Large LCDs

Quote:

Original post by Prozak And why is it that after more than a hundred years of TV and Cinema, larger TVs and Monitors are so expensive??!

More than a hundred years of TV and Cinema. O_o

We're getting close, but we haven't reach 100 years of Cinema, let alone TV.(1910 and 1927)

Well you have a goal for yourself, make TVs that we can order by the square meter. No one else is doing it, you'll corner the market.

I got a 27" LCD widescreen TV (can be used as a monitor too) for 1K usd.
But I wouldn't use it as a monitor, it's too big for that.

I know this doesn't answer your question, but your post reminded me of this 19200 x 2400 LCD beast:




http://www.go-l.com/monitors/athens/features/index.htm

The TigerVista line of joined LCDs is better.

Good god. You'd have to walk a mile to go from the start button to the system clock. I totally take back everything I said in the wireless mouse thread.

Quote:

Original post by Prozak And why is it that after more than a hundred years of TV and Cinema, larger TVs and Monitors are so expensive??!? I would expect us to have arbitrary sized TVs, which we would pay by the square meter or something...

The technology hasn't been there. There's only so much you can do with a CRT, and we've basically done it. Now that we've moved beyond that, things'll start looking up.

CM

I find it intersting that you complain about monitor pricing when you could get an EXCELLENT 22" CRT for $800- (the viewsonic P225fB that does UP TO 2048x1536 @ 79HZ) but instead want a 23" LCD for $2000 (that only does 1920x1200 @ 62.5Hz). Yes, I realize CRT and LCD refresh rates mean different things, but I'm certain the CRT will have better image quality AND can show more full frames each second at a higher resultion than the LCD.

Oh, and the monitor can look good at lower resolutions so you don't need 2 GeForce 6800 Ultras in SLI to run games at a playable rate without distortion. Of course, with the CRT, you'd have $1200 left over to actually buy a dual GeForce 6800 GT(close enough to the ultra) setup.

Quote:

Original post by Michalson The TigerVista line of joined LCDs is better.

They come with multi-monitor software (TigerVista Manager utilities), too:

http://www.digitaltigers.com/tigervista.shtml

Quote:

All TigerVista displays are bundled with powerful TigerVista Manager multi-monitor utilities, which offer such features as a "Smart Taskbar" on each monitor, showing the active applications just on that display. TigerVista Manager also enables users to move applications between monitors with a single click, maximize applications across all monitors, and even manage different Windows wallpaper for each screen.

Quote:

Original post by Extrarius I find it intersting that you complain about monitor pricing when you could get an EXCELLENT 22" CRT for $800- (the viewsonic P225fB that does UP TO 2048x1536 @ 79HZ) but instead want a 23" LCD for $2000 (that only does 1920x1200 @ 62.5Hz).

You know that such CRT monsters are large and bulky, not to mention the power drain.

Quote:

Original post by darookie Quote: Original post by Extrarius I find it intersting that you complain about monitor pricing when you could get an EXCELLENT 22" CRT for $800- (the viewsonic P225fB that does UP TO 2048x1536 @ 79HZ) but instead want a 23" LCD for $2000 (that only does 1920x1200 @ 62.5Hz). You know that such CRT monsters are large and bulky, not to mention the power drain.

& you know that lots of people actually only care about the part of theyr screen they're suposed to look at & not at it's design or at how big it is behind (wich you can't see from the only place you should look at it from anyway)>< lcd are fine & dandy for design or if you need room but else i just don't get it

Quote:

Original post by darookie [...]You know that such CRT monsters are large and bulky, not to mention the power drain.

I figure most people can handle giving up ~3 square feet for a savings of $1200
Looking at the power numbers, the high-end CRT uses twice as much electricity as the LCD for a total of 160W, which doesn't sound like a lot to me since good PCs typically have 400-500W power supplies. I wouldn't really know about how it compares to other things though.

Considering that the CRT is better in every other way (better image quality, more viewing area, more viewing angle, more frames per second, higher resolution, handles many resolutions well, etc) and you save $1200, I'd say its probably worth it in most cases to get a CRT. I guess if you're living in a really really cramped apartment and really need those few square feet it might be better to pay more than double for the LCD.

Extrarius: In my place I pay 38ct/KWh so the power consumption alone is worth it (note that you cannot compare PC power supplies to monitor power consumption, because the 160W of a monitor are the typical consumption, the LCD's power consumption is peak and the PC's power supply would die if you tried to really get all 400W from it [wink] - for the real figures, you can estimate the typical consumption by adding together the typical figures of each component).
Image quality is an argument but I guess during the next few years LCDs and their successors will become en par. For now I agree - if you have the space and don't care about your electricity bill, go for a huge CRT. Otherwise a smaller LCD will be good, too. At least in my country it pays out after a year in terms of costs, but I just checked some prices in the US and - oh well - go for CRT [headshake].

I like my 19" (18" viewable screen) samsung syncmaster 997df, it's about $200 and has a great image. It's a lot bigger and heavier than my LCD, but the image is so much better.

I like LCDs better because, while their image quality is inferior to CRT, and they are more expensive, they have the following advantages:
1. Better for the eye (less strain)
2. Less power consumed
3. Less space used.
4. Not nearly as heavy. I am not sure my desk could hold a 22" CRT monster.

Quote:

Original post by darookie [...]the LCD's power consumption is peak[...]

From viewsonic page on the LCD mentioned by Prozak in the OP: "POWER: Consumption: 80W (typ)"
I'd guess "typ" doesn't stand for "peak"

Quote:

Original post by Raduprv [...]4. Not nearly as heavy. I am not sure my desk could hold a 22" CRT monster.

You could do what I did and buy some plywood and 2x4s and build yourself a nice sturdy desk =-) I just wanted a simple desk (meaning no cabinets, drawers, etc) but couldn't find such a thing anywhere, so I built one. I used a plastic sheet meant for water-proofing walls as the top, so its pretty much spill proof =-) Maybe not as pretty as the nice wood-grain print a retail desk would have, but its much sturdier than any regular retail desk would be.
Really though, the desk I had before was made from 1/2 inch particle board and it held my 21" CRT just fine.

Peak would be max luminosity, I guess. Even so, can't be more than maybe 100W
But a 22" CRT would take maybe 400W

Quote:

Original post by Raduprv Peak would be max luminosity, I guess. Even so, can't be more than maybe 100W But a 22" CRT would take maybe 400W

But how often would a CRT reach it's peak power consuption, and why would it do so?

I am not 100% sure, but I think the whiter/brighter the screen is, the more it consumes. Higher refresh might also consume more electricity.

Quote:

Original post by Prozak I would expect us to have arbitrary sized TVs, which we would pay by the square meter or something...

I hypothesis that when that e-ink stuff reaches some manner of maturity (a decade?), we'll be seeing wall-sized (and ultra-thin) monitors for a hundred bucks.