[hudson1]

I'm contemplating a new mini and would also need to buy a reasonably priced 17" LCD monitor to go with it. How much of an advantage is digital input versus analog? From looking at a lot of online prices, it seems that digital input adds somewhere around $40 to $50 to the price of a comparable analog-only monitor.

I was also reading some PC Mag reviews of monitors (they do good reviews even if it's not a Mac magazine) and I got the impression that if an analog monitor has good syncing capabilitity, you won't notice a difference versus digital input. Is this due to the relatively small size of 17" versus some of the truly big LCDs?

A second topic: Does perceived viewing resolution change going from CRTs to LCDs? Example... I have my 17" CRT (16" actual) set to 1152 X 864 which works out to 90 dpi actual. On an LCD, will I still feel most comfortable with 90 dpi or does the sharpness allow you to go up to say 100 dpi which is the native resolution of the 17" iMac G5?

What are some of your exeriences, thoughts, and advice? Thanks.

[andreas_g4]

I use a Mac mini with the cheapest non-DVI (sounds better than analog ) I could find, a Videoseven 17" screen, and it works flawless. I'd have too see a 17" DVI next to it to compare, but from what I see the image is really good, great sharpness. It works good for me, I can't afford anything better.

Here's a pic of the screen. It looks better in nature.

Here's the manufacturers website for the product.

[Cadaver]

For lower resolutions like 1280x1024, a good VGA interface will be virtually the same picture quality-wise as a DVI interface on the same monitor. For larger resolutions, DVI definately has the edge in sharpness.

For LCDs, I recommend only running them at their native resolution (which, for virtually all 17-19" LCDs will be 1280x1024). Running at a non-native resolution will result in uncomfortable text blurriness and geometric distortion (pixels may no longer be truely square). Not a big deal for games... but text is horrible at non-native resolution.

[hudson1]

Originally posted by Cadaver:
For lower resolutions like 1280x1024, a good VGA interface will be virtually the same picture quality-wise as a DVI interface on the same monitor. For larger resolutions, DVI definately has the edge in sharpness.

For LCDs, I recommend only running them at their native resolution (which, for virtually all 17-19" LCDs will be 1280x1024). Running at a non-native resolution will result in uncomfortable text blurriness and geometric distortion (pixels may no longer be truely square). Not a big deal for games... but text is horrible at non-native resolution.

Thanks for the reply. Here's the part that I'm not sure about: As I mentioned above, my CRT with a 16" actual diagonal set to 1152 X 864 works out to 90 dpi and that seems "right" for my eyes. I know that resetting the resolution to 1280 X 960 (100 dpi) just doesn't work for me. To get close to that same 90 dpi resolution with a native 1280 X 1024 LCD, I'd need to purchase an 18" LCD (91.1 dpi), which are uncommon, instead of a 17" LCD (96.4 dpi). How likely is that change from 90 to 96.4 going to feel "wrong" (making me lean to the 18" screen) or does the better image in an LCD compensate for the resolution change with most people?

[Cadaver]

I guess it depends on how your eyes are. Things may be a bit smaller than you're used to on the 17", but certainly much sharper than a CRT. Perhaps consider an 18" or 19" then (all of which would share the same 1280x1024 pixel matrix).

FYI: Current Apple displays (the 20", 23" and 30") are all very close/equal to 100dpi.

[ideasculptor]

Am I missing something here, or would you just move the monitor a little closer or farther away until things are 'right?' We're talking abuot pretty small differences, here. Less than 10%. You should be able to make that adjustment with distance to the screen without discomfort regarding focus.

--sam

[Brian McHale]

It is my understanding that the real advantage of DVi vs VGA is only apparent when driving a digital monitor. In this case, you avoid a digital-to-analog conversion, which gives a more stable and sharper picture.

If you use a DVI output to drive an analog monitor which happens to have a DVI input, the D/A conversion still has to be done (it's just done in the monitor instead of your computer). In this case, the difference in quality would be little if any.

In other words, if you're going to use an analog display, it's probably not worth paying extra for a DVI input.

[hudson1]

Originally posted by Brian McHale:
It is my understanding that the real advantage of DVi vs VGA is only apparent when driving a digital monitor. In this case, you avoid a digital-to-analog conversion, which gives a more stable and sharper picture.

If you use a DVI output to drive an analog monitor which happens to have a DVI input, the D/A conversion still has to be done (it's just done in the monitor instead of your computer). In this case, the difference in quality would be little if any.

In other words, if you're going to use an analog display, it's probably not worth paying extra for a DVI input.

Wow, the more I learn the more I end up needing to learn. I didn't realize that LCD monitors can be digital or analog. My impression was that they were all "digital" using an interanal A to D converter for the VGA-in signal. The DVI signal wasn't converted at all. From what you're saying, my impression only applies to a "digital" LCD and is essentially backward for an "analog" LCD (VGA handled as is, DVI sent through a D to A converter). Is this right?

[Macola]

Originally posted by Brian McHale:
It is my understanding that the real advantage of DVi vs VGA is only apparent when driving a digital monitor. In this case, you avoid a digital-to-analog conversion, which gives a more stable and sharper picture.

If you use a DVI output to drive an analog monitor which happens to have a DVI input, the D/A conversion still has to be done (it's just done in the monitor instead of your computer). In this case, the difference in quality would be little if any.

In other words, if you're going to use an analog display, it's probably not worth paying extra for a DVI input.

Where did you see that? I think you may be confusing it with the difference between DVI-D and DVI-I connectors. Either way, it's still digital.

[Brian McHale]

I realize that DVI is digital. I was talking about the technology behind the monitor. Apple flat panels, for instance, are digital. If you see two versions of a cheap flat panel display, and one has DVI, they're both analog displays. The one with the DVI interface accepts the digital signal and converts it to analog; basically, it has a built-in DVI-to-VGA interface.

My point is that there's probably no advantage to paying for a monitor with a built-in DVI-to-VGA interface if your computer has a VGA output.

[Cadaver]

Try not to confuse the issue...

LCD displays that are driven via VGA (analog) signals have internal A-to-D converters. This can lead to image problems, particularly with cheap monitors or higher resolutions. The VGA signal is designed for a CRT's electron gun sweeping across a phosphor-coated screen at certain speed ranges (aka refresh rate).

An LCD using a digital DVI interface doesn't do this step - the computer's output maps 1:1 to the LCD's panel. Hence, you find no CRTs with a digital DVI interface.

>> To satisfy the nitpickers - a CRT could have an analog DVI interface (essentially an analog VGA signal with a DVI-shaped connector) or could have an internal D-to-A converter. Either way, in the end, CRTs must be driven by an analog signal. <<

A monitor's A-to-D converter is not perfect. Some information will get lost - sharp edges will be blurred, colors could be slightly off, signal amplitude could wobble causing an unsteady picture, etc. And it will only be as good as the VGA signal coming to it, which, don't forget, began as a digital signal inside the computer. It was converted to an analog signal via the graphics card's D-to-A ("DAC") chip. Note that many graphics cards will give specifications on its D-to-A converter chip; a faster, higher-resolution DAC can mean a better VGA signal. Better VGA signal can mean a sharper image on CRTs, especially large-size/high-resolution CRTs. Example, the Radeon 9800 XT advertises 10-bit 400MHz DACs. A DVI signal effectively bypasses this whole step.

LCDs, by definition, are all digital monitors. However, some are designed to only accept analog VGA signals (reconverting them to a digital signal internally), and do not include the circuitry necessary for a DVI input.

For LCD displays being driven by an analog VGA signal, the picture quality-limiting step in most cases will be the quality of the display's A-to-D conversion. And in most inexpensive displays, where you will most likely find a VGA-only LCD panel, don't expect a super-high-quality one.


Either way, DVI has significant advantages. However, at low resolutions, the advantages may not be as apparent.

[Calli46]

After many years tearing my eyes over bad VGA monitors, I was lucky enough to get an iMac G5 17" to work with from my employer. Needless to say, the screen of the iMac is DVI. The sharpness and the steadiness of iMac monitor is fantastic! Suddenly, at home, I couldn't use my 19" Viewsonic CRT any longer. So I bought a 19" Benq LCD, which has both DVI and VGA inputs. Why 19" ? 'Cause my eyes are, at the very least, as old as me.
First thing I did was trying to connect it to my PMac G4 through DVI. No luck, I needed a ADC to DVI connector to do that. So I ordered one, meanwhile I started using it thru the supplied VGA cable. The image was very good and stable. When I got the ADC adapter, I went for a ADC-DVI to DVI connection. Now, the big question is : which is better the 17" iMac G5, the 19" Benq thru VGA or the same Benq connected thru DVI ? It's anybody's guess! Very hard to tell without having two monitors side by side.

I like the iMac monitor a little better because it's native resolution is 1440x960 instead of 1280x1024. It is wider so I can easily look at two documents side by side. But the Benq is easier on the eye with its bigger pixels. Now, going from VGA to DVI on the Benq didn't change a thing : the screen looked as good with VGA. On the other hand, I'm planning to get a dual link graphics card for my PMac. Then, I will be able to use my old CRT as a second monitor connected thru the VGA port and the DVI LCD thru the DVI port. That may be another advantage of a DVI LCD. It keeps the VGA port free for a VGA monitor, assuming you have a dual port graphics card.

[mhuie]

I have a Dell 18.1" LCD with dual inputs as well as a samsung 21" 213T also with dual inputs, the differences are night and day. These are on my PC's with a Radeon 9500 Pro and a Nvidia 6600GT

VGA input is much blurrier and has pretty bad ghosting. I would highly recommend staying away from a monitor with VGA only input, unless there is a compelling reason not to. At least try hooking it up in the store and comparing before you take one home.

[hudson1]

Thanks everyone for the replies. In the intervening days I've done a little window shopping for monitors and here are some thoughts that I came away with:

There are some very noticeable differences in LCD monitor clarity and that's most easily detected by viewing text. Apple and Sony are superb. LG seemed pretty good. Every Viewsonic I saw looked blurry by comparison. BenQ was pretty sharp but their whites are way too bright and overpower everything else. Samsung, if I'm remembering this well enough, were not as good as the Apple and Sony and don't seem to justify their premium prices (up their with Apple and Sony). NEC's seemed pretty good, maybe in line with the LG's. The one Xerox monitor I saw was very sharp but was darker on the upper half of the screen. Since it was only one I can't say whether that's just a singular defect or something worse. Acer monitors were sharp and particularly good value for the price. HP and Gateway were not very good. Never saw a Dell and probably won't in a store.

Other than the Apple monitors, I believe all that I saw were hooked up via VGA except for maybe one of the Sonys.

Some other thoughts: LCDs are sharper than CRTs for the most part and probably do allow someone to move a bit higher in actual dpi viewing. I know I can't go above 90 dpi on my eMac but 100 dpi on the 17" iMac seemed acceptable. Lastly, the monitor world is driven by outdated Windows thinking. Monitors, other than Apple's, are too square and I suspect this is an outgrowth of the Windows legacy of using only one application at a time (originated with Win 3.1?). Unless you have a wide aspect monitor, you just have a lot of wasted pixels that can't be effectively used for multiple windows. Even 19" monitors are only 1280 pixels wide. We need cheap 17" monitors that are 1140 X 900, like the iMac and PB-17 monitors. That would be the perfect match for the Mac mini.

[brettcamp]

Check http://www.macworld.com/2004/09/revi...elcd/index.php

I got the Samsung and love it.