to be safe. The HP LP2065 is what first came to mind. First of all, it's not a brightness monster. Second of all, the viewing angle is fairly stable in all directions no matter what panel you get (AMVA or S-IPS). Lastly its easy-on-the-eyes matte anti-glare coating should be the best for any sort of "complications". It also gives you more screen area (1600x1200) than a widescreen. Its gaming performance should be decent to good. And, it's available at the reasonable price of $350 USD (AR) at Newegg: http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16824176053

If that wasn't good enough, it's one of the best LCDs out there for photo editing.

One thing you may try is maxing out either the contrast or brightness (then the backlight won't have to modulate as much). If you want to know the truth I'm not an electrical engineer either.

The E207WFP isn't exactly a high quality LCD. Dell has been known to use bad inverters in those value series LCDs, so I would hazard a guess that you were sensitive to the CRT's flickering, and the LCD backlight's flickering!

 

[yacoub]

hey xtknight i've got a dilemma maybe you can solve:

Will DVD movies (coming from my DVD-ROM drive) look as clear and sharp on an LCD TV as they do on a PC LCD monitor?

TV inputs that match up to videocard outputs are generally only 15pin D-sub (VGA) and S-video.

I should be able to hook that up to my PC via the S-Video output of my GPU.

But what will that look like, quality-wise?
What's the image quality of S-Video?
Would I be better off using the D-sub (VGA) input on the TV via one of those DVI-to-VGA convertor pieces my GPU comes with?

Even if I run the TV at its native res (even though I hear the closest native res from a PC is 1360x768 which is 6 pixels short on the vertical), will it ever look as good as running the DVD fullscreen on an actual computer LCD monitor?

Is there a way to output a quality digital video signal from my PC to that TV? (Is that what those All-In-Wonder videocards were for that IIRC had other output options?)

Also gaming: I hear motion blur (ghosting) will be more noticable on an LCD TV than a computer LCD monitor.

Would appreciate your input! Thanks!

 

[bryanvlo]

xtknight, I noticed you have LG Flatron L226WT listed as the best 22 incher. Do you know if the overdrive for the Q version can be turned off? Also how would you rate the 226bw's various panel iterations against it? I was hellbent on the Samsung but the panel lottery and the current stock shortage has really put me off. In the meantime I've taken to doing any word processing and browsing on this laptop. My main computer's CRT has gone insanely blurry and can't wait to get a new monitor.

 

[Shifty3421]

xtknight, good thread you have here. I have a couple of questions, though... I'm looking for a new monitor right now and I'm not sure if I should get a CRT or an LCD. I previously had the Viewsonic VX922. I need the monitor for hardcore gaming mostly but I do also watch movies on it from time to time. Besides that I do Internet browsing. Should I go for some CRT or the Samsung LCD you have listed in the gaming section your FAQ? Thanks for your help!

 

[seethoe]

i'm looking at replacing my samsung 713n that just died on me....

was considering dell 2007wfp (s-ips, i think) or vx2025 (p-mva) but saw that both r delisted from here....now i'm in a dilema which to get. my usage is primary photo editing. cnet review that vx2025 is much better performer than 2007wfp. opinion please....

 

[imaheadcase]

Viewsonic VX2835WM 28inch LCD got a good review. It was by someone who knows nothing about monitors so I take that with grain of salt. hehe

"BF2 looks amazing, and I liked watching The Matrix on it better than old CRT". lol

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: yacoub
hey xtknight i've got a dilemma maybe you can solve:

Will DVD movies (coming from my DVD-ROM drive) look as clear and sharp on an LCD TV as they do on a PC LCD monitor?

DVD-ROM->LCD TV vs. DVD-ROM->LCD monitor? Not sure really. It depends on a lot of things. If you ffdshow to postprocess stuff, the LCD monitor may give you a more accurate rendition of that output. But, if you feed it raw DVD/MPEG-2, the LCD TV's filtering (if it has any) may produce a more attractive image.

If you mean DVD-ROM->LCD monitor vs. standalone DVD player->LCD TV, then I'm also not sure, but my guess is that the PC solution would come out looking better, especially with ffdshow/postprocessing. LCD TVs typically run the material through another run of at least scaling or filtering, reducing quality along the way. Additionally, they use odd native resolutions sometimes like 1366x768. Either way I couldn't tell you for sure, I've never tried it, but DVDs look great on my NEC/DVD-ROM. They looked just fine on my DVD player/CRT TV also...I haven't tried it with my LCD TV. I'd like to think there isn't any noticeable difference between any of them when you're sitting far enough back.

TV inputs that match up to videocard outputs are generally only 15pin D-sub (VGA) and S-video.

I should be able to hook that up to my PC via the S-Video output of my GPU.

But what will that look like, quality-wise?
What's the image quality of S-Video?

It's a Y/C connection like composite, but only the Y (luminance) and C (chroma) are separated. It's not nearly as good as YPbPr (component), though. S-Video, IMO, is something to be avoided today, especially when there are other connections available (YPbPr, VGA, DVI, HDMI).

Would I be better off using the D-sub (VGA) input on the TV via one of those DVI-to-VGA convertor pieces my GPU comes with?

Better than S-Video? Oh, definitely, as long as the LCD TV knows how to properly handle the VGA from your card (it should be fine). S-Video must be scaled no matter how it's sent (it's a weak 480 line (IIRC) analog signal) so it tends to look horrible at anything over smaller resolutions like 640x480.

Even if I run the TV at its native res (even though I hear the closest native res from a PC is 1360x768 which is 6 pixels short on the vertical), will it ever look as good as running the DVD fullscreen on an actual computer LCD monitor?

It used to be that graphics cards could only do resolutions that were multiples of 8, but that is not true with the latest crop of cards. I believe that trend ended quite awhile ago. But there are still overscan problems, apparently. I think that some people can do it just fine or at least satisfactorily at native (check avsforum).

I answered the other half of this in my first quote-response above.

Is there a way to output a quality digital video signal from my PC to that TV? (Is that what those All-In-Wonder videocards were for that IIRC had other output options?)

If your TV does not input a digital signal, then no, there is no way to get a digital signal to it. Your LCD TV might input DVI or HDMI. You can get both of those out of various video cards today. With a dual-DVI card you can hook one DVI up to your PC and the other to your TV. I did that with my LCD TV (Mitsubishi 42" MVA) and it worked great. The LCD TV seemed to operate at native just fine although desktop colors leaved a little to be desired compared to a tightly-calibrated desktop monitor. Video reproduction was fairly decent, I'd like to think as good as a pure HD feed being fed to the TV's tuner. I had tried some HD media (QuickTime H.264 and Windows Media Video 9-HD samples).

Also gaming: I hear motion blur (ghosting) will be more noticable on an LCD TV than a computer LCD monitor.

Would appreciate your input! Thanks!

LCD TVs do not typically implement overdrive as much as desktop LCD monitors. That was one problem with my TV (it didn't use very much if any overdrive). The MVA ones without overdrive are even worse (something like 70 ms). If you have a cheaper LCD TV that uses TN it may not be as bad. To tell you the truth it's even a bit problematic when watching TV but it can be more annoying with PC use since you really have to focus on small things (e.g. mouse pointers).

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: bryanvlo
xtknight, I noticed you have LG Flatron L226WT listed as the best 22 incher. Do you know if the overdrive for the Q version can be turned off? Also how would you rate the 226bw's various panel iterations against it? I was hellbent on the Samsung but the panel lottery and the current stock shortage has really put me off. In the meantime I've taken to doing any word processing and browsing on this laptop. My main computer's CRT has gone insanely blurry and can't wait to get a new monitor.

The overdrive on the 'Q' L226WT can not be turned off. The only LCDs with adjustable overdrive, IIRC, are some Samsungs like the 226BW via the normal menu ("RTA"), and high-end NECs via the service menu ("overdrive").

The Q, with the latest firmware, no longer has an overdrive problem. It has been tuned better so that you don't get ugly trails.

Any of the 226BWs (with a proper color profile for its particular panel variation) may just about match the L226WT with no profile. The L226WT, with a good profile, is probably unbeatable though I have never had a 226BW to test.

There are profiles available for all three variations of the 226BW, but their feasibility for the particular unit you may receive is questionable. Plus, Samsung has removed the panel number indicator so you don't know which profile to apply anyway (guess you could just brute-force it till it looks good).

Also, Samsung has said that they will only provide S panels in the 226BW, starting in models manufactured since April 1.

Originally posted by: BernardP
News: All Samsung 226BW made since April 1st have a Samsung panel!

The article is here on LesNumeriques. This info comes from Samsung itself. And manufaturing date appears on the back or the monitor.

I wonder if it also appears on the box. That would be even more useful.

The article is in French. It can be translated with Google, and will surely appear on BeHardware.com within a few days;

http://www.lesnumeriques.com/news_id-3258.html

 

[yacoub]

thanks for the info xtknight. The TV I'm looking at is the Sony S3000 32"
http://www.sonystyle.com/webap...Id=8198552921665067952

It certainly has HDMI inputs but surprisingly for a brand new model it still doesn't offer a DVI input as far as I can tell? (Check the Specs and let me know if I'm missing something). In fact I'm not sure I know of any 32" LCD HDTVs that offer DVI inputs.

Component Video (Y/Pb/Pr ) Input(s)

* 2 (Rear)

Composite Video Input(s)

* 3 (2 Rear/1 Side)

RF Connection Input(s)

* 1 (Rear)

S-Video Input(s)

* 2 (1 Rear/1 Side) rear input has Auto S Video Input Detection

PC Video Input(s)

* 1 (Rear) with D-sub 15 and L/R stereo mini plug connection1

HDMI? Connection(s)

* 2 (Rear) 1 with L/R RCA audio connections

otoh, it does have:

Panel Response Time

* 8ms (gray to gray)

Advanced Video Processor

* CineMotion® /Film Mode/Cinema Drive, Contrast enhancer circuit, Green and blue enhancer, Motion and edge adaptive I/P converter, MPEG noise reduction

Display Technology

* LCD (178° wide viewing angle display panel) [no idea what type of panel it uses]

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Shifty3421
xtknight, good thread you have here. I have a couple of questions, though... I'm looking for a new monitor right now and I'm not sure if I should get a CRT or an LCD. I previously had the Viewsonic VX922. I need the monitor for hardcore gaming mostly but I do also watch movies on it from time to time. Besides that I do Internet browsing. Should I go for some CRT or the Samsung LCD you have listed in the gaming section your FAQ? Thanks for your help!

The most important question is: were you happy with the VX922's gaming performance?

If so, then I would recommend you an LCD with better color reproduction such as the NEC 20WMGX2, Acer AL2051W, or HP LP2065 depending on what resolutions you like. The NEC and Acer would be a bit faster than the HP. The NEC is the cream of the crop. Great viewing angle, and pretty good for movies but the Acer probably isn't much worse. Both the NEC and Acer have a glossy coating and the Acer is a great, affordable alternative to the NEC.

Originally posted by: seethoe
i'm looking at replacing my samsung 713n that just died on me....

was considering dell 2007wfp (s-ips, i think) or vx2025 (p-mva) but saw that both r delisted from here....now i'm in a dilema which to get. my usage is primary photo editing. cnet review that vx2025 is much better performer than 2007wfp. opinion please....

The VX2025WM is no longer available new (AFAIK), but the Acer AL2051W is a close relative to it (it uses the same 8-bit AUO P-MVA panel). The Acer also has a glossy coating, whose merits are questionable for photo editing but I think it would be fine.

The 2007WFP is still a lottery. The HP LP2065 would be the safest choice for photo editing (assuming you can't afford the NEC 20WMGX2). Before calibration, it's possible though that the Acer would reveal darker tones better than the NEC and HP.

Originally posted by: imaheadcase
Viewsonic VX2835WM 28inch LCD got a good review. It was by someone who knows nothing about monitors so I take that with grain of salt. hehe

"BF2 looks amazing, and I liked watching The Matrix on it better than old CRT". lol

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: yacoub
thanks for the info xtknight. The TV I'm looking at is the Sony S3000 32"
http://www.sonystyle.com/webap...Id=8198552921665067952

It certainly has HDMI inputs but surprisingly for a brand new model it still doesn't offer a DVI input as far as I can tell? (Check the Specs and let me know if I'm missing something). In fact I'm not sure I know of any 32" LCD HDTVs that offer DVI inputs.

Component Video (Y/Pb/Pr ) Input(s)

* 2 (Rear)

Composite Video Input(s)

* 3 (2 Rear/1 Side)

RF Connection Input(s)

* 1 (Rear)

S-Video Input(s)

* 2 (1 Rear/1 Side) rear input has Auto S Video Input Detection

PC Video Input(s)

* 1 (Rear) with D-sub 15 and L/R stereo mini plug connection1

HDMI? Connection(s)

* 2 (Rear) 1 with L/R RCA audio connections

otoh, it does have:

Panel Response Time

* 8ms (gray to gray)

Advanced Video Processor

* CineMotion® /Film Mode/Cinema Drive, Contrast enhancer circuit, Green and blue enhancer, Motion and edge adaptive I/P converter, MPEG noise reduction

Display Technology

* LCD (178° wide viewing angle display panel) [no idea what type of panel it uses]

Probably an MVA if it's 178 degrees. The "gray to gray" response time measurement seems to indicate that it uses overdrive.

Don't forget that DVI can be converted to HDMI with a simple adapter. I believe there are some HDMI-output ATI cards too.

 

[bryanvlo]

Thanks for the info xtknight, you're doing us all a great service.

Do you really think that Samsung will release all S panels? I have my doubts. I figure they remove all panel info from the sticker and hidden menu and pass off all the third party panels as their own.

 

[Shifty3421]

xtknight, I was happy with the VX922's performance and one thing I liked about it is the low response time, which is good for gaming. How come you recommended LCDs other than the ones you listed in your gaming section? Wouldn't I need something with a lower response time anyway?

 

[Moab]

In response to the section:

16:10 (1680x1050 for 20.1", 1920x1200 for 24"): Resolution of most "widescreen" monitors

and then..

Bigger is better
When you compare a 17" to a 19" which both have a 5:4 1280x1024 resolution, the 19" only has bigger dot pitch. This means your display will be grainier in general, though text will be bigger for the visually-impaired. Unfortunately, manufacturers are mostly only spending R&D on 19"+ panels nowadays, and some are even cheaper than their 17" counterparts.

Where do things like the 20" and 22" panels fit in? I see that the majority of them have resolutions which fit into the 20.1" category. Is 20.1" the 'proper' size for the 1680x1050 resolution? Would then getting a 20" or a 22" result in stretching or shrinking of the picture in order to get it on the screen in the monitor size?

If this is the case then I will ignore all of the improper sized screens and stick with the ones which are proper size, such as 19" and 20.1".

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: bryanvlo
Thanks for the info xtknight, you're doing us all a great service.

Do you really think that Samsung will release all S panels? I have my doubts. I figure they remove all panel info from the sticker and hidden menu and pass off all the third party panels as their own.

Oh, I think they will stick to their promise. I don't see how they'd have the audacity to do otherwise at this point. After all you can still disassemble the LCD and find the panel sticker on the TFT module (I think removing that one would be more difficult and less feasible since it comes pre-stuck on there, from a different fab dept.)

Originally posted by: Shifty3421
xtknight, I was happy with the VX922's performance and one thing I liked about it is the low response time, which is good for gaming. How come you recommended LCDs other than the ones you listed in your gaming section? Wouldn't I need something with a lower response time anyway?

The VX922's response time isn't any better than the 20WMGX2 from what X-Bit Lab's measurements indicate.

The ones in the gaming section offer only mediocre color reproduction, much like the VX922 you already have. The first choice I gave you was the NEC 20WMGX2, which is the one exception to the gaming section which offers awesome color reproduction. The others are still-suitable panels for most any gamer (besides really picky competitive ones who need to stick to the Gaming section).

I have long thought about removing the Gaming section and instead merging it with Multimedia, but I still feel I must keep it separate as people would like a round-up of the LOWEST RESPONSE TIME LCDs, taking into account no other factors except simply a low response time. I keep it there just to keep that microcosm happy really, but I think the number of people who want a better all-around LCD is much more staggering. With response times low across the board these days, the need for the Gaming section is diminishing. Although it hasn't diminished.

I will assume unless told otherwise that people want an LCD that's great all-around rather than just strictly in response time. For the others, I leave that section up as to open up that option to them.

If you are looking to upgrade, you won't get much more out of the other TNs up there in Gaming. I can't guarantee that the NEC 20WMGX2 will be as fast as the VX922. I can only go off of measurements. There are other things to take into account like how much of the response time is rise/fall, and how efficient the overdrive is, so it's very difficult to know for sure. I personally believe that if you can use any LCD at all, the NEC's response time will equal or exceed your expectations. It is faster than the 2 ms TNs in a few scenarios, even.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Moab
In response to the section:

16:10 (1680x1050 for 20.1", 1920x1200 for 24"): Resolution of most "widescreen" monitors

and then..

Bigger is better
When you compare a 17" to a 19" which both have a 5:4 1280x1024 resolution, the 19" only has bigger dot pitch. This means your display will be grainier in general, though text will be bigger for the visually-impaired. Unfortunately, manufacturers are mostly only spending R&D on 19"+ panels nowadays, and some are even cheaper than their 17" counterparts.

Where do things like the 20" and 22" panels fit in? I see that the majority of them have resolutions which fit into the 20.1" category.

The 21" and 22" panels are much like the 19"s: their dot pitch is bigger and their resolution is the same as a screen sized lower than themselves. For example, the lowest size you can get for 1680x1050 in desktop form is a 20.0", the size of which both 21" and 22" exceed. And, 19" exceeds the size of 17", giving it a bigger dot pitch and a grainer, less crisp picture. The situation is exactly the same for any LCD carrying a bigger dot pitch (in other words, the same resolution as a smaller LCD, at a bigger size).

Is 20.1" the 'proper' size for the 1680x1050 resolution? Would then getting a 20" or a 22" result in stretching or shrinking of the picture in order to get it on the screen in the monitor size?

There isn't a proper size for any LCD. The "proper" may be something subjective to you. The LCD, at its native resolution of 1680x1050, doesn't have to perform anything other than showing a pixel in each of its cells. There is no scaling to be done. It's a 20.0" LCD with a 1680x1050 resolution. The fact that the picture appears crisper is due to its pixels being close together and your eyes perceiving this differently, not due to an algorithm compensating for the panel being a physically "improper" size. 20.0", 20.1", 21.0", 21.3", 21.6", and 22.0" LCDs all have a native resolution of 1680x1050 (unless this happens to change in the future) and all are technically proper. That does not mean they will be proper to your eyes.

Smaller dot pitch LCDs provide a crisper image but smaller text; the pixels are closer together. Bigger dot pitch LCDs provide less-accurate but bigger text and additionally a bigger image that doesn't appear quite as crisp or contiguous in color detail. All the pixels are still there on any size dot pitch LCD with the same resolution, it's just a matter of how they're presented to you and how well that works for your eyes to construct the image the monitor gives to them.

 

[Doggiedog]

Anyone know anything about this NEC 20" monitor? It seems to be on sale. Is this a TN screen? The viewing angle says 170 degrees.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Doggiedog
Anyone know anything about this NEC 20" monitor? It seems to be on sale. Is this a TN screen? The viewing angle says 170 degrees.

It looks like a new-generation TN that doesn't use overdrive. It's part of NEC's AccuSync business series (AS*). I have no idea how it performs (seen no reviews of it yet). I would expect performance to fall slightly short of the best 20" widescreen TN (LG L204WT).