OT: Large LCD monitors for PC

[Joerg]

...that's for "display devices without EDID" -- EDID is the little I2C
PROM in pretty much every monitor build in the last decade that tells
the video card what resolutions it supports. I.e., those are the
supported resolutions if you plug in some really, really old CRT.

(EDID was released in 1994.)

Hmm, ok, the monitor is from the late 90's. But how would I find out
what resolutions the graphics stuff can do?

 

[Joerg]

That is a function of your video card, not your PC....

Ok, yes, but in my case it is on the motherboard. An Intel G33 chip set.

 

[Joerg]

I'll second Keith here -- I've had Sceptres in the past, and they're OK,
but definitely cheap. I never had any reliability problems, but the
color gamut, viewing angles, controls, and so on weren't as good as
spendier choices.

Basically... Sceptre won't "wow" you, but for CAD review, it'll likely
be just fine. ...and since you're buying from Costco, at least a return
is easy!

True, but I'd rather buy the better quality one. One of my Viewsonic CRT
monitors went bzzzzt on account of an arcing flyback transformer but
other than that held it up a decade or so. The Dell with Trinitron I am
using now is rock solid, super image quality. If it was just a little
larger ...

I'm of the opinion that if you plug in a 1920x1080 monitor, your video
card will likely be more than happy to play at that native resolution
(even though it's not displaying it now), but if not... cheapy video
cards are all of $25 these days (e.g.,
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814187108) , and
for 2D CAD the performance is fine.

If you're really OK with 1920x1080 on such a big screen, here's a nice
32" Panasonic for $400:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16889187167 . Note
that if you watch, e.g., techbargains.com
(http://www.techbargains.com/cheap-hdtv.cfm) every now and again you'll
be able to find some for <$350.

But this is a TV, not a computer monitor, right? 1080 lines would start
to become a bit blocky on 32" at short distance.

 

[Joerg]

Most any chipset today can support any resolution so long as it doesn't
run out of memory bandwidth or a maximum row/column counter size... so
if your graphics card says it can do 1920x1200, it can almost assuredly
do 1920x1080. Your G33 says it supports up to 2048x1536, BTW:
http://download.intel.com/products/graphics/intel_graphics_guide.pdf

Thanks, Joel, then it should support the mode. If not I'll just have to
buy a PCI graphics card.

In theory the way to see the various resolutions is what others have
mentioned -- right-click the desktop, go to properties, the advanced
tab, un-check "hide modes that this monitor cannot display." I think
you tried this, though, and it still doesn't display 1920x1080 though,
right? I don't know why, but for whatever reason unchecking that box
doesn't always seem to work... it doesn't on my PC here, even though I
know I've had 1920x1080 displays hooked up to it and working correctly
(...but the currently-connected display is 1920x1200...).

On my PC there isn't even a check box like that. Happens a lot with
Dell, that some features are not available or made unavailable. They
don't see it but it can hurt their sales a little. Sometimes I am
involved in the rescue of some legacy production tester. Very crucial
that older features still work there, to avoid having to write a rather
massive amount of new procedures and a big ECO.

 

[Joerg]

The receptors in the human retina are about 0.0025 mm in diameter, or
about 2.5 microns. Using the parameters of the rest of the eye, this
results in a visual acuity of about one minute of arc. This is about
0.075 mm. at a 10 inch viewing distance.

But only in a 15-year old ...

 

[Joerg]

That's what it's sold as, but it works just fine with a computer as well.


Perhaps, but I was thinking you would find 1920x1080 on a 30" OK if the
price were right? Those extra 2" aren't going to make it look much
worse.

The Panasonic there is actually 31.5", so (doing the math) you end up
with 70 pixels per inch; on a true 27" monitor it'd be 82 pixels per inch.

Well, that is still around 15% difference. With the monitor right now I
sit about 12" away. 768 lines works just fine, more makes the stuff too
small. However, if I move 2-3" closer I can see lines and it becomes
uncomfy for CAD work. So 27" at 1068 lines feels about right. Larger,
maybe not so unless I move the monitor back a bit.

But this is why you might consider ponying up for the ~$1k+ 30"
2560x1600 monitors -- they're 101 PPI.

Good point. Next week I'll see if Costco has it in store so I can take a
look. Hopefully there's a PC connected.

27" 1920x1080 monitors are almost certainly using the exact same panels
that end up in "TVs," BTW. That ViewSonic at Costco you linked to does
look nice.

One final thing: Most monitors no longer come with height-adjustable
stands. If you want something with a higher WAF than a stack of data
books under the monitor (probably one of their best uses these days!),

Funny you mention that. The current stand for the Trinitron monitor is a
huge "AMP Connectors" hardcover book from 1991. I kept it exactly for
that purpose. Dark blue, so the WAF was ok. At least she never
complained

there are universal stands available now:
http://www.amazon.com/Ergotron-33-3...TF8&coliid=I2KSS1HCW0KVUB&colid=14KGTCL6VA888
- - works with any monitor with the standard VESA mounting plate hole
pattern on the back.

I'd only do that if I can bolt it down.

Although I wouldn't be surprised to find that you had specifically
constructed some furniture-quality monitor stand out of black walnut or
something either.

Actually I was thinking about that. Making a U-shape so little stuff
such as math cheat cards, filter coefficients, Christmas candy and such
can be stored underneath. After a cold November we still have slightly
over 3 cords of almond to pick from. Maybe I'll pull some nice-looking
pieces ...

 

[ehsjr]

John Larkin wrote:

All my people are using two monitors lately, like one for a schematic
and the other for the PCB. They are threatening to sneak into my
office and install duals for me, too.

John

It's really the _only_ way to fly.

Ed

 

[Joerg]

The "E" in the 20:20 line on a vision chart has "legs" sub-tending one
minute of arc at the 20 foot viewing distance.

When they did that test with me before starting in the army it blew them
away when I read the whole thing and also the "Printed in Malaysia" or
whatever was in the lower right corner.

At 86 years, I have AMD, (age related macro degeneration), in one eye,
but can still use a 19" 1680 x 1950 monitor.

So can I (well, not 1950) but I sometimes have to sit more than 10h in
front of it. The higher the res the better but when software then draws
features too small it is more tiring than adjusting the screen res so it
won't do that.

And I sure don't have the eyes of my great-grandpa who could read
everything without glasses until the very last evening when he passed
away shortly before his 103rd birthday. He had never been to a
(civilian) doctor or hospital either.

 

[Joerg]

When you right-click the desktop, what pops up? Isn't there a list
with at least something about icons, properties and display?

There is, but it only shows a very limited selection of resolutions. But
no problem, Joel said the G33 chipset can most likely do it and if not
I'll buy a PCI graphics card. But first I'll check out a 1080-line LCD
monitor at Costco. Maybe take a CAD screen-print along on a memory stick
if they let me.

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

There is, but it only shows a very limited selection of resolutions. But
no problem, Joel said the G33 chipset can most likely do it and if not
I'll buy a PCI graphics card. But first I'll check out a 1080-line LCD
monitor at Costco. Maybe take a CAD screen-print along on a memory stick
if they let me.

Maybe bring your whole laptop if it will drive the monitor. Some of
the Club stores lock up the computers fairly tightly.

 

[Joerg]

Another thing to look for is the shape and distribution of the "pixels".
These are usually consistently standard in computer monitors, but vary
considerably in TV displays. (Sharp has even added a extra "yellow" to
its display!)

http://www.livescience.com/technology/yellow-pixels-television-100221.html

Pure marketing hype in MHO!

Some interesting pictures:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1071392&page=166

You can check this with a low power microscope, but the only real way to
is to see examples of your daily work on a prospective monitor.

That's what I was planning to do, take a layout sample with me on a
memory stick. Just an image file, and then move it around.

 

[Joerg]

John Larkin wrote:



It's really the _only_ way to fly.

40 years ago people crawled across huge sheets of vellum in their socks,
armed with Rubylith, and now we have to have quadcore processors, two
monitors, terabytes of HD space ...

 

[Nico Coesel]

Try to gently squeeze around the corners, see if it changes. Could be
just a contacting issue.

My idea exactly. I had a monitor with similar problem. I fixed it
once. When it started to get bad again I bought another monitor with a
small defect.

 

[Joerg]

My idea exactly. I had a monitor with similar problem. I fixed it
once. When it started to get bad again I bought another monitor with a
small defect.

Easy on that Van Nelle Halfzwaar, then it happens less often

 

[Joerg]

I've climbed around on a 20' x 20' light table ;-)

I have had to lean and partially crawl onto a smaller one, during a
hybrid design. After the CAD didn't let us bypass some design rules we
just had it and resorted to the good old methods. My concern was not
about design integrity but ... "What if the glass breaks?"

 

[Joerg]

Let's see you solder a stack of five SMT capacitors starting with a
1206, and ending with a 0201.

An electronic wedding cake

 

[Martin Riddle]

My color vision ain't perfect anyhow (sez my wife, when I pick a tie
...). All I really care about for the monitor is resolution and sheer
size. 30" would be great, 27" ok, 23"-24" wouldn't be worth it versus
the (excellent) 21" CRT I have right now.

--

HP 30" IPS
<http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824176177>

Above 27" the price goes thru the roof for anything.

I'm spoiled with my 24" IPS display. I wouldn't buy another TFT for
myself again. (unless the viewing angle is very wide)


Cheers

Cheers

 

[Joerg]

Which Dell? It's there on this Dell Optiplex GX620.

Vostro 200. So far it's been very good to me, and most of all very quiet.

 

[Joerg]

http://www.intel.com/support/graphics/sb/CS-022544.htm

Aha! Thanks.

Quote "If you are unable to use the native resolution of a digital flat
panel display (such as 1920x1080, 1680x1050, 1440x900, etc.), there may
be a problem reading the display's EDID. Intel has released a driver for
the integrated graphics controller of the Intel® 945 Express Chipsets
and later chipsets to specifically address this issue."

So there is hope

 

[ItchyGato]

16:10 aspect ratio, for 30" diagonal, the horizontal dimension will be
25.4" ~= 645mm so the pitch will be 0.25mm.

They are not all 16:10, idiot.

So, though I slipped (and not with the math, but with the length figure
used IN the math, IDIOT!), you ASSumed. I feel your error is
a far worse transgression. Then you called it 9th grade math. Maybe
where you live. 5th grade over here. Doesn't matter since there was no
math error. The formula is fine. The wrong data was used by me.
The wrong data AND the attitude was used by you, however.


Neither the 30" I mentioned, nor the 23" I have here is 16:10. Do'h!