Outline ·
[ Standard ] ·
Linear+
Technical LCD TV, its time to get one.seriously....
|
TSHitman190
|
 Aug 13 2006, 07:11 PM, updated 20y ago
|
|
Yeah I know this thread has occured before but all the time people are aiming for huge monstrosities that replace your wall. Cmon lah people see the price tag at RM30,000 they immeditely think its good. Granted you get what you pay for...Samsung has a decent mid-sized LCD TV under RM4000. But wait....RM4000 compared with a Sony Bravia! Surely enough the Bravia would win...Wrong!!! Sony and (shudder)LG and other brands have good LCDs but Samsung is probably the best LCD Tv excepted by XBOX 360 magazines everywhere, used in E3 2006, DEMO PODS, ETc. Believe it or not many people do not know this.  So Ladies and Gentlemen leave your opinions here about what LCD tv you reaaly want and why... And ummm if any of you do have a LCD TV regardless of brand. Just know this!!!!  I envy you =sniff= |
|
|
|
|
|
therealzerouzer
|
Aug 13 2006, 07:18 PM
|
New Member
|
just fyi, my japanese professor said that samsung has probably beaten all japanese companies in the TV arena. seriously, samsung TVs pump out nice pictures at a reasonable price.. imo. but ill stick with LCD monitors, a lot cheaper, and we're still not in the HD era here to warrant a HDTV purchase
|
|
|
|
|
|
daidzz
|
Aug 13 2006, 07:24 PM
|
Getting Started
|
Hey guys help me out i just got a dell 20" widescreen ultrasharp monitor, and it was rm1499 .. there was a samsung one for 1290rm and its official launch was like just right now. at the pc fair... please tell me i made the right desicion picking the dell one over the samsung one. btw the dell one looked like it was producing nicer pictures compared to the samsung
|
|
|
|
|
|
stringfellow
|
Aug 13 2006, 07:26 PM
|
|
|
Which is why i picked my LCd Proj. as well, based on the specs the TV has during its release circa 2003/04, having a 1080i/720p into the image processing algorithm at that time was unheard off. And it is a Samsung as well. While others were patiently waiting for familiar brands like Sony and Toshiba to come up with their answer for affordable HDTVs at that time (they were both pushing the Plasma and CRT HDTVs as their solution at that time, which both are neither satisfactory since Plasma are so goddamn expensive price/screen size ratio, while CRT HDTVs at that time (2003/04) was sporting 480p as their main resolution and 525p ad thbe alternative other, weird resolution I know....), Samsung had their plans in place with RPTVs, which at that time was second generation over the first-gen big-a$$ RPTVs with huge bottoms. Mind you, these arent full-fledged DLPs, they bridge the gap between the below-par RPTVs, and the next-gen (at that time) DLPs.
Fast forward to year 2006, and you now see even CRTs supporting the elusive 720p, which shows that general consumers have finally embraced the technology as it should, although it takes a while to get to them the importance of higher resolution image as we go bigger in screen size. True, the price range is not helping too either, as bigger screened TVs are always in the 5 digit figure.
The smaller sub 20 and mid 30 incher LCd TVs are affordable enough for average consumer to buy now, so it's all good.
Next to look forward to are, for me at least, the emergence of SED TV sets and 1080p capable HDTVs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUS**quantum()
|
Aug 13 2006, 07:26 PM
|
New Member
|
- wrong post -
This post has been edited by **quantum(): Aug 14 2006, 06:32 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
stringfellow
|
Aug 13 2006, 07:28 PM
|
|
|
DAidz, cant help you there dude, im not well versed enough to comment on that. A lot of forum members here go for Dell for the value for money and the spec/price ratio as well. Maybe we can get others who know more about this to comment further,.....Redbull perhaps?  |
|
|
|
|
|
stringfellow
|
Aug 13 2006, 07:30 PM
|
|
|
Quantum, i think there is a similar thread in the Computer Hardware section of this forum. What i think Daidz's meant in this thread is LCD TVs, NOT LCd monitors. You may want to try and direct your queries to the relevant section so that you would get a better response there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Darkchaser
|
Aug 13 2006, 07:44 PM
|
|
|
The advantage of Dells (to me) are the many inputs. The 2007 and 2407 models all have component, DVI and VGA, and if I'm not mistaken the 2407 has S-video? It also has some cool features like PIP, very useful if you're playing X360 and want to use your computer at the same time.
But one thing I think is lacking is the 16ms response time....I don't know how much that impacts playing X360 on it....
|
|
|
|
|
|
stringfellow
|
Aug 13 2006, 07:47 PM
|
|
|
Yup, LCd monitors is a great way to start experiencing High Definition gaming on your console. They are affordable and can be used on your PCs as well. One of the DEll models comes with multitude of inputs, which means you can connect it to PC and your 360, and your DVD players and simply switch between the source inputs easily, or do Picture-In-Picture between them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stringfellow
|
Aug 13 2006, 07:49 PM
|
|
|
Slower response time results in ghosting, IIANM. Fast moving scenes such as FPSes and to certain extent, racing games, will be affected by this. Some users have come to terms to this and have accepted this and got on with their gaming lives. Others might be bug annoyed by this though.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
shumaky
|
Aug 13 2006, 07:54 PM
|
|
|
Know ur budget and dont aim so high.. dont be envy with what other have. Be happy of what we have. Scout around n check out the best deals that fit ur budget.
I dont see the purpose of this and many other threads here.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
|
TSHitman190
|
Aug 13 2006, 08:01 PM
|
|
|
Okay it may be cheaper to buy a LCD monitor but truth be told resolution dont look AS good as the LCD TV. Quite simple....you get what you pay for. LCD monitors sure enough are cheaper but a majority of hardcore gamers(not here lahhh cmon!  )accept LCD TVs over the monitors because the price differnce is accepted and not all of them are intent of putting a few cables into a LCD tv. In other words some see it as too much work...Some not all. And to the person asking me about buying the right LCd monitor.. (forgot to quote) Dont worry bro Dell LCD monitors are reliable and look sharp. |
|
|
|
|
|
yetieater
|
Aug 13 2006, 08:03 PM
|
|
|
I'm very happy with the 37" Sharp AQUOS that's in my living room.
|
|
|
|
|
|
therealzerouzer
|
Aug 13 2006, 08:03 PM
|
New Member
|
i may be wrong about this but isnt response time the lag that you get? as in if the monitor has an 8ms response time, everything on the screen is 8ms late (takes the monitor 8ms to display the output of the console). while ghosting is related to the quality of the signal/screen, as in you can see a ghost/shadow of the picture on screen?
|
|
|
|
|
|
stringfellow
|
Aug 13 2006, 08:07 PM
|
|
|
I would happy too if i could get that 65incher 1080p full HD panel currently on display at Best DEnki into my living room!  The thing is, the Xbox 360 plus original games are already putting a huge dent on the wallet, so people go budget first before planning full-blown HDTV. Microsoft knows that , which is why you see them supporting this via VGA connection, and holding LAN sessions, sometimes with use of LCD monitors. |
|
|
|
|
|
stringfellow
|
Aug 13 2006, 08:11 PM
|
|
|
QUOTE If you've been shopping for a monitor in recent months, you may have noticed a lot of attention being given to one spec in particular: response time. Also referred to as response rate or latency, an LCD's response time supposedly indicates how fast it can display moving images. Most of last year's LCDs came with 16-millisecond (ms) response times--fast enough for decent-looking DVD playback, though with some ghosting and distortion. But response times are falling, and with Samsung and ViewSonic debuting LCDs with 3ms and 4ms response times earlier this year, LCDs would appear to be nearing the performance offered by CRTs. But what do response time numbers really mean?
A faster response time is better--it indicates how quickly the screen can refresh a video image. If an LCD's response time is too slow, the display's pixels won't be able to keep up with the information sent from the computer's graphics card, and you'll see ghosting and digital noise as a result. But just because a vendor advertises a fast response time doesn't mean that its LCD will handle moving images better.
Response time is defined as the time required for an LCD pixel to change from fully active (black) to fully inactive (white), then back to fully active again. Many manufacturers, on the other hand, report their LCDs' gray-to-gray response times. Pixels are rarely completely on or off--instead they cycle between gray states, that is colors--and, in general, switching between gray states is much slower than switching between black and white. However, some also argue that measuring gray-to-gray response time is pointless, since the manufacturers rarely tell where in the cycle they start and end their measurements. To alleviate this confusion, the Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA) plans to introduce a spec standardizing response time measurement sometime in 2006.
In the present, however, manufacturers still report the "fastest possible" response time, instead of the average or typical response time that you and I would see in daily use. And, sometimes manufacturers can't even decide how fast their own products are, as with ViewSonic's September 2005 announcement that its ViewSonic VX924 LCD actually had a 3ms response rate rather than the previously announced 4ms rate.
In any case, while response time specs may help when looking for a monitor for viewing DVDs or playing video games, we recommend testing a monitor yourself before buying. CNET does not officially test response times, but we judge gaming and DVD performance with our own eyes, and we urge you to do the same.
Taken from a CNET article. |
|
|
|
|
|
SUS**quantum()
|
Aug 13 2006, 08:51 PM
|
New Member
|
- wrong post -
This post has been edited by **quantum(): Aug 14 2006, 06:33 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
stringfellow
|
Aug 13 2006, 09:04 PM
|
|
|
Your LCD monitors can go up to higher resolutions than 1024x768 or 1280 x 1024 or 1360 x 768, that most LCd TV/HDTV supports. LCD monitors are used mainly with your PCs , with 30 inch monitors from Dell and Apple having the ability go up to crazier resolutions like 1600 x 1200 and beyond. LCD TVs cannot go beyong 1280x1024 or 1360x768, mainly because these LCD TVs are used for watching content from consoles, or HDTV signals which are restricted to 720p/1080i feed at this point in time.
So to answer your question:-
1. LCd TV = comes in sizes , more often larger than 30 inch, but restricted in resolution up to HDTV standards. Mainly used for watching TV, or DVDs or with videogame console nowadays.
LCD monitors = comes in sizes, but more often in smaller sizes, 30 inch and below, but can display resolutions higher than HDTV standards, the larger sizes even support better resolutions provided by uber-graphic cards out there. Mainly used as PC monitors.
2. If you use LCd TV as PC monitor, you will be restricted to the resolution supported by the LCd TV, which in most cases , inferior to LCD monitors. This is usually up to 1024x768 or 1280x1024. If you had never used other higher resolutions than this, it should be fine for you, but for those who had tried these higher resolutions, your screen would look super crisp, although text and icons would look tiny. You CAN use LCd TV as your Pc monitor, but you would be wasting the graphic card power and capability when your card can go resolutions like 1600x1200 easily but your LCd TV doesnt support it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
redbull_y2k
|
Aug 13 2006, 10:13 PM
|
|
|
QUOTE(stringfellow @ Aug 13 2006, 07:28 PM) DAidz, cant help you there dude, im not well versed enough to comment on that. A lot of forum members here go for Dell for the value for money and the spec/price ratio as well. Maybe we can get others who know more about this to comment further,.....Redbull perhaps? LOL, but for better info i'd also suggest directing any questions related to LCD monitors to the one in the PC Hardware section. Unless it's about LCD monitors and the Xbox360, although we have another thread on that already rite?  QUOTE(Darkchaser @ Aug 13 2006, 07:44 PM) The advantage of Dells (to me) are the many inputs. The 2007 and 2407 models all have component, DVI and VGA, and if I'm not mistaken the 2407 has S-video? It also has some cool features like PIP, very useful if you're playing X360 and want to use your computer at the same time. But one thing I think is lacking is the 16ms response time....I don't know how much that impacts playing X360 on it.... Both 2007 and 2407 had S-Video, Composite, VGA and DVI. Only the 2407 had component input. While the panel is rated at 16ms, that is Black-to-Black while its GtG (Grey to Grey) is 6ms IMHO. No worries on the ghosting tho, i've never noticed any ghosting on my Dell 2007, i think it's comparable to my old Sony 17" 8ms LCD.  This post has been edited by redbull_y2k: Aug 13 2006, 10:15 PM |
|
|
|
|
Quote
0.0162sec
0.41
5 queries
GZIP Disabled