LCD question

I've just got a 20" Viewsonic VP2000s but there's a major screening
effect going on. It looks like the border between pixels is way
thicker in proportion to the pixel size itself, which gives the image
a pixelated retro look. I'd never seen this on 17" or 18" LCDs. Is it
normal for 20" or is it because this brand/model is bottom of the line
for 20"? What about Samsung 204T? TIA.

"Alan S" wrote in message
...
I've just got a 20" Viewsonic VP2000s but there's a major screening
effect going on. It looks like the border between pixels is way
thicker in proportion to the pixel size itself, which gives the image
a pixelated retro look. I'd never seen this on 17" or 18" LCDs. Is it
normal for 20" or is it because this brand/model is bottom of the line
for 20"? What about Samsung 204T? TIA.


Best get the obvious questions out of the way ;o) Are you running it at its
native resolution?

"BillL" wrote:
"Alan S" wrote in message

I've just got a 20" Viewsonic VP2000s but there's a major screening
effect going on. It looks like the border between pixels is way
thicker in proportion to the pixel size itself, which gives the image
a pixelated retro look. I'd never seen this on 17" or 18" LCDs. Is it
normal for 20" or is it because this brand/model is bottom of the line
for 20"? What about Samsung 204T? TIA.

Best get the obvious questions out of the way ;o) Are you running it at its
native resolution?

Of course.

FWIW, I'm looking at the screen with a loupe now and it looks like the
vertical spacing between pixels is about 1/3 of the height of the
pixel itself. Horizontal gaps are smaller.

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:07:07 GMT, Alan S wrote:

I've just got a 20" Viewsonic VP2000s but there's a major screening
effect going on. It looks like the border between pixels is way
thicker in proportion to the pixel size itself, which gives the image
a pixelated retro look. I'd never seen this on 17" or 18" LCDs. Is it
normal for 20" or is it because this brand/model is bottom of the line
for 20"? What about Samsung 204T? TIA.

Sounds like you might need to adjust your convergence.

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 00:02:23 -0800, Ian East ian.east@gmail wrote:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:07:07 GMT, Alan S wrote:

I've just got a 20" Viewsonic VP2000s but there's a major screening
effect going on. It looks like the border between pixels is way
thicker in proportion to the pixel size itself, which gives the image
a pixelated retro look. I'd never seen this on 17" or 18" LCDs. Is it
normal for 20" or is it because this brand/model is bottom of the line
for 20"? What about Samsung 204T? TIA.

Sounds like you might need to adjust your convergence.

Oooookay g

"Alan S" wrote in message
...
"BillL" wrote:
"Alan S" wrote in message

I've just got a 20" Viewsonic VP2000s but there's a major screening
effect going on. It looks like the border between pixels is way
thicker in proportion to the pixel size itself, which gives the
image
a pixelated retro look. I'd never seen this on 17" or 18" LCDs. Is
it
normal for 20" or is it because this brand/model is bottom of the
line
for 20"? What about Samsung 204T? TIA.

Best get the obvious questions out of the way ;o) Are you running it
at its
native resolution?

Of course.

FWIW, I'm looking at the screen with a loupe now and it looks like the
vertical spacing between pixels is about 1/3 of the height of the
pixel itself. Horizontal gaps are smaller.


Answer Bill's question: are you running the monitor at it's default
resolution?

Q

"Quaoar" wrote:
"Alan S" wrote in message
"BillL" wrote:

Best get the obvious questions out of the way ;o) Are you running it
at its
native resolution?

Of course.

Answer Bill's question: are you running the monitor at it's default
resolution?

Of course.

Selbstverständlich.

Por supuesto.

Naturellement.

Naturalmente.

Oh, you asked for the "default" resolution, not "native". D'oh! (And
yes, convergence (!?) is fine too, I suppose).

Responses have been, umm, interesting, so far g

What is the native resolution?

I find that larger monitors that have the same resolution as the smaller
ones can look "pixilated" The pixels are larger and can have larger gaps
(but I don't know why they should).

I really don't understand why LCD TV's cost so much when their resolutio is
usually far worse than any LCD monitor that you'd buy these days.

ie: Acer 20" widescreen monitor is around $460 here and has a resolution of
1600x1050. A 20" LCD TV at 1280x1024 (which is about the best I've seen for
a 20"TV) is over $1000 !!!

"Ian East" ian.east@gmail wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:07:07 GMT, Alan S wrote:

I've just got a 20" Viewsonic VP2000s but there's a major screening
effect going on. It looks like the border between pixels is way
thicker in proportion to the pixel size itself, which gives the image
a pixelated retro look. I'd never seen this on 17" or 18" LCDs. Is it
normal for 20" or is it because this brand/model is bottom of the line
for 20"? What about Samsung 204T? TIA.

Sounds like you might need to adjust your convergence.

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 23:00:42 GMT, "Noozer" wrote:

What is the native resolution?

As with most 20" LCDs, it's 1600x1200, which matters not for my
problem (yes, I'm running at native res ). Upon examining a couple
of LCDs with a loop, the vertical spacing between pixels on the
Viewsonic is indeed much larger than others. Horizontal spacing also
seems rather large but it is harder to guesstimate well (blue against
black). Unfortunately, the other LCDs I checked are 17" and 18" so I
don't have any other data point on 20". So, if anybody here is using a
20" LCD (especially either ViewSonic 2000s or Samsung 204T, which I
plan to exchange this one with), can you notice any screen effect, ie
faint grid lines between pixels at normal viewing distance? It seems
more pronounced at gray shades (probably because of the enhancing
effect of Hermann grid illusion).