17" TFT - is DVI worth it??

[oxygen]

Yay or Nay??

I'm looking for a couple of 17" TFTs and I thought I had settled on a pair of LG's but I'm not so sure anymore. Not that I've heard anything bad about LG but the one I was looking doesn't actually have a DVI input.

As far as I can tell, going for DVI over plain old VGA seems to cost atleast £30.

[Boogle]

Spending the cash you already are, you might as well spend the little extra. I found on an analogue LCD at work (my one has only been on analogue for about 5 seconds when I tested to make sure it was working) that a static full colour image can appear to flicker (probably only noticeable if you are very sensitive to flicker) slightly. No doubt this is where the colours where slightly changing every so often because of numerous conversions and slight interference. Also I noticed the analogue LCD suffered from moire like CRTs (display a pattern that alternates between black and white every pixel). This was using a Matrox G550, so it output a quality signal.

Definately go DVI.

[myth]

I agree! DVI can produce a cleaner image... Get a LCD that has both!

[Spud1]

pfft not worth it unless you spend a fortunes on the GFX hardware and monitors... your better off with CRTs than tfts anyway but thats going a little OT. Lack of DVI isnt a real issue with the cheap [sub £500] TfTs as they dont produce a good enough quality image to need one. I would liken it to using an ATA133 cable with a UDMA33 drive - it will work ok but its a waste

[Boogle]

Lack of DVI isnt a real issue with the cheap [sub £500] TfTs as they dont produce a good enough quality image to need one.e

Where on earth did you get that idea from? Sub £500? That excludes all 17" LCDs then... Sharpness of an LCD remains the same regardless of price since the pixels are static. The only thing that changes with cost is colour and response times. Unlike CRTs they aren't affected by outside factors (magnetism primarily), they use less power, don't fire electromagnetic radiation at your face (the reason no CRT can match an LCDs brightness, it would exceed safety standards), and overall they rock. Unless you're an artist, then you need a CRT for colour reasons.

I have a 17" CRT next to my 17" LCD and the difference is like night and day. I also have an Eizo 21" CRT (£600) that is no match to any LCD I've seen. Sub £500 lol. They need DVI to ensure sharpness and protect against interference and signal degredation (LCDs display slight flaws in anything a lot more than a CRT).

Noticed you're using HDs in RAID0, not much of a performance increase using RAID0 in the real world, and you've always got the 133MB/sec PCI bus capping it anyway. JBOD if you want multiple drives in 1

[Firelord]

I agree with Boogle and I dare say numerous other members will DVI IS important I have an LG 1710B w/DVI and run DVI and the quality is spot on and looks fantastic. Switching to D-Sub lost the sharpness imho.

Another advantage is its all digital no loss of signal in conversion

Ohh and TFTs don't suffer from refresh problems (60Hz on a CRT is a killer) take up less room, look better and becoming cheaper by the day.....

Why would you want a CRT???

[TiG]

Yep another big vote for LCD screen here, had mine for about 6 months now and by far and away it destroys CRT's in my opinion. Never going back to CRT's after i've had this superb LCD...

TiG

[nichomach]

Well, the dispute isn't between CRT and LCD but between analog and DVI LCD; and on the basis of my own experience I'd say DVI is definitely worth it. I run off two Belinea TFTs which I've run off both the DVI and analog inputs, and the difference IS perceptible in terms of clarity, colour reproduction, all the things which make up that nebulous thing called "image quality". Sorry, spud1, but I've seen the difference on the same hardware. You'll probably be using this screen for years, oxygen. If you're definitely going the TFT route, get one with DVI input.

[faisal_uk]

I have heard from some people that the VGA on a TFT with VGA only is usually better than the VGA ouput on a TFT with both DVI & VGA

Does this make any sense?

[daniel_owen_uk]

Not really.

I have both on my TFT and would use the dvi all the time, one of the nicest things about is you dont have to resize the screen at all, its perfect for your screen all the time. Might not be worth £30 for that alone.

To be honest if you are gonna be spending £300 on a screen wouldn't you want to pay the extra £30 to be sure its gonna be best it can?

[directhex]

one of the big bonuses with dvi is the image is always perfect - change resolution, it's automatically exactly the right size for the screen. no faffing about.

as a result, it looks nicer than vga, as it exactly fills the pixels as it's meant to, no overspill

[Byatt]

I agree with Boogle and I dare say numerous other members will DVI IS important I have an LG 1710B w/DVI and run DVI and the quality is spot on and looks fantastic. Switching to D-Sub lost the sharpness imho.

Same monitor here, and same answer. DVI all the way.

[oxygen]

Wow that was quick... Thanks guys I think its gotta be DVI after reading this...

Just one other question: Do you people sleep?

[myth]

Wow that was quick... Thanks guys I think its gotta be DVI after reading this...

Just one other question: Do you people sleep?

Hell no!