TFT LCDs: PVA vs MVA vs TN vs IPS vs CRT vs OMG WTH???

[minus-sign]

This is one of the things I don't get about LCD monitors and has kept me wary of the technology. Twisted nematic (TN) is cheaper and to my knowledge still very common. IPS monitors are slower refresh rate and very expensive but offer better color and improved viewing angle. then we have these PVA and MVA models that are supposedly superior to both (or were) but never really got their feet under them. Even if I wanted to switch over to LCD today, I wouldn't know which one to buy...and depending on the vender I probably wouldn't know which one I GOT!

Can someone speak English over this stuff? WHICH OF THESE THINGS IS A GOOD MONITOR IN THE FIRST PLACE??? o.0 :confused: :eek:

I like to keep things simple. I want fries with my burger, ice in my cola and a monitor that delivers fast refresh rates without looking like a washed out watercolor with a dim lightbulb in the back. I've stayed a CRT user because a) I have one that works and b) to my knowledge the refresh rates on LCDs are still miles behind what bulky old CRT can produce. LCD has higher resolutions. Thats great if you have a 30 inch screen. For me, a higher resolution on a 17 inch monitor means smaller text making me zoom all my web pages to abnormal size just to be able to read it.

Theres a lot of hype about LCD, but...sorry guys. I borrow my Pop's LCD and run it side by side with my CRT and I just don't see it. Fiddle all I want with contrast and drivers, tinker with the settings for half a day and...the CRT does not look worse than the LCD when they sit together on my desk. Sometimes I feel like someone is trying to sell me laser discs a month before DvDs come out...or a redux of the Emperor's New Clothes.

Other than a few hard core gamers out there, the CRT is a dinosaur. So there is something I'm missing here and I hope someone can explain it to me.

[Paul Komski]

Quite a good article at http://www.pcreview.co.uk/articles/Consumer-Advice/LCD_vs_CRT/ and the answer to your post really depends on what sort of work you intend doing. The response time, regardless of the technology, seems to be the most important factor for gamers.

For me, a higher resolution on a 17 inch monitor means smaller text making me zoom all my web pages to abnormal size just to be able to read itThe same resolution on a smaller monitor would result in smaller text but occupying the same percentage of the screen. A higher resolution on the same monitor would result in smaller text but also occupying a smaller percentage of the screen. All other permutations are possible.

[PrntRhd]

The advice I would give is to go to a "brick and mortar" store and look at their monitors and see the quality of the displays.

Choose the type of display that satisfies your eyes, ie that looks best to you.

Now that you know the product type that satisfies you, shop for the best price online or at several stores. Pick one and be happy.

[minus-sign]

Thanks for the link Paul. I've read it and taken some time to digest. I use LCDs at my job (not my work but the place I go to make money to pay bills). Its not as though I've not been exposed to the product. Its just that I can't see (visually see) the benefits of the technology. It may be a simple matter of bad eyesight (I wear my coke bottles with pride).

It doesn't really explain the information I'm looking for most: the title of the thread and all these different LCD monitors out there. which one is currently topping the market? TN TFT LCDs? Is there a huge price and availability difference in getting S-IPSof MVA? how can I tell what I'm getting?
The same resolution on a smaller monitor would result in smaller text but occupying the same percentage of the screen. A higher resolution on the same monitor would result in smaller text but also occupying a smaller percentage of the screen. All other permutations are possible.Um...not sure I understand that versus my complaint toward them. Okay; example of what I'm talking about is

a 19in f1903 pavilion on DVI vs a 17in EV700 Gateway. I ran several programs off the same PC, same card, everything the same but the connectors. Screen res for the EV700 was 800x700. the f1903 (not a widescreen) has a native rez of 1280x1024. One of the more visually intense programs I ran was Guild Wars. There was a little bit of shadowing on the LCD but the thing that really scrambled my eggs was the text size. At 800x700, the text was equivalent to Times New Roman font size 12 in hardcopy print when viewed on the CRT monitor at an arm's length. the LCD...font size 8 maybe, probably 6. Worse, its so darn small at those resolutions that I have to bury my nose in the screen to read it.

Guild wars-like many games-does not have a way to increase text size within their chat boxes. So one of the major reasons to consider purchasing a LCD is not much of a reason.

Thats a very long sidebar to a very trivial part of the topic. Sorry, but lets try to make use of it anyway.

The shadowing was a big deal while playing. and the f1903 looked blurry and faded compared side by side with the CRT which was clear and responsive. I did fiddle with the setting both in WinXP and the monitor's display menu but could never get them on a competitive level with the CRT while playing. Even at equal screen rez, the LCD is simply not as crisp. thats the only word to describe it. my guess is the f1903 doesn't have some of these new contrast features that the most modern (and expensive) LCDs do. It also appeared to ghost a little while viewing movies.

One thing on the plus side for LCDs comes from the link. it would appear that I have LCDs to thank for my reduced eyestrain headaches at my job. When I work at home, I usually figured that it was simple sleep deprivation or the like. according to your link, paul, LCDs are good for productive use.

But that still leaves me wondering which is which. the TN/MVA/IPS argument. what is this; is it even a deciding factor for monitor purchases today? Is it a war thats alreayd been fought and won, or something thats only just starting in the TFT realm?

thanks for the continued interest.

[Paul Komski]

I was only really making the point that higher screen resolutions will always result in smaller text when viewing the same thing on the same monitor since pixels have no absolute dimensions nor shape of their own.

If screen pixels directly match file/window/font pixels then one is likely to get the least distortion just as when file pixels match the dpi (often erroneously called pixels) of printer output.

I suppose it is confusing with so many different things to consider as possibilities but that is the price we pay when the technologies are still cutting edge, so to speak. The CRT has been around for a long time and has proably reached a steady-state in terms of its development.

With LCD and flat screens of all sorts, the changes are still very on-going and things like response times have improved and are likely to continue to improve. Eventually there will, just due to market forces, be winners and losers and it will no longer be an issue; just like the historic betamax v vhs when it came to video recording and more lately with the DVD format debate which also appears to be over.

Its one of the prices of progress and what was lousy and expensive a year ago may be very different today. I don't think there are any easy answers or if there are they are likely to be trite at this time.

[FTT]

Worse, its so darn small at those resolutions that I have to bury my nose in the screen to read it.

Press and hold the Ctrl key, then roll the scroll wheel on your mouse towards you. You'll need to do this at all the sites you visit (I think) and it works in office apps as well without changing font size when printed.

Once you close with the size the way you want it, it will remain that way on returning.

[Paul Komski]

Nice one FTT any new trick is nice for an old dog!

[minus-sign]

okay; we're not simply getting off track, we're staying off track. twisted nematic, in-plane switching, multi-domain vertical alignment, patterned vertical alignment and the multiple versions thereof. comeon guys; what are these things in the TFT LCD monitor version race?

So far all I know is that TN is cheap and thus popular, MVA and PVA are a middle ground between IPS versions and the cheap TNs. Are these part of the ongoing changes you mention in your post Pual or are they different types of monitors for different intended strains?