Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga Hardware Issues and discussion => Topic started by: Hyperspeed on June 25, 2004, 04:57:25 AM
-
I'm fed up of my hulking great big 15" CRT monitor. It's like a heater
in the summer and eats power.
No doubt the magnetic field from this dinosaur is harmful and it takes
up most of my desk.
Can anyone reccomend an LCD flat panel monitor that works on Amiga
that complies fully with OCS/ECS/AGA @ 15KHz... or at least when
scandoubled to 30KHz.
Obviously these screens have an optimum resolution such as 800×600 or
1024x768... so what is the best to work with native chipsets without
corrupting the screen quality?
I know a lot of them are now being made as TVs for kitchens and
bedrooms etc, so they should accept 15KHz by default right?
Would this be good enough to read small text? It'd have to be as good
as CRT quality, even if moving sprites etc. were a little blurrier as
is common with TFT.
-
I am currently working on an amiga laptop, and have adapted an lcd to work on the miggy it can be done and its not that hard! the older lcd have inputs that can be easily connected to a miggy but the new ones take some hacking. lcds are horible for gaming at the moment which is why on my athlon 64 rig I use a viewsonic 22 inch P225FB but for email, web stuff or anything really besides gaming lcds are ok. Problem is with lcds they have a native resolution usually 1024 by 768 and if you go up or down from that it looks bad sometimes REALLY bad. IMHO lcd technology is not that great and will be replaced shortly by organic or organo/electric displays (long story engineer crap) But if you can find an lcd cheap they are great for most things. And yes a 15 inch lcd would be great for almost enything! but gaming so go for it.
-
TFT screens are fine these days for gaming... as long as you buy a good one.
My 18.1" Iiyama AS4636D (I think it is) is what I use for my Amiga (Voodoo III/Prometheus), Amiga native, Amiga One, PC, SPARCstation 2 and 3DO... it has DVI input, SVGA input (the Amigas and the SPARC through a Belkin switcher), Composite input (Amiga native) and S-Video input (the 3DO) all switchable.
On a good (and unfortunately expensive) monitor like this you can run anything - even MAME on vertical games because it tilts 90 degrees!
-
Hoya!
Cool!
Price please? ;-)
Be funky
M A D
-
You should get one which supports your miggies resolution.
Image quality really sucks when you connect with a VGA-cable, and enlarge the image.
Personally, I use a Samsung SyncMaster for my PC. I bought it four years ago, and I haven't regretted it for a single second!
-
I use a viewsonic 17inch works fine :-)
-
Generally TFT's beat CRT in all aspects, except price. TFT picture is much sharper, including small text and moving objects. The contrast is superior.
Even scaling smaller resolution to full display size isn't showstopper anymore, the scaling technology has advanced a lot since early days. The only problem you might have is the 15KHz support.
I'm using 17" 1280x1024 TFT since 1.5 years, and will never go back to CRT.
PS. TFT is the first display that also allows me to see differences between gfxcard quality. CRTs were itself so bad quality I couldn't see any difference.
-
With my eMac, I obviously use the CRT monitor provided with the computer.
I was actually surprised then, to find out that the picture quality is actually clearer and better than that found on the LCD-based iMac II.
So some CRT's are actually better than LCD.
A majority of LCD's are also bad for gaming. I prefer CRT technology at the moment, and have no plans to have a LCD screen as well as the CRT screen which is part of my computer.
-
LCDs can be handy.
Just pick up my 1200 grab my 15" LCD and it's almost portable.
-
Im to working on a A600 laptop
do you have any tips on what LCD that would be good and how to adapt the LCD?
-
Piru wrote:
Generally TFT's beat CRT in all aspects, except price.
And viewing angle, and colour fidelity...
I wonder whatever happened to ThinCRT?
-
There's been conflicting reports in this thread...
LCD better than CRT etc.
I never expected TFT screens to rival tube screens for gaming because
of the way they store the charge longer (causing a slight blur on
insanely fast moving objects).
But what is most important to me is a screen that can run AGA so I can
still use my classic Amiga, this is also important to Picasso-IV users
who have their own video-passthru and scanddoubling.
Would I be right in saying that if 1024x768 is default for most LCD,
then 15KHz Amiga modes of a lower resolution stand a better chance of
crisper display on a LARGER screen such as 17" or 19" LCD?
If a 640x512 had to be displayed on a 17" (which was designed for
1024x768) wouldn't it be more accomodating?
Hope you get what I mean, it would be nice to upgrade my viewing area
as well as my desk space... but I refuse to sacrifice the Amiga
custom chips and their dedicated software.
How could you live without your `banging the hardware' scene demos
that mostly run in PAL 15KHz!
-
I'm on the TFT monitor side.. (The Bright Side ;-))
Have a look at this (http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=4602&forum=2) gives a bit of info.. And maybe a bit of help.
I never expected TFT screens to rival tube screens for gaming because of the way they store the charge longer (causing a slight blur on insanely fast moving objects).
Having 3 of these TFT's (see link above) I can say I never notice this "blurring".. If you get a TFT with a low "Response time" (25 or lower) then a TFT is perfect for gaming.. It's easier for the eyes to look at and in general the contrast/colors are better.. Also, I always hated how multisync CRT monitors need so much adjusting to get the picture right (You know "pincusion" (SP?) and rotation etc etc).. TFT auto adjust with the touch of a button..
-
Generally TFT's beat CRT in all aspects, except price. TFT picture is much sharper, including small text and moving objects. The contrast is superior.
not for games they dont as the refresh rate is not as good also nearly all of them suffer from dead pixels .I prefer my 5 year old belnea 17 inch crt clearer than a cheap lcd, more than twice as cheap a as an lcd.A mate of mine has an 18 iylama i think thats spelt wrong but that is a nice 18 inch lcd .as i use mine for games on my pc as well ,crt is the best option. :-)
-
@that_punk_guy
And viewing angle, and colour fidelity...
Today's TFT's typically have around 160 degrees viewing angle. Don't know about some {bleep}ty TFTs, but mine has superb colours, much better than any CRT I've seen.
@amigamad
not for games they dont as the refresh rate is not as good
<= 20ms speed TFTs have no problems at all with games. Also see seer's comment.
also nearly all of them suffer from dead pixels
Mine has 1 dead pixel, and I need to look for it (it's really hard to spot, it took me few months to spot it in the first place). Usually cheap TFT's have possibility of more dead pixels, however.
Much of these problems are no issue today. Scaling, refresh rate, viewing angle, colour, contrast. Believe me, the complaints have been taken seriously and the issues have been addressed. Today's quality TFTs are really great, and beat CRTs in almost all aspects.
-
The biggest obstacle is still the price of them. The gods know I want an LCD screen badly (well 3 of em, my desk is swamped with CRT's and keyboards and {bleep}).
-
Mine has 1 dead pixel, and I need to look for it (it's really hard to spot, it took me few months to spot it in the first place).
Yes, only 1 dead pixel here, that's on a total of 3 TFT's.. Only see it when the screen is black, which isn't often :-)
-
I've only used laptop tft's, but all of those have sucked (and still do) compared to high quality crt monitors. It may be that all my laptops have been of sucky quality (and this new one certainly is).
One of my friends have a pretty lcd, which seems very nice, though. The point was just that tft's are certainly not exceptionally good in general. If you pick the right ones, then perhaps, if not, they're blurry, slow and horrible scalers.
Oh, and as much as you like your 'I can barely see my dead pixels', I really think that's something that needs addressing. I don't know what you use your tft's for, but I find it extremely annoying with a glowing green pixel whenever I try to do something with dark colours. My old laptop had seven dead pixels placed all around the screen, presumably from bumps or whatever. Very unacceptable.
But on the other hand, my crt's just died, so :)
Yeah yeah, hangover and all.
Sincerely,
-Kenneth Straarup.
-
I don't know what you use your tft's for, but I find it extremely annoying with a glowing green pixel whenever I try to do something with dark colours.
playing Games (Space "sims", strategy, FPS, RPG.. etc etc), watch movies, browse Internet... whatever can be done.. :-)
If you pick the right ones, then perhaps, if not, they're blurry, slow and horrible scalers.
Sure, but that goes for CRT's as well, there are good and bad ones.
But on the other hand, my crt's just died, so :)
Eh.. Good for you :-D Now you can spend your hard earned cash again.
Yeah yeah, hangover and all.
Excuses excuses.. But you're forgiven.
-
that_punk_guy wrote:
Piru wrote:
Generally TFT's beat CRT in all aspects, except price.
And viewing angle, and colour fidelity...
I wonder whatever happened to ThinCRT?
If ThinCRT are who I was thinking of,** they were/are one of many companies working on "FEDs," or Field-Emissive Displays. These are basically a CRT with one gun per pixel, and you can find them in various expensive equipment... but they've been expensive, and there have been concerns about the materials used to create the electron guns.
It turns out carbon nanotubes are both cheap, easily produced (these days), and should last without ablating, so look for a sudden influx of cheap Taiwanese FEDs around the time OLED technologies take off. (The only problem is, of course, nanotubes might be as bad as asbestos when ingested or inhaled... but the chemicals involved in other electronics manufacture aren't always that healthy either.)
For direct-view displays (because I can't remember everything up-and-coming in the projection category, and projectors still need boring high-wattage lamps, anyway), there are really only a few technologies bouncing around right now. Everyone knows CRT and LCD, the 'new hotnesses' are:
OLED, Organic EL, Light-Emitting Polymer and related: Globs of chemical on a substrate that give off their own light. OLED is the big buzzword because chemical combinations that create light-emitting diodes are easy to drive and power-efficient; "electroluminescence" can refer to a number of things, but usually conjures the idea of a high-voltage/high-frequency requirement (like the Indiglo in your watch)... I gather most of the light emitting polymers are LED-based anyway, and 'organic' may or may not be a misnomer for a particular design, because companies are constantly trying new substances to produce something that works. The 'big battle' in that space seems to be between vapor-deposition (Kodak) and inkjet-printing (Epson).
'Folded' CRTs: Please tell me I'm not hallucinating this one, as I can't remember the proper term for it if it does exist. I could swear that, a few years back, RCA or someone figured out you could mount the electron gun off-center in a CRT, and use a 'mirror' of sorts to deflect the beam, creating a projection-TV arrangement within the tube itself, and allowing for a 'low profile' arrangement. If these were produced, they seem to have gone out of favor pretty quick, being as big and heavy and hard to manufacture as a regular tube, without the price premium and true flatness of a plasma panel.
Plasma: Cross a CRT with a fluorescent light. No concerns about electron-gun manufacture, since it doesn't need 'em, but big and gas-filled and fragile. Drive circuitry could probably be adapted to stimulate solid globs of EL phosphor as easily, but the full RGB gamut wasn't available in solid materials 10-15 years ago, and phosphor lifetimes are always a concern. A little more complex than a FED, since each pixel is a sealed gas-filled cell, but the phosphor backing of each cell lights across its full area (like a fluorescent tube), so it scales well to make 'giant,' relatively bright displays. As long as you don't let them burn in. (Early color designs could seem a bit flickery, since, like a TFT LCD, they have to modulate the pixels rapidly to create the illusion of varying luminance; if you haven't seen a recent $10,000 version, they now look like giant, bright LCDs, but without uneven backlighting, and with a complete viewing angle.)
FEDs: As mentioned above, an if-only that might be coming, like color LCDs were a dream in the 1980s. Probably not worth making wall-sized displays out of, but CRT tech is well-established and can mostly be reapplied here, and you get all the sharpness and direct-addressing of a fixed-resolution panel. If OLED takes a while to get cheap, these could take the ten-to-20something-inch desktop-panel market back from LCD. Upshots: Flat panels, less need for leaded glass and shielding (since each gun is right next to the phosphor, no need to fire electrons with quite so much energy), no magnetic susceptibility (since there's no magnetic steering), pixel-perfect accuracy (no more convergence/mask-alignment woes), probably no dead pixels, or at least none stuck on, no worries about blue fading any more than with a CRT... Downsides: Still glass, still a bit fragile, still likely to build up a dust-attracting charge... but think about how much of a CRT right now is just shipping cost, and at the desktop sizes the tech is good for, the fragility should be no more an issue than it is with shipping china from, er, China. (Personal opinion: I still think inkjetted OLED will be cheaper, but I also thought CD burners would forever be expensive and replaced with something sane.)*
EPaper: Reflective technology; either little electrically charged balls trapped in some sort of liquid (original 'epaper') or globs of colored oil and water (Phillips)... High-contrast, hopefully-cheap-and-high-DPI displays, roughly mimicking ink on paper. But remember to bring your book light, unless they adapt the oil-based tech to allow backlighting. Nobody's talking about how to use these to display motion, yet; Sony's just launched an eBook novelty using the monochrome version. Biggest upshot, at least in the monochrome incarnation: image stays when power's removed.
SRAM LCD: Speaking of low-power, this is a subtle variation on LCD I haven't heard much about recently; someone figured out how to build a LCD a while back where each TFT transistor somehow acts as a SRAM cell. Benefits: Display state preserved with just a trickle of power, if any at all, and the screen can act as its own framebuffer... but only of use to small devices. For all I know, they're already using this somewhere.
Finally, your reward for having read this far...
Iridigm (http://www.iridigm.com/): The only company doing anything marginally surprising, though they were actually around before Phillips announced their color oil-drop epaper, which will probably undercut them. Reflective displays using an interference principle, with tons of tiny electromechanical subpixels modulating the reflected light itself. Benefits: Low risk of dead 'pixels' ruining your day, unless a whole pixel's worth of practically invisible subpixels go at once; no fading, presumably fast-enough response, low-power... Downsides: Still needs an external light source, and who's going to care when flexible, practically-disposable OLED and epaper solutions get cheap, while monochrome LCDs are still 'good enough' for eParkingMeters? (Personal opinion: I want siding made of this stuff.)
---
*If you haven't noticed, not only are burners cheap now, but hard drives themselves have already moved towards zoned recording, possibly even zoned-spirals. Beware Floid's sense of what's sane, though he's already started compensating himself.
**Edit: They are, though the company's actually Candescent (http://www.candescent.com/). I guess the nanotube idea isn't *that* recent a development as regards FEDs, so they could be using them as much as vapor-deposited diamond or whatever the last big ideas were in that space... the big breakthrough seems to be that there are now cheap-and-scalable techniques for actually putting nanotubes where you want them on an industrial basis.
YetAnotherEdit: And while I could've sworn I was reading about some sort of FED-related nanotube breakthrough this month, I could equally be thinking of this article (http://theinquirer.net/?article=10846), which promised some sort of self-assembling lattice without the involvement of carbon.
-
seer wrote:
I don't know what you use your tft's for, but I find it extremely annoying with a glowing green pixel whenever I try to do something with dark colours.
playing Games (Space "sims", strategy, FPS, RPG.. etc etc), watch movies, browse Internet... whatever can be done.. :-)
If you pick the right ones, then perhaps, if not, they're blurry, slow and horrible scalers.
Sure, but that goes for CRT's as well, there are good and bad ones.
But on the other hand, my crt's just died, so :)
Eh.. Good for you :-D Now you can spend your hard earned cash again.
Yeah yeah, hangover and all.
Excuses excuses.. But you're forgiven.
Heh, thanks :)
What I meant with the post (I think) was that tft displays are not necessarily God's gift to nerds. I know you can get good tft displays, and as mentioned I've seen a good one in action, but I've never seen a good one on a laptop (but I've never seen a really expensive laptop anyway), and I've seen lots of crappy tft screens.
I know there's lots of crappy crt screen too, but they rarely have dead pixels, bad scaling or too slow refresh (energy dissipation, whatever).
With my budget I'd most certainly get myself another crt monitor if I cannot repair this one (someone says it's probably not that irreplaceable part that's damaged).
So basically these long, non-informative posts are just here to say I agree with Piru (I think it was) saying the only negative aspect of tft is the price. If you want tft you want the expensive ones.
Sorry for the nonsense. I've sobered up properly meanwhile, though :)
Sincerely,
-Kenneth Straarup.
-
Heh, thanks :)
No problem, you're welcome. :-)
but I've never seen a good one on a laptop
Well, I can agree here a bit.. Tho I did see a laptop last week with a great TFT display (could go up to 1600*1200 and that was a 15" screen I think)..
If you want tft you want the expensive ones.
Sure, mine cost me a fortune. Another "problem" is that TFT technoloy advances and that does bring prices of older TFT's down, but it seems like the older screens are discontinued to fast to get realy cheap TFT's meaning the TFT's stay at a certain price range..
-
seer wrote:
I'm on the TFT monitor side.. (The Bright Side ;-))
Bright? If you're at the exact right angle perhaps, and not playing Quake :lol:
-
Ohwayz look on tha bwight soyd of loyf!
So what would Quake 1 look like on an LCD monitor? All those gothic
textures are hard enough to make out with the lights switched off let
alone in the daytime.
Would a screen filter improve the contrast of an LCD?
I think NEC and Philips screens are appealing because those companies
know how to make a good multiscan CRT so I assume they have more
accomodating technology expertise.
Noone has responded to my original thought though - how would 15Khz
AGA fare on a LCD TV?
^ :-) ^
-
Well I'm sure someone on here is mad enough to find out
*looks around*
8-)
-
Quake and Quake2 look just fine on my old Work laptop (Samsung GT9000, 2 1/2 years old, 1400x1050 15" screen). DVDs look just fine, too. I saw a cheap LCD TV today and the quality was just rubbish, though.
Contrast and definition are just fine, apart from when working with photo editing where very light shades don't show right, or when playing low res stuff (though it's not that bad).
On my Miggy I use a 15" Sony Trinitron CRT that looks great, but it cost £200 new - considerably more than most 15" TFTs these days ;-)
-
but I've never seen a good one on a laptop
Well, I can agree here a bit.. Tho I did see a laptop last week with a great TFT display (could go up to 1600*1200 and that was a 15" screen I think)..
If you want tft you want the expensive ones.
Sure, mine cost me a fortune. Another "problem" is that TFT technoloy advances and that does bring prices of older TFT's down, but it seems like the older screens are discontinued to fast to get realy cheap TFT's meaning the TFT's stay at a certain price range..
That sounds like a decent laptop tft. The ones I see, apart from doing 1024x768 max, all fade in comparison to my sony trinitron 17" crt (when I get it repaired, of course :)) - even the ibook tft even though that's much better than the pc laptop tft's I've seen.
And that price thing is probably kind of like laptops, though they've gotten lots cheaper recently. They don't really get cheaper, just better (or more feature-rich if one likes), which is really annoying. I'd like a 100 dollar laptop that I could use for writing a bit of code or text documents on and nothing else. Or for a cheap, little fileserver or something.
Sincerely,
-Kenneth Straarup.
-
The lowest res I've seen a 15" TFT capable of in the last year has been 1280x1024. I think some people on here have been looking at old or very very cheap monitors (1280x1024 Samsungs cost £135 ATM - not that much!).
-
To put it in perspective this laptop is almost three months old, and crappy 1024x768 is all it can do. And it's 15" too :)
Sincerely,
-Kenneth Straarup.
-
My laptop is almost 1 month old and does the same resolution - but it's a 12" screeen, it's also got a slightly dud pixel but I'm using it on an external CRT so I'm not too worried :-D
--
CRT Vs LCD
I believe CRTs are still used for colour accuracy, artists / designers still use CRTs even today.
Otherwise I think LCDs have definately caught up with CRTs and have the advantage of no flicker.
For TVs LCDs are so good that they show the artifacts in digital TV / DVDs much more than CRT TVs. It's so bad in fact that they are putting low pass filters in to degrade the screens so it's not so noticable!
I'd like to get an LCD as a main display sometime, the good ones seem to have come down in price over the last year so you're talking about 1200€ for a for a 21" Iiyama rather then 2500€.
--
OLED
I think the problem with these at the moment is lifetime, it's only something like 18 months IIRC.
Plasma TVs have the same problem but they'll at least last a few years.
Folded CRTs
Sinclair did one of these in the late 70s / early 80s for a little TV set.
--
Amiga on LCD TV
Should work, curious to see the results. Might not like the higher resolutions though (but you never know...).
-
@Kenneth - What kind of laptop is it? My 2 year old one is just a cheap Samsung, and it's display is great - and we have earlier models in the office that are a year older and still work fine (same 15" 1400x1050 display as mine).
We had problems with some newer ones breaking on the connecting leads through the hinge, and some old ultra-cheap (£400) ones could only do 1024x768, but never fuzzy or any dropped pixels.
-
I think all the arguements are valid, but only if you consider the TFT in it's native resolution. Once you change from this the clarity, color, and contrast are absolutely horid. Perhaps if there is one available that does high enough resolution the dots will be small enough to overcome this, but so far I haven't seen one that can. So for now, I'm sticking to CRT's as I have the desk space to spare.
-
Holley wrote:
@Kenneth - What kind of laptop is it? My 2 year old one is just a cheap Samsung, and it's display is great - and we have earlier models in the office that are a year older and still work fine (same 15" 1400x1050 display as mine).
We had problems with some newer ones breaking on the connecting leads through the hinge, and some old ultra-cheap (£400) ones could only do 1024x768, but never fuzzy or any dropped pixels.
It's a crappy crap acer travelmate. Exactly the same with my toshiba satellite and satellite pro preceeding it (2 and 3 years old).
Sincerely,
-Kenneth Straarup.
-
Ahh, dunno about the Acer but Toshiba Satellites have always been rubbish and overpriced. I've supported some, and they all seem to develop annoying faults quickly (touchpad going bad, dropping random bios settings, soundcard breaking, and screens going blank for no apparent reason). The Samsungs arn't perfect by any stretch, but definaltely better ;-)
-
Well this thread has been really good!
I think a list is needed now of all people who have an LCD monitor and
what brand they are using on their Amiga. Maybe a little smiley to
show OCS/ECS/AGA compatibility!
As for laptops, have you seen the Sony 17" widescreen one? It's really
cool... and on the BBC website today it showed Apple's new 30" LCD
screen!
Wow, imagine that... :-D :-D :-o
I wonder if AmigaOne/Pegasos machines like LCD panels - they don't
have 15Khz modes so they should be cool.
-
@Hyperspeed
Isn't that Apple 30" LCD monitor about $3300?
Ouch.
-
I think CRT's are the way to go if you care about picture quality.
However if space is your motivation then TFT.
What do you think?
-
Well, the acer is much worse than the toshiba's I've owned. And those match your description of them pretty well, so you should have an idea of what I have to go through every day when I turn it on :)
Sincerely,
-Kenneth Straarup.
(I have seen other laptops too, though, so I'm not only basing my tft opinion on three crap machines).
-
Good point. But don't forget that it's native resolution includes division by two.
so a 1280x1024 res LCD would function just as well at 640x512 and 320x256
(just by using two LCD pixels to display each graphic card pixel for the 640 mode). I would recomend getting an LCD with at least this resolution for an amiga, if you want decent OCS/ECS/AGA screens.
-
That would be using 4 LCD pixels actually, since 1280x1024 is 4 times the size of 640x512. Unfortunately I haven't seen a screenmode that is perfectly 640x512. All of my scan doubled modes report as 640x480/60Hz (at least that's what the monitor thinks it is, it could be the monitor doing some "rounding"). I'll have to bring my A1200 into the shop and see if there is a suitable sceen on any of the TFT's we have here.
-
Interesting thread, I've just brought a cheap second hand TFT of eBay to replace my iiyama CRT, I'm having trouble deciding which to keep:
iiyama 17" Vision Master Pro 413 CRT:
- true flat (diamondtron)
- no viewing angle issues
- good for video, important as I've got a TV card I use a lot + DVD player
- dual VGA inputs, one for AGA scandoubler one for voodoo, handy
- huge and heavy, making my cheap desk buckle lol
- smells like someone's smoking a joint, good/bad? :-) and puts out a lot of heat
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jr.hutchinson/iiyama.jpg
Eizo 15" FlexScan TFT:
- one dead pixel in bottom right, trying to spot it while typing this but can't so isn't much of an issue
- was a bit of a baragain
- saves masses of space
- viewing angle isn't great, you have to be pretty much right infront
- doesn't smell like someone's smoking a joint and relatively cool
- looks pretty
- excellent for web browsing, crystal clear text
- good enough for video, quick response time
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jr.hutchinson/eizo.jpg
Both screens are about 2 years old and cosmetically pleasant, TFT bit nicer obviously
However still can't make up my mind which to go with, even after reading this thread. Stick with the CRT or keep the TFT? Anyone want to decide for me? :-)
-
I recommend the ViewSonic VG 191, which ist an up-to-date 19" panel (MVA technology) with great contrast, nice colors and very high viewing angles together with good reaction time at an affordable price.
-
Hello,
I just today bought a new monitor. Saturday my old Highscreen 1785 broke and I replaced it with a new LG Flatron F900B. That was however *very* sensitive to magnetic fields of my speakers (wrong colors at the edges) and the picture geometry was bad. (Upper part of the picture was bended, no way to correct that)
So that monitor went back to the shop today.
Now I bought a TFT monitor. Its a "Sony TFT LCD SDM-HS73P" That is a 17" monitor and has horizontal freqs from 48...75 Hz and vertical freqs from 28...80kHz.
Especially the horizontal freq is important for Amiga-usage. I have a scandoubler for the vertical frequency of the Amiga, but the 50Hz remain. (Most TFTs start at 56Hz!)
This monitor handles the Amiga-Modes very well and the picture quality is good. After half a day testing with Amiga-native (scan-doubled), Amiga GFX card (Cybervison64) and ordinary PCs (one desctop and a laptop) I would really recomment this monitor. Picture quality is good, its sharp, bright and has a good contrast. Switching between the videomodes is sufficiently fast.
Its however not really cheap, 599 euros here...
best regards selco, selco.da.ru
-
Thanks for everyone's responses. I think we should all think about the
benefits of an LCD monitor:
01)Higher contrast
02)Small footprint, space saving
03)Easily turned to the correct angle you prefer to work at
04)Wall mountable
05)Easily turned vertically
06)Only 20% of the heat output
07)Less power consumption
08)Less static, UVA, UVB and magnetic field radiation
09)Less dust attraction
10)17" LCD has 17" viewable area - 17" CRT might be 15.9"!
11)You can have 5x LCDs for every CRT in terms of the above
12)Great for multiplayer games and networks
13)An Amiga laptop/luggable
14)Usually has built in speakers (and at ear level!)
15)Digital memories for storing different screen settings/channels
:-D :-D :-o :-D :-D
Maybe it would be a good idea to take your basic A1200 down the shop
and try every LCD there is... and don't give them your name/address
just incase AGA kills them!
:-D ;-) :-D