[jfrancis]

�The estimated street prices of $499 for the 17-inch and $599 for the 20-inch, reflect a 50 percent price reduction from when we introduced them less than a year ago. Westinghouse brings factory savings to market faster than anyone else, and we will continue to lead the industry in driving down prices,� Woo said.

http://www.chait.net/index.php?p=418

so I guess they'll be cheaper pretty soon.

[Danny]

Henrik, check your PM inbox.
_________________
Trust in Trance

[stacy]

What did Bugs Bunny say to the housewife
when she opened her refrigerator door and
found Bugs inside, and said,
"What are you doing in my refrigerator Bugs?"

"Eaaaa...well, Toots, it's a Westinghouse so I'm westing."

[Lunatique]

I did some thorough research on LCD monitors about 6 months ago, and I couldn't find any that was fast enough for moving graphics (gaming and movies, or even just scrolling a webpage) at 19" or larger. Plenty of 17" or smaller can do it now, but at larger sizes, it's still the only issue holding me back from a LCD.

It seems some newer models have been released that are fast enough for larger sized screens. I'm afraid to check the prices on those links--I'd probably faint.

[jfrancis]

It just came tonight. So far I really like it a lot. No bad pixels, great color. The size is actually a little overwhelming at first. Crystal clear. I'm not running it DVI yet (will do so when I get new computer)

The littler monitor is the original 19" - replaced with the HP 2335

flash and non-flash photos

[daryl]

Im not willing to pay as much as what a 20" or more TFT costs (there seems to be a huge price difference between 19" and 20+" for some reason here in sweden), so I've looked into some 19" ones. And the only thing stopping me from buying one is that they are all configured to run at resolutions of 1280x1024, or at least they are optimal resolutions. I've heard that if u dont run it in this ratio, but instead the CORRECT ratio of 1280x960, the screen display quality bites the dust (if its even possible to change to that res). Does anyone have experience on this matter?

[balistic]

1280x1024 can be correct on an LCD, if the screen's aspect ratio is right for it. The rule of always using 1280x960 instead of 1280x1024 exists because almost all CRTs have a 4:3 aspect ratio, but LCDs come in varying aspects, so if an LCD has a 1280x1024 native resolution, that means its width and height are proportional to that resolution.

The problem with 1280x1024 on a CRT isn't one of quality, its just that it makes the pixels non-square on most screens because it doesn't match the physical aspect ratio of a 4:3 monitor. On an LCD it should be fine.
_________________
brian.prince|light.comp.paint

[skullmonkeys]

So how does wacom behave on one of these widescreen displays? Do you only use a part of the drawing surface or does the drawing area get scaled to match the dimentions of the screen?
Do you find it annoying at all?

[jfrancis]

[balistic]

In the wacom driver, change the tablet to "proportional" mode.
_________________
brian.prince|light.comp.paint

[daryl]

balistic: ah, that makes sense..
another question: does anyone have experience from the difference between 16.7million colors versus 16.2 million colors (with or without dithering).. and also how obvious is the display quality using analogue versus digital output?

[B0b]

[B0b]

[daryl]

really late reply but...

bob: I dont know what display mode that is, but all specs says either this - 16.7M colors (20ms response time and up) and the ones faster than this (like 12 or 8ms) I found have 16.2M colors with dithering (thats what it says). so I was wondering if anyone know why this is and also what I should focus on. I mean, I want to make sure every color I paint or view is correct, but I also want to play games or watch video etc.

thanks.
_________________
homepage:blog

[B0b]

TFT's with really fast pixel response times, usually display 18bit colour..

i've not looked into (i will do tho') it but i'm guessing the reason they're so fast is because it has less colours to change and thus can give a better pixel response.. they all say they support 24bit, but its the ones that say they display 24bit that you need to look at

here's the spec's for the Formac - i'm looking @ possibly purchasing 2 of these if December goes as well as i hope

PDF
don't be fooled by the pixel response time they quote as this is only for grey to grey - ie 256shades

[zen-ix]

another item of misinformation perhaps, I feel obliged to add to the matter:

stacy summed up a story from the yellow press right? one thing bothers me there... "dot pitch greater than 0.24mm will hurt your eyes" it said.

Doesn't hold true for LCDs. To illustrate, 17" or 19" LCDs have the same native resolution, 1280x1024 which, of course, means that the 19" has a larger dot pitch, almost 0.30mm. Bad? No, good actually. The pixels are physically larger which means less eyestrain. (CRTs don't have a native resolution, it is practically determined by their dot pitch basically but since the pixels aren't (visually) as "clear-cut" as on LCDs, higher dot pitch means less detail for CRTs)

If anyone is still wondering why LCDs are so much easier on the eyes...

You could say, in compare to CRTs, they're passive illumination. Maybe I chose an awkward expression but imagine this, since crts have a phosphorecent coating which literally glows, you're staring at a big bunch of tiny lightbulbs. Now LCDs on the other hand are a big mesh of "selective blockers" which only block the backlight selectively. LCDs might not be as vivid as cr�m� de la cr�m� CRTs using separate inputs but the sharpness, the geometric accuracy, the comfort...

...makes all the difference.

totally worth it.

enjoy.

i.

P.S. I feel compelled to add this: bob, don't scare people with that horror story, you're talking about an LCD from 1999 and not only that, a notebook LCD (inferior). I can't imagine a print/design house using notebooks for work really... not even today The desktop LCDs are much better than that.

In case anyone is wondering, as someone pointed out, all new 17" fast panels are 18bit, each pixel can only display 64 shades of its respective colour (R/G/B) as opposed to 256 on the 24bit displays which yields a total of 262144 distinct shades as opposed to 16.7million on the 24bit panels. What the 18bit ones do is a sort of dither, alternately show you shades #4 and #8 which perceptually corresponds to shade #6 (on the 256 scale, 18b panels can only display 0, 4, 8, 12, 16,...) if that's requested or vary the ratio 3:1 to get a value of #5 or... anything really, this is just speculation, what is known is that the displays use some sort of dithering, depends on manufacturer and it's not noticeable to naked eye.

Bottom line, pay very close attention, 16.7mil colours is a true 24 bit display while 16.2 m is a whole new ball game (the number 16.2 is 64 base shades with all dithered combinations which results in 253 perceptible values, on third exp that's 16.19etc colours).

For the swede asking about 19", samsung 193P is a true gem, very good reviews on colour and contrast and it's probably the best 19" if you game here and there. I'm going dual 193Ps soon just have to find a double DVI card.

[Mikko K]

[jfrancis]

I was happy running my HP L2335 by connecting it to my Dell VGA to VGA.

Now I have a new computer, and it has a wildcat realizm 200, and I was looking forward to connecting it to the monitor in DVI to DVI configuration.

For some reason when I do this the monitor reports no signal received.

If I connect the computer DVI-out to the monitor VGA-in, it works, so I know the computer's DVI-out is in fact generating a signal.

I wonder, is my problem connecting the computer DVI-out to the monitor DVI-in related to the monitor? the cable?

I'll check it out further, but if anyone has seen this before, any tips would be appreciated.

---

Fixed it: if you run it in VGA mode, then install additional drivers, it works in DVI mode

[zen-ix]

jfrancis,

you say your DVI out is working properly then all I can say is and I hope it doesn't offend you: mayhaps your monitor is awkward at detecting signal and you have to manually select the signal source to DVI in which case it should go blank and immediately switch the cables.

hope it helps

[B0b]

[jfrancis]

Thanks for all the suggestions!

I connected the computer to the monitor's VGA input, used the opportunity of a working monitor to install all software that came with the monitor, and then when I went back to DVI it worked.

I thought the software was mainly a kind of automatic image stabilization thing for use when running in VGA mode, (when the image looks blurry, you hit the "auto" button and a test pattern goes in and out of focus until it locks up sharp) -- but I guess there were DVI drivers to be installed, too, because when I loaded all the software onto the new computer, it fixed the problem.

The main quality difference I see is in DVI mode I never get faint rolling interference that I used to have to occasionally adjust away by hitting the "auto" button. Otherwise the image seemed equally sharp in both modes.

[Cpt.Obvious]

hello, sorry for digin this thread jfrancis . hope U won't mind
anyway as far as there was a question for a high-end lcd's here, I wanted to ask what U think about Formac Gallery LCD's?

http://www.formac.com/p_bin/?cid=solutions_displays_gallery2010_01

I'm considering this one and Apple cinema 20'' and don't know which one would be better.
Any help would be great