37 replies to this topic

[Mason Grimm]

Found and moved to Hardware and Peripherals

[Vulpesveritas]

I'm sticking with LED/LCD monitors for now. Though I'll stick with low cost models until the AM/OLED panels start making their way into appropriate prices. True blacks, higher pixel counts, rich colors, and higher refresh rates than LCD? Awesome. Ultra thin? Awesome... to a point. Energy efficient to such an extent where it is no longer the largest power drain of my PC? Even better.

[Thorqemada]

I have the Samsung S24A450BW - Black which is a 24" 1920x1200 LED Monitor.
It needs around 30W to operate and Stand By is around 1W.
Any Monitor that is based on the TFT/LCD technology has a wonderfull sharp screen and is much less demanding to your eyes as it does not flicker, has perfect congruence, does not radiate toward your face (CRT monitors shot with liittle dust particles at you bcs of the electric field they emerge).
I have sold any CRT i had and switched to TFT/LCD with LED backlight.

Let your eyes decide!

[Will Hung]

We have a couple of these at home, the ViewSonic VX2450wm-LED. Inexpensive (newegg has it for $189.99), stylish, and the image quality and brightness is just fabulous. Give it a look-see!

[Catamount]

Vulpesveritas, on 16 January 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

I'm sticking with LED/LCD monitors for now. Though I'll stick with low cost models until the AM/OLED panels start making their way into appropriate prices. True blacks, higher pixel counts, rich colors, and higher refresh rates than LCD? Awesome. Ultra thin? Awesome... to a point. Energy efficient to such an extent where it is no longer the largest power drain of my PC? Even better.

This.
I've been waiting excitedly for mainstream OLED products to hit the market for a few years now. I just can't think of a possible downside of them vs LCDs.

I've also heard it said that once the technology is better-developed and more widespread, the costs should ultimately be lower than LCD solutions.

[Vulpesveritas]

Catamount, on 22 January 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

This.
I've been waiting excitedly for mainstream OLED products to hit the market for a few years now. I just can't think of a possible downside of them vs LCDs.

I've also heard it said that once the technology is better-developed and more widespread, the costs should ultimately be lower than LCD solutions.

seeing as it doesn't require rare earth metals to manufacture, yes it should. lol

[Gremlich Johns]

I'm using a 22" Viewsonic VG2236wm LED ($209 at some "stores") with no issues playing the game. My other monitor is a 22" Viewsonic VX2233 LCD which I used first to play games on. That one was fine as well, though both only 60Hz

The replacement for the VX2233 is the VX2250 for about $170 USD

Edited by Gremlich Johns, 22 January 2012 - 03:28 PM.

[Kaemon]

OM NOM NOM, I eat your LEDs...

Cost: FREE (except for the hernia)

I'll be picking up a few 22" LED TVs, cause this thing ain't moving anytime soon.

[Vulpesveritas]

Kaemon, on 22 January 2012 - 09:58 PM, said:

OM NOM NOM, I eat your LEDs...

Cost: FREE (except for the hernia)

I'll be picking up a few 22" LED TVs, cause this thing ain't moving anytime soon.

what about your energy bill? You'll save like $50 a year getting an LED.

[Stahlseele]

But 50 a Year is not worth the hassle of getting a new one.
I still have a gigantic CRT TV too.
HD Stuff looks very good on the old Monster.
And NON HD Stuff STILL looks good enough on it too.
As opposed to non HD Stuff on Digital Screens. Horrible.
Especially, if, for whatever reason, you have an analogue video signal from time to time still . .
The best flat digital full HD TV i have seen as of today STILL looks like 90's VHS if you don't feed it a digital input.
And digitaly remastered/upscaled stuff looks too fake for me too . .

As for Computer Monitors:
I am using 2x24" Acer G245HQ.
Am thinking about getting myself an sony hmz-t1 though . .

[Graphite]

First, like others have already pointed out, an "LED" screen is just an LCD with LED backlighting instead of the older CCFL backlighting.

"LED" screens are (can be) thinner, more energy efficient, brighter, and longer lasting than CCFL backlit LCDs.

Lori Carlyle, on 09 November 2011 - 09:52 AM, said:

I'm a n00b when it comes to hardware and my old Samsung 205BW is now starting to show it's age.

I was looking around at the <£170 24" monitors but notice that most of em are now LED over LCD which (from what I can read) gives ghosting?

No, they don't. Slow response time causes ghosting, and you can get LED screens with 2ms.

Maxiom, on 20 December 2011 - 07:23 AM, said:

LED stands for Light Emitting Diode, and LCD stands for Liquid Crystal Dispaly Both are completely different technologies.

Yes, but that's irrelevant when it comes to monitors: screens labelled "LED" are just LCDs with LED backlighting.

[Catamount]

Kaemon, on 22 January 2012 - 09:58 PM, said:

OM NOM NOM, I eat your LEDs...

Cost: FREE (except for the hernia)

I'll be picking up a few 22" LED TVs, cause this thing ain't moving anytime soon.

That's some serious hardware...

[Catamount]

Lori Carlyle, on 09 November 2011 - 09:52 AM, said:

I'm a n00b when it comes to hardware and my old Samsung 205BW is now starting to show it's age.

I was looking around at the <£170 24" monitors but notice that most of em are now LED over LCD which (from what I can read) gives ghosting?

Anyone got one? reviews are mixed, some saying it's the new "sliced bread" others say they might as well be the devils monitor.

Two HDMI inputs would be ideal but can live with one if anyone has a good recommendation?

When it comes to ghosting, you essentially don't have to worry.

These days, all TN panels and even most IPS panels (which are slower) are more than fast enough to avoid any noticeable ghosting, and it would be hard to separate among monitors anyways, because claimed response times are about as meaningful as claimed computer PSU wattages (which is to say, not very). Real world response times are nowhere near the 2-5ms typical claimed, mostly because it's measured in worthless "gray-to-gray" tests that tell you little about how the actual monitor will perform in practice.

As I said though, they're all more than good enough, especially TN panels.

[Vulpesveritas]

Graphite, on 23 January 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

First, like others have already pointed out, an "LED" screen is just an LCD with LED backlighting instead of the older CCFL backlighting.

"LED" screens are (can be) thinner, more energy efficient, brighter, and longer lasting than CCFL backlit LCDs.


Well, OLED and Crystal LED screens are coming out now, which are 'true' led panels with no LCD.



No, they don't. Slow response time causes ghosting, and you can get LED screens with 2ms.





Yes, but that's irrelevant when it comes to monitors: screens labelled "LED" are just LCDs with LED backlighting.

[Stahlseele]

OLEDs are, of course, a completely different story alltogether.

Edited by stahlseele, 24 January 2012 - 02:04 AM.

[Maxiom]

OLED is a new technology, Organic Light Emitting Diode

Both true LED and LCD displays have been around since the early 70's

The fact "Marketing" thinks if they can legally call something something else because it will sell more is part of "buyer beware".

If they have LED backlighting allows them to call it a LED display for marketing reasons, it does not discount the fact that there are "true" LED displays out there.

[Catamount]

Uh oh, someone resurrected a thread from January

[Maxiom]

Replying to a thread from January... sorry if I am not on every week or for that matter every month. I have a few friends that hit the site from time to time to let each other know when we can start to Battle. Quote me often am I may have to come back more often

Here is a link to some true LED Displays, Though these do not use fiber-optics for pixel translation.

http://www.mrled.cn/...rTree-0002.html