LCD monitor advice

[IG-88]

OK. I'm thinking about making the change from CRT to LCD and wanted some advice on what to get.

Is there a certain guideline that most follow that have built a cab using these? Do I have to worry about Pixel Pitch, Contrast Ratio's, Response Time's, Viewing Angle's or what?

I have ZERO experience using these either in a cab or in the home. What has convinced me to try one is that I just bought 2 new LCD's for the home office and of course I had to try a few games thru one.   I'll have to admit the games looked pretty good. Not arcade authentic but damn nice. So, what should I concern myself with???

[Ummon]

Seriously, several topics and a lot of talk in each over the last two months. If nothing simply under 'LCD', add user Blanka. He's said a lot.

[IG-88]

That would require an EFFORT on my part in doing a search. Why in the world would I want to do that? 

[Turnarcades]

If you're a purist I hear they don't look quite right and might bug you if some of your classic games blur or aren't in quite the right resolution, but if you just wanna play and have the convenience of a lighter weight and lower profile then go for it.

[RandyT]

OK. I'm thinking about making the change from CRT to LCD and wanted some advice on what to get.

Is there a certain guideline that most follow that have built a cab using these?

 Do I have to worry about;

Pixel Pitch - Meh.

Contrast Ratio's - Probably.  Depends on the installation, but black levels are the more important component

Response Times - Yes.  Slow response means blurry images while in motion.

Viewing Angles - Depends on the installation.  If you are looking at the screen from a 90 degree angle, I wouldn't worry.  Tip it away from you and you could have a terrible picture, so worry.

So, what should I concern myself with???

Native resolution.  The higher, the better.  Higher native resolution allows for more flexibility in artifact-less image sizes, as well as more options for pixel-softening, raster simulation FX and more seamless looking vector screen representations.  Just keep in mind that higher native resolutions require more processing power to drive them.  Also make sure that you can directly address pixels.  Some TV's won't let you get at the pixels unmolested by internal processors, even using digital inputs.  Fine for a TV, but not so fine for this type of application.

RandyT

[Blanka]

Seriously, several topics and a lot of talk in each over the last two months. If nothing simply under 'LCD', add user Blanka. He's said a lot.

Where to find a big 4:3 LCD
Ideas for a 32" LCD
4:3 or 16:9 for Possible Bartop?
20in+ LCD (not widescreen if possible) Sellers??]4:3 or 16:9 for Possible Bartop?
Arcade LCDs any good?
That's just a small selection on topics with my reactions.

To make things even easier:
What do you want?
Size
15 inch  4:3 screens in 1024x768 are made, get an old IPS/MVA screen
17-19 inch  does not exist in 4:3 (it's 5:4 only)
20-21 inch get an DELL 2001FP for 20 inch 4:3 or a Samsung 214T/Eizo S2100 for 4:3 21,3 inch
24-27 inch: These are all 16:10. Excellent are the 24 inch HP LP2475w, Hyundai W241D or Eizo S2431W, the 26 inch LG W2600HP (don't be fooled by US only LGW2600H-PF, that one sucks), 27 inch Dell 2709W
30 inch: Don't buy computer 30 inch screens. Their 2560x1600 pixel resolution is a pain to support.
Bigger: go shop for TV's, best from LG or Samsung, as they make the best panels (S-IPS and S-PVA), all are 16:9. Try to find a 1920x1080 panel. Stay away from the 768x1366 pixel panels as their resolution is too low for a cab. It has to few pixels for HD gaming and for decent tridot-overlays and is harder to drive 1:1 mapping with PC's.

ALWAYS enable "SYNC WITH SCREEN/VERTICAL REFRESH" in every game/emulator you use. Otherwise LCD display stinks!
NEVER mount TN displays VERTICAL! Horizontal they look OK, but vertical it is depressing.

[kagaden]

Bigger: go shop for TV's, best from LG or Samsung, as they make the best panels (S-IPS and S-PVA), all are 16:9. Try to find a 1920x1080 panel. Stay away from the 768x1366 pixel panels as their resolution is too low for a cab. It has to few pixels for HD gaming and for decent tridot-overlays and is harder to drive 1:1 mapping with PC's.

Agree with everything (also the buy on Samsung models) but the above bold. It's not quite as simple as that, it really depends on what you're looking for.

My 32" 720p (768x1366) Sammy looks gorgeous at 3 feet away, and is the native resolution for SFIV arcade when it hits on the PC. Getting a 1080p display would be a waste.

For my setup:
- No ghosting/latency for gaming.
- 1:1 pixel mapping was perfect out of the box with an nVidia 9800GT.
- The jump from 1080p from 720p is minor at best at close distances especially when upscaling games. My home theater has a 61" Samsung 1080P LED DLP as well and did some side by side comparisons. The real jump is from standard def to 720p.
- Find an emu with some good blitters and scanlines you like to clean up the image.
- A 1080p display will require more videocard horsepower.
- A 1080p display will give you smaller icons on your desktop due to the higher resolution. This can make it difficult to read if you're back a ways.

For Consoles:
- If you're hooking up an Xbox or PS3, 90% of HD games run in 720p anyway, a 1080p display will simply upscale the source. This may be okay or bad depending on the TV.

So in the end, I recommend 720p for:
- Under 37" and under 5 feet to the screen.
- Upscaling older games (less horsepower).
- Newer console/PC 720p games.

I'd recommend 1080 for:
- Vector games where more resolution cleans up the image dramatically.
- If you're getting something that's at or over 37" and will be sitting about 5 feet or more away from the screen.
- Blu-Ray, if you plan on watching HD videos on your cab.

[Blanka]

I only explained the preference for 1080 partly.
Under 3 feet distance, pixels of 768x1366 screens are too big IMO
1080P panels cost only 50 bucks more nowadays then the 768p screens, yet they are future proof for Blu-Ray, PS3 gaming (PS3 does work at 1080 lines)
720P does not have 1:1 pixel mapping on 768x1366 either, so it always scales, not matter what screen you use. Real 720p displays only appear in some notebooks.
Why didn't they make those displays 720x1280 anyway? What sick technician decided to get 1366x768 mainstream? LSD tripped one?
1080P panels mostly are the newest panels in the line-up, and have better viewing angles/contrast.

[Blanka]

If you're a purist I hear they don't look quite right

I'm a purist. Serve that pixelart as blocky as possible! I love my 5x5 non-smooth upscaling on a 1600x1200 screen 

[Zobeid]

I put a new 19" LCD arcade monitor (from Happ) in my cabinet.  I love it, but I ran into a few small issues, or quibbles, I didn't expect. . .

The aspect ratio is not a true classic 4:3, which means everything was just a little distorted.  (Turns out this is common to SVGA computer monitors, but I just never knew it before.)  Most people would never noticed, but it bugged me.  I eventually found that if I put Windows into the monitor's native resolution and made sure MAME didn't change it, then I could get it to "letterbox" the image with small black bars at the top and bottom, and the correct aspect ratio.

The LCD is very bright but doesn't produce a truly dark black background -- which actually makes it better than a CRT for use in well-lighted areas.  (If only the machines at the convenience store back in the 1980s had LCDs, they would have been easier to play!)  If you put it into a dark corner, where an arcade machine belongs, then the gray background can be annoying.  For the old timey space games, it's a bit like playing in the fog.  I tried putting a bezel of smoked glass over the screen, as somebody else here on BYOAC suggested, but the results were mixed.  It darkened the background, but it darkened everything so much, I then had to adjust the monitor and video settings to compensate, and that made the background lighter again. . .  I eventually put a non-smoked bezel on and decided to live with the fog.  (From past experience, LCDs get darker as they age, so it may look a lot better in a couple of years than it does now.)

I have a rotating monitor, and when it's turned vertical (clockwise from the standard position), then the viewing angle becomes marginal.  It's actually the two-player games where this is a concern -- for the player on the left, for player one, it's still playable but the image is just starting to go a bit dark-and-funny from that position.

I wouldn't use one in a cocktail cabinet, I'd be too concerned about the viewing angle issue.

Aside from that, I highly recommend the LCD monitor.  It's compact, lightweight, doesn't require degaussing, and made my rotating monitor rig surprisingly easy to design and build.  It's not "authentic" for CRT games, but looks great anyhow and probably handles vector games better than most CRTs, due to its sharpness.

The purpose-built arcade LCD from Happ made things really easy, from an installation standpoint.  It's a solid piece of gear.

[kagaden]

I only explained the preference for 1080 partly.
Under 3 feet distance, pixels of 768x1366 screens are too big IMO

My opinion differs. I'd recommend for a purchaser to hit a best buy or similar electronics shop and stand however far you'd be away from the screen with your cabinet. If you fixate on the LCD pixels over the content, then it's probably best to go with 1080p, if not you won't notice it when you get it home. I personally think it's a waste of processing power and good money for the minor enhancement to image resolution for arcade cabinets.

1080P panels cost only 50 bucks more nowadays then the 768p screens, yet they are future proof for Blu-Ray, PS3 gaming (PS3 does work at 1080 lines)

Samsung LN32A550 @ 1080p at Amazon compared to the Samsung LN32A450 @ 720p  right now has a price difference of ~$170. Granted, you also get improved contrast ratio and some other premium features I don't think make much difference in an arcade cab.

http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-LN32A550-32-Inch-1080p-HDTV/dp/B00141AYM8/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1231827054&sr=8-1#
http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-LN32A450-32-Inch-720p-HDTV/dp/B00141AYIC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1231827089&sr=8-1#

PS3 does true 1080p with some certain games, the majority run under 1080p still though. To tell you the truth, I can barely tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on a 61" display. HD usually looks great all around... while standard definition looks like mud on these displays. If you're watching Blu-ray's I agree to get the 1080p display though, those are always 1080p native.

720P does not have 1:1 pixel mapping on 768x1366 either, so it always scales, not matter what screen you use. Real 720p displays only appear in some notebooks.

Only if you're using a native 720p source. If you're using a PC, you set the game to 768x1366 and you'll have 1:1 pixel mapping. This is a non issue for a mame box since you'll set your full screen resolution in the emulator. You're right that, if you have an Xbox 360 and pop in a 720p game, it will upscale slightly, potentially causing interpolation. Then again... a whole lot of Xbox 360 and some PS3 titles don't even run at true 720p, but rather some lower resolution (see Halo 3).

Why didn't they make those displays 720x1280 anyway? What sick technician decided to get 1366x768 mainstream? LSD tripped one?
1080P panels mostly are the newest panels in the line-up, and have better viewing angles/contrast.

Both Samsung 720p and 1080p models have the same 178 degree viewing angle all the way around. I've gotta say it looks great

http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-LN32A550-32-Inch-1080p-HDTV/dp/B00141AYM8/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1231827054&sr=8-1#
http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-LN32A450-32-Inch-720p-HDTV/dp/B00141AYIC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1231827089&sr=8-1#

Did I mention I recommend Samsung yet? I should gain commission!

[u_rebelscum]

Why didn't they make those displays 720x1280 anyway? What sick technician decided to get 1366x768 mainstream? LSD tripped one?

I've heard a few reasons, most mentioned here (mostly posts by J.J.). 

To sum up, 768 is binary friendly, a common PC res so video chips were already designed for it, 768*1366 is closer to the "1 meg" cheap chip "limit", and LCD & plasma manufacturing limits/costs.  (The latter two are out of date thank goodness.)  FWIW, the scaling chips have gotten a lot better than they were; I vowed to never buy an always scaled res (like 768x1266, but especially stuff like 1024x1024) years ago, but the high end 768p scalers have gotten almost unnoticeable to me (broadcast HD/bluray).  I'm still only looking at 1080p TVs, though (was looking at true 720p TVs, but they aren't around anymore).

However, for PC monitor, especially in a cab (showcase excepted), exact res is less important, since you aren't going to watch movies or tv on a cab (except showcases).  Higher res, the better (as long as the video chip can handdle it).  For PC LCDs, unless the monitor is 90 degrees to both users, stay away from TN, and stick with (S)IPS, (S)PVA, or MVA.  If you tilt the monitor back (like pacman or cocktail cabs), TN sucks.  All cheap LCD monitors are TN, though, so it is hard to pass them up; just be sure to mount them as close to 90 degrees, and be aware that a 10 year old (or your 7 foot friend) will get a different view than you, and live with it.

Luckily most good quality, and all high quality, TVs are PVA/IPS/MVA.

[IG-88]

Wow, great advice. Thanks all! My primary use for LCD's at the moment will be bartops either 15" or 17".  19" being too big IMHO. I'll probably try 17" for vertical only cabs but I'm not sure yet. I'll have to get one and see what it looks like.

Blanka you said try an old "IPS/MVA screen" for 15" 4:3. Are those brand types or what? I'll do a google on that after this post and maybe answer this myself.

Another question(s) I had was what kinda life expectancy do LCD's have? Is it worth buying used/off-leased or should I fork over the extra for a new or perhaps "refurbished" one? Is there a certain brand name that everyone "stays away" from?

[IG-88]

OK. I just read the "4:3 or 16:9 for Possible Bartop"? post and it gave me a fricken' headache. I think I'm gonna stick with CRT's for bartops for now. 1080p, 768p, 720p, scalers, latency, PVA/IPS/MVA, not black blacks, who the fark needs it. Way to complicated.

[Ginsu Victim]

20-21 inch get an DELL 2001FP for 20 inch 4:3

I just looked that up and it has a 16 ms response time. Isn't that a bit too slow for games?

[Blanka]

16 ms is perfect. 1 frame lag is very normal and not noticeable.

[RandyT]

16 ms is perfect. 1 frame lag is very normal and not noticeable.

It's not "lag".  Lag is what you get from a processor before displaying the image.  The response time is how long it takes for the pixel to be completely on after being instructed to be on.  That means the pixel is "in transition" for 16ms.

Seems to me that would be a bit blurry and not great for gaming.

RandyT

[Ummon]

16 ms is perfect. 1 frame lag is very normal and not noticeable.

??...I'd notice it.

[bgspot]

16 ms?! You definitely want 8 ms or less.

[Blanka]

A CRT has 50ms fade time. A first gen S-IPS has 16ms response time, but no lag, a new generation with overdrive has 16ms lag and 8ms response time, S-PVA has 5ms response time, but 32ms G2G overdrive calculation lag. TN has 1 frame dithering-calculation lag. So overal, a 16ms S-IPS without any processing on the signal is one of the best solutions available.

Then there is the brain, who can predict hand-eye coordination 2-4 frames in advance for most arcade games (not for online shooters), which compensates perfectly for the delay between the joystick operation and the result on screen. Only thing cumbersome is 2 frames calculation for PVA overdrive. That results in a complete lag of 50ms, which is too much. All other delays are perfect handled by the human brain.

[MonMotha]

All depends on how they are spec'ing it.  16ms G-G is pretty pathetic by even modern IPS standards, but 16ms B-B isn't too shabby.  That's pretty typical for a good H-IPS type with proper overdrive like the NEC 2490WUXi which specifies 16ms B-B and 8ms G-G.  Of course, there's all sorts of G-G specifications, too, which is often how those silly 2ms type numbers are pulled out of various orifaces.

TN and VA type panels do tend to have better response times than IPS, though sometimes there are processing delays (latency - see below) to achieve those response times.  However, they sacrifice color gamut and viewing angle to do it.  Color gamut is probably not a concern for you, but viewing angle probably is.  Most TN displays will start to at least dim and usually color shift when viewed off-angle by as little as 10-15 degrees in either direction.  VA type panels do OK horizontally, but usually have the same problem with vertical off-angle viewing as TN.  S-IPS is by far the best technology out there, but H-IPS represents little compromise and gets you notably better response times.  Unfortunately, IPS panels are hard to come by these days due to cost pressure: IPS panels cost a lot.  That 24" NEC monitor retails for ~$1000.

As several have pointed out, response time != display latency ("lag").  Response time is the time during which the pixel is "in transition" before it arrives at its commanded state.  This effectively looks like a blur effect.  Latency is (usually) caused by digital scaler chains, and just results in a video stream that is delayed.  PC monitors rarely exhibit notable latency (cheap monitors are usually at worst a frame or two), but all LCDs have response time.  I consider ANY measureable latency (greater than one frame) unacceptable in a monitor application, but I'll take at most 1 frame on a TV if I don't have serious gaming intent (I just returned a TV with such latency though - it lagged too much for some of my games).  It is noticeable on games like beatmaniaIIDX and pop'n music which involve very precise timing, even tigher than some fighters.

[kagaden]

A CRT has 50ms fade time.

Source? If by "ms" you mean "milliseconds" you're way off, that'd make for a horrible picture. Microseconds I'd say maybe... but still think response rate is faster than that. That is... if you're even talking about pixel response rate.

50 Microseconds would put it faster than any LCD out there. For reference, my Samsung LED DLP has a pixel response time of 16MICROsecond response time... putting it at .016 Millisecond refresh.

In contrast to LCD displays, plasma televisions and CRT TVs have a virtually instantaneous response time.
http://www.practical-home-theater-guide.com/lcd-response-time.html

Also, go for 8millisecond or lower pixel response time when shopping for an LCD as already mentioned above, as a general rule of thumb.

Our experience show that even with some 8msec LCD display panels, the discerning eye may still be able to detect a slight 'trailer' or blurring effect, where the individual pixels on the LCD display appear to be just out of step with the image on the screen during very fast sports events and action movie scenes.
http://www.practical-home-theater-guide.com/lcd-response-time.html