Samsung's New 2ms LCD Displays

[Chris Gohlke]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://engadget.com/2005/12/30/samsungs-new-2ms-lcd-displays/' target='_blank'>http://engadget.com/2005/12/30/samsungs-new-2ms-lcd-displays/</a><br /><br /></div><i>"So Samsung is cranking out some new 17 and 19-inch LCD screens with 2ms response times and 1000:1 contrast ratios. Both the SyncMastermagicCX717B and CX917B are privy to a Samsung developed technology called "Response Time Accelerator" that, you guessed it, accelerates those response times up to a snazz 2ms, though it seems that it's only gray to gray (hard to tell from the translations we waded through) which would put it in the same league of other 2ms displays we've seen. The prices ain't to shabby though, at $400 and $500 respectively, though we're not quite sure what resolution you're getting for your buck, so we might have to procure a few through totally legal means to dig up some more info and peep those lean response times."</i><br /><br /><img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/samsung_lcd.jpg" /><br /><br />As if they were not already dying out, these super fast LCDs are yet another nail in the coffin of the venerable CRT.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

1) Specifications like these generally have little meaning. On what basis was 2ms achieved?

2) Normally these are TN screens; poor image quality compared to superior panels as well as CRTs. Top it off they're normally 6bit panels, capable of displaying only 262k colours.

3) CRT responses times are still way faster than 2ms. :P

On another note, why do people love to proclaim something is "dead"?

[jeffd]

then theres that "cost" thing that allways pops its ugly head up. ;)

[Chris Gohlke]

On another note, why do people love to proclaim something is "dead"?

I said dying, not dead. :wink: Don't have any stats to back this up, but I would be willing to bet that over the last few years LCD's have taken over a nice chunk of the monitor market and it is only a matter of time before they get the lions share. CRTs will move into a niche market for those that need the attributes for which CRTs remain superior.

[David Horn]

It's predicted that CRTs will be pulled from major stockists within six months in the UK. LCD and plasma screens have overtaken them significantly in sales, and it's only going to get better with the launch of HDTV next year.

[jeffd]

David, I soooooo doubt that. Like I said.. crt is still much cheaper, especialy if you are going for 19+ inch monitors. TV's are the same way for 34+ inches.

[Felix Torres]

Oh, the handwriting is most definitely on the wall for crts at all sizes and prices. Europe and Japan are buying form factor and NorthAm is buying resolution and crts lose out on both counts.
As the LCD price war heats up over the next three years, CRTs *will* fade.
The only question is when they will vanish completely.
The black friday LCD sales are just the tip of the iceberg.
By the end of 06, LCDs will be sharper, lighter, thinner, and *cheaper* than CRTs at all TV sizes.

[jeffd]

felix, no doubt they exhist (though even for a couple of years, any high end lcd that matches or surpasses crt will probably cost no less then $1k ;) )... but currently.. the cheapest lcds wich are often the worst quality of the bunch are still more costly.

Now these lcd pricewars have gone on a long time.. and they are getting more and more affordable.. but they still havnt reached crt levels yet, infact LCDs cost have been driving down CRTs cost. Also, atleast for the US economy, we are not in the spend spend spend mode. Theres roughly 3 types of spenders. Those who can and will buy LCD, those who can buy lcd but would rather save a few bucks and buy crt, and those who cant afford lcd and buy crt. Thats 2 for crt and 1 for lcd. And the only thing LCD really offers as an improvement is space savings and power (And while I know I would love to be sucking less power.. the average joe could care less. :/). Not quite the same fight as say..dvd was putting over on vhs.

Now I'm not saying lcd is a fad or going away.. lcd (or upgrades to it like OLED) is clearly the successor. But at the current rate, crt still has quite a few years of life in it simply cause its cheaper then lcd. Especialy for those who want big screen monitors. Holy moly those can be some expensive LCDs. ^^

[Chris Gohlke]

Theres roughly 3 types of spenders. Those who can and will buy LCD, those who can buy lcd but would rather save a few bucks and buy crt, and those who cant afford lcd and buy crt. Thats 2 for crt and 1 for lcd.

But you are assuming that the population is equally split amongst those three options.

I just skimmed the most recent Best Buy ad. In TV's, Flat Panels outnumbered tubes by a small margin and for computer monitors LCD beat out CRT 4:1. Additionally, all of the computer packages (except for the super cheap models) came with LCD.

I'd take even a cheap LCD over a CRT. Specifically, I am very sensitive to refresh rates. I am one of those people who can walk into your office and tell if you monitor is set up improperly easily because I seem to perceive the flicker (even at a high refresh rate) that most people don't notice. If I had to use a monitor like this for any time period, it triggers a migrane.

[Felix Torres]

felix, no doubt they exhist (though even for a couple of years, any high end lcd that matches or surpasses crt will probably cost no less then $1k ;) )... but currently.. the cheapest lcds wich are often the worst quality of the bunch are still more costly.
^^

This is a topic that begs for numbers and while I actually have them, I don't have the time today to organize the data, so I'll say that you need to be more specific in your defense of the so-called crt image superiority vs lcds.

1- Have you actively shopped for HD TVs recently?
HDTV grade LCDs are *already* cheaper than crts.
And image quality is already exceeding plasma to say nothing of CRTs.
Only LCoS is likely to make much of a stand against the next-gen LCDs,
So we're not talking years; we're talking months, as far as the US is concerned.
$500-900 for 27-30" Lcds vs $800 and up for comparable CRTs.
So, look again: 32" name-brand HDTVs will go well under 32" this year.
Second-tier 37" models, too.
And the price drops are only going to accelerate with the FullHD war that is about to errupt this week at CES.
Stay tuned...
2- CRTs image quality is a trade-off of color gamut black level vs resolution, refresh rate, size mass and power consumotion. Add in pricing issues and the platform shift from analog video transmission to digital video and the strengths of CRTs are already being deprecated by buyers in favor ofvthe strengths of the digital sets.
3-You can't buy what isn't sold. LG/Phillips are withdrawing CRTs from european markets, so are other vendors, and NorthAm is next. Look at the retailers; 75% of the TVs advertised in the flyers and stocked in the stores are digital, not CRTs. Unless you do all your electronics shopping at Wal-Mart or Target Boutique, the bulk of the sets you'll see are in fact HD sets of one kind or another. And the bulk of the CRTs are clusterred in the under-$500 arena, which is precisely where 27" LCD TVs are headed in 06.
CRTs are fading because the economics are against them.
Because the technology curve is against them.
Because customer tastes are evolving away from them.
They are big and bulky and power hungry and they can't keep up with the technology improvements in display and manufacturing coming from the digital camps.

Simply put: HD is killing CRTs.
CRTs are like 8-bit computers; a technology destined to slowly fade away into, essentially, the HD-less third world. And even there VGA-grade 4x3 LCDs will hound them to extinction.
Dinosaurs lasted awhile after extinction began, but once a death spiral begins, there is no stopping it.

[Jonathon Watkins]

2- CRTs image quality is a trade-off of color gamut black level vs resolution, refresh rate, size mass and power consumotion.

You have not mentioned anything about why photographers and graphic artists still prefer CRTs: Colour purity &amp; accuracy. TFTs still can't match CRTs when it comes to producing calibrated and precise output. It's the main reason I do my work on my 19 inch CRT and use my 19 inch TFT in portrait mode as a secondary monitor. I haven't seen too much about how TFTs are advancing on that front. I assume they are getting better, but I understand that it may be a while before TFTs are anywhere as good as CRTs.

[Felix Torres]

2- CRTs image quality is a trade-off of color gamut black level vs resolution, refresh rate, size mass and power consumotion.

You have not mentioned anything about why photographers and graphic artists still prefer CRTs: Colour purity &amp; accuracy. TFTs still can't match CRTs when it comes to producing calibrated and precise output. It's the main reason I do my work on my 19 inch CRT and use my 19 inch TFT in portrait mode as a secondary monitor. I haven't seen too much about how TFTs are advancing on that front. I assume they are getting better, but I understand that it may be a while before TFTs are anywhere as good as CRTs.

Would you disagree if I described those applications as niche?
Low-volume?
Specialty?
(I thought the point of the discussion was whether crts were headed for nichedom instead of being a mainstream product.)

That said, LED-backlight TFTs address most of those issues and during 06 we will see the first mainstream-priced LED backlight panels with 30-36 bit color.

"A while" in this case is months (18-24) rather than years...

[jeffd]

chris, I think its pretty safe to assume the larger bulk are in people who cant afford lcd? Or do you think we are all made of money?

Ads? Your basing statistics off ADS?! good lord.. the only reason you see the ADs littered with LCD's is because they are ripping you off with them! LCDs easily have the larger profit margin. Why waste any more ad space on on CRTs wich are being prices as low as they can go? Especialy since the customer pretty much knows the store has them.

Refresh rates? last I checked.. my 4 year old monitor still does higher refresh rates then any lcd that currently exhist. ^^

Felix, I used price watch (wich calculated both final price and shipping into the listed price) and they are usualy number 1 for finding the cheapest of the cheap (but not for "sales") to find out the latest prices on lcd and crt of different sizes.

[klinux]

And image quality is already exceeding plasma to say nothing of CRTs.

Where did you get this from? My peers (AVS forum,for example) says image quality are in order of CRT>plasma>LCD, my authority sources (magazines, review sites, blogs of video enthusiasts and my own eyes agree with that assessment.

[Chris Gohlke]

Jeff,

First off, depends what you are defining as people. I am assuming for this discussion, that the population is made up of those going out to purchase a new display and possibly a new computer. For THAT population, I don't think the $199 price tag of a new 17 inch LCD or a $649 price tag for a complete system including an LCD is something so high that it requires one to be "made of money" to be able to afford.

Ads are a good indicator of what people are buying. Businesses are not stupid and neither are people, businesses succede by selling what people want to buy and for the most part people buy things that they want. If the consumer did not perceive a value in buying an LCD, they certainly would not pay a premium to get it.

I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here. My point was CRT's are dying out and LCD's are taking over the market. I am more than willing to concede that for certain applications, CRTs are currently superior. Your point seems to be that since CRTs are better in some respects and are cheaper, anyone would be a fool to pay more for an LCD.

[jeffd]

I was arguing that they wernt going to dissapear by the end of the year. Unless something really drastic happens to the price of LCDs.

It is hard to find a new system that dosn't come with an lcd monitor, true, but then these systems are purchased by idiots, and they end up paying for it with the worst quality computer components imaginable. ;)

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

I said dying, not dead. :wink: Don't have any stats to back this up, but I would be willing to bet that over the last few years LCD's have taken over a nice chunk of the monitor market and it is only a matter of time before they get the lions share. CRTs will move into a niche market for those that need the attributes for which CRTs remain superior.

They already have, I think. At least, for the past year, they've been outselling CRTs by a large margin, given the much smaller living areas we have to contend with.* Dubiously specced 2ms monitors aren't what wins the day though; $199 17" monitors however...

* It's amazing, American couple (no kids, pets, etc) with a 3000 square feet apartment and they're complaning of it being small... I've met families of 6 living in 1/3 that space!

[Felix Torres]

And image quality is already exceeding plasma to say nothing of CRTs.

Where did you get this from? My peers (AVS forum,for example) says image quality are in order of CRT>plasma>LCD, my authority sources (magazines, review sites, blogs of video enthusiasts and my own eyes agree with that assessment.

Well, I would never *dare* consider the AVS Forum crowd my peers, and most definitely not the plasma snobs, but as *they* say: PQ is in in the eye of the beholder. ;-)

It all hinges on what display traits you prize.
The home theater crowd values point to point contrast over absolute contrast; color gamut over brightness, and that is *their* right.
But a display that looks great in a dark basement isn't all that hot in a sun-lit room. Glare and reflection is a fact of life in a typical family room.

Consumer-grade CRTs don't even have the horizontal resolution to display 720p, much less 1080 video. And plasmas only get there at 50" or so. So they are hardly flawless, pristine examples of modern display tech.

Some of us, however, tend to prize spatial resolution, immersion, and lack of pixelation for TV viewing and don't *really* think that ED or stretched-XGA is *really* better than true HD displays, whatever the early adopters say.

And the industry sources *I've* seen show that the three major technologies in use for HD are essentially *equivalent*.
*None* is an absolute winner; *all* involve trade-offs.
You have to swallow shortcomings along with their signature traits.
Anybody who pretends otherwise is ignoring plain and simple, established facts.

The only reason I, personally, feel LCD has the mid-term upper hand is that the roadmap of LCD evolution is clear, understood, and feasible. Challenges exist but I have seen nothing to suggest LCDs arev*not* going to end up with the 70% of the display business that used to go to CRTs circa y2k.

The discussion we're having can't be divorced from volume, you know.
It really doesn't matter all that much what the well-heeled golden eyeballs crowd thinks, but rather how we, the rabble, vote with our wallets. And we're voting LCD.

Unit sales matter, when it comes down to laying down the road to the future.

Non-niche CRTs *are* fading.
And they are fading for very valid reasons.
Their strengths simply aren't valuable enough to outweigh their weaknesses.

After *that* comes to pass, then we can start pondering on the *next* tech on the road to extinction: DLPs or Plasma. :twisted:

(Might as well rile up a couple other crews while I'm at it.) ;-)

[mcsouth]

For what it's worth, our department at work has switched over entirely to LCD's, 17" and 19". Considering that the last 19" LCD that I bought a month ago was priced at $229 (no rebate, that was the selling price), I'd say the there is little price advantage for CRT's over LCD's for the general populace, and the space savings in our tiny cubicles is huge. The other huge advantage, from my perspective, is less hassle setting them up - set the PC resolution, hook up the monitor, and go - and the fact that most of our workforce has mentioned the lack of eyestrain as compared to our CRT's we had previously.

In case anyone wonders, I work in the publications group for our company, so we have illustrators, writers and page layout personnel - no one has had any issues with the move to LCD's, and the vast majority have been very positive in their reponse - they all saw it as an upgrade.

And yes, I use an LCD at home on my PC, and am looking at either plasma or LCD for my next TV, as I want to go to a wall mount instead of an entertainment center - that space thing again.

In case anyone is looking for a good article that compares the various display technologies, you might want to check this out - http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1752680,00.asp - I thought it was a good article (even though a lot was over my head...).

[jeffd]

mcsouth, a 19inch crt is $100 shipped. Maybe lower if you buy it local at a good price (yea.. ok. so I woulnt be shopping the net if I could ever find good prices localy, ;) ).

My desk is big so a crt fits on it fine, and I am not rich enough "yet" to buy a new 21inch lcd.. I will probably be purchasing a new crt as my current 4 year old has been showing signs of breaking down over the past 2 years and such.

[Jonathon Watkins]

You have not mentioned anything about why photographers and graphic artists still prefer CRTs: Colour purity &amp; accuracy.

Would you disagree if I described those applications as niche?
Low-volume?
Specialty?
(I thought the point of the discussion was whether crts were headed for nichedom instead of being a mainstream product.)

That said, LED-backlight TFTs address most of those issues and during 06 we will see the first mainstream-priced LED backlight panels with 30-36 bit color.

"A while" in this case is months (18-24) rather than years...

OK, fair point. :wink:

I spotted this pcworld prediction of hot technologies for 2006 (http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,122928,pg,5,00.asp) and was going to update my post. I had not realised that TFT screens had come so far in terms of colour accuracy. :o

Time to plan to get a good one in 2007. :P

[Jonathon Watkins]

Refresh rates? last I checked.. my 4 year old monitor still does higher refresh rates then any lcd that currently exhist. ^^

And? Refresh rates on TFTs don't Need to be as high as on CRTs. They are perfectly usable at lower refresh rates. I am sensitive to rates below 75Hz on CRTs, but am currently using a refresh rate of 60Hz on my TFT with no problems.

[mcsouth]

mcsouth, a 19inch crt is $100 shipped. Maybe lower if you buy it local at a good price (yea.. ok. so I woulnt be shopping the net if I could ever find good prices localy, ;) ).

Yes, I know you can get a 19" CRT for $100 shipped, but you can't compare a 19" CRT with a 19" LCD - the screen sizes are very different between the two. A 19" CRT is only going to give you a bit over 17" actual viewing area - a 19" LCD gives you a true 19" diagonal viewing area. A 20" or 21" CRT monitor is more comparable to a 19" LCD in terms of actual screen real estate - and there is a BIG difference in pricing between a 19" CRT and a 20" or 21" CRT - as well as a huge difference in physical size.

Our page layout personnel had 21" CRT's previously - we replaced them with 19" LCD's with no loss of screen real estate, but a huge gain in office space - considering that the corporate world continues to try and maximize its floor space - our working areas continue to shrink every year, so LCD's made perfect sense for that reason alone.

I won't disagree that CRT's can be much cheaper at certain sizes, and are certainly still applicable for some fields, but for Joe Average, the LCD's offer much more value for the dollar in my books.

[jeffd]

mcsouth, uhh, your buisness paid for all that and you want to claim it as an example of joe average? Yea..sure..when joe average has a yearly profit margin of hundreads of thousands of dollers. ^^

To humor myself, I opened the latest best buy add. The computers came with 15 inch and 17 inch LCDs. The 15 inch ones made me cry, I thought we finally had arrived at 17 inch being the standered. Greedy bastereds. The TV's all costed $1000+ save one wich was another 15 inch overpriced PoS.

And all in the corner.. 32 inch CRT TV for $450.

Money talks, and CRT is still the cheaper date.

[Felix Torres]

I spotted this pcworld prediction of hot technologies for 2006 (http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,122928,pg,5,00.asp) and was going to update my post. I had not realised that TFT screens had come so far in terms of colour accuracy. :o

Time to plan to get a good one in 2007. :P

Neither had I until I got around to researching the subject.
(Mind you, I *see* nothing wrong with 24-bit color myself, new prescription or not. ;-) )

Try this one:
http://www.cmo.com.tw/cmo/english/product/showtv.jsp?flag=20051012111324

Seems Westinghouse is talking of actually shipping this baby in the second half of the year. :-)

Now, imagine taking that exact same panel and replacing the color filter layer and electronics from rgb triads to triple-quads (say rgbw) or dual six-subpixel clusters while retaining 1080p inputs...
What would that do for dynamic range or color gamut? Think it would suit you? ;-)

Unlike Plasma, LCDs have no problem going small on the pixels (think of a 37" panel built out of Dell Axim 51v-sized pixels); the only issue is yield. And with semiconductor tech, yield goes up with time...

Or, check this list of 07-time frame tech headed our way from what is a *commodity* panel supplier:
http://www.cmo.com.tw/cmo/english/about/shownews1.jsp?flag=20051017194717

Even allowing for the usual PR-puffery, I think the 19" LED backlight display will see retail this year, no?

Things are going to get real interesting, I think...

[Chris Gohlke]

Jeff,

No one is arguing that CRT is not cheaper. But you seem to be continuously making the argument that LCD's are some super expensive item. If you look around, you can get a 19" LCD for $199. Size wise, this would give you almost the same screen real estate as a 21" CRT. Plus, the 15" LCD's you mention would be closer in size to 17" CRT in display area.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Heh, 21" CRTs are still better than 19" LCDs, for the ability to do 1600x1200 resolutions decently. Quite a big difference when doing graphic work at 1280x1024!

Plus why do people like to take a whole 2 inches off a CRT? Modern flat panels take an inch off at most; if you don't believe me, take a long ruler and measure it yourself instead of listening to the marketing blah.

[jeffd]

Real bad crt's you can follow the 2 inch rule.. but my nice 19inch is 18inches viewable (and i have the image hugging that edge like it was wallpaper).

Speaking of bad monitors..what exactly is the quality of those $199 LCDs chris? I'd probably wager they have a nothing special refresh rate, a standered brightness, does it even have a dvi connector?

[Chris Gohlke]

Agreed, a 19 inch LCD would most fairly compare to a 20" CRT for pure screen real estate. I have a 19" LCD that I love (bought it about a year ago for $399) and there is no way I could have a comporable sized CRT on my desk, simply due to the depth.

This is the first I could come up with http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=1561114&amp;CatId=170&amp;SRCCODE=WEBGOOMON&amp;CMP=KNC-GOOGL . Admittedly not great in the specs Department.

Again, back to my original point CRT's are dying (not dead) for the mainstream.

[Chris Gohlke]

This one http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-Details.asp?EdpNo=1648338&amp;sku=H94-1900&amp;CMP=EMC-TIGEREMAIL&amp;SRCCODE=WEM1033H is a little better in the specs department (still not outstanding), but it only $189

"8ms! DVI.
Hannspree 19-Inch LCD Display.
Before your very eyes, the Hannspree 19-inch LCD bursts with delicious images in vibrant colors and compelling brilliance. This exquisitely detailed masterwork of elegance and style, offers incredible 600:1 contrast, stunning 250-nit brightness, a 0.294 pixel pitch and tantalizing SXGA 1280 x 1024 resolution. 8ms response for wonderful video performance. DVI and VGA(D-sub) inputs deliver remarkable versatility."

[klinux]

Well, I would never *dare* consider the AVS Forum crowd my peers, and most definitely not the plasma snobs, but as *they* say: PQ is in in the eye of the beholder. ;-)

I will agree with you that PQ is in the eye of the beholder. In practice, many people ask me for purchasing advice. I tell them what I would purchase in their situation and why but always tell them that that they should judge themselves whether that (TV, speakers, DAP, PDA, etc) is right for them.

Nevertheless, you strike me as someone who think little of other's opinion and view those who disagree with you as snobs. You also tend to frame your original opinion as something of an absolute, like "already exceeding plasma to say nothing of CRTs".


It all hinges on what display traits you prize.

Backpedaling.


The home theater crowd values point to point contrast over absolute contrast; color gamut over brightness, and that is *their* right.
But a display that looks great in a dark basement isn't all that hot in a sun-lit room. Glare and reflection is a fact of life in a typical family room.


Thanks for letting us know what are rights are. For a second there I thought it was being denied to us. Furthermore, I am glad to you mentioned glare and reflection but we totally did not consider it in our consideration of picture quality! :roll:


Consumer-grade CRTs don't even have the horizontal resolution to display 720p, much less 1080 video. And plasmas only get there at 50" or so. So they are hardly flawless, pristine examples of modern display tech.


No one argued that CRT and plasma are flawless, pristine examples. Furthermore, CRTs are quite capable of displaying 720p and I will give you that many cannot do 1080 100% but they look great doing it. Please back up your assertion that CRTs cannot do 720p.


Some of us, however, tend to prize spatial resolution, immersion, and lack of pixelation for TV viewing and don't *really* think that ED or stretched-XGA is *really* better than true HD displays, whatever the early adopters say.


Here we go. So you think little of others who valuing contrast and color, common indicators of PQ, but instead focus on resolution, which is important to you. That's fine. There are also people who think the number of megapixels a digital camera has is the most important fact and can write pages to support their opinion. So be it.


And the industry sources *I've* seen show that the three major technologies in use for HD are essentially *equivalent*.


Backpedaling. I mean I agree with what you said but what happened to "image quality is already exceeding plasma to say nothing of CRTs?" You leave no doubt that LCD is *the* absolute winner.


*None* is an absolute winner; *all* involve trade-offs.
You have to swallow shortcomings along with their signature traits.
Anybody who pretends otherwise is ignoring plain and simple, established facts.

Agreed.