Maker Pro
Maker Pro

OT: Large LCD monitors for PC

J

Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
Joerg said:
Hi Guys,

Last time I looked 30" monitors were well north of $1k, and 27" just
under. This was only a few months ago. Doing the regular year-end
perusal I didn't see 30" at the usual stores but stumbled upon 27"
monitors starting at about $230 (Sceptre, never heard of the brand), to
this ViewSonic for $300:

http://www.costco.com/Browse/Produc..._Price|1||P_SignDesc1&lang=en-US&Sp=C&topnav=

This is the Sceptre:

http://www.costco.com/Browse/Produc..._Price|1||P_SignDesc1&lang=en-US&Sp=C&topnav=

I suppose like usual, only online, but not sure. Reviews are great but
are they good for serious CAD work? Any brands to prefer?

1920*1080 is a weird resolution. My PC doesn't have that. Strange.

Well, folks, the Viewsonic VA2702W arrived and I just conneceted it.
Works great. Turns out the graphics card does support 1920*1080
resolution. Doesn't list any Hertzes after connecting the LCD but since
I don't watch movies it won't matter.

Of course, slopes in simulations or diagonal lines do not render as
nicely as on the CRT. As expected they are more blocky. However, the
screen is so huge that I do not have to pan as often when checking
layouts and that was the main purpose of the exercise. It's almost like
having two monitors except there's no gap. So keep'em layout reviews
comin' :)
 
Well, folks, the Viewsonic VA2702W arrived and I just conneceted it.
Works great. Turns out the graphics card does support 1920*1080
resolution. Doesn't list any Hertzes after connecting the LCD but since
I don't watch movies it won't matter.

LCDs don't have the flicker problem that CRTs do. You're most likely running
it at 60Hz, which is fine for an LCD, sucks for a CRT.
Of course, slopes in simulations or diagonal lines do not render as
nicely as on the CRT. As expected they are more blocky. However, the
screen is so huge that I do not have to pan as often when checking
layouts and that was the main purpose of the exercise. It's almost like
having two monitors except there's no gap. So keep'em layout reviews
comin' :)

Now, put two of those together... (actually, I find that x1080 sucks).
 
J

Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
LCDs don't have the flicker problem that CRTs do. You're most likely running
it at 60Hz, which is fine for an LCD, sucks for a CRT.

I didn't find any flicker issues with the CRT, ever. 60Hz and 72 Hz made
no difference. But I was quite careful when selecting lighting for the
office. Essentially every lamp that could possible interfere is halogen,
only the lamp behind the monitor is CFL.

However, the stair steps on waveform transitions are, of course, much
more noticeable with the LCD. The CRT didn't show that, looked almost
like on an analog scope. Can't have it all.

Now, put two of those together... (actually, I find that x1080 sucks).


Anything larger and the price quintuples. At least. I find that 1080
lines at 18" distance is like the 768 lines I had on the 21" CRT. Just
more lines, which is what I needed for Gerber checks :)
 
I didn't find any flicker issues with the CRT, ever. 60Hz and 72 Hz made
no difference.

What can I say? You long ago established that you're blind. ;-)
But I was quite careful when selecting lighting for the
office. Essentially every lamp that could possible interfere is halogen,
only the lamp behind the monitor is CFL.

It's not an interference problem. Flicker doesn't need another source.
However, the stair steps on waveform transitions are, of course, much
more noticeable with the LCD. The CRT didn't show that, looked almost
like on an analog scope. Can't have it all.

I told you that x1080 wasn't enough. ;-) I don't find "jaggies" a problem
anymore.
Anything larger and the price quintuples. At least.

Where do you see 25.5" 1920x1080 displays for <$75?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236047
I find that 1080
lines at 18" distance is like the 768 lines I had on the 21" CRT. Just
more lines, which is what I needed for Gerber checks :)

....and 1200 > 1080. ;-)
 
J

Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
What can I say? You long ago established that you're blind. ;-)


It's not an interference problem. Flicker doesn't need another source.

True, technically it doesn't but it becomes a lot more noticeable if you
have a light source with flicker in a similar frequency range.

I told you that x1080 wasn't enough. ;-) I don't find "jaggies" a problem
anymore.

I've seen the jaggies on super-expensive 1400+ lines LCDs as well. Just
a wee bit smaller. Doesn't bother me much though. I became used to them
because of DSOs.

1080 is definitely enough for me. It is a pretty perfect resolution for
a 27" monitor at 18" away. Now I can see a much larger chunk of a layout
without panning all the time. Very nice. I probably could have handled
more resolution at that distance and screen size when I was 25 but not
after I had to start wearing reading glasses. With a CRT you have the
option to reduce the number of lines out of your graphics cart. With LCD
you don't really, gets fuzzy.

Where do you see 25.5" 1920x1080 displays for <$75?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236047

It's $290. There I got a better deal. Slightly less money, more
contrast, and 27" :)

...and 1200 > 1080. ;-)


Then I'd have to go to a 30" monitor or sit very close to it. I like
space in front of me :)
 
J

Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jim said:
[...]
Anything larger and the price quintuples. At least. I find that 1080
lines at 18" distance is like the 768 lines I had on the 21" CRT. Just
more lines, which is what I needed for Gerber checks :)

Western movie tip... go see the new version of "True Grit" ;-)

Is the new one better than the 60's version with John Wayne? I'd have to
drive to the theater alone though, my wife doesn't like Westerns because
of all the fights and shooting. Even though we both witnessed a genuine
saloon fight in Mariposa after an EMC test session. When the sheriff had
cleaned up I thought she'd want to go back to the hotel ... but ...
"Let's have another beer". Should have seen all the tourists scurrying
about. They thought this only happened on TV :)

Haven't been at the movie theater in years. One reason is that it's now
all digital and you can really see the pixels on the screen. Not so nice.
 
True, technically it doesn't but it becomes a lot more noticeable if you
have a light source with flicker in a similar frequency range.

But with LCDs, the pixels have "memory" (infinite persistence). There is no
flicker at all, so no "beat".
I've seen the jaggies on super-expensive 1400+ lines LCDs as well. Just
a wee bit smaller. Doesn't bother me much though. I became used to them
because of DSOs.

Software helps, too.
1080 is definitely enough for me. It is a pretty perfect resolution for
a 27" monitor at 18" away. Now I can see a much larger chunk of a layout
without panning all the time. Very nice. I probably could have handled
more resolution at that distance and screen size when I was 25 but not
after I had to start wearing reading glasses. With a CRT you have the
option to reduce the number of lines out of your graphics cart. With LCD
you don't really, gets fuzzy.

I don't like mine at work, at all. OrCAD decided to add crap to the screen so
took away any pixels I gained by going to 1080. I'd *much* rather have this
display (<$300, 3-1/2 years ago) at work. On the good side, it appears that
hierarchy works in 16.3. At least I haven't found any problems, in about a
day and a half. Haven't given the design to they layout guy yet though (he
doesn't like hierarchy - shoving match to come).
It's $290. There I got a better deal. Slightly less money, more
contrast, and 27" :)

That was just one I tripped across. Is it 4x the price, even per square inch?
;-)
Then I'd have to go to a 30" monitor or sit very close to it. I like
space in front of me :)

No, the same size monitor works; just a little narrower and taller. 16:10
monitors look dumb, too.
 
Jim said:
[...]
Of course, slopes in simulations or diagonal lines do not render as
nicely as on the CRT. As expected they are more blocky. However, the
screen is so huge that I do not have to pan as often when checking
layouts and that was the main purpose of the exercise. It's almost like
having two monitors except there's no gap. So keep'em layout reviews
comin' :)
Now, put two of those together... (actually, I find that x1080 sucks).

Anything larger and the price quintuples. At least. I find that 1080
lines at 18" distance is like the 768 lines I had on the 21" CRT. Just
more lines, which is what I needed for Gerber checks :)

Western movie tip... go see the new version of "True Grit" ;-)

Is the new one better than the 60's version with John Wayne? I'd have to
drive to the theater alone though, my wife doesn't like Westerns because
of all the fights and shooting. Even though we both witnessed a genuine
saloon fight in Mariposa after an EMC test session. When the sheriff had
cleaned up I thought she'd want to go back to the hotel ... but ...
"Let's have another beer". Should have seen all the tourists scurrying
about. They thought this only happened on TV :)

We haven't seen it yet (SWMBO doesn't believe anyone can do it better than The
Duke), but I'm told it's a lot closer to the book, rather than being a JW
vehicle. People who like westerns have all raved about it. Hollywood
reviewers don't seem to like it much (surprise, surprise).
Haven't been at the movie theater in years. One reason is that it's now
all digital and you can really see the pixels on the screen. Not so nice.

I don't notice pixelization on the big screen at all, and see a lot less in
the way of the strobe/motion artifacts of film.

We saw The Tourist, on New Years Eve. It was OK, but the $9.50/ticket was a
turn off (we used to get senior tickets for $4.50).
 
J

Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
But with LCDs, the pixels have "memory" (infinite persistence). There is no
flicker at all, so no "beat".

I know, I meant with the CRT monitor. With this LCD monitor the manual
states to never set the frame rate higher than 60Hz, supposedly
something could blow up in there. Beats me why but it says so.

Software helps, too.

Well, how could it if the traces is skinny? A pixel is a pixel.

I don't like mine at work, at all. OrCAD decided to add crap to the screen so
took away any pixels I gained by going to 1080. I'd *much* rather have this
display (<$300, 3-1/2 years ago) at work. On the good side, it appears that
hierarchy works in 16.3. At least I haven't found any problems, in about a
day and a half. Haven't given the design to they layout guy yet though (he
doesn't like hierarchy - shoving match to come).

He doesn't like hierarchy? Now that's a first. Maybe he grew up in an
"anit-authoritarian" family environment where the word hierarchy has
been banned from the vocabulary :)

That was just one I tripped across. Is it 4x the price, even per square inch?
;-)


No, the same size monitor works; just a little narrower and taller. 16:10
monitors look dumb, too.


I don't care how it looks. All I care about is lots of screen area to
check layouts for EMI gotchas. During design work the wide form factor
has another advantage in that I can keep module spec and CAD open side
by side.
 
I know, I meant with the CRT monitor. With this LCD monitor the manual
states to never set the frame rate higher than 60Hz, supposedly
something could blow up in there. Beats me why but it says so.



Well, how could it if the traces is skinny? A pixel is a pixel.

Smear it slightly. The eye can do amazing things.
He doesn't like hierarchy? Now that's a first. Maybe he grew up in an
"anit-authoritarian" family environment where the word hierarchy has
been banned from the vocabulary :)

No, he hasn't seen the point. Yet. Interestingly, he's a big fan of copying
(copy - repeat) but doesn't see the advantage of hierarchy. One of the
widgets I'm working on has 12 identical, isolated, RS-422 ports, each with a
DE-9 connector. Looks like a natural use of hierarchy to me.

Sorry, 16:9 looks dumb. Too narrow.
I don't care how it looks. All I care about is lots of screen area to
check layouts for EMI gotchas. During design work the wide form factor
has another advantage in that I can keep module spec and CAD open side
by side.

The aspect ratio of 16:9 is all wrong. 4:3 is actually better for schematics
but large screens aren't available. OTOH, 16:10 is better for simulation.
I'll take two of each. ;-)
 
C

Clifford Heath

Jan 1, 1970
0
Well, how could it if the traces is skinny? A pixel is a pixel.

Not really. It's possible to render a readable capital-F in six pixels,
using different intensities. I found that hard to believe until I saw it.

Anti-aliasing, done properly at the drawing-API level (and preferably
supported by hardware) is just *so* different and effective in smoothing
things out - almost like tripling the resolution. All Apple Mac products
do this without the software even knowing, BTW. If and when Windows does
it, it's an optional feature which may not be utilised by your CAD software.

I use a 1920x1200 24" screen. I think 1080 would be annoying. I could happily
use a little more than 1920, say 2048, with extra physical width, but not
much more. The other thing? I bought the cheaper Dell panel, not the ultra-
sharp, and though the cost was about half, I do find myself annoyed at
the restricted colour gamut and accuracy, even after calibrating it to my
video card (another feature which is built-in to all Macs).

Clifford Heath.
 
J

Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
[...]
Well, how could it if the traces is skinny? A pixel is a pixel.

Smear it slightly. The eye can do amazing things.

No chance because the software isn't available in source code.

[...]
Sorry, 16:9 looks dumb. Too narrow.

Well, now I have 16:9. Love it! Two reasons: I mainly review RF and
switcher layouts and these tend to stretch left to right a lot. Then
when designing I can keep Word and CAD docs open next to each other
without having to swivel my neck between two monitors.

The aspect ratio of 16:9 is all wrong. 4:3 is actually better for schematics
but large screens aren't available. OTOH, 16:10 is better for simulation.
I'll take two of each. ;-)


If I had the space I'd do the same. Ok, my desk is angled and huge but I
need lots of space for books and papers, plus another computer to my left.
 
J

Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
Clifford said:
Not really. It's possible to render a readable capital-F in six pixels,
using different intensities. I found that hard to believe until I saw it.

Anti-aliasing, done properly at the drawing-API level (and preferably
supported by hardware) is just *so* different and effective in smoothing
things out - almost like tripling the resolution. All Apple Mac products
do this without the software even knowing, BTW. If and when Windows does
it, it's an optional feature which may not be utilised by your CAD
software.

OK, then my hands are tied. I must use Windows because of the various
softwares that require it.

I use a 1920x1200 24" screen. I think 1080 would be annoying. I could
happily
use a little more than 1920, say 2048, with extra physical width, but not
much more. The other thing? I bought the cheaper Dell panel, not the ultra-
sharp, and though the cost was about half, I do find myself annoyed at
the restricted colour gamut and accuracy, even after calibrating it to my
video card (another feature which is built-in to all Macs).

Right now I am happy with 1080 lines. This is a giant step away from how
I started, with an amber 10" or 12" monitor at CGA-resolution. My Wang
laptop back then had a non-backlit LCD with 200 lines and I did huge
schematic on that. No mouse, just with keys, but it did have a built-in
thermal paper printer.
 
J

Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jim said:
[...]
I'd have to
drive to the theater alone though, my wife doesn't like Westerns because
of all the fights and shooting. Even though we both witnessed a genuine
saloon fight in Mariposa after an EMC test session. When the sheriff had
cleaned up I thought she'd want to go back to the hotel ... but ...
"Let's have another beer". Should have seen all the tourists scurrying
about. They thought this only happened on TV :)

Haven't been at the movie theater in years. One reason is that it's now
all digital and you can really see the pixels on the screen. Not so nice.

Huh? Must be going to cheap theaters. AMC theater here is fantastic.

Well, what'cha gonna do? I don't want to drive all the way to the Bay
Area to see a movie. I think our theaters are called Signature or something.
 
[...]
However, the stair steps on waveform transitions are, of course, much
more noticeable with the LCD. The CRT didn't show that, looked almost
like on an analog scope. Can't have it all.
I told you that x1080 wasn't enough. ;-) I don't find "jaggies" a problem
anymore.

I've seen the jaggies on super-expensive 1400+ lines LCDs as well. Just
a wee bit smaller. Doesn't bother me much though. I became used to them
because of DSOs.
Software helps, too.

Well, how could it if the traces is skinny? A pixel is a pixel.

Smear it slightly. The eye can do amazing things.

No chance because the software isn't available in source code.

Buy software from someone with a clue. ;-)
Well, now I have 16:9. Love it! Two reasons: I mainly review RF and
switcher layouts and these tend to stretch left to right a lot. Then
when designing I can keep Word and CAD docs open next to each other
without having to swivel my neck between two monitors.

It's better than a CRT. Sure it's a big step, for you.
If I had the space I'd do the same. Ok, my desk is angled and huge but I
need lots of space for books and papers,

Priorities. My books and papers go in front of the monitors.
plus another computer to my left.

KVM switch or networking, if you insist on two computers.
 
J

Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
Michael said:
Joerg said:
[email protected] wrote:

[email protected] wrote:
[...]

However, the stair steps on waveform transitions are, of course, much
more noticeable with the LCD. The CRT didn't show that, looked almost
like on an analog scope. Can't have it all.
I told you that x1080 wasn't enough. ;-) I don't find "jaggies" a problem
anymore.

I've seen the jaggies on super-expensive 1400+ lines LCDs as well. Just
a wee bit smaller. Doesn't bother me much though. I became used to them
because of DSOs.
Software helps, too.

Well, how could it if the traces is skinny? A pixel is a pixel.
Smear it slightly. The eye can do amazing things.
No chance because the software isn't available in source code.

[...]
I find that 1080
lines at 18" distance is like the 768 lines I had on the 21" CRT. Just
more lines, which is what I needed for Gerber checks :)
...and 1200 > 1080. ;-)
Then I'd have to go to a 30" monitor or sit very close to it. I like
space in front of me :)
No, the same size monitor works; just a little narrower and taller. 16:10
monitors look dumb, too.
Sorry, 16:9 looks dumb. Too narrow.
Well, now I have 16:9. Love it! Two reasons: I mainly review RF and
switcher layouts and these tend to stretch left to right a lot. Then
when designing I can keep Word and CAD docs open next to each other
without having to swivel my neck between two monitors.
I don't care how it looks. All I care about is lots of screen area to
check layouts for EMI gotchas. During design work the wide form factor
has another advantage in that I can keep module spec and CAD open side
by side.
The aspect ratio of 16:9 is all wrong. 4:3 is actually better for schematics
but large screens aren't available. OTOH, 16:10 is better for simulation.
I'll take two of each. ;-)
If I had the space I'd do the same. Ok, my desk is angled and huge but I
need lots of space for books and papers, plus another computer to my left.


<http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=DLB101-PB&cat=MON>
<http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=DLB104-PB&cat=MON>
<http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=DLB105-PB&cat=MON>

Afraid they are too small for the monitor I've got right now.
 
J

Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
[email protected] wrote:

[email protected] wrote:
[...]

However, the stair steps on waveform transitions are, of course, much
more noticeable with the LCD. The CRT didn't show that, looked almost
like on an analog scope. Can't have it all.
I told you that x1080 wasn't enough. ;-) I don't find "jaggies" a problem
anymore.

I've seen the jaggies on super-expensive 1400+ lines LCDs as well. Just
a wee bit smaller. Doesn't bother me much though. I became used to them
because of DSOs.
Software helps, too.

Well, how could it if the traces is skinny? A pixel is a pixel.
Smear it slightly. The eye can do amazing things.
No chance because the software isn't available in source code.

Buy software from someone with a clue. ;-)

I think Mike Engelhardt and his team are among the people with the
highest clue levels when it comes to writing software. In contrast to
some CAD programmers, you know what I mean :)

It's better than a CRT. Sure it's a big step, for you.

Not in all respects is it better than a CRT. But yeah, the size is
almost ideal for the work I typically do.

Priorities. My books and papers go in front of the monitors.

Now mine can do so, too. But a 3ft by 4ft vellum sheet from a client can't.

KVM switch or networking, if you insist on two computers.


No need to. They can access the same file server and I can display stuff
wherever needed.
 
J

Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
Joel said:
Given enough time we might be able to deduce the source code from the
executable, though. Just wait... :)

Once I modified an executable with some guys watching. I forgot why,
IIRC it hung up something on a graphics card back in the early 90's.
Their SW chief looked on in disgust and exclaimed "I think I'm gonna get
sick!"
 
J

Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jim said:
[...]
Afraid they are too small for the monitor I've got right now.

Looks like Aaron's set-up... 4 x 24" monitors

IOW, a real nerd tower :)

Even air traffic controllers don't have such screen sizes.
 
Jim said:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
[...]
I don't care how it looks. All I care about is lots of screen area to
check layouts for EMI gotchas. During design work the wide form factor
has another advantage in that I can keep module spec and CAD open side
by side.
The aspect ratio of 16:9 is all wrong. 4:3 is actually better for schematics
but large screens aren't available. OTOH, 16:10 is better for simulation.
I'll take two of each. ;-)
If I had the space I'd do the same. Ok, my desk is angled and huge but I
need lots of space for books and papers, plus another computer to my left.

<http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=DLB101-PB&cat=MON>
<http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=DLB104-PB&cat=MON>
<http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=DLB105-PB&cat=MON>

Afraid they are too small for the monitor I've got right now.

Looks like Aaron's set-up... 4 x 24" monitors

IOW, a real nerd tower :)

Even air traffic controllers don't have such screen sizes.

You obviously don't watch the CSI sorts of shows. ;-)
 
Top