NEC LCD1980SX.

[CougTek]

• The press release.
  The monitor.
  The monitor's specifications.

Bottom line : 700:1 contrast ratio. 170° viewing angles. Consumes only 36W.

Complain : Why no sub-20ms response times? :-( Anyway, 25ms should still be quite respectable. I would prefer 1280x960 to the 5:4 display ratio like 1280x1024. But I've never seen a LCD using this definition natively.

 

[Buck]

Thanks for the information Coug.

 

[time]

700:1 and 170° certainly sounds more like what I'd expect from a true CRT replacement. It just goes to show how poor are the mass market units being flogged by Dell et al. I still believe the time to switch to LCD is next year, when decent technology such as the NEC should be less than half the price it is now.

 

[CougTek]

700:1 and 170° certainly sounds more like what I'd expect from a true CRT replacement.

CRTs only have such constrast ratio in relatively dark environments, where they can reach 1000:1. In daylight, they normally fare around 200:1 - 300:1, no more. Contrast ratio isn't one of the flaws that LCDs still have compared to CRTs. Response time and color accuracy, especially when looking from elsewhere than directly in front of the disply, are much more prohibitive.

 

[time]

It's true that if you shine a light on a CRT face, you will get poor contrast.

But that's not how I use one, that's for sure.

My complaint is related to LCDs' inability to render black successfully, and the gamma problems that go hand in hand with that. I would assume that with the same maximum luminance, an LCD with twice the contrast ratio must have better black rendition.

 

[Mercutio]

There's going to be a time to switch to LCD?

Do I *HAVE* to?

 

[CityK]

Do I *HAVE* to?

Its probably stipulated in the DMCA somewhere.