Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

el coyote

macrumors newbie
Feb 11, 2004
3
0
OK, here it is in a nutshell:

The SHARP line of LCDs has been rated the best for color reproduction and image quality. Yes, better than the "professional" LCDs. Now, compared to the others, (Dell, Samsung, etc), Sharps may be a bit pricier, but considering you can pay $1400 for a pro lcd or $650 for a 19 inch that has been rated better than the pro, which way are you gonna go?

Next to the Sharps are the Samsung models. Good overall, look great and work well. Their color reproduction does not match the Sharp's. But it comes close. Good bang for your buck.

Next come the dells. These monitors come with a lot of bells and whistles. their color reproduction is slightly lower than the samsung's.

By the way, color reproduction is important if you do a lot of photo or film editiong and printing. Everyone knows that crts have the best color reproduction. Nothing beats them. But the sharps come amazingly close.

Now, bottom line; you can do a search for "the best monitor reviews" but what these reviews tend to focus on is the bang for your buck. In other words, does the monitor have speakers, how big is the footprint, can I rotate the screen for a portrait view?

Personally, I dont care for built in speakers. They are usually cheezy anyway and in my experience tend to blow out fast. As far as the monitor stand, and how easy it is to adjust, spend roughly $30 bucks, get a lcd mount, and presto! your very own wall or desk mounted lcd.

Hope this was of any help.
 

neonart

macrumors 65816
Sep 4, 2002
1,066
67
Near a Mac since 1993.
I don't think Formac does widescreen. Their resolutions show normal aspect ratios, 1280x1024 and 1600x1200. I find the taller 5:4 aspect ration more useful than widescreen. Games usually support the normal resolutions and not widescreen natively. Also most documents and web pages are "tall", not "wide", so you don't scroll as much.

The "low res" issue has been brought up many times. But the problem is marketing.
The vast majority of the people like "low res". I ask my not-so-geeky friends and they run really low resolutions on their CRT's and love the normal resolutions on their LCD's too. As people get older this become more of an issue with poor eyesight. On an LCD if you set the native resolution real high, you weed out these people who make a BIG portion of sales compared to the young guys who want 3200x2400 on a 15" screen.
My Formac 2010 is 16x12 and it's about as high-resolution as I would like. Anything smaller would make it hard to use.
I agree the 19" LCDs should have something higher than 12x10, but not 16x12... is there a resolution that fits in that gap?

Do any other specialized brands use higher res on their screens- maybe SGI or others...?
 

blackfox

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2003
1,210
4,574
PDX
lcd monitor...

Formac 1900...just beautiful...may be better spec'd monitors out there...but you look at your monitor everyday(I admit I'm an asthete...)...perfectly compliment macs...
 

Crikey

macrumors 6502
Jan 14, 2004
356
0
Spencer's Butte, Oregon
Originally posted by bousozoku
Is 1280x1024 really enough in a 17 or 19 inch monitor?

I keep looking at LCD monitors and think that it's seems a waste that they've got such low resolution.

I thought so, too. But my sweetie and I looked at a lot of LCDs when shopping for a monitor for her, and I thought the 19" 1280x1024 looked better than the 17" 1280x1024 -- enough to justify the extra cost (we got a Samsung 191T, which is pretty nice for the price). I actually offered to buy her the then-current Dell 2000FP (1600x1200), but she thought the display was just too dense (and the chassis too ugly).

What people like to look at depends on how young and healthy their eyes are. Most of the LCD users in my office run their 19" LCDs at 800x600 or 1024x768 rather than at the native 1280x1024.

Cheers!

Crikey
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.