Apple LCD Specs?

[MacRumors]

MacWhispers (http://www.macwhispers.com/0000005.html), a relatively new rumors site, has compiled information on Apple's upcoming LCD's, which is claimed to released "within no more than 45-days".

The notes agree with previous rumors, pegging the 20.1" at $1799, dropping the 23" to $2999 and the 17" to $799.

Updated casings/enclosures are also detailed.

[suzerain]

...but personally, i can't ever buy a monitor with a proprietary connector. yeah, i know there are adaptors, but they ain't cheap.

still, the apple displays are decent.

i just wish they'd use industry standard connectors for them.

[NicoMan]

I guess all those rumour sites coming up with the same stuff has to mean that this is true, right ?

Still I think the Formac 2010 will still be better value (if all this is true).

NicoMan

[pretentious]

Macwispers?....so exactly how many Mac-rumors sites do have now? This is geting crazy, I mean is it now mandatory that you get a mac, not only do have to put your Apple sticker on your car that you have to now have to start up your own rumors website?

How many do we have now:
Macrumors.com...of course
Macosrumors.com
Spymac.com
Thinksecret.com
Looprumors.com
MacosXrumors.com
RumorTracker.com
Macwispers.com....Am I missing anybody???

So... uh...how many more rumors sites do we need?

[arn]

heh... yes... a lot of rumor sites... many of them are not so reliable.

MacWhispers actually, I believe, has 'real' sources... from what I can tell... based on messageboard postings, and it seems they may be the source of MOSR's info anyhow... which is why I post it here.

As for the others... despite the recent surge of rumors sites... there haven't been any new ones that actually seem to be able to provide any surprising new (and accurate) info... so far it's been not very exciting.

arn

[krafix]

I was hoping for a 17" less than 700$. Frankly, it's still a bit expensive, unless the design, quality, warranty and features are outstanding. My excellent LG CRT was FREE with my G4. Since I was looking for a LCD, I took this deal in hope Apple would come up with a model around 700$ shortly, but that was a year ago! Still can't afford an LCD and for working one at work, I really want to wait for an Apple-branded one. Anybody knows if Apple really sells that much displays at theses price points now that their CRT line is defunct?

[iJon]

Originally posted by krafix
I was hoping for a 17" less than 700$. Frankly, it's still a bit expensive, unless the design, quality, warranty and features are outstanding. My excellent LG CRT was FREE with my G4. Since I was looking for a LCD, I took this deal in hope Apple would come up with a model around 700$ shortly, but that was a year ago! Still can't afford an LCD and for working one at work, I really want to wait for an Apple-branded one. Anybody knows if Apple really sells that much displays at theses price points now that their CRT line is defunct?

almost every powermac i sell someone buys a studio or cinema display. especially when the rebates are going on.

iJon

[Fender2112]

If I get a low end Power Mac at $1700 and a low end monitor for $800, that's $2500 for a low end Apple system and $3300 for a mid line. That sucks. The next high end iMac better be something to brag about or I might be the next switcher...to the dark side :::shiver:::

[Postal]

No one ever obligates you to get an Apple display... there are two main reasons why people get them these days: first, they want to retain the feel that they're looking at an Apple product (which is harder when you've got a PowerMac tower which is probably on or near the floor); second, they want to only connect a single cable to get the display running.

If none of those are important enough to you, then by all means get a less-expensive 3rd-party display. Every PowerMac you can get now (and with at least the update previous to this) has a DVI connector and DVI-to-VGA adapter as well as the ADC connector, so you're not really limited.

[cbrantly]

Don't be an idiot...the low end Powermac and the 17" studio display is NOT a low end Apple system. If you want a cheap computer, buy an eMac...or better yet a G3 iMac.

And don't try to say that the G4 iMac isn't powerful enough for you. If you are complaining about spending $2500 for a system then you don't really need anything more than an iMac.

[jayscheuerle]

Apple compares the 17" lcd's real estate to the same as a 21" CRT monitor. Hooey!! The 17" is stuck with 1280 x 1024, which is fine for a 17" CRT with 16" viewable, but I think the 17" LCD screens need to step of to the density of the 23" Cinema HD display. 1600 x 1200 is what my 21" Apple CRT runs and is the next standard res (which I think is too tight for a 17" lcd), but we need something a step up from 1280 x 1024, maybe a 1440 x 1152?

Nice and tight baby... nice and tight...

[tcolling]

Originally posted by iJon


almost every powermac i sell someone buys a studio or cinema display. especially when the rebates are going on.

iJon

is an iJon and Apple branded toilet? Is it USB or Firewire? Does it have an ADC?

[nero007]

Originally posted by Fender2112
If I get a low end Power Mac at $1700 and a low end monitor for $800, that's $2500 for a low end Apple system and $3300 for a mid line. That sucks. The next high end iMac better be something to brag about or I might be the next switcher...to the dark side :::shiver:::

Oh well. :rolleyes:

[krafix]

Many of you make interesting points. Although I would hate to have the display stuck on the machine as for the iMac, it's true many of us don't really need a more powerful one than that. As for the resolution of the standalone 17", it really could offer a higher one for the actual price. Let's hope it will come to that. But then again, if one wants to really get a nice system that will last a while, with superdrive and LCD, it ain't cheap from Apple. I am not sure they trully get a grip on the fact that if displays were reasonnably priced, more of us, home office professionals for example, would go for the PowerMac line with an LCD. Still, don't yall think it's weird to come up with a revamped display line but with the same PowerMacs?

[wallinbl]

Originally posted by Postal
No one ever obligates you to get an Apple display... there are two main reasons why people get them these days: first, they want to retain the feel that they're looking at an Apple product (which is harder when you've got a PowerMac tower which is probably on or near the floor); second, they want to only connect a single cable to get the display running.


I think there is a third option: they enjoy wasting money.

A single cable is a weak excuse to pay way too much for a monitor. The prices are just plain ludicrous. $3000? Just buy one for $1000 and give me your extra $2000. I'll do something useful with it.

[unsane1]

I just bought a GORGEOUS 20.1" LCD from Dell that I use on my MDG4 for $850, why on earth would apple think that they can get away with $1800 for the same screen?

I understand the 22" and 23" LCDs, they are not as prevalent, but Apple has to understand that when there is no product differentiation that they HAVE to compete on price to some level. I could have bought 2 LCDs for what they want to charge, oh wait, I did.

[porovaara]

Apple better up the refresh rates on their monitors or they will still pale in comparison to any of the *cheaper* higher end LCD screens that are already out there. I really don't understand how people can choose an Apple screen over a Formac or equivelant display from Nec/Sharp when the latter two are not only cheaper but have better clarity and refresh times.

Is it just simple ignorance of the LCD market? Or does the style matter that much?

[Kid Red]

Originally posted by unsane1
I just bought a GORGEOUS 20.1" LCD from Dell that I use on my MDG4 for $850, why on earth would apple think that they can get away with $1800 for the same screen?

I understand the 22" and 23" LCDs, they are not as prevalent, but Apple has to understand that when there is no product differentiation that they HAVE to compete on price to some level. I could have bought 2 LCDs for what they want to charge, oh wait, I did.

I've seen Dell's monitors and they aren't anything to write home about, which is why that are cheap. IF you are going to compare monitors to Apple, use Formac.

[robguz]

$800 for a 17" LCD? Not a bad deal a year ago. But with it's low and outdated brightness level, it should be $399 tops. Maybe a 19" for $800 would be nice, but still, nothing too amazing. I guess when I finally buy and LCD it won't be and Apple. I could save the money and buy the new Nvidia card or ATI 9700 when it comes out and still come out ahead pricewise.

[unsane1]

I'm going to have to call you on that one. They are easily the best 20.1" on the market right now. Perhaps there are better displays coming, but compared to any LCDs out there they are top notch.

I would imagine that currently there are only really 2 or 3 manufacturers of LCD screens anyhow, so most of them are going to be the same.

[Fender2112]

Originally posted by cbrantly
Don't be an idiot...the low end Powermac and the 17" studio display is NOT a low end Apple system. If you want a cheap computer, buy an eMac...or better yet a G3 iMac.

And don't try to say that the G4 iMac isn't powerful enough for you. If you are complaining about spending $2500 for a system then you don't really need anything more than an iMac.

I didn't say I had to have an inexpensive computer and didn't say the iMac wasn't powerful enough. My gripe, although based on speculation, is that $800 for the low end monitor is a bit steep. My perfered system, when I upgrade, is the middle line Power Mac with a 17" monitor. That's $3300. I've never been a fan of the All-in-One design. Although the 17" iMac design does get my attention. I perfer the expandablity of the tower. And this is my delima, is the expandabilty worth an extra $1300. The short term answer is no. But when spending this kind os money, I think about the long term (5-6 years in computer time).

[iSmell]

Originally posted by unsane1

I would imagine that currently there are only really 2 or 3 manufacturers of LCD screens anyhow, so most of them are going to be the same.

It's true that a lot of screens use the same lcd panel, but the over all quality of the display can be greatly effected by the backlight, the electronics, additional features and convenience of the enclosure, so if you assume they're all going to be the same, you might end up with a crappy monitor.

[nicmac]

I hope they are adjustable or at least have the option to be attached to a third party arm.
Am I the only one who is tired of what amounts to a very small degree of verticle adjustment?

[pimentoLoaf]

Does a 20.1" screen imply that there might actually be a 20.1" iMac and not a 19" iMac? If not, then we'll have 17, 19, 20.1, 22, & 23.

DAMN !!! I wanted an 18" iBook w/dual-processors.

[waterbouy]

--- And this is my delima, is the expandabilty worth an extra $1300. The short term answer is no. But when spending this kind os money, I think about the long term (5-6 years in computer time). ----

IMHO - If you are thinking 5-6 years for the purchase, a $1300 difference is very little money for a relatively long period of satisfaction with a more flexible system.

Another thing to think about - how much do you think you will really upgrade???

[waterbouy]

Originally posted by Fender2112


I perfer the expandablity of the tower. And this is my delima, is the expandabilty worth an extra $1300. The short term answer is no. But when spending this kind os money, I think about the long term (5-6 years in computer time).

Again, with proper acknowlegement, $1300 over 5-6 years is a small price for a better system...

Most people don't keep a car tha long, enjoy using it less, and might even spend more money maintaining it :)

[steveh]

Originally posted by suzerain
...the apple displays are decent.

i just wish they'd use industry standard connectors for them.

The ADC connector *is* a variant of the VESA standard. It's not proprietary to Apple.

[Fender2112]

Another thing to think about - how much do you think you will really upgrade???

Well, the last computer I bought (a mid level Power Computin 601) was in in 1997 and it had everything I needed. I was never going to need an upgrade. Since then I've added: a processor upgrade, more RAM, two hard drives, a 2-port USB card, a video capture card, a Zip drive (external), a CD-burner, and speakers.

The extra $1300 for the long term is not the issue. It's about Apple price gouging me now. Their 17" will most likely be widescreen. I'll want it and Apple will be the only ones selling it. And they'll charge whatever they want. I'm just not sure I'll buy it, not for $800.

And I'll choose to be sad:(

[steveh]

Originally posted by wallinbl


I think there is a third option: they enjoy wasting money...The prices are just plain ludicrous. $3000? Just buy one for $1000 and give me your extra $2000. I'll do something useful with it.

The monitor he gets for $1K will not be the equal of Apple's $3K. Well, perhaps if it happens to be a bit...um..."thermally enhanced".

The 23" monitor costs Apple a good deal more than $1K, and probably closer to $2K or more.

[yzedf]

>> The extra $1300 for the long term is not the issue. It's about Apple price gouging me now. Their 17" will most likely be widescreen. I'll want it and Apple will be the only ones selling it. And they'll charge whatever they want. I'm just not sure I'll buy it, not for $800. <<

And now you understand why Apple's market share is stagnant. PC clone market is based on price first, everything else secondary.

Apple can't ignore that forever. Eventually they must compete, or die.

Which brings up iPods and clothing (rumors for now) being sold. Easy money with good margins.

[barkmonster]

$800 for a 17" LCD? Not a bad deal a year ago. But with it's low and outdated brightness level, it should be $399 tops. Maybe a 19" for $800 would be nice, but still, nothing too amazing. I guess when I finally buy and LCD it won't be and Apple.

True, I could buy a 1280 x 960 resolution 17" LCD for $200 less that has higher brightness and contrast levels than Apple's LCDs and a 16ms response time compared with 40ms.

Of course if it's a baby cinema display it's going to look really cool. I'd just prefer it if it was a 19" LCD with a 1536 x 960 resolution for the same price. It would be better on the eyes and It could display standard 320 x 240 or 640 x 480 video with pixel doubling instead of using anti-aliased scaling to fake a 640 x 480 res like a monitor with a 900 pixel width would have to do.

[JBracy]

Why is everyone comparing Apple Monitors with the cheapest that they can find? Compare with another style conscience manufacturer ie Sony:

15": $399 - $799
17": $649 - $699
17" Wide: $999
18": $799 - $1699
19": $999
20": $1999
23": $2999

So, let's see if all LCD's are the same, how can Sony have an entire range of 18" LCD that range in price from $799 - $1699? A 20.1" at $1799 looks about right - even better if it's a wide screen! 17" for $799 a bit high if it's the same as the current model, but if it's Wide Screen then a very good price. 23" for $2999 is exactly right. My problem is that there is a huge gap between the 17" for $799 and the 20.1" for $1799. they need something in the middle for those who want more than an iMac display but can't afford $1799.

Just my 2¢

[MacOSUser]

Originally posted by porovaara
Apple better up the refresh rates on their monitors or they will still pale in comparison to any of the *cheaper* higher end LCD screens that are already out there. I really don't understand how people can choose an Apple screen over a Formac or equivelant display from Nec/Sharp when the latter two are not only cheaper but have better clarity and refresh times.

Is it just simple ignorance of the LCD market? Or does the style matter that much?

This brings up an interesting point. All the rumors I've read talk about new screen sizes and enclosures. Now we all understand that size matters :D but has anyone heard anything about refresh rates? I read that the new flat panels from Sharp have 25 millisecond refreshes which eliminates ghosting. It would seem that with the importance Apple places on its video editing capabilities, having the best monitors for video playback would be important. Any thoughts?

Also, a common complaint about the current Apple LCD's is that while they are clear and bright, their enclosures do not make them well suited to take advantage of Apple's dual display technology. The width of the plastic enclosure creates almost 2 inches of plastic between panels when placed side by side. Hopefully Apple will address this as well.

-Eric

[nicmac]

What if the new screens were mounted on a "Dumb" imac pedestal.
The arm would be similar or perhaps the same and the base would just be a counter weight.

[steeleclipse]

EVERYBODY here that has an Apple LCD bought it MOSTLY for style and show... I don't care how you try to justify it. I bought it mostly for style too. Anyone buying specifically on specs (and a wee bit of style) would go Formac.

P.S. Dont give me that space saving crap, because it is still cheaper to buy a bigger desk, and if you can fit a television in your house, you can fit a CRT.

[starlightmica]

Couldn't help but notice that MacWhispers.com is hosted on Jack Campbell's envestco.com site, just like mactable.com was and dvforge.com is.

All of his previous web page material is gone, including his energy consulting business, OptiCloth, DomainSoup, cardsites.com. etc.

For a refresher:
http://macintouch.com/mactable.html

[JBracy]

Originally posted by JBracy
Sony:

15": $399 - $799
17": $649 - $699
17" Wide: $999
18": $799 - $1699
19": $999
20": $1999
23": $2999


Looks like Apple came up with a better pricing model than I could have imagined!

17": $699
20": $1299
23": $1999

I'll start saving now!

[MacKid]

Originally posted by nicmac
What if the new screens were mounted on a "Dumb" imac pedestal.
The arm would be similar or perhaps the same and the base would just be a counter weight.

And how wide would the dome for the 23" be?:D :rolleyes:

[barkmonster]

L26120A_Displays_DS.pdf (http://a480.g.akamai.net/7/480/51/7e7773dbe7fa55/www.apple.com/displays/pdf/L26120A_Displays_DS.pdf) has all the info on compatability with the new displays.

I was puzzled over why the 20" LCD had such a strange resolution and didn't just support 1600 x 1024 like the 22" model did, the pdf explains it. The 20" display is OS X only!

That's right, no cool widescreen display for OS 9 users unless they've got the extra cash for a 23" model. At least with the new pricing you can buy 2 17" LCDs for the price of the 20" model.

I've always wanted one of those widescreen monitors though, seen 'em on dark angel, both Brian Transeau and Hans Zimmer have them in their studios and I want one on my desk by the end of the year but I was hoping not to forced to an OS X only existence quite so soon.

[ELYXR]

Druel... :eek: I can't believe they dropped the 23" price to $1999.00

Wow! :)

[mc68k]

is there any quantitative information on pixel refresh rates for Apple's LCDs? 'Lightning fast' in the tech specs just doesn't cut it for me.

[mtk]

Originally posted by mc68k
is there any quantitative information on pixel refresh rates for Apple's LCDs? 'Lightning fast' in the tech specs just doesn't cut it for me.

All Apple LCDs have a 40ms pixel response, according to Formac (http://www.formac.com/p_bin/?cid=solutions_displays_gallery2010_compare).

[mc68k]

Originally posted by mtk


All Apple LCDs have a 40ms pixel response, according to Formac (http://www.formac.com/p_bin/?cid=solutions_displays_gallery2010_compare). Thanks for that link. It's pretty sad that we have to go to Formac to find the specs for Apple.

They updated that pretty quickly.

[NicoMan]

Originally posted by mtk


All Apple LCDs have a 40ms pixel response, according to Formac (http://www.formac.com/p_bin/?cid=solutions_displays_gallery2010_compare).

If this is true that is not good at all. Now it is not unusual to see LCDs with 16-25ms response time...
But I'll wait to see the official specs before making a judgement call on this.

NicoMan

[mc68k]

Originally posted by NicoMan
If this is true that is not good at all. Now it is not unusual to see LCDs with 16-25ms response time...
But I'll wait to see the official specs before making a judgement call on this.The official specs say 'lightning fast'. Unless someone can find out the manufacturer and model, then it's all heresay.

I bet the 20" are better than the 15" 17" and 22", but not better than Formac or some other higher-quality manufactuer.

[JBracy]

Originally posted by mtk


All Apple LCDs have a 40ms pixel response, according to Formac (http://www.formac.com/p_bin/?cid=solutions_displays_gallery2010_compare).

I wouldn't trust everything you read on competitors web sites. If we did that we'd all be usng PC's right?

[powerjack]

Originally posted by mc68k
is there any quantitative information on pixel refresh rates for Apple's LCDs? 'Lightning fast' in the tech specs just doesn't cut it for me.

The 23-inch Cinema uses the #LM230W01 panel from LG.Philips and has a manufacturer response time spec of 40ms/typical and 60ms/maximum.

The 20.1-inch Cinema uses the #F8964 IPS panel from Chi Mei Optoelectronics and has a manufacturer response time spec of 26ms/typical and 32ms/maximum.

I don't have a datasheet here on the existing 17-inch holdover Studio Display's panel.

There is a new 23-inch panel coming from Philips in March, the#LM230W02, with (draft) response time specs of 24ms/typical and 36ms/maximum. The mechanical specs are the same as the existing panel, so it's a drop-in swap. It has not yet been designated as Apple-only, but there is no ordering/pricing info being passed down through LG distribution, which indicates that it is a captive OEM product... for who else but Apple?

Edit:

Wow. I just visited Formac's site and saw the comparison chart. Holy moly... where did they get these "specs?" First, the panel Apple is simplifying as a "20 inch" is actually 20.1" diagonally. Second, the refresh rates are dead wrong (see above). Third, all Formac did was clip Apple's conservative published brightness spec of 230 Nits, when it's really 235. Fourth, they've somehow made a binary factor out of the term, "Color Accurate," and accuse Apple of having worse color accuracy that the much-hyped supposed color accuracy of their display. And fifth, where on earth did the spec for "LCD Quality" come from, and who decided that Formac's was "Better," and Apple's was merely, "Good?"

Anyone wanting the spec sheet for the panel used in the 20-inch Apple display merely has to pretend to be a potential OEM buyer, email Chi Mei Optoelectronics at sales@cmo.com.tw, and request the sheet for their panel #F8964 IPS.

*geez* ... ...

[zer0army]

Originally posted by powerjack


The 23-inch Cinema uses the #LM230W01 panel from LG.Philips and has a manufacturer response time spec of 40ms/typical and 60ms/maximum.


I was waiting to buy a 23' until I found out the response time, and now finding out that its 40ms I dont think its that great anymore. Yes $1999 is a great price, but 40ms would create to much ghosting.

The thing I dont understand is, I have seen the 23' before and it seemed as though it has a "lightning fast pixel response" as apple claims. Is there anyway to explain how this monitor seems so good, but has a 40ms response time ?

Originally posted by powerjack


There is a new 23-inch panel coming from Philips in March, the#LM230W02, with (draft) response time specs of 24ms/typical and 36ms/maximum. The mechanical specs are the same as the existing panel, so it's a drop-in swap. It has not yet been designated as Apple-only, but there is no ordering/pricing info being passed down through LG distribution, which indicates that it is a captive OEM product... for who else but Apple?


So does that mean that Apple will update the 23' pannel with this 24ms one ? And would that drive the price up ?

[MacKid]

Originally posted by zer0army


So does that mean that Apple will update the 23' pannel with this 24ms one ? And would that drive the price up ?

I'm almost definitely sure that it won't raise the price, because it wouldn't make sense first of all, and Apple doesn't raise prices, they just upgrade and leave prices where they are or add new variations to product lines.

[wolfywolfbits]

What's up with some LCDs having 600:1 contrast ratio??? :confused: :confused:
I don't know if I believe them! Sony's top of the line LCDs have contrast ratios of 350, like Apples.

Also I'd like to see more about Apple response times, 40ms sounds WAY to high, if you can get 16ms else where. I know some manufactures cheat and put only the up time or down time to make it sound better than it is. The normal measurement is for a pixel to go up and down, so 16ms might in fact be 32ms+

[powerjack]

Originally posted by wolfywolfbits
What's up with some LCDs having 600:1 contrast ratio??? :confused: :confused:
I don't know if I believe them! Sony's top of the line LCDs have contrast ratios of 350, like Apples.

Also I'd like to see more about Apple response times, 40ms sounds WAY to high, if you can get 16ms else where. I know some manufactures cheat and put only the up time or down time to make it sound better than it is. The normal measurement is for a pixel to go up and down, so 16ms might in fact be 32ms+

I've used LCD displays for over five years, and have been very aggressive about learning what's important about them, who makes them, how they work, and so forth. Here's what I've learned.

"Pixel Response Time," "Brightness," "Contrast Ratio," and other manufacturer's published specs for LCDs are the most questionable and near-useless metrics I've ever run into with any hardware, insofar as giving any real indication of how well they actuall look and function, in real life.

I've owned and heavily used each of Apple's LCD offerings, since the first transluscent 15-incher to the latest 23-inch Cinema. (not the 20-incher, yet...). I've owned and used displays sold by IBM, Sony, LaCie, and a dozen others... and I've shopped or used dozens of others.

There are dozens of tiny little manufacturing details contributing huge variables to how well an LCD "looks" that are not, and cannot be expressed in industry standard specifications. I have a ProView 17-inch monitor sitting here now that has better published contrast, brightness, and even pixel repsonse than my 22-inch Cinema Display. But, guess what? The picture looks just horrible! But, I have a pair of two-year-old IBM 16-inchers here with "specs" even slightly less impressive than the 23-inch Cinema's, and they still look absolutely gorgeous, even after somewhere around 8 to 10,000 hours of use.

Now, when I buy LCDs, I've adopted a strict, "try it efore I buy it" method, where I go look at one before purchase.

This even applies to blurring and streaking when playing fast gaming images. I simply cannot find a reliable corrollation between published pixel response rates and the actual artifacts I can really see on any particular LCD. For instance, the cheapo ProView here has a spec of "32ms." This should be good, and clearly better then my 22-inch Cinema (with a "40 to 60ms" spec range). It's not. Both show some streaking on fast objects, but the ProView is noticeably worse.

I am a dedicated audiophile, and its ingrained in my nature to pay close attention to perfoamnce specs on hardware decisions. But, I have grown to learn that LCDds are a lot like loudspeajers in this regard: go play with them before you break out your credit card. Many times the specs are misleading... sometimes they are very, very misleading.

[NicoMan]

Originally posted by MacKid


I'm almost definitely sure that it won't raise the price, because it wouldn't make sense first of all, and Apple doesn't raise prices, they just upgrade and leave prices where they are or add new variations to product lines.
Besides it would be difficult to explain to Joe Public why the price of the 23" suddenly goes up with only better response time, when sometimes people can't even understand the difference between processor speed, memory size and hard drive space...:p

"New: Now with better pixel response time" with a higher price tag just wouldn't cut it, but hey, what do I know?

NicoMan

[NicoMan]

Wow, thanks PJ for that... This is news to me (honestly) and quite interesting. I thought stuff like pixel response time was a good way to gauge the quality of the screen...

DOH!!!

NicoMan