LCD Screens - WAY overpriced

Our "pub" where you can post about things completely Off Topic or about non-silent PC issues.

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

LCD Overpriced ?

Not At All !
4
9%
No
14
30%
Yes
15
33%
Totaly Overpriced dude !
11
24%
Whats an LCD ?
2
4%
 
Total votes: 46

mathias
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2004 3:58 pm
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Post by mathias » Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:00 pm

EvoFire wrote:around here, I can get a decent 19" monitor for $250 (Samsung 955DF)
A nice 17" LCD goes around $350 (NEC 1735NXM, Samsung 710N, 16ms and 12ms respectively)
Here, I can get a P95F+ for $260. I know next to nothing about good LCD screens, but I doubt I can get one that works anywhere near as well (especially for games) for close to that much.

Edit: one thing I really hate about a lot of screens is that they don't say what resolution they are, they just say "HDTV", and IIRC I've seen 1024x1024 or some other such odd resolution plasma screens labeleed HDTV.

meglamaniac
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 12:44 pm
Location: UK

Post by meglamaniac » Mon Jan 17, 2005 2:00 pm

As someone pointed out, another advantage of OLED (and indeed SED) I didn't mention is that it's a light emitter itself.
This means it has the same viewing angle properties as a CRT - virtually 180 degrees in both planes. It all comes down to which will provide the best quality colour reproduction and what the price range is. By all accounts it could be quite close, so we'll just have to wait.
Knowing technology, both will enter the market at similar price points and then there'll be endless arguments about which is better!
Does anyone know anything about SEDs response times? Are they similar to OLEDs impressive claims?

DLP will never be practical for a computer monitor I feel, but for the time being is indeed a reasonable alternative to prohibatively expensive plasma panels.

Edward Ng
SPCR Reviewer
Posts: 2696
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 9:53 pm
Location: Scarsdale, NY
Contact:

Post by Edward Ng » Mon Jan 17, 2005 2:19 pm

meglamaniac wrote:As someone pointed out, another advantage of OLED (and indeed SED) I didn't mention is that it's a light emitter itself.
This means it has the same viewing angle properties as a CRT - virtually 180 degrees in both planes. It all comes down to which will provide the best quality colour reproduction and what the price range is. By all accounts it could be quite close, so we'll just have to wait.
Knowing technology, both will enter the market at similar price points and then there'll be endless arguments about which is better!
Does anyone know anything about SEDs response times? Are they similar to OLEDs impressive claims?

DLP will never be practical for a computer monitor I feel, but for the time being is indeed a reasonable alternative to prohibatively expensive plasma panels.
SED is very similar to CRT technology, so its response rate should be just as fast, and the primary advantage of plasma/OLED/SED/CRT, making their own light, is superior black levels--critical for home theater and/or Doom 3. A further advantage of CRT and SED is that, from what I can tell, they are both analogue in nature (CRT definitely, SED I hope); as such, they can provide a virtually infinite bit depth, gammut and range of color, unlike LCDs--I'm unsure for OLED and plasma. This factors into practical usage for desktop artists such as myself and why I stick to CRTs for getting my serious Photoshop and Quark done--without proper black points and full color gammut, the artwork on the screen is that much less representative of what will come out on paper.

Agreed, DLP won't likely become a popular PC display, except for HTPCs and gaming rigs assembled for gaming in HD, but some of the more advanced DLPs are shockingly good in all aspects (anyone gotten a chance to see InFocus' 777? Holy cow that thing's amazing, and it better be for US$30K! :lol:). Now I hear there are 7" thick, 60" DLPs coming out from InFocus and RCA that are capable of an incredible 1080P!

-Ed

meglamaniac
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 12:44 pm
Location: UK

Post by meglamaniac » Mon Jan 17, 2005 2:37 pm

Having said that, at 60" it would need to be given that's about the size of a private cinema screen.
I agree though, 60" in high-def would be amazing to see.

Interesting point about the analog.
Theoretically, if OLED works along similar lines to conventional LED technology, you should also be able to ramp the brightness in an analog fasion.
However, I'd imagine all of these displays will be driven by digital image processors probably prefering DVI-D input (no doubt through a DVI-I plug to allow for analog fallback), so it'd be down to the resolution of the image processor - and the fact that current computer graphics hardware has a maximum brightness resolution of 8 bits per channel (or 256 levels per primary colour).

As you said, the major advantage ought to be that none of these displays will suffer from the colour-wash/distortion that LCDs have from their diffusion filters and backlight colouration.

sthayashi
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 3214
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 10:06 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Post by sthayashi » Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:29 pm

Edward Ng wrote:Holy cow that thing's amazing, and it better be for US$30K! :lol:). Now I hear there are 7" thick, 60" DLPs coming out from InFocus and RCA that are capable of an incredible 1080P!
For $30k, I'd want a lamp that can last 60,000 hours, not this piddly 1500 hours.

Lamps are f***ing expensive. That's why I stopped using non-CRT projectors.

NeilBlanchard
Moderator
Posts: 7681
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Contact:

Post by NeilBlanchard » Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:01 pm

Hello:

How about a 32" CRT TV that is about 14" deep?

http://homeentertainment.engadget.com/e ... 019932855/

I "lost" a much better link on this -- they are slated to cost around $1,000...

[Edit] Found it -- it has a little info, but it leads to a broken link...
Last edited by NeilBlanchard on Tue Jan 18, 2005 8:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.

nici
Posts: 3011
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 8:49 am
Location: Suomi Finland Perkele

Post by nici » Tue Jan 18, 2005 8:05 am

Thanks for correcting me :wink:

I wouldnt mind a 14" deep 32" CRT, but assuming the image quality is the same as a "regular" CRT there is not much benefit in it. Out of two identical TVs, wich of one is that and the other as good but deeper i would of course take the thinner one. It wont be much lighter though, it still need a heavy glass tube to hold the vacuum so it wont implode an shoot the electron-cannon thru the front into your face at lightspeed :lol: Ok so that only happens if you break a CRT in a very specific way, but its still heavy and no bigger than regular CRTs :roll:

burcakb
Posts: 1443
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 9:05 am
Location: Turkey

Post by burcakb » Tue Jan 18, 2005 8:42 am

info: the heavy part isn't the glass but the metal "mask" that makes sure the electron hits the right phosphor. It's big, it's thick and it's heavy :)

sthayashi
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 3214
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 10:06 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Post by sthayashi » Tue Jan 18, 2005 11:38 am

sthayashi wrote:Yes, LCD IS more expensive than plasma, but LCD has a much higher resolution for its size. The LCD TV that I have my eye on has an MSRP of about $8k (though I can get it for $6k if I actually had the money. I've been teetering on getting one through Onecall where they have a no payments no interest plan until 06/2006). That particular LCD has a native resolution of 1920x1080. Plasmas that can produce that resolution are even more expensive than that. When you get down to slightly saner resolutions like 1280x720 or 1366x768, plasmas are about the same, but they're also a good 7" bigger (next largest LCD is 37"). The flip side is that it's nearly impossible to find a plasma smaller than 42", so if you need a slightly smaller screen than that, you need to go with LCD.
I need to correct myself. It's almost impossible to find Plasmas that can do better than 852x480 smaller than 42". I've found one or two that can and they're 37". Smaller than that IS virtually impossible.

Trip
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2928
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Location: SC

Post by Trip » Tue Jan 18, 2005 4:15 pm

I saw a smallish plasma screen monitor on a pre-built system, Sony?, just a few months ago. I believe it was smaller than a Samsung 19" b/c the owner was jealous of my sister's larger (and less expensive) monitor. I want to say it was wider than a normal monitor, wide like an HD ready TV. What a waste if the resolution was that poor!

I didn't take a good look at it and wouldn't have known just what to look for, but the owner believed it to be a plasma at least.

Tyrdium
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 7:29 am
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Post by Tyrdium » Tue Jan 18, 2005 4:51 pm

You mean the V-series? They use LCD displays.

Trip
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2928
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Location: SC

Post by Trip » Tue Jan 18, 2005 5:02 pm

Yeah that looks right. Good call :)

mathias
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2004 3:58 pm
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Post by mathias » Tue Jan 18, 2005 9:08 pm

I've noticed that every display type I can think of has been discussed somewhat here, except projectors. Any opinions on those? They seem to me like a good option, especially for PCs: big screen for relatively cheap, regular aspect ratio, decent resolutions, doesn't take up much room; so what would be the catch?

One really neat thing that I think you could do with projectors is aim them at the ceiling, and use them lying down. The ultimate in comfort! Would save space too.

PS: forgot to say, that monitor I mentioned that's $260 here is a viewsonic

sthayashi
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 3214
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 10:06 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Post by sthayashi » Tue Jan 18, 2005 9:34 pm

mathias wrote:I've noticed that every display type I can think of has been discussed somewhat here, except projectors. Any opinions on those? They seem to me like a good option, especially for PCs: big screen for relatively cheap, regular aspect ratio, decent resolutions, doesn't take up much room; so what would be the catch?
There's a couple catches. First, you need to have enough space. It pains me greatly that I own a projector and can't use it due to lack of space. The projector itself doesn't take much space, but if you want to get any decent projection up, you need to have a fair amount of space. Around 7-9' of throw space is not unusual. I personally don't have any such distance in my house without making things very very awkward (I don't want to have the projector sitting in the kitchen).

Second, the price is much higher than most monitors. And generally you get worse resolution. Projectors generally start at about $1k and up, and higher resolutions cost more. You can find used ones, but don't do what I once did and buy a used projector made by a company no longer in business. I'll explain in my next point.

Third, they have a horrible life rating. Almost all projectors you see on the market are either LCD or DLP projectors, which use a lamp by from which they produce their image. Read up on the specs and look at the part that says "Lamp Life" or "Bulb Life" Most simply don't last that long. The 1,500 hours quoted earlier on this page is typical. And if you look at the cost of bulb replacement (hint: not cheap), you can see that you're going to be spending some money. And if you did what I did and get a used projector from a dead company, you'll find that the bulb costs were almost astronomical.

Fourth, for most projectors, you have to eliminate almost all light sources to really see anything. That can make things a PITA to use, where everytime you turn it on, you have to draw the shades and close the doors.

If you can deal with all the above, then by all means go for it. I've played four player Halo on my projector at a friend's house, and it was really sweet. The screen never felt cramped.

mathias
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2004 3:58 pm
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Post by mathias » Tue Jan 18, 2005 10:11 pm

So, floor to ceiling is kind of pushing it distance wise? Would it actually work on a ceiling, or does it require a special surface?

Slaugh
Posts: 774
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 2:27 am
Location: Quebec, Canada

Post by Slaugh » Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:01 am


Edward Ng
SPCR Reviewer
Posts: 2696
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 9:53 pm
Location: Scarsdale, NY
Contact:

Post by Edward Ng » Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:21 am

Another problem with front projectors, stemming from the hot bulb that Steve mentioned, is that most of them are actively cooled.

sthayashi
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 3214
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 10:06 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Post by sthayashi » Wed Jan 19, 2005 6:22 am

mathias wrote:So, floor to ceiling is kind of pushing it distance wise? Would it actually work on a ceiling, or does it require a special surface?
So long as the ceiling isn't textured, it'll work. If you have a throw less than 7-9' it will still work, but the screen will be less impressive (closer and closer in size to a normal TV).

A projection screen is recommended though not required. The projection screen has a high reflectivity that will make a projected image brighter and sharper in theory. In practice, I never used it so YMMV.

peterex09
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 11:28 pm
Location: 5th floor

OLEDs are way more pricey

Post by peterex09 » Fri Jan 01, 2010 11:58 pm

I think OLEDs are way more pricey than LCDs but they need less power to run since they dont need backlight. I heard that there's a rumor Sony will be introducing a series of new and bigger OLED displays at this year's CES.

Wibla
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 779
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:03 am
Location: Norway

Post by Wibla » Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:18 am

I just realized I answered a 5 year old poll, and got a used 23" monitor just last week, produced in 2004.. retailed for nearly $2k, but I paid $150 for it. One CCFL change later ($40) it will produce better colours than most new $200 TN panels.

Too bad the "reasonably cheap and good enough" lcds are all but gone, just a year ago you could find a 1920x1200 24" matte TN panel that was good enough for a reasonable price. Now its either glossy crappy 1920x1080 16:9 TN, or very expensive H-IPS/S-IPS.. bah.

~El~Jefe~
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 2887
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:21 pm
Location: New York City zzzz
Contact:

Post by ~El~Jefe~ » Wed Jan 13, 2010 11:03 pm

that's called a major

Necro

of a thread. you summoned Gandhi and Elvis when you hit this puppy.

psiu
Posts: 1201
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 1:53 pm
Location: Plymouth, MI
Contact:

Post by psiu » Thu Jan 14, 2010 2:25 pm

LOL I came in and voted not all--after getting a 21.5" monitor from Staples for $80 2 weeks ago.

Then I saw the date on the OP :D

spookmineer
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 749
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 6:02 pm

Re: good 19" LCD's are under $500

Post by spookmineer » Fri Jan 15, 2010 8:51 pm

Heh me too... thought it was a brand new thread I missed yesterday and replied to poor Neil. I'll keep what I wrote for a laugh (although some parts still apply)

NeilBlanchard wrote:Hello:

One of the reasons that CRT's are so inexpensive is that LCD's are better monitors for most uses. Twelve years ago (or so) a 20"-21" CRT would set you back almost $2,000. A very high quality Eizo (or as it was called then, Nanao) 17" CRT would cost $1,400. Ten years ago a "bargain" 17" vertically flat CRT was $850. (Remember too, that these CRT sizes are the *tube* but NOT the visible image size.)

Today you can buy good quality 19" LCD (equivalent image size to those 20"-21" CRT's) for $450-$500. And what do today's 21" CRT's cost? A decent one is $400-450! So there is a $50-$100 premium for LCD?
So you mean CRT's are more expensive. They are. [Well, maybe I'm still remembering the prices of CRT's 10 years ago, compared to that any LCD is a steal].

People started massively buying LCD's because flat was the new hot thing, but there are many drawbacks to them.
I am still using my 17" Iiyama and it's great. I would buy another CRT if they were available, at all.
CRT's are more expensive to manufacture than LCD's. Combine that with the flat obsessiveness and price, no wonder CRT's are nowhere to be found anymore...

Some gripes I have with LCD, without further explanation (it speaks for itself I hope):
Response time
Native resolution
60 Hz/fps maximum (some newer LCD's offer 120 Hz/fps)
Colours (TN: not very good - other panels: slow refresh time)
Backlight bleeding
Input lag

LCD's are dirt cheap and I hope I can get around for a while before I have to buy one. Cheaper (not better) means more market share.


[/rant] that's before I turned to page 2 and still saw posts from 2005 :shock:

RaptorZX3
Posts: 867
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 11:57 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec (Canada)

Post by RaptorZX3 » Sun Jan 17, 2010 10:09 pm

what i really hate from CRTs are the dreaded settings and you HAVE to do it yourself. There are tons of different stupid settings like trapezoid, moire, pin-cushion, etc......and you have to get the damn thing right for EACH resolution you want to choose!

when you use DVI connection, you don't even have to push the "auto" button anymore to set up the LCD monitor for optimal picture (just set the brightness, contrast and sharpness once), when you use the Analog on it, you just need to push the "auto" button once or twice.

spookmineer
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 749
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 6:02 pm

Post by spookmineer » Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:36 pm

RaptorZX3 wrote:what i really hate from CRTs are the dreaded settings and you HAVE to do it yourself. There are tons of different stupid settings like trapezoid, moire, pin-cushion, etc......and you have to get the damn thing right for EACH resolution you want to choose!
With every form of flexibility, you'll have to tell the machine what you want.

With a CRT you have all the flexibility you want, and it comes at a low "price": usually I only think about checking the settings once every 2 years. You can switch from any res to another and keep your settings intact for all of them. I don't think of it as a pain, but the bonus in the form of flexible res's is great.

Post Reply