in the maze.net

To content | To menu | To search

Hardware

Entries feed - Comments feed

Wednesday, February 8 2006

NEC LCD1770GX, follow up

By Eric Maziade on Wednesday, February 8 2006, 23:10

Okay, so I've been using the NEC LCD1770GX LCD monitor for long enough to have some actual impressions... so here are...

1) The case of the green lit pixel. Its there. Looks like I'm not planning on trying to return the monitor. It's semi-annoying. If I didn't get a refurbished monitor and if I wasn't expecting not to be able to get a replacement, I'd return the monitor for it. The green lit pixel is nearly (when not completely) invisible when working in light environments. I don't notice it when programming. I don't notice it when word processing. However, in dark environments, it shines. Dark movies have a green flashy dot.

I have a dead pixel on a CRT at work and I've learned to forget it. It ain't as annoying as a lit pixel. But its something you can live with.

Sadly, Pixel Phoenix did nothing to revive my lit pixel.

2) Color accuracy. Its okay. Most people will be more than happy with it, right off the box. But, in my opinion, this monitor's color accuracy does not compare to what I would've got from a similarily-priced CRT. I've heard (and I believe) that a higher end LCD monitor would've satisfied me.

Basically, the light colors are too desaturated. For instance, a light yellow that I could clearly see on my CRT is barely different from white. Light colors come out way brighter than on a CRT (nearly giving me a headache on my first session), but I quickly got used to it. Calibration is a mess. No matter what I do, I can't seem to get it calibrated exactly like I want. Good thing it was in a very acceptable state right off the box. I think this is something that'd be true for every LCD screens. Brightness and contrast just doesn't work the same anymore. The very darks are very darker and the brights are very brighter.

In more precise terms, from perfect black to just a touch lighter bears too great a difference for me to calibrate my monitor as I am used too.

I haven't tried printing any art I've made with the monitor, so I don't have any final thoughts on accuracy. I think its still decent. If this was my pro graphics designer monitor, I wouldn't be entirely satisfied. But for home and the occasional graphics work, I say its fine.

3) Refresh at 12ms. Video animators won't like 12ms (or they might get used to it). It just ain't fast enough. There's tearing when playing video (I haven't seen any when playing a DVD, but doing some video mixing or fullscreen playing of other video files shows some). Not enough for me to be angry about it. But definately not what I got from the Viewsonic's 4-8ms. Between the poor quality of the Viewsonics' backlighting and the small shearing and tearing from 12ms playback, I'll take the shearing and tearing anytime.

Conclusion

The NEC LCD1770GX is a decent, very affordable monitor. It looks nice. Doesn't have all the options you could dream of from its menu. It's got a cool USB hub (which I might end up missing when you'll switch monitors five years from now). You won't get the quality output from a CRT of the same size, but the footprint size in itself might make it worth considering.

I'd recommend it to people on a budget.

no comment

Tuesday, January 24 2006

NEC LCD1770GX, first impressions

By Eric Maziade on Tuesday, January 24 2006, 12:09

I received my Refurbished NEC LCD1770GX 17" LCD Monitor yesterday.

It's pretty cool.

The thing that gets me the most excited (for some reason) is that it sports a nifty USB hum that gives me 4 extra USB plugs right where I need'em : near my face.

So my Wacom tablet and my HP Scanner are now plugged in the back of my monitor. And when I feel the urge to plug in a joystick or a cam, I can plug them to the side of my monitor. Pretty nifty.

Also cool are the adjustment features. This baby can tilt (which the viewsonic also could). It can be raised and lowered (the other monitor didnt) and it can rotate left and right (cool).

Raising it and lowering it is a bit annoying to me. I don't like grabbing the screen firmly and shoving it up or down, so I go by the base which unnerringly removes the back panel (which usually hides the wires).

Them I need to replace the back panel which means I usually end up lowering the screen.

After a bit of swearing, I left the monitor at its lowest setting and decided to lower my chair instead.

I'll play with it when my patience meter regenerates.

The screen itself is nice. Gone are the backlighting horrors I saw on my viewsonic screen. The colors seem nice and vivid.

The screen itself is shiny and seems harder than the other LCDs I saw (I didn't touch it yet). But its glossy, which might get on people's nerves.

The first thing I see on a darks screen is my face.

Then I see a stupid lit pixel. Not a dead pixel, a lit pixel. A tiny defect. 1 pixel out of 2097152 pixels. 0.00005%.

It bugs me, but maybe I can learn to live with it - after all, I learned to ignore the two lines of my previous Multisync's Apperture Grille.

I could send it back to FutureShop, but I might not get a new one. I'd get my money back and I could by a non-refurbished monitor somewhere else for about 200$ more.

So the question is: is this stupid little pixel worth 200$?

We'll see if it still annoys me in a few days.

So this is my preliminary report on it. Stay tuned as I work with it and share more of my vividly entertaining impressions.

2 comments

Thursday, January 19 2006

Viewsonic VX724

By Eric Maziade on Thursday, January 19 2006, 20:52

My monitor - a Nec Multisync FE750+ - is dying. Its unstable. I don't know how long it has to live.

I got it... about 5 years ago, which seems to be a standard lifespan for a monitor. It was a pretty good monitor back then.

Nowadays, LCDs seem to be getting all the rave.

But I do pro graphics work and I need good color output and, as far as I know, CRTs still have better color reliability than LCDs.

So I headed out to Microbytes with the idea that I'll simply by an upgrade to my monitor. They had a nice NEC 19 inc CRT that did all my monitor did and more, based on the same technology... and less expensive than what I paid back then.

Sound plan.

But when I got in the store and saw that the monitor was actually backordered, I slowly got seduced by the idea of an LCD screen.

I had done no real shopping (instead finding articles that mnostly confirmed that - in the price range I'm looking for - CRTs kick LCDs ass color-wise).

But I looked at the LCDs on display, nose glued to the screen, trying to figure out if I'd like the output of such a monitor - cuz their look and footprint is simply divine - Ah to regain 35% of my desk surface does seem like a dream.

I hesitated, looked, questionned, wondered for quite some time. The helpful salesman even plugged an LCD monitor on a computer with Internet access so I can look at pictures I'm familiar with.

But I had no real knowledge of what to look for. Is digital input really any useful? Does color distort? Is 8ms refresh good enough? What about 4ms? No clue.

Eventually, my weak mind, disposed to buying electronic gizmos with no need of strong rationnal support, buckled and I went home with a Viewsonic VX723 under my arm.

It even fit in my car's trunk (which my old 17inch monitor couldn't do while inside its box).

Plugged it at home. Loved the footprint. Loved the digital input (LCDs don't use an analog signal like CRTs do. With digital input there's no signal conversion and, therefore, no need to adjust screen size like on a typical CRT). Colors seemed ok (nothing to write home about, but sufficient for what I need to do). Video played well with no image ghosting (or motion blur). It could even be set to sRGB color profile and greatly minimized the color calibration process for my graphic apps.

I was on my way to being a happy camper.

Then the turd came visiting.

On a black screen there were four amorphous blobs of gray, clinging to the edges of the screen, gobbling up over 30% of the screen's surface.

It was not noticable on lighter surfaces. But in the dark surfaces it quickly became apparent that I could not work with it. Dark images would end up with gray borders onscreen. Sometimes the dark colors came out lighter than lighter colors which produced some ugly "inverse video" effect.

I went back to the store to glue my nose on the other LCDs see if this was a behavior of LCDs or if I just got a lemon. No LCD screens on display (VX724 wasn't there) had such an effect.

"I got a defective screen" was my immediate conclusion.

Next day I came back with the screen. Explained what I saw to the salesman who told me : "this model does that."

Seems like this model has this defect built in. The salesman told me he tried on a few monitors and they all did this. He them promptly offered to refund the monitor.

I happily accepted, thinking that I would go back home and do some more thorough research before I buy again.



This is what a black screen looked like - the image is blurry because I took it with no flash. Fiddling with brightess changed nothing. Designing artwork for print or for web with this kind of output is ridiculous. Looking at dark movies ain't too great either.

I still have doubts about whether that was a defect or not. It seems ridiculous that the model would behave this way and that no one on the net would be talking about it.

The research I did on inexpensive 17 inch LCDs was quite interresting.

Favorite article by far is the FiringSquad Budget LCD Roundup from April 2005. Great introduction on how LCDs work and what to look for.

They made me realize that digital input is a must for an LCD monitor. They made me understand properly what the refresh speeds were. 8ms is good and I'd probably be happy even with 12ms (which means 83 refreshes per second).

Their top low-key LCD monitor (NEC LCD1770NX) seems like a good option (though I've seen it downed in a ZDNet review for the exact same reasons it was praised in the FireSquad review.

This is rather troubling. I mean the Firesquad guys used a color-reading device to figure out that the NEC LCD monitor's was actually pretty good, while the guys at ZDNet are saying, right off the bat, that the colors are horrible.

Maybe the guys at ZDNet we comparing it to high-end LCDs (which can easily double, triple (or more) the cost). Maybe the guys at ZDNet didn't try to caliber the monitor? I have no clue.

The clue I had, though, was that these monitors were on sale at FutureShop. For rougly 200$ under their price at Microbytes. I woudl've loved to buy it from Microbytes - especially after they've been so great to me. They'll see me again when I have some more stuff to buy :)

The other thing that made me hesitate on the NEC Futureshop deal is that these are refurbished monitors. Eek. Yes. I know. Scary.

But FutureShop are usually quite true to their word with their return policy - return it quickly enough and they'll take it back, no questions asked.

So I went ahead and ordered one, which I should receive next week.

Extra sleek thing with the NEC monitor : it's got an integrated USB hub! There's no end to how neat I find this!!

So there you have it:

  • Viewsonic VX724 is a no-no - though it might be that I just got a defect.
  • NEC LCD1770NX is pending delivery.

no comment

Wednesday, August 3 2005

Mighty mouse'll save the day!!!

By Eric Maziade on Wednesday, August 3 2005, 18:09

I've always had a fondness for Apple's mouse designs. I loved the "iPuck". Well, I loved to look at it. Not touch it or manipulate it in every way. I had this wonderful idea that they should do a wireless version of it.

Y'know, perfectly circular, perfectly simmertrical, no write, no button (just apply pression on the iPuck to click). It'd be beautiful. And you'd have even less chances to be able to grab the mouse and know which way moves the pointer up.

Well, this went away with the old iMac and Apple built more sensible mice.

But now, there's a new mouse in town - apple's new, powerul, Mighty Mouse!

It's sleek. It looks buttonless. It even has a little clit-looking trackball ontop.

It's a trackball on a mouse! They shoulda called it the double mouse and leave my name alone!

Said a retired rodent superhero who preferred to remain anonymous.

It looks buttonless, but it has "sensors" that react when you apply pressure on them.

Me, I like to give these new technological widgets a name. Let me pull one out of my ass and let's call them "buttons".

Side buttons seem fine. But the top buttons... you can't feel'em or see'em. Call me old school, but I kinda believe that - even though it really looks pretty cool - it's incredibly counter intuitive and therefore starts dabbling in the realm of "bad design".

At least, mac users get a new pluti-sensitive-plated-tickle-me-spotted mouse and it looks pretty sleek. I almost can't wait to actually try one :P

no comment