Sony X-Black Monitors

[PC-Engine]

http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=617

http://www.pcplus.co.uk/reviews/def...9&subsectionid=372&subsubsectionid=41

Truth hurts...

 

[London Geezer]

http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=617

Truth hurts...

That's the OLD model, genius. We're talking about the new models!! Fuckin hell you can't even read the whole freaking thread before trolling.

 

[London Geezer]

That's the new range

And here.

 

[PC-Engine]

I know it's the old model. The point is it uses X-black coating.

It also uses Sony's X-black technology, so the screen is lit by two lamps, and uses a different type of coating that should offer less colour distortion.

The downside is that when viewed from an angle there are odd purple reflections present, but it's genuinely beautiful when viewed straight on.

That's from a laptop using X-black.

 

[London Geezer]

You don't wanna listen, forget it.

We're not talking about old models, we're not talking about laptops. WE're talking about the [read my lips] new, very expensive, models.

There's nothing more to add to this thread.

 

[London Geezer]

The response times quoted by manufacturers are not that interesting. There is a whole lot of other things that determine the fitness of those LCD's to play games, or even the actual response times.

For starters, what do those numbers mean? What does it mean, having a response time of 8ms? Full screen or single pixel? From dark to bright and back, or the other way around? What technology is the display using? And what about the delay? Which delay? There are multiple.

Normally, the time it takes for a single pixel to switch from off (dark, normally) to on (bright) is less than the time it takes to switch the other way around. Capacity and all that. And each technology has it's own relation between switching single pixels or an area, and the amount of "bleeding" that happens between adjacent pixels and slows the transition. Or even the time it takes to update a full screen, or only the pixels that changed.

Whatever. In short, all this means is that the time specified is the best case of a single pixel switching the way it does best and disregarding everything else. If you want to see if it runs games well, go take a look and see for yourself.

This is all they say

HS75P specifications

* Panel size - 17" SXGA
* LCD response time (rise:fall) - 4:4 ms
* Native resolution: MegaPixels/pixels - 1.3 MP/1280 x 1024
* Luminance - 420 cd/m2
* Contrast (max.) - 600:1
* Viewing angle (H:V) - 160°:160°
* Signal inputs - HD15/DVI-D

HS95P specifications

* Panel size - 19" SXGA
* LCD response time (rise:fall) - 4:8 ms
* Native resolution: MegaPixels/pixels - 1.3 MP/1280 x 1024
* Luminance - 450 cd/m2
* Contrast (max.) - 1000:1
* Viewing angle (H:V) - 170°:170°
* Signal inputs - HD15/DVI-D

Strange thing is, they say these 2 have speakers, but they actually don't.
Only the TV version of these screens have speakers. They're basically the same screens but with TV tuners, more inputs and speakers, to qualify as TVs... Go figure...

 

[BrianWarming]

I have this monitor : (Wow x 2)

http://www.eizo.com/products/lcd/l578/index.asp
(check out the flash animation also)

I wise I could compare it to the Sony SDM-HS75P because I need another LCD monitor for my kid brother and maybe the Sony one is just as good (but a lot cheaper). You should check the Eizo monitor out before buying the Sony. In the german magazine PC Games Hardware the 17" Sony SDM-HS75P got the best score among the 17â€￾ monitors. To bad they didn't test the Eizo. Then the following month they tested the Eizo monior L778 (the 19â€￾ version) giving it the highest score ever. I'm still waiting for them to test the 17" also.