Planar PE191M

Planar is another company that we have been following for a long time. Although not as successful as ViewSonic, Planar certainly has made waves in the past by taking some of the best performing designs and panels and rebranding them under the Planar label. We grabbed another entry level monitor for our roundup and we weren't disappointed.



Looks on this monitor were, again, very basic. The monitor comes with some adjustable functionality along the y-axis, but remains largely stationary. Specifications for the monitor are also mediocre.

 Planar PE191M
LCD 19" SXGA LCD (Active Matrix)
pixel pitch: 0.294mm
Anti-glare coating
Scanning Frequency Horizontal: 31-80kHz
Vertical: 56-76Hz
Response Time 25ms (Typical)
Contrast Ratio 600:1 (Typical)
Compatibility 1280 x 1024 (Native)
Brightness 250 cd/m2
Viewing Angle 170 / 170 (Horizontal / Vertical)
Warranty 3 years parts and labor
Interface DVI
15-pin D-sub

Unfortunately, our Planar came with a few stuck pixels. We tried to rub these pixels out with a Q-Tip, but unfortunately, to no avail. Past Planar LCDs that we have bought for the lab are of very good quality, and it seems that this unit was probably just a fluke.



Click to enlarge.


The PE191M adds to our roundup nicely with average response time, average luminance and average contrast ratios. Even the user interface was fairly average. Planar didn't get anything wrong in the OSD, but it didn't dazzle us.

NuTech L921G Samsung SyncMaster 193P
Comments Locked

97 Comments

View All Comments

  • soki - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link

    We want to see some reviews of the new wave of 19'' LCDs. Like the sony HS-94P/B with x-black technology, viewsonic VP912b or some 10 bit eizo monitors.. When?
  • UlricT - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link

    umm... page #4
    "The time that it takes the LCD to go from black to white may be 15ms while the time that it takes the LCD to go from black back to white may be 10ms"

    could be kinda confusing for the noob there. You guys really need an editorial staff :D
  • screech - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link

    #4 true.....i have also heard that working at a CRT monitor for 8 or more hours a day doubles the chances of glaucoma.....so it might be safer going LCD (for the eyes)........anyway.....
  • Jeff7181 - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link

    Man... I guess ignorance is bliss... I'm perfectly happy with the image quality of my $80 17 inch CRT... I can't imagine paying over $500 for a monitor unless you're doing graphics work as a profession.
  • D0rkIRL - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link

    Why does the Dell 2001FP have a 25ms typical response time while on your older review you state it as having a 16ms typical response time?
    The pixel pitch changed from .255mm to .55mm.

    Any reason behind these?
  • skunkbuster - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link

    just out of curiosity, what happens to all these lcds after they are reviewed?
  • KingofFah - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link

    I think there have to be gamers here, and I do not think LCDs are there yet when it comes to refresh rates; it would have been nice to see the refresh rates on the monitors at 1024, 1280, and 1600.

    I still haven't found a monitor better than a high quality, high res trinitron.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now