![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Synful Serenity
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2004
- Messages
- 1,256
Welcome back the Forums!!
After 9 years of solid use, my Gateway Vivitron 17-inch monitor from 1995 was due for a replacement. It was still remarkably bright due to my conservative settings, but too blurry, especially at 1280x1024. I've always pushed the design life of my components to their limits (I'm still using that same gateway tower from 1995, after spending days tunneling out a I/O riser hole in the back with a hand nibbler and replacing the power switch with one from radio shack, to turn it from a 100Mhz P1 AT to 3.0 P4 ATX...its 4th mobo), but my eyes needed a rest. So I went out and got a 2141SB shipped to me from Dell.
I had already been leaning towards a CRT in the first place but it was The Titan's many posts that lead me to ultimately turn to the dark side...or are LCDs the dark side? *shakes head* lol...so I must give credit where credit is due! I finally bought my 2141 last month. The final shipped price was 593.96, no tax, and arrived here 2 days later in perfect shape, even though Dell used DHL to ship it and a little asian man brought it and buzzed me down from a 4th floor condo in New York to help him carry it up because it was too heavy for him! This is the best monitor I've ever seen, and I've never been as satisfied with a purchase. After playing with a 213t at Circuit City (it was on DVI, another store had one that wasn't) and seeing my friends 2001FP, I am glad to say that I made the right decision for me.
The main selling point: ghosting and trailing. I play a lot of isometric RPGs and adventure games that might have characters and things moving across the screen really fast, and it was noticeable on the other displays, though in many games and everyday tasks the Dell probably wouldnt give much of a ghosting problem, if at all. But then again, I have "fast" eyes, some people don't.
2nd selling point: The colors. Both LCDs had bold, beautiful colors. The color reproduction did in fact seem more accurate on the 2141, as is known to be the case (otherwise graphics designers wouldnt use them!) The color red appeared to differ the most on the very limited, non-scientific testing I tried. Color saturation seemed better for me on the CRT too after it was tweaked. The 2141 is on only 10% brightness now so theres no questions about its brightness, I could damn near use it as the flash for my camera at 100. Also, in order to get the electric conductivity down enough to switch the pixels on and off as fast as they can, the Dell screen has only 16-bit color, which is 262,144 instead of 16 million colors for most LCDs (CRTs are effectively infinite). It is arguable whether 32-bit is needed instead of 24. As for 24 instead of 16, to those that say you don't need that many...maybe so, but I do. To test this out , if you have a display that will display at least 24-bit color, set it to that and put Windows XP default wallpaper (or any good 24-bit image) onscreen. Watch closely. Then, switch it back to 16-bit color, and look at the difference. The main issue here is the gradient of changing colors. In 24-bit mode, it is smooth and fluid, but in 16-bit, the image looks noticeably choppy and haloed, with obvious dithering. Look especially around the lower left-hand side of the screen where the 2 panes and shadows meet. The loss of detail is too much for me to give up; some people might have no problem though.
Viewing angle: Unless you're using your LCD to give presentations (why!!), no need to worry about that my friend. Both the Dell and Samsung were fine unless you have a thing for looking at your monitor sideways.
Scaling: I play a lot of older DOS games, and some newer (but still old) games running at all different resolutions so scaling was a problem on the LCDs. If you run your desktop at 1600 x 1200, and play enough newer games on systems new enough (you're spending ~$1000 on a monitor, it damn well should be!) to run them all at 1600 x 1200, scaling is a non-issue. Don't forget, they didn't look too bad with some game and resolution combinations I tried. I didn't use any kind of standard though, so I will only say that in some cases the screen appeared "soft". You'd have to check this out for yourself I think though. On the 2141 resizable pixels make it just as good for all resolutions, of course. On EGA games at 320 x 200 like Quest for Glory II (I'm nostalgic...so sue me!), a screen of this size makes games look kinda blocky.
Screen-door: The Samsung had no screen-door unless my nose was almost touching the screen, and the Dell's wasnt really apparent at my viewing distance, but it didn't really bother me in any case. The text was like razors on both. On the 2141, obviously at 2048 x 1536 pictures with that native resolution will be more detailed, but text is just too small. At 1600x1200 and 1280x1024 its text is still quite sharp considering it's a CRT, though still not as sharp as the LCDs. There is, however, no screen-door at all on CRTs, although as I said, it didn't really seem to be an issue on the LCDs. Some people might complain about it though.
Flicker: Don't make me laugh. While the LCD screens were standing still, it was like watching what a 872,492,534Hz screen would look like. Really easy on the eyes...However, I've ran the 2141 at 85Hz and 100Hz, and my eyes didn't bother me, and I also get the full 85 or 100 frames a second, blur-free. Some people get constant headaches and eyestrain on CRTs even at higher refreshes, especially after getting used to LCDs...To those people I say: I see an LCD in your future!
Reliability: I got 9 good years out of a CRT (maybe i was lucky, but also remember I tend to keep it dark) that wasn't even as high-level as this, so I think if I wanted to this thing could last well into its teens. I think if flat panels are really sweet in 4 or 5 years I'll consider them. As for LCDs...well some of those crappy units from years and years ago are still looking just as crappy, but not any more so, and still going strong today! I don't know if that means today's screens will last longer or not, but as long as pixels don't break into permanent states, a simple rejuvenation by replacing the bulb doesnt sound like a bad deal even for $300 in those displays that allow it like some HDTVs, considering how expensive some of them are new. LCDs are reliable enough that it shouldn't really matter in your decision...I'm sure whatever screen you get will last at least 3 - 5 years, and by that time you'll be wanting super duper "100% Ghostless" displays anyway!
I will say LCDs definitely have their purpose and do what they do well, but when im running the latest greatest shooter 2048 x 1536 at 85 frames a second (video card permitting!), my eyes and my wallet will be thanking me. My eyes probably won't be thanking me as much when I'm internet browsing, but sharpness isnt really an issue on a monitor of this stature...And contrary to what you might have heard, Samsungs .20 display is not uniform across the screen and is actually more in line with its competitors when you consider that .20 is its sharpest point (while some manufacturers quote .24 as their least sharpest point, so you see how its all a range...and don't compare AG pitch to shadow mask pitch either! we just don't do that
). Also note that a 16ms rate is only an average, and an approximation as well. In some testing, the 16ms panel used in the Dell display was found to require up to 50ms for certain color changeovers. Those of you who have studied digitization will remember that it takes double the sample rate to accurately capture a sound (thats why 44.1 khz is CD quality and not 20khz, which is the upper limit of hearing for the average human), so its analogous for a panel to truly render 60fps that it be 8ms, or even 6ms, to account for the extremes (remember the ms is an average). This is not a LCD vs CRT post. All i'm really saying here is that your mileage may vary. These are the reasons I chose the 2141, and they might apply to other users, while some may not. CRTs are heavy (my desk has a permanent sag from the 17incher it replaced, which curiously weighed as much as this 22in 2141), run hot, and are plagued with geometry and focus problems (which isnt really so bad on high-end CRTs, but need a lot of painstaking tweaking to bring to acceptable levels. Luckily, its basically non-existent in my case after hours of calibrating and hair-pulling). But these are not problems for me, and the benefits happened to outweigh the cons in my case.
People make bad comparisons all the time with monitors. You can't put the 2141 on a pedestal next to a 15-inch generic LCD when theres some really nice LCDs out there, and the LCD camps can't trumpet the 2001FP over $100 17inch displays and say how bad all CRTs are without looking at a 2141 live in the flesh. LCDs are best for some people and CRTs are best for some people. Personally, I feel that LCDs are a few years off from being a viable option for me. They've come so far from the horrid displays I've seen when they first came out (remember when they were still being advertised as passive matrix and active matrix?), but they are not yet the ultimate CRT-killers that some purport them to be. For the things CRTs do best, they do best. In fact, while I believe flat-screens are the wave of the future, LCDs themselves are more of an interim technology. LCoS, SED and variations of LED will bring the best of LCD and CRTs together in one nice tidy package...but don't count out LCDs, if they are improved to 4-6 ms, and maybe 32-bit color eventually, they'll be around too...I also think that while budget CRTs will eventually be supplanted by budget LCDs (which will still linger on themselves if LCDs become obsolete), high-end CRTs will always be available as long as people want them. Even though the technology is old and far from sexy and exciting, it is tried and true and a small number of companies remaining that produce them would make quite a profit. Don't forget that cars still operate on the principle of 4 pneumatic wheels with internal combustion engine...just as they have for most of the last century! Newer is not always better. The SED also seems like it could be my fave, it's like millions of tiny CRTs all together....Long live the CRT!
Remember, the majority of regular comp users are on no-budget throwaway LCDs or CRTs that came with their computers. Anyone choosing between a 2001FP, 213T, or 2141/2070 is in another league altogether and should pat themselves on the back and feel satisfied knowing they are getting one of the best monitors there is, regardless of your choice.
After 9 years of solid use, my Gateway Vivitron 17-inch monitor from 1995 was due for a replacement. It was still remarkably bright due to my conservative settings, but too blurry, especially at 1280x1024. I've always pushed the design life of my components to their limits (I'm still using that same gateway tower from 1995, after spending days tunneling out a I/O riser hole in the back with a hand nibbler and replacing the power switch with one from radio shack, to turn it from a 100Mhz P1 AT to 3.0 P4 ATX...its 4th mobo), but my eyes needed a rest. So I went out and got a 2141SB shipped to me from Dell.
I had already been leaning towards a CRT in the first place but it was The Titan's many posts that lead me to ultimately turn to the dark side...or are LCDs the dark side? *shakes head* lol...so I must give credit where credit is due! I finally bought my 2141 last month. The final shipped price was 593.96, no tax, and arrived here 2 days later in perfect shape, even though Dell used DHL to ship it and a little asian man brought it and buzzed me down from a 4th floor condo in New York to help him carry it up because it was too heavy for him! This is the best monitor I've ever seen, and I've never been as satisfied with a purchase. After playing with a 213t at Circuit City (it was on DVI, another store had one that wasn't) and seeing my friends 2001FP, I am glad to say that I made the right decision for me.
The main selling point: ghosting and trailing. I play a lot of isometric RPGs and adventure games that might have characters and things moving across the screen really fast, and it was noticeable on the other displays, though in many games and everyday tasks the Dell probably wouldnt give much of a ghosting problem, if at all. But then again, I have "fast" eyes, some people don't.
2nd selling point: The colors. Both LCDs had bold, beautiful colors. The color reproduction did in fact seem more accurate on the 2141, as is known to be the case (otherwise graphics designers wouldnt use them!) The color red appeared to differ the most on the very limited, non-scientific testing I tried. Color saturation seemed better for me on the CRT too after it was tweaked. The 2141 is on only 10% brightness now so theres no questions about its brightness, I could damn near use it as the flash for my camera at 100. Also, in order to get the electric conductivity down enough to switch the pixels on and off as fast as they can, the Dell screen has only 16-bit color, which is 262,144 instead of 16 million colors for most LCDs (CRTs are effectively infinite). It is arguable whether 32-bit is needed instead of 24. As for 24 instead of 16, to those that say you don't need that many...maybe so, but I do. To test this out , if you have a display that will display at least 24-bit color, set it to that and put Windows XP default wallpaper (or any good 24-bit image) onscreen. Watch closely. Then, switch it back to 16-bit color, and look at the difference. The main issue here is the gradient of changing colors. In 24-bit mode, it is smooth and fluid, but in 16-bit, the image looks noticeably choppy and haloed, with obvious dithering. Look especially around the lower left-hand side of the screen where the 2 panes and shadows meet. The loss of detail is too much for me to give up; some people might have no problem though.
Viewing angle: Unless you're using your LCD to give presentations (why!!), no need to worry about that my friend. Both the Dell and Samsung were fine unless you have a thing for looking at your monitor sideways.
Scaling: I play a lot of older DOS games, and some newer (but still old) games running at all different resolutions so scaling was a problem on the LCDs. If you run your desktop at 1600 x 1200, and play enough newer games on systems new enough (you're spending ~$1000 on a monitor, it damn well should be!) to run them all at 1600 x 1200, scaling is a non-issue. Don't forget, they didn't look too bad with some game and resolution combinations I tried. I didn't use any kind of standard though, so I will only say that in some cases the screen appeared "soft". You'd have to check this out for yourself I think though. On the 2141 resizable pixels make it just as good for all resolutions, of course. On EGA games at 320 x 200 like Quest for Glory II (I'm nostalgic...so sue me!), a screen of this size makes games look kinda blocky.
Screen-door: The Samsung had no screen-door unless my nose was almost touching the screen, and the Dell's wasnt really apparent at my viewing distance, but it didn't really bother me in any case. The text was like razors on both. On the 2141, obviously at 2048 x 1536 pictures with that native resolution will be more detailed, but text is just too small. At 1600x1200 and 1280x1024 its text is still quite sharp considering it's a CRT, though still not as sharp as the LCDs. There is, however, no screen-door at all on CRTs, although as I said, it didn't really seem to be an issue on the LCDs. Some people might complain about it though.
Flicker: Don't make me laugh. While the LCD screens were standing still, it was like watching what a 872,492,534Hz screen would look like. Really easy on the eyes...However, I've ran the 2141 at 85Hz and 100Hz, and my eyes didn't bother me, and I also get the full 85 or 100 frames a second, blur-free. Some people get constant headaches and eyestrain on CRTs even at higher refreshes, especially after getting used to LCDs...To those people I say: I see an LCD in your future!
Reliability: I got 9 good years out of a CRT (maybe i was lucky, but also remember I tend to keep it dark) that wasn't even as high-level as this, so I think if I wanted to this thing could last well into its teens. I think if flat panels are really sweet in 4 or 5 years I'll consider them. As for LCDs...well some of those crappy units from years and years ago are still looking just as crappy, but not any more so, and still going strong today! I don't know if that means today's screens will last longer or not, but as long as pixels don't break into permanent states, a simple rejuvenation by replacing the bulb doesnt sound like a bad deal even for $300 in those displays that allow it like some HDTVs, considering how expensive some of them are new. LCDs are reliable enough that it shouldn't really matter in your decision...I'm sure whatever screen you get will last at least 3 - 5 years, and by that time you'll be wanting super duper "100% Ghostless" displays anyway!
I will say LCDs definitely have their purpose and do what they do well, but when im running the latest greatest shooter 2048 x 1536 at 85 frames a second (video card permitting!), my eyes and my wallet will be thanking me. My eyes probably won't be thanking me as much when I'm internet browsing, but sharpness isnt really an issue on a monitor of this stature...And contrary to what you might have heard, Samsungs .20 display is not uniform across the screen and is actually more in line with its competitors when you consider that .20 is its sharpest point (while some manufacturers quote .24 as their least sharpest point, so you see how its all a range...and don't compare AG pitch to shadow mask pitch either! we just don't do that
). Also note that a 16ms rate is only an average, and an approximation as well. In some testing, the 16ms panel used in the Dell display was found to require up to 50ms for certain color changeovers. Those of you who have studied digitization will remember that it takes double the sample rate to accurately capture a sound (thats why 44.1 khz is CD quality and not 20khz, which is the upper limit of hearing for the average human), so its analogous for a panel to truly render 60fps that it be 8ms, or even 6ms, to account for the extremes (remember the ms is an average). This is not a LCD vs CRT post. All i'm really saying here is that your mileage may vary. These are the reasons I chose the 2141, and they might apply to other users, while some may not. CRTs are heavy (my desk has a permanent sag from the 17incher it replaced, which curiously weighed as much as this 22in 2141), run hot, and are plagued with geometry and focus problems (which isnt really so bad on high-end CRTs, but need a lot of painstaking tweaking to bring to acceptable levels. Luckily, its basically non-existent in my case after hours of calibrating and hair-pulling). But these are not problems for me, and the benefits happened to outweigh the cons in my case.People make bad comparisons all the time with monitors. You can't put the 2141 on a pedestal next to a 15-inch generic LCD when theres some really nice LCDs out there, and the LCD camps can't trumpet the 2001FP over $100 17inch displays and say how bad all CRTs are without looking at a 2141 live in the flesh. LCDs are best for some people and CRTs are best for some people. Personally, I feel that LCDs are a few years off from being a viable option for me. They've come so far from the horrid displays I've seen when they first came out (remember when they were still being advertised as passive matrix and active matrix?), but they are not yet the ultimate CRT-killers that some purport them to be. For the things CRTs do best, they do best. In fact, while I believe flat-screens are the wave of the future, LCDs themselves are more of an interim technology. LCoS, SED and variations of LED will bring the best of LCD and CRTs together in one nice tidy package...but don't count out LCDs, if they are improved to 4-6 ms, and maybe 32-bit color eventually, they'll be around too...I also think that while budget CRTs will eventually be supplanted by budget LCDs (which will still linger on themselves if LCDs become obsolete), high-end CRTs will always be available as long as people want them. Even though the technology is old and far from sexy and exciting, it is tried and true and a small number of companies remaining that produce them would make quite a profit. Don't forget that cars still operate on the principle of 4 pneumatic wheels with internal combustion engine...just as they have for most of the last century! Newer is not always better. The SED also seems like it could be my fave, it's like millions of tiny CRTs all together....Long live the CRT!
Remember, the majority of regular comp users are on no-budget throwaway LCDs or CRTs that came with their computers. Anyone choosing between a 2001FP, 213T, or 2141/2070 is in another league altogether and should pat themselves on the back and feel satisfied knowing they are getting one of the best monitors there is, regardless of your choice.