Fujitsu 19 inch LCD

I think fujitsu are a bit cheaply build. They are usable, if you are not picky. I would not buy one though. Just ordered some Dells 1704FPTs ...

by the way 19" LCD has the same resolution as 17" LCD, I don't like that, if you use it for gaming or video, probably is ok, but for work it is worthless, it will fit the exact same amount of informatio as 17" screen.
 
swordfish1 said:
by the way 19" LCD has the same resolution as 17" LCD, I don't like that, if you use it for gaming or video, probably is ok, but for work it is worthless, it will fit the exact same amount of informatio as 17" screen.
Click to expand...

That is true, but when you hit your 40's, having everything that much larger really does help!
 
The resolutions offered by desktop lcd's really bother me, why can't you get high resolutions? My Dell laptop screen is 1920 x 1200 for a 15.4 inch.
 
Update - I went out and got the 19" Fujitsu LCD today from Makro. After filling out about a million forms for the Card to buy the thing.

Its looks very nice and works. Not too sure about that 8ms Refresh time - I would think more 11ms. I watched a movie - "James Bond -Die another day" and it seems a bit laggy as the car chases are a bit blurred and some of the action scenes you could make out what has happening but it was unclear.

Then i tested it in BF2 and when spinning the guy round and round both on the ground and in a chopper i found it hard to see what was going on around me.

I would advise that gamer not to buy this screen if you are looking for performance. For the standard Desktop user it’s great (nice size at a price that one can afford)

I’m taking my screen back tomorrow -unless there is some1 that wants to buy it off me.
 
Person said:
Update - I went out and got the 19" Fujitsu LCD today from Makro. After filling out about a million forms for the Card to buy the thing.

Its looks very nice and works. Not too sure about that 8ms Refresh time - I would think more 11ms. I watched a movie - "James Bond -Die another day" and it seems a bit laggy as the car chases are a bit blurred and some of the action scenes you could make out what has happening but it was unclear.

Then i tested it in BF2 and when spinning the guy round and round both on the ground and in a chopper i found it hard to see what was going on around me.

I would advise that gamer not to buy this screen if you are looking for performance. For the standard Desktop user it’s great (nice size at a price that one can afford)

I’m taking my screen back tomorrow -unless there is some1 that wants to buy it off me.
Click to expand...
Thanks for this review. I seriously considered one myself, but this killed the idea. I'll consider this instead.
 
chop said:
Fast response time (typ.) 8ms (gtg)
Click to expand...

there is your problem...

the gtg bit is "grey to grey"
so, until somebody actually puts manufacturer's balls into a vice and forces them to be truthful, they can describe a screen as fancy as they want, with as many lies as they want.

grey-to-grey means nothing...what shade of grey? didnt they measure from the highest shade of grey to white and then back to the highest shade of grey? not precise enough, just not enough info to form an opinion. Measuring grey-to-grey by overdriving the screen from black to white means f*all.

true 8ms is very good...8ms grey-to-grey is like describing your girlfriend as being "mostly rectangular shaped"..it just doesnt convey enough info to make a decision.

by the way, to whomever can tell the difference between 8ms and 11ms by looking at a screen, may I please have your eyes when you die?:o
 
all 19" screens got relatively slower response time compared to 17"

I will strongly advice you to buy ONLY quality LCD screens, as this is somthing that lasts long time and you don't want to deal with low quality product for next 5+ years! Better save few bucks, wait few months and then buy. I did exactly that. Bought one Acer I think a year ago, it was absolute piece of siht! I returned it the next day, waited whole year and now finally I am moving to good quality LCD, although it is 50% more expensive than your average LCD, I will rather pay the premium than having some inferior product on my desk for the years to come!
 
zeb said:
Thanks for this review. I seriously considered one myself, but this killed the idea. I'll consider this instead.
Click to expand...

ViewSonic X Series 17" TFT SXGA LCD monitor : 3ms response time, 500:1 contrast ratio, 300 cd/m2 brightness, 1280x1024 native resolution, Anti-Glare, TCO'99, RGB & DVI-D input - Black / Silver R2 650 .00 incl VAT
 
Person said:
ViewSonic X Series 17" TFT SXGA LCD monitor : 3ms response time, 500:1 contrast ratio, 300 cd/m2 brightness, 1280x1024 native resolution, Anti-Glare, TCO'99, RGB & DVI-D input - Black / Silver R2 650 .00 incl VAT
Click to expand...
3 ms !!!!!!!!!!

that sounds like scam :D
 
I've never heard of a 3ms screen, are you sure?
 
yeah probably advertising trick, can't see how they measure it, some "new" way probably! And by the way you don't really need 3ms to watch smooth video as they advertise! Unless the 3ms are not real 3ms! Any screen under 20ms (for real) should display video as smooth as it gets!
 
Personally, I would get a 8ms LCD screen. It's perfect for everything and as Swordfish says, the 3ms is just a marketing gimmick
 
There's a good review of the VX924 on Tom's Hardware site:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/06/02/viewsonic_vx924/

Conclusion said:
The VX924 is a good monitor for gaming: it's fast, but not very accurate. With a latency specification of 4 ms, that's what you'd expect. Its static qualities are just as excellent, with a well-controlled level of brightness and very deep blacks. But video noise will be a real problem for anyone who uses their PC for moving images - in other words, the majority of users.

The bottom line is that the VP191b/s is a much more multidisciplinary solution, mostly since the gain in latency performance with the VX924 is debatable, as we've seen. The announced 4 ms is more a construct of the measurement method used than it is a true measurement of performance, because it doesn't take accuracy into account.
Click to expand...

So overall, I would tend to agree that an 8ms screen is the better option.... for now.
 
Ve510s 15" Lcd R1599 .00 Response Time 16ms
Vp171b 17" Lcd R2899 .00 Response Time 8ms
Va712s 17" Lcd R2149 .00 Response Time 8ms
Vx912 19" Lcd R3299 .00 Response Time 8ms
Vx715 17" Lcd R2399 .00 Response Time 8ms
Vp191s 19" Lcd R4199 .00 Response Time 8ms
Vx724 17" Lcd R2710 .00 Response Time 3ms
Vx924 19" Lcd R3799 .00 Response Time 3ms
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X