LCD monitors | valuing options

Greetings -

I have 4-5 machines in my office, and at home, all using high-end big (19 - 21
inch) CRT-based monitors. However, for a variety of reasons, I want to purchase
LCD monitors for a couple of the machines. I've been doing the requisite
background reading, and have looked at a number of the tech specs for some
monitors that in my price range.

However, I'm puzzled as to the relative merits/value of some specs, which I see
touted over an over. Specifically, 'contrast ratio', and 'brightness'. Now, I
know 'technically' what these are, but I'm puzzled what the relative
advantage/disadvantages are in real use, for some monitors whihc have the same
price, but different specs.

For example, comparing Samsung's 180 and 171 17-inch LCD's. Basically the same
price, same dimensions, same everything - except one has a 450:1 contrast ratio
(compared to 350:1), and a 270 nit brightness, compared to 250.

It isn't just Samsung - I can find many examples of monitors that are basically
the same price, where the only real difference is contrast ratio and/or
brightness.

So, is there really any perceptible difference between 350:1 vs 450:1 for
contrast ratio, or 270 vs 250 for brightness? All other things being equal
(which they seem to be, more or less), is it generally the best strategy to go
for higher CR and brightness scores?


Thanks in advance...

"Evan Cooch" wrote in message
...
Greetings -

I have 4-5 machines in my office, and at home, all using high-end big
(19 - 21
inch) CRT-based monitors. However, for a variety of reasons, I want to
purchase
LCD monitors for a couple of the machines. I've been doing the requisite
background reading, and have looked at a number of the tech specs for some
monitors that in my price range.

However, I'm puzzled as to the relative merits/value of some specs, which
I see
touted over an over. Specifically, 'contrast ratio', and 'brightness'.
Now, I
know 'technically' what these are, but I'm puzzled what the relative
advantage/disadvantages are in real use, for some monitors whihc have the
same
price, but different specs.

For example, comparing Samsung's 180 and 171 17-inch LCD's. Basically the
same
price, same dimensions, same everything - except one has a 450:1 contrast
ratio
(compared to 350:1), and a 270 nit brightness, compared to 250.

It isn't just Samsung - I can find many examples of monitors that are
basically
the same price, where the only real difference is contrast ratio and/or
brightness.

So, is there really any perceptible difference between 350:1 vs 450:1 for
contrast ratio, or 270 vs 250 for brightness? All other things being equal
(which they seem to be, more or less), is it generally the best strategy
to go
for higher CR and brightness scores?


In normal conditions 250 nits is way too bright (my one is set at 34%)
unless the monitor is in a very bright room or possibly hit by direct
sunlight.
Contrast is very important if you do image editing or watch DVD movies or
TV. CRTs achieve 900:1 so 450:1 is going to look a lot better than 350:1.
Response time is also very important. My 17" NEC achieves 16ms and that
means no noticeable smearing on fast moving objects.

In normal conditions 250 nits is way too bright (my one is set at 34%)
unless the monitor is in a very bright room or possibly hit by direct
sunlight.
Contrast is very important if you do image editing or watch DVD movies or
TV. CRTs achieve 900:1 so 450:1 is going to look a lot better than 350:1.
Response time is also very important. My 17" NEC achieves 16ms and that
means no noticeable smearing on fast moving objects.


Thanks much. Most of the units I've looked at are in the 450:1 contrast ratio,
and = 250 nits brigthness.

However, I have't seen many units in my price range with a response rate 25ms.
I guess I'll have to look a bit further.

Yes.

--
DaveW



"Evan Cooch" wrote in message
...
Greetings -

I have 4-5 machines in my office, and at home, all using high-end big
(19 - 21
inch) CRT-based monitors. However, for a variety of reasons, I want to
purchase
LCD monitors for a couple of the machines. I've been doing the requisite
background reading, and have looked at a number of the tech specs for some
monitors that in my price range.

However, I'm puzzled as to the relative merits/value of some specs, which
I see
touted over an over. Specifically, 'contrast ratio', and 'brightness'.
Now, I
know 'technically' what these are, but I'm puzzled what the relative
advantage/disadvantages are in real use, for some monitors whihc have the
same
price, but different specs.

For example, comparing Samsung's 180 and 171 17-inch LCD's. Basically the
same
price, same dimensions, same everything - except one has a 450:1 contrast
ratio
(compared to 350:1), and a 270 nit brightness, compared to 250.

It isn't just Samsung - I can find many examples of monitors that are
basically
the same price, where the only real difference is contrast ratio and/or
brightness.

So, is there really any perceptible difference between 350:1 vs 450:1 for
contrast ratio, or 270 vs 250 for brightness? All other things being equal
(which they seem to be, more or less), is it generally the best strategy
to go
for higher CR and brightness scores?


Thanks in advance...

Evan Cooch wrote:
In normal conditions 250 nits is way too bright (my one is set at
34%) unless the monitor is in a very bright room or possibly hit by
direct sunlight.
Contrast is very important if you do image editing or watch DVD
movies or TV. CRTs achieve 900:1 so 450:1 is going to look a lot
better than 350:1. Response time is also very important. My 17" NEC
achieves 16ms and that means no noticeable smearing on fast moving
objects.


Thanks much. Most of the units I've looked at are in the 450:1
contrast ratio, and = 250 nits brigthness.

However, I have't seen many units in my price range with a response
rate 25ms. I guess I'll have to look a bit further.

Response rate is only important if the monitor is being used for
gaming/video watching. For office machines it doesn't matter as much. (You
mentioned both).

It's my understanding that contrast ratio is partly a function of brightness
as well. It's difficult to acheive a high contast ratio if the 'whites'
aren't bright.

I wish I could afford an LCD, I'm down to using a scratched 15" CRT as the
missus' old 17" gave up the ghost and I gave her my new 17" CRT as her eyes
aren't as good as mine. (She runs the 17" at 800x600, I use the 15" at
1024x768) I'm reduced to using the old Philips 105/S that we had as a spare.
shrug

Hi brightness (other than the connection with contrast ratio) can be very
important if the screen is in a very bright room. Otherwise, as mentioned,
you'll have it turned way down anyway.
--
~misfit~

You're unlikely to find any fast screens around at the low end of the
price scale for a while. Demand is high for LCDs as manufacturers
ramp down CRTS and ramp up LCDs.


"Evan Cooch" wrote in message
...


In normal conditions 250 nits is way too bright (my one is set at
34%)
unless the monitor is in a very bright room or possibly hit by
direct
sunlight.
Contrast is very important if you do image editing or watch DVD
movies or
TV. CRTs achieve 900:1 so 450:1 is going to look a lot better than
350:1.
Response time is also very important. My 17" NEC achieves 16ms and
that
means no noticeable smearing on fast moving objects.


Thanks much. Most of the units I've looked at are in the 450:1
contrast ratio,
and = 250 nits brigthness.

However, I have't seen many units in my price range with a response
rate 25ms.
I guess I'll have to look a bit further.

Response rate is only important if the monitor is being used for
gaming/video watching. For office machines it doesn't matter as much. (You
mentioned both).

I have use for games - my computers are for work. I do some minor video editing
on occasion, but I suspect response time won't be that big a deal.


It's my understanding that contrast ratio is partly a function of brightness
as well. It's difficult to acheive a high contast ratio if the 'whites'
aren't bright.

I wish I could afford an LCD, I'm down to using a scratched 15" CRT as the
missus' old 17" gave up the ghost and I gave her my new 17" CRT as her eyes
aren't as good as mine. (She runs the 17" at 800x600, I use the 15" at
1024x768) I'm reduced to using the old Philips 105/S that we had as a spare.
shrug

Hi brightness (other than the connection with contrast ratio) can be very
important if the screen is in a very bright room. Otherwise, as mentioned,
you'll have it turned way down anyway.

I'm always surprised when I hear of people using 15 inch monitors. 17-inch CRT's
are 60 bucks, and I can buy a good 19-icn CRT-based monitor for 200.

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 23:20:53 GMT, "DaveW" wrote:

Yes.

Thanks...

Evan Cooch wrote:
I wish I could afford an LCD, I'm down to using a scratched 15" CRT
as the missus' old 17" gave up the ghost and I gave her my new 17"
CRT as her eyes aren't as good as mine. (She runs the 17" at
800x600, I use the 15" at 1024x768) I'm reduced to using the old
Philips 105/S that we had as a spare. shrug

I'm always surprised when I hear of people using 15 inch monitors.
17-inch CRT's are 60 bucks, and I can buy a good 19-icn CRT-based
monitor for 200.

I know Evan. Unfortuately I'm an invalid on a *very* limited income and the
missus is furthering her education so no income from there either. Plus I'm
in NZ and our prices aren't as sharp as yours. The missus uses her PC for
her assignments etc, that's why I figured she should have the better
monitor. Unfortunately no rich parents either. G

The rest of my systems's not bad. An AMD XP1800+ TbredB running at 2.1GHz
(200 x 10.5), 512MB RAM in dual-channel mode and a geForce 4 ti4200 128MB.
It's just the monitor letting it down. I'm just trying to figure out how to
get money for a new monitor. Maybe I better start charging my friends for
working on their computers.
--
~misfit~

~misfit~ wrote:

.... snip ...
It's just the monitor letting it down. I'm just trying to figure
out how to get money for a new monitor. Maybe I better start
charging my friends for working on their computers.

From earlier articles I think you do a fine job, and you should do
just that. You might well have the beginnings of a small local
business to supplement your income and keep you amused.

--
Chuck F ) )
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
http://cbfalconer.home.att.net USE worldnet address!