Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 52816	2004-12-30 22:53:00	LCD Monitors	eddie1 (3003)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
309065	2005-01-03 15:31:00	This model (www.ascent.co.nz) and oh my they are cheap. About the price of a 17" one back when I bought mine. Price has dropped around $350 since then, the exchange rate is awesome. Would love a second one, but hanging out for a 8ms, DVI model! Can't say it looks very good at 800x600 though. :lol: :lol: I just have to say it EIim... possibly that's one of the differences between a $350 LCD and a $1200 LCD? I don't know why and no-one seems to believe me, but mine looks fine at 800x 600... no blocky effects and very minimal blurring where the pixels are interpolated. I even tried running it at half the native res (ie 640x400) to see what 'exact pixel mapping' looked like and it was s**t. And no, I am not trying to put anyone's choice down, I am just saying that sometimes buying 'expensive' makes a difference. Of course 8ms would be great if I played games :D	Shortcircuit (1666)
309066	2005-01-03 22:35:00	If i can graciously point out that the the item linked by Elim is a high quality $700 unit that has dropped in price by $350(down for $1000+), Not a $350 item	Metla (12)
309067	2005-01-05 16:17:00	I was going to say, if you insist on running a high end LCD monitor at 800x600, then you would be better off with an LCD that can do 1600x1200 which is a 4:3 ratio. Most 17", 18", 19" LCDs run at 1280x1024 which is a 5:4 ratio and when you scale that down to 800x600 (4:3) it won't look very good. With the 1600x1200 LCD it should look nice because the pixels will scale down to 800x600 exactly.	E|im (87)
309068	2005-03-15 01:38:00	My my - what a lovely flame war . . . As one who is seeing his eyesight slowly eroded by diabetic retinopathy, I do share a certain concern on the topic at hand . What puzzles me is why certain people cannot accept the fact that there are many kind of displays, many kind of resolutions, and many kind of system settings for a single reason: So that the user can get as close as possible whatever works best for him or her . As was pointed out neither LCD monitors or eyesight problems come with consistant features . I just replaced my 20" SGI CRT monitor with a smaller 17" LCD from the low end of the price ladder, and I am quite satisfied . 450:1 contrast is not as good as I would like, and if I was to buy again, it would receive a greater priority . As well, the issue with pixel resizing on this LCD ( a really cheap Cicero EV727 which mayt or may not be available in NZ) makes 800x600 atrociously blurry . I found that a combo of increasing front size, running in lower res and increasing contrast on the monitor works best for me; I also find that this is far easier on my eyes after a long day than even a good CRT running at 100MHz refresh . Another useful trick I used is adjusting the web browser's display font DPI, AND overriding the web page default . Various browsers may or may not have this feature . YMMV . This being said - this my OPINION . Unlike others, I feel no threat because what works for me may not work for others, nor do I feel any pressing urge to impose my belief on others . There is a difference between SUBJECTIVE (ie PERCEPTUAL) and OBJECTIVE (ie FACTUAL) . This discussion sounds like someone asking "Is an hour a long time?" It all depends! . . When it comes to what works for me, I'll look at the second, but the first overrules . Please, if in doubt, look those words up somewhere before pressing SUBMIT to flame me . . .	mteqc (6723)
309069	2005-03-15 01:53:00	Its not about imposing beliefs, or differing eye problems, or even flame wars...which this thread isn’t, Its that ones opinion doesn't change the facts, And the facts being that running an LCD at a non-native res causes image degradation. Whether Tom, Dick or Harry finds this suits them best still has no effect on the issue, the facts remain unchanged and has to be addressed honestly.	Metla (12)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7