Author Topic: A good monitor... (Read 1126 times)

Dowding · « **on:** February 04, 2001, 02:15:00 PM »

I'm looking to buy a monitor, and I really like Sony G400 19". I've seen an E400 and it had amazing clarity and colour depth; the G400 is the more advanced version, apparently.

Has anyone got this monitor or has experience of it? What monitors do people recommend?

Thanks.

Dux · « **Reply #1 on:** February 04, 2001, 02:18:00 PM »

Don't really have any favorite manufacturers, but I am kinda partial to 21" monitors. You wouldn't think the extra 2" makes a difference, but it does.

Good luck.

SOB · « **Reply #2 on:** February 04, 2001, 09:21:00 PM »

I got myself a G500 (21" version) a few months ago and I love it. Looks great, and the flat screen is excellent. Kind of hard to look at other big monitors that aren't flat now

1776 · « **Reply #3 on:** February 04, 2001, 09:53:00 PM »

Have 21"500PS by sony. You might want to keep your eyes open on the auction sites. All those "dot coms" that went outa bzness will be dumping puters and stuff

Staga · « **Reply #4 on:** February 04, 2001, 10:36:00 PM »

Local magazines here in Finland made some tests and they found that Samsung's monitors are good and quite cheap too.

MrSiD · « **Reply #5 on:** February 05, 2001, 03:59:00 AM »

When buying a Sony (or equivalent) Trinitron or Diamontron screen, always make sure that you test the screen beforehand with a geforce card (assuming you have one.)

I have a Compaq P900 Trinitron screen and had to return my first screen due to horrible image quality. It's a known bug in Geforce cards, bad image quality can vary from used monitor cable or even individual monitor. So one Trinitron screen might look horrible, next one just super..

Test your screen, thats all I have to say.

Dowding · « **Reply #6 on:** February 05, 2001, 04:21:00 AM »

Thanks guys.

I don't think I can stretch to a 21" monster, they are about £600 here (> $1000 I think). I saw a 21" Samsung and that looked very crisp too (they use Trinitron too I think).

Best price I got for the 19" G400 is £468 (including VAT and delivery). This from an online store (high street shops are a rip off).

I've got a Prophet II Pro vid card.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #7 on:** February 05, 2001, 09:10:00 AM »

I have both the 19" Sony and a NEC FP-950 19". I like the NEC better.

They both use the Sony Trinitron tube, but the 9 point convergence settings in the NEC, and the overall detail level adjustments in the on-screen diagnostics sold me on this monitor.
It also runs the Trinitron tube at wider vertical and horizontal ranges, which result in a faster screen display than the Sony.
It is a costly beast though.

Out of all the monitors I have ever used, the Sony and NEC have the best black levels of any monitor I have ever seen. This results in better details and higher potential contrast levels.
Both the NEC and Sony come from the factory with the color temperature set way to high (9200 degrees). Make sure you reset the color temperature between 6200 and 6500 Kelvin. This will result in better color rendention and much better gray scale reproduction. The higher temperature setting does add a blue hue to the gray scale of a monitor.

By the way, the problem mentioned with the GeForce cards and the Sony Trinitron tube have to do with the Plug-N-Play tables the monitor supplies to the video card. Current generations of video cards/drivers can automatically select the vertical and horizontal rates based on the PNP tables from the video display.
If a monitor table, at any given resolution, is not one the video card can support (vertical/horizontal frequencies), the video card/drivers attempt a mathematical adjustment to find one that will work without frying the monitor.
Bottomline, it is not the tube that is the problem, but the electronis driving the display that can cause a problem.
Sony makes several levels of Trinitron tubes to meet the specific requirements of the electronics that will drive the tube. For instance, the NEC FP-950 can run up to 160Hz horizontal refresh rates, whereas the Sony model can only run up to 120Hz. This difference also requires a slightly different phospher decay time. The NEC needs a faster decay than the Sony to compensate for the increased speed of the horizontal refresh rate or you would end up with blurring of high speed motion images.

Anyway,...I am wandering aroung again. Hope this helps.

------------------
Roy "Skuzzy" Neese
President, AppLink Corp.
http://www.applink.net
skuzzy@applink.net

Dowding · « **Reply #8 on:** February 05, 2001, 12:45:00 PM »

Thanks Skuzzy. Great info.

I've tracked an NEC FP-950 down for £538.14, all in.

Do you reckon it's worth the extra £90 over the G400? It's just that at that price, I'm not far off the 21" price range.

Thanks once again.

<edit>

Found the FP-950 for £413 ($619). Sounds like a bargain!

The 22" FP-1370 is quoted at £661.56 ($991).

Now THAT is tempting. Might be overkill, though.

[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 02-05-2001).]

Skuzzy · « **Reply #9 on:** February 05, 2001, 07:17:00 PM »

Oh yes, the extra cost over the Sony is well worth it. The Sony is a good monitor, the 950 is just a better/faster version of that monitor.

The FP-1350 is a great monitor. If you can afford it, go for it. Just don't plan on setting it on top of your computer. My wife has one and it is huge, but the display is incredible.

The FP-950 weighs 65 U.S. pounds, and the 1350 tips the scales at 90 U.S. pounds.

------------------
Roy "Skuzzy" Neese
President, AppLink Corp.
http://www.applink.net
skuzzy@applink.net

Dowding · « **Reply #10 on:** February 06, 2001, 12:38:00 AM »

Thanks for the advice Skuzzy, much obliged.

I've heard that the FP-1350 has image 'ghosting' problems at high resolutions. Do you or your wife have any experience of that?

Cheers mate.

sshh · « **Reply #11 on:** February 06, 2001, 02:56:00 AM »

Dowding, just a few thoughts:

If you do not spend 6 hours a day with that computer - do not pay extra for 22".

Take into account your CPU/Video speed. If lets say you play AH - see what is your resolution for great frame rate. If it is 1024x768 - 19" is good choice. With 22" you will see big pixels. So AH picture in general may be even better on 19".

Think twice if your desk stong and wide/deep enough. Im pretty serious. Moved to US ~a year ago and good one for 22" may be easy up to about 300$.

Dowding · « **Reply #12 on:** February 06, 2001, 04:11:00 AM »

I don't think I'll have too much of a problem with FPS. I'm building a T-bird 1.2 Ghz, Prophet II Pro powered machine.

At least I hope I don't have a problem.

I guess I don't spend enough time in front of a computer to justify it (2 hours a day tops on week-days). But I'm aiming to buy a monitor that will last me at 2-3 years at least.

The weight thing mighht be a problem though.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #13 on:** February 06, 2001, 08:42:00 AM »

My wife uses her FP-1350 for AutoCad. I watch her do work with it and have never seen any type of ghosting or blurring.
She runs it at 1920x1440 resolution at 76Hz and it is beautiful using an ATI Radeon 64MB DDR card.
sshh has a point. The larger the video display, the higher the resolution you have to run in order to reduce the blockiness of the images. Also, the FP-1350 requires 2.3A at 120V, or 1A and 220V which equals heat dissipation of about 270 watts @ 115V or 220 watts at 220V.
The FP-950 uses 1.8A @ 120V or .8A @ 220V, which equals heat dissipation of about 200 watts @ 115V or 175 watts at 220V.
So your cost of ownership for the 1350 will be higher than the 950.

------------------
Roy "Skuzzy" Neese
President, AppLink Corp.
http://www.applink.net
skuzzy@applink.net

Dowding · « **Reply #14 on:** February 06, 2001, 12:36:00 PM »

Thankyou.

I guess I'll have to have a good think about this one.

Author Topic: A good monitor... (Read 1126 times)

MrSiD